+Nikolaj van Omme, likely the cause for people speaking up is that it's just the inevitable natural evolution of these types of conversations:
<worldwide arms trade-->US has a lot of guns-->US needs to do its part to disarm-->US citizens need to willingly give up their guns to make the world a better place>
Such comments are usually made by people outside the US looking in and usually accompanied by "well your Constitution is out of date and shouldn't be relevant anymore" (hence my previous comments about "do we REALLY want to decide what amendments are still relevant?") To be honest, I probably shouldn't waste my time arguing with someone who doesn't see the importance of inalienable rights that the government cannot touch, but ah well.+Anton Sweeney
(/checks to see what our numbers still actually refer to :P...)
1. True, and yet lawmakers still keep trying to make more laws that only affect law-abiding citizens, and then keep wondering why crime in their cities keeps going up. Isn't trying the same thing expecting different results the definition of insanity?
2. The examples I was referring to of self defense were usually from a handgun or shotgun saving the 'would be' victim's life. However
, referring to a couple of the points you made:
- a shouted warning (e.g. "Back off or I will shoot you!") is a valid course of action, and fortunately often effective. However a warning shot is a big no-no, both legally and in practice (this isn't a movie). If an attacker does not heed your warning to back off, you shoot to stop the threat (no warning shots, no 'shoot him in the knee' BS). That infers firing at center of mass until the attacker is no longer a threat, that is per any self defense safety course and what is also correct according to the law.
- also, referring to the type of weapon used: do you know what the difference in lethal capacity is between a 'hunting rifle' and an 'assault rifle'? Nothing, really, aside from mostly cosmetic differences that make an 'assault rifle' more intimidating looking. AR15's are a .223 caliber rifle, same as most hunting rifles that most people seem to have no problem with. You can get higher capacity magazines for 'harmless' hunting rifles that make them just as deadly as scary looking 'assault rifles'. The reason why people were up in arms over the assault rifle ban in the 90's is that the criteria given for what was legal and what was not was mostly for cosmetic reasons (what looks scary). One of the sponsors of the bill even later admitted that they were not knowledgeable in what actually constituted an assault rifle and what did not. Technically speaking, an 'assault rifle' is a politically made up term that actually has no designation in what actually makes some guns different than others.
- referring to amount of ammo purchased: while I don't do it myself, I know that people who like to shoot as a hobby can easily go through 1000+ rounds at a time firing at a range, and can go through 6000 rounds pretty quickly. Buying in bulk just makes economic sense as ammo can get quite pricey (more so when people start going "we need to restrict how much ammo can be purchased!", but I digress).