Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
‘Military-Style’ Firearms Aren’t Protected By Second Amendment, Court Rules
#16
(02-24-2017, 12:11 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I disagree. I've grown up with firearms in my life, been an NRA certified instructor and taught courses for the BSA. The best home defense weapon is a large caliber handgun or a shotgun. Out of the home, a handgun serves the purpose better. Self-defense situations outside of the home are often in close quarters where the "assault weapons" that would not qualify as pistols would be unwieldy, and since the vast majority of self-defense situations are over within 5-6 shots from the last data I saw from the NRA, a high capacity handgun would also be unnecessary.

You're certainly entitled to disagree, but you'd also have to admit there is nothing close to a consensus on this in the firearms community.  In the home a shotgun is no less unwieldy than your standard AR.  If you're worried about over penetration then there are bullets designed not to over penetrate.  You know we both agree on open carry and it's uselessness so of course a handgun is the only practical solution for self defense outside the home.  As to standard capacity magazines I'd say it's better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it.  Which is, of course, a huge reason people concealed carry in the first place.  The fact that the vast majority of self defense situations last less than ten shots is going to be of no comfort to the person whose situation goes over ten rounds and they run dry.





Messages In This Thread
RE: ‘Military-Style’ Firearms Aren’t Protected By Second Amendment, Court Rules - Sociopathicsteelerfan - 02-24-2017, 12:21 PM

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 3 Guest(s)