02-24-2017, 06:10 PM
(02-24-2017, 12:49 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I would agree with everything you said here, but when I referred to untrained I was referring more towards untrained in the use of a firearm in a high-pressure situation. I could tell you that every firearm owner I personally know can safely and accurately use their firearms (which isn't true for every gun owner, as we all know, and that should change), but I can tell you that I am only certain that 5% of them would be able to handle themselves in a high-pressure situation. That's not to say some of the others wouldn't, myself included in that other 95%, but we haven't had the type of training that goes along with using a firearm in a situation where you are actually defending yourself from attack.
Now, your statement about being trained probably still holds true because I would be willing to bet that the percentage of AR owners that have military or law enforcement training is higher than the percentage of overall firearm owners that have, but that is more of the training I am referring to.
Honestly, even with said training you don't know how someone is going to react until they're in that kind of situation. Of course, training is always better than no training. As to your last point, I would tend to agree, but even AR owners without that type of background tend to take firearms ownership more seriously than the gun owners who don't own one. As I've said before, you should be more concerned by the gun owner who owns one, or two, guns than the one who owns over twenty. The odds are excellent that the twenty gun owner knows his stuff and respects the weapons far more than the other.
(02-24-2017, 12:49 PM)Au165 Wrote: I can agree with this. We require people to take driver tests and to be licensed because of the safety issues around it, the same should be true for guns. I also think you should have to carry insurance if you own a gun specifically for the gun, but thats a little different debate.
While it seems reasonable, in some cases, what you're essentially doing is putting a tax on a person's ability to exercise their constitutional rights, which is, of course, unconstitutional.
(02-24-2017, 01:43 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Even that is disputable. There are complaints about the M4 that the high muzzle velocity is allowing the 5.56mm rounds to pass through and through instead tumbling through the body as designed allowing the enemy to continue fighting.
Respectfully, no it's not. No one would prefer to be shot by a center fire rifle round over a handgun round. Maybe if you went to the extreme ends of the spectrum, .500 S&W vs. .224 varmint, but you get the idea. As for penetration without tumbling, that could happen with a high velocity ball round, but if you're using ball ammo for home defense then you're doing a lot wrong.
