Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'll go with t206 here. The risk vs reward is just too good. For the cost of my semiauto 308, the scope, magazines, ammunition, etc...I have now put in a place a tool that solves a ton of self-defense scenarios that could occur between 50 and 500 yards. Except for range time, that particular tool stays locked in a safe, and good Lord willing, always will. So my only real risk is theft, and I have homeowner's insurance for that. For that super low amount of risk, my potential reward in a scenario where that becomes the best tool for the job is off the charts. I can defend the lives of my wife and I, our property, and even be part of my neighborhood's reaction force if called upon. All for essentially 0 risk to me in the here and now.
To your other point, that semiauto 308 isn't there because of the "criminal with gun" scenario. The 9mm and the 12 gauge cover that base. The 308 is there in case a) I feel like hunting deer or other medium sized game and/or b) a larger, armed force with hostile intent ever comes near my little corner of the world. I totally agree that such a situation is highly, highly unlikely...but it is possible. Let the power go out and stay that way for a week, and citizens will begin feeding on each other out of panic and hysteria. My 308 makes a convincing argument to skip my house and seek other victims. And the power going out and staying out for a week can easily happen with our craptastic national grid. Now let it stay out for 2 weeks. We don't live in a perfect world, and a lot of society's rules and norms are held together with surprisingly little (and quite flimsy) faith in everything working properly. I can accept that dark, unhappy possibilities exist, and certain things are provide a decent bit of insurance for such rainy days.
Until any such things do occur, my semiauto 308 will cause exactly nobody any harm whatsoever, since it is an inanimate object locked inside a safe. To date, none of my weapons nor any single round of my ammunition has ever caused you or anyone else any harm whatsoever. I live by the non-aggression principle, so until force or violence is initiated upon me, those weapons never will harm anyone.
But you think I shouldn't be allowed to own them. Interesting that you think you understand my safety and self-defense in all possible scenarios such that you are comfortable infringing upon my natural rights.
Ok so you seem like a reasonable person and I believe that. But what you have access to, many many people who are not reasonable or intelligent also have access to.
Now for a little story. One of my former neighbors is former Marine vet of Iraq war, family man and overall good dude. He is also a big time firearm nut and owns over a dozen firearms including a couple pistols and an AR-15's. During one nice weekend he decided he want to hit the range for some shooting and packed about 6 guns in a duffle bag including an AR-15 platform, a 30 06 rifle along with a couple handguns. He walked out of his house and placed the duffle bag in the backseat of his truck, realized he forgot something in his house so he leave the bag in his truck and runs in the house. By his account it was only for about a minute. When he got out, the bag was gone. He had forgot to lock his truck. Here we have a good man, reasonable, and honorable but in a momentary lapse of focus he allowed 6 guns to hit the streets of our cities. There is a strong chance those guns will inevitably end up in the hands of a criminal. Stories like this happen in this country everyday. His possession of those weapons enabled criminals possession of those weapons and all through a one minute lapse of focus.
Guess with that logic, corvettes, mustangs camaros etc would be banned based on a what do you need that for boo hoo woe is me I'm scared attitude...
You're that naive to believe an automatic prison sentence is a deterrent? Pfft.
It will, which is why criminals turn on one another for a lesser sentence in almost every crime involving more then one person. If you were robbing houses would you use a gun if you knew you were caught it would add a minimum 10 year sentence onto your conviction. Probably not.
Currently if you are an ex con caught with a gun its only usually just a misdemeanor offense, sometimes a felony with a sentence up to two years and this is in California of all places.
Ok so you seem like a reasonable person and I believe that. But what you have access to, many many people who are not reasonable or intelligent also have access to.
Now for a little story. One of my former neighbors is former Marine vet of Iraq war, family man and overall good dude. He is also a big time firearm nut and owns over a dozen firearms including a couple pistols and an AR-15's. During one nice weekend he decided he want to hit the range for some shooting and packed about 6 guns in a duffle bag including an AR-15 platform, a 30 06 rifle along with a couple handguns. He walked out of his house and placed the duffle bag in the backseat of his truck, realized he forgot something in his house so he leave the bag in his truck and runs in the house. By his account it was only for about a minute. When he got out, the bag was gone. He had forgot to lock his truck. Here we have a good man, reasonable, and honorable but in a momentary lapse of focus he allowed 6 guns to hit the streets of our cities. There is a strong chance those guns will inevitably end up in the hands of a criminal. Stories like this happen in this country everyday. His possession of those weapons enabled criminals possession of those weapons and all through a one minute lapse of focus.
Your neighbor was the victim of someone who broke the non-aggression principle.
All this "do you need X to guard your house?" back and forth is futile.
Let me break it down for you...
Each person on this planet has the right to do whatever they want as long as they uphold the non-aggression principle and respect private property rights.
Have I lost the right to add concrete to my house? Are we discussing losing that right? Are you or anyone else deciding that I should never be allowed to have that right?
I prepare for what I, myself alone, deem affordable and proper to insure against. My life, my property, my rights.
I am missing one gun of 5 that completes what I think is a proper self-defense package that covers as many small arm possible scenarios as I can. I do not own, nor will I ever own, something a like 50 cal rifle. I don't foresee a time when I will need to put holes in engine blocks or charging elephants at ranges of a mile and a half, so the $15k for the whole setup and $10 per round are cost prohibitive and impractical, and I am not that much of an enthusiast.
However, a semiautomatic 308 has a variety of uses, one of which is indeed being the best tool against multiple hostile opponents who are all armed. Generally, it is a really solid all-in-one survival rifle. 99.99% sure the world will keep running as is, but the chance does exist that someday it might not. A good, solid, all-in-one survival rifle is a nice tool to have just in case.
Why exactly am I not supposed to retain the right to own such a thing? What exactly have I done to deserve having that right taken from me?
Have I lost the right to add concrete to my house? Are we discussing losing that right? Are you or anyone else deciding that I should never be allowed to have that right?
I prepare for what I, myself alone, deem affordable and proper to insure against. My life, my property, my rights.
I am missing one gun of 5 that completes what I think is a proper self-defense package that covers as many small arm possible scenarios as I can. I do not own, nor will I ever own, something a like 50 cal rifle. I don't foresee a time when I will need to put holes in engine blocks or charging elephants at ranges of a mile and a half, so the $15k for the whole setup and $10 per round are cost prohibitive and impractical, and I am not that much of an enthusiast.
However, a semiautomatic 308 has a variety of uses, one of which is indeed being the best tool against multiple hostile opponents who are all armed. Generally, it is a really solid all-in-one survival rifle. 99.99% sure the world will keep running as is, but the chance does exist that someday it might not. A good, solid, all-in-one survival rifle is a nice tool to have just in case.
Why exactly am I not supposed to retain the right to own such a thing? What exactly have I done to deserve having that right taken from me?
Again what is your criteria? In my entire life I am not aware of an attack on a private home by multiple armed attackers except for the police. So what do you think are the odds of such an event happening?
Your neighbor was the victim of someone who broke the non-aggression principle.
All this "do you need X to guard your house?" back and forth is futile.
Let me break it down for you...
Each person on this planet has the right to do whatever they want as long as they uphold the non-aggression principle and respect private property rights.
Those that do = good guys (your neighbor)
Those that don't = bad guys (perp who stole bag)
Well we live in a world that is not so black and white. People will always violate the non-aggression principle. The point of gun control is to limit the damage caused when someone does. Take cars and the speed limit for example. We will always have accidents as long as we have cars. That said there is a very large difference in terms of lethality and damage between a car crash at 40 miles an hour and 120 miles an hour. Hence limitations on speed. Will there be cases when somebody breaks the rules and crashes at 120 miles an hour. Yes. Is it common? No. We know that laws, enforcement and technology surrounding car safety has worked since the number of people killed on the road has plummeted since the 1970's.
The purpose of gun control is to limit the capacity for carnage when someone decides to break the non-aggression principle. These laws already exist in violation of the 2nd amendment by denying citizens access to dangerous military hardware. Which is why you never see them being used. Gun control is just widening the parameters to encompass more items to an already comprehensive list which even the most hardline members of the NRA don't have issues with. The question for those against gun control is why don't you have an issue not being able to own a stinger missile but feel violated by not being able to own an AR-15?
Ok so you seem like a reasonable person and I believe that. But what you have access to, many many people who are not reasonable or intelligent also have access to.
Now for a little story. One of my former neighbors is former Marine vet of Iraq war, family man and overall good dude. He is also a big time firearm nut and owns over a dozen firearms including a couple pistols and an AR-15's. During one nice weekend he decided he want to hit the range for some shooting and packed about 6 guns in a duffle bag including an AR-15 platform, a 30 06 rifle along with a couple handguns. He walked out of his house and placed the duffle bag in the backseat of his truck, realized he forgot something in his house so he leave the bag in his truck and runs in the house. By his account it was only for about a minute. When he got out, the bag was gone. He had forgot to lock his truck. Here we have a good man, reasonable, and honorable but in a momentary lapse of focus he allowed 6 guns to hit the streets of our cities. There is a strong chance those guns will inevitably end up in the hands of a criminal. Stories like this happen in this country everyday. His possession of those weapons enabled criminals possession of those weapons and all through a one minute lapse of focus.
I have seen posted on here several times that the majority of stolen guns are stolen from the military. Maybe they should be held responsible.
Well we live in a world that is not so black and white. People will always violate the non-aggression principle. The point of gun control is to limit the damage caused when someone does. Take cars and the speed limit for example. We will always have accidents as long as we have cars. That said there is a very large difference in terms of lethality and damage between a car crash at 40 miles an hour and 120 miles an hour. Hence limitations on speed. Will there be cases when somebody breaks the rules and crashes at 120 miles an hour. Yes. Is it common? No. We know that laws, enforcement and technology surrounding car safety has worked since the number of people killed on the road has plummeted since the 1970's.
The purpose of gun control is to limit the capacity for carnage when someone decides to break the non-aggression principle. These laws already exist in violation of the 2nd amendment by denying citizens access to dangerous military hardware. Which is why you never see them being used. Gun control is just widening the parameters to encompass more items to an already comprehensive list which even the most hardline members of the NRA don't have issues with. The question for those against gun control is why don't you have an issue not being able to own a stinger missile but feel violated by not being able to own an AR-15?
There is no practical civilian use for a stinger missile, but there are practical civilian uses for an AR 15. And I don't own one, because I don't need one.
Well we live in a world that is not so black and white. People will always violate the non-aggression principle. The point of gun control is to limit the damage caused when someone does. Take cars and the speed limit for example. We will always have accidents as long as we have cars. That said there is a very large difference in terms of lethality and damage between a car crash at 40 miles an hour and 120 miles an hour. Hence limitations on speed. Will there be cases when somebody breaks the rules and crashes at 120 miles an hour. Yes. Is it common? No. We know that laws, enforcement and technology surrounding car safety has worked since the number of people killed on the road has plummeted since the 1970's.
The purpose of gun control is to limit the capacity for carnage when someone decides to break the non-aggression principle. These laws already exist in violation of the 2nd amendment by denying citizens access to dangerous military hardware. Which is why you never see them being used. Gun control is just widening the parameters to encompass more items to an already comprehensive list which even the most hardline members of the NRA don't have issues with. The question for those against gun control is why don't you have an issue not being able to own a stinger missile but feel violated by not being able to own an AR-15?
I am the rare exception here as I don't believe in the government. I'm an anarcho-capitalist. You can do/have whatever you want as long as you uphold the NAP. The 2nd Amendment, like all the fictional documents, means nothing to me. Didn't sign them anyway.
Being logically and morally consistent is key. Preemptively restricting your natural rights is in fact a violation of the non-aggression principle in itself. Especially when it is being done by an involuntary entity that you never consented to terms with (the government).
And being morally and logically consistent tells me that the first person to initiate force is always in the wrong.
Same legal requirements for owning a gun as for owning a car.
With the added requirement of a physiological exam.<>
??
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
