Well there you have it: Assault weapons ban

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: ayabe
The ban isn't happening now or anytime soon.

Pelosi and Reid have both stated it's off the table.

So how about throttling back the fear machine to idle for a little bit, it's been backfiring quite a bit lately.

How about we do want we want? In case you haven't noticed, it's still a free country.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: GeezerMan
Install a police state and I guarantee a drop in crime and gun accidents. The misuse of guns will happen. What price in freedom are you willing to pay in order to drop gun crime?

More than zero, and more than most 'gun nuts' it seems, but far short of any sort of 'government tyranny' where people want guns 'for the revolution'.

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: GeezerMan
Install a police state and I guarantee a drop in crime and gun accidents. The misuse of guns will happen. What price in freedom are you willing to pay in order to drop gun crime?

More than zero, and more than most 'gun nuts' it seems, but far short of any sort of 'government tyranny' where people want guns 'for the revolution'.

Government tyranny? You mean like Ruby Ridge and Waco??

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: MooseNSquirrel

Originally posted by: shortylickens
This bothers me, because Obama seems like such a smart guy.
Does he not realize the last time this happened crime actually went UP in America?

It doesnt work man! It only disarms law-abiding people, and the criminals now have an edge.

There is no evidence for this. There was that one study which was paraded around by the pro-gun folk but it had sketchy methodology. I think you would be hard pressed to find any study proving causation one way or the other.

One of the difficulties of evaluating gun control laws (or lack thereof) is the ease of getting around them by going to neighbouring areas where it is easier to obtain a gun.

You would think that the NRA would welcome a national standard for gun control. It would certainly make life easier for lawful gun owners.

S&M

There is, it's called the Brady bill.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...iolence_Prevention_Act

The five-day waiting period for handgun purchases expired on November 30, 1998 and was replaced by a computerized criminal background check prior to any firearm purchase from a dealer holding a Federal Firearms License (FFL). All dealers, manufacturers and importers must verify the identity of a non-FFL customer and receive authorization from the National Instant Check System (NICS) which often takes only minutes instead of the several-day waiting period.

I thought that only covered "handguns", whatever that category includes.

ANyone know?

S&M

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: MooseNSquirrel

I thought that only covered "handguns", whatever that category includes.

ANyone know?

S&M

All firearms. Normally have to provide a copy of your license/picture ID and optionally SS# (they copy the documents). Sign an affidavit answering some questions, etc. After the check is run you either walk out with it or you are put on a "HOLD" while more digging is done. Or a flat out - "NO".

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: GeezerMan
Install a police state and I guarantee a drop in crime and gun accidents. The misuse of guns will happen. What price in freedom are you willing to pay in order to drop gun crime?

More than zero, and more than most 'gun nuts' it seems, but far short of any sort of 'government tyranny' where people want guns 'for the revolution'.

Government tyranny? You mean like Ruby Ridge and Waco??

No, I don't; though I think Ruby Ridge was not well handled.

If a police officer shot you and your family for no reason, it doesn't mean the US society is now under tyranny.

If that is a *broad* threat to families, then it is.

 

[daishi5]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: MotF Bane

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: conehead433
Everyone should carry a weapon so we can stop these lunatics who want to do bodily harm to innocents minding their own business.

What if the result were to cause road rage and similar killings to skyrocket, where the killer gets away, while saving far fewer lives from the occassional nut mass killer?

Do you have proof of this correlation?

Why yes, I have bookfulss of documentation to prove that my hypothetical for discussing a principle is, indeed, the factual situation.

Next up: what if we found a way to power spacecraft with a thimblefull of water - and the proof that we can, since I asked!

Note: I am not trying to resolve the question here of what would happen. I'm asking how he would react if that were the result - would he abandon the policy or not?

I want to take this one and run with it. IF we allowed private citizens to carry firearms in public concealed, and the result was that citizens abused that right and used it to deny other citizens of their right to life and liberty, yes I would without hesitation condemn the right of free citizens to carry their arms in public. IF a small number of citizens caused a great amount of harm, I would prefer that we start by trying to prevent that small number of citizens from aquiring arms. If that failed, and the cost/benefit of citizens carrying arms was even close to a toss up between increased crime on the part of permit holders, and decreased crime commited to carry holders I would still support removing that right.

I only support that right because from all the evidence I have seen I believe that the societal benefit of the right of the private citizen to bear arms has been a great success and has proven that private citizens can be trusted, and that they have been diligent and faithful with the duty they have been entrusted with.

Take note, I answered two hypotheticals, one where concealed carry caused way more killings than it stopped, and one where it was a toss up.

But in response, answer this, would you consider banning a class of weapon that has been used only once to kill someone by a private citizen?

 

[Lalakai]

i can't decide if it's political hyperbole or just plain stupidity, but each time i hear a politician or in this case, an over-eager AG start getting red in the face about banning or restricting the terrible terrible "assault" style firearms, i truly doubt any of them spent much time researching it. Simple plain jane hand guns account for more of the crime related deaths, then all styles of rifles combined. In fact, there are many instances in different states, where deaths related to knife attacks, outnumber the deaths related to the big group of "rifles".

FBI Statistics

and don't even get me started on the issues of carrying pistols, as the same data also shows that states with "shall carry" laws have lower firearm related deaths, then non-shall carry.

just plain idiocy.............and the people that believe them

 

[daishi5]

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: Venix

Originally posted by: Atheus
Your example only reinforces my point. Cars are registered, you require a test and a licence to drive them, their performance is restricted, etc. All of those things lower car accident deaths. Many still happen of course but it would be much worse without those measures. Same measures for guns then? Didn't think so.

Cars are registered to be driven on public roads. You are licensed to drive on public roads. Neither registration nor a license is required to own a car and use it on private property.

If you're advocating a similar licensing system for guns (unrestricted private use, license required for public use), I'm happy to inform you that it already exists--it's called a concealed carry permit.

If a weapon, or any rounds from that weapon, NEVER leave the owner's property, nobody else can see it or hear it, nobody else has to be involved in any way, then I don't see how that's anyone's business but the owner's. Unless they're seriously mentally ill of course, like some posters here.

Of course, most people want to take their guns hunting, or to the range. That's what they're for after all. So I don't see how that situaion applies.

I don't think there should be any such thing as a concealed carry permit. Defending your own house and family is one thing but taking it upon yourself to become a vigilante killer and saving random strangers from evil? LOL. You're living in a comic book.

You are very misinformed about concealed carry, I won't bother with the studies because honestly you people act like an Intelligent Design believer, or Global warming denier when confronted with any form of study that does not fit your views. However, just for your education please consider the following concealed carry permit owners commit crimes at a rate so far below the general public, and even police officers that its almost unbelievable. But just so I am not talking without proof, here are the statistics from the two states that keep those records. However, I am sure that you will blow by this and completely ignore the facts so that you can remain comfortable in your disdain for the common man, and aloof in your belief that you know better than us.

Florida

Texas

 

[daishi5]

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: palehorse
Everyone who supports the Assault Weapons Ban, please describe for me the functional differences between

1) a .308 Remington 700 varmint rifle and a semi-automatic AK47
2) a .223 Remington 700 varmint rifle and a semi-automatic AR15

Thanks ahead of time...

/crickets

I don't think many people here are actually arguing for this law are they? I'm certainly not. It doesn't make sense to me. I'm just responding to some of the ridiculous statements being made supposedly in opposition to it.

I agree with you that there are a lot of very stupid arguments made in opposition, but if you read the thread a lot of people still mistakenly believe that "assault weapon" = machine gun. And those people do believe in this ban, even though legal machine guns have been used in 2 crimes TOTAL. One by a police officer.

 

[Lalakai]

Originally posted by: Craig234
No, I don't; though I think Ruby Ridge was not well handled.

interesting point was brought up about Ruby Ridge. Reno was the AG at the time, but Holder was second in command.

 

[daishi5]

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

"Military grade"? LOL, quit claiming your for bringing "common sense" into the argument. In my mind, "Military grade" could be defined as anything that holds more then one bullet at a time.

That could very well be true. In which case I think you are beginning to see why there is such a silly debate to begin with. But rather than leave it up to people like yourself to define those weapons that should be relegated to only military or police use, I'd rather trust the professionals to make that distinction and not any sort of congressional panel..and certainly not some braindead politican seeking voter approval. Are you beginning to see that I am not the anti-gun zealot many of you think I am?

But I understand, no one from the pro-gun side of the debate would like this idea of a natioal standard to limit the use of weapons...because it would take away the right to own some of the precious guns you all like to say you have the right to own. Which is I THINK where we find ourselves today. AND I am willing to concede that maybe we have all the regulation that I think we need in place for satisfactory gun control....hey...didn't Pelosi say almost the same thing the other day?!? :shocked:

shrug. But you all continue to fight over a ban that is not in existance, has no chance of making onto the congressional floor (at least today) and has little to no mainstream support where there are a bunch of other issues to debate in this day. Yes I think I am inserting common sense into this debate. Unless you think what I am saying is outlandish?

Why do you think we should ban "Military grade" weapons? Seriously, try to think this one through, if you do, you will notice that in order to come up with a reason to ban military grade weapons, you must first define "military grade." You have already decided what is military grade even though you don't realize it. If you had not decided what is "military grade" than you would have no reason to decide that they should be banned. It is very circular logic, but and it is really easy to miss the logical fallacy in "I think we should ban this, and we should let experts define what 'this' is."

But, why do you think we should ban military grade weapons, I assume you mean "grade" like fully automatic weapons and not "grade" as in really well manufactured weapons. Owners of military grade weapons, and by military grade weapons I mean machine guns, artillery and tanks have been some of the most responsible weapon owners in the nation. You want to ban the weapons owned by the most responsible owners, and leave the other weapons that are used by the least responsible?

 

[SigArms08]

Originally posted by: palehorse
Questions reworded and re-posted... again:

Once I can get a ban supporter to answer the following questions, we can move on with this debate:

1) What are the mechanical differences, if any, between a .308 Remington 750 hunting rifle and a semi-automatic AK-47?

2) Which of the two models listed above should be banned, and why?

**crickets chirping**

 

[Carmen813]

Originally posted by: palehorse
Everyone who supports the Assault Weapons Ban, please describe for me the functional differences between

1) a .308 Remington 700 varmint rifle and a semi-automatic AK47
2) a .223 Remington 700 varmint rifle and a semi-automatic AR15

Thanks ahead of time...

I'm not sure exactly what you are asking.

Remington 700s are bolt action rifles. You fire a round, work the bolt, fire another. AKs/AR 15s are blowback operated, meaning once you fire one round another is automatically loaded into the chamber, allowing a much more rapid rate of fire. The downside is a loss of accuracy/power. R700s have a 3-5 round magazine, as compared to a 20-30 round magazine with an AR-15 or AK47. R700s have been modified by the army for use as sniper rifles (M24). The rounds you are referring to are more powerful than their semi-automatic counterparts, having a longer range/penetration capability.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: SigArms08
**crickets chirping**

Here, let me fix the links one more time... maybe they won't answer without working links? For those who support(ed) the AWB:

1) What are the mechanical differences between a .308 Remington 750 hunting rifle and a semi-automatic AK-47?

2) Which of the two models listed above should be banned, and why?

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Carmen813

Originally posted by: palehorse
Everyone who supports the Assault Weapons Ban, please describe for me the functional differences between

1) a .308 Remington 700 varmint rifle and a semi-automatic AK47
2) a .223 Remington 700 varmint rifle and a semi-automatic AR15

Thanks ahead of time...

I'm not sure exactly what you are asking.

Remington 700s are bolt action rifles. You fire a round, work the bolt, fire another. AKs/AR 15s are blowback operated, meaning once you fire one round another is automatically loaded into the chamber, allowing a much more rapid rate of fire. The downside is a loss of accuracy/power. R700s have a 3-5 round magazine, as compared to a 20-30 round magazine with an AR-15 or AK47. R700s have been modified by the army for use as sniper rifles (M24). The rounds you are referring to are more powerful than their semi-automatic counterparts, having a longer range/penetration capability.

I fixed the questions later in the thread and even re-posted them right above this post, one last time...

 

[Carmen813]

Originally posted by: knightc2

Originally posted by: Carmen813
There was no such thing as an organized police force designed to protect all citizens from law breakers. Today there is very little chance that even a massive armed militia could defeat the U.S. military in combat.

I enjoy shooting assault rifles. I did it as a teen. But really those weapons serve no real practical purpose. You can't hunt with most of them, the rounds are to weak. I personally feel the real intention of the amendment has been manipulated by the *minority* of individuals who simply like guns. I have no problem with people owning shotguns, bolt action rifles, and pistols (provided some proper training). It's the relative ease with which you can purchase an assault rifle that I find troublesome.

Police rarely protect people from law breakers. Most criminals are apprehended AFTER they break the law. I have no ill will towards law enforcement officials but there are not nearly enough of them to adequately enforce the law and protect everyone from harm.

I don't know the law where you are from but I have to fill out a form and get an instant FBI check to purchase a firearm unless it is from a private seller. I just bought an "assault weapon" and while I had no trouble buying it, they did record the sale and run a background check on me. Personally I am fine with that. It keeps felons and crazies from buying dangerous weapons and lets law abiding folks acquire legal firearms.

I do take offense to the term assault weapon as it is makes little sense. I don't intent to assault anyone with mine and prefer to call it a self defense weapon. Deer rifles are far more powerful than the average AR-15/AK-47 and are far more prevalent than assault rifles.

A pistol is a much better self-defense weapon. I'd go with a .40 S&W personally, 9mm is a little weak. Pistols are very easy to conceal. You can reload them very quickly. They are light, and it's easy to aim and fire. It is easier to use in close-range situations, such as in a home.

 

[Carmen813]

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: Carmen813

Originally posted by: palehorse
Everyone who supports the Assault Weapons Ban, please describe for me the functional differences between

1) a .308 Remington 700 varmint rifle and a semi-automatic AK47
2) a .223 Remington 700 varmint rifle and a semi-automatic AR15

Thanks ahead of time...

I'm not sure exactly what you are asking.

Remington 700s are bolt action rifles. You fire a round, work the bolt, fire another. AKs/AR 15s are blowback operated, meaning once you fire one round another is automatically loaded into the chamber, allowing a much more rapid rate of fire. The downside is a loss of accuracy/power. R700s have a 3-5 round magazine, as compared to a 20-30 round magazine with an AR-15 or AK47. R700s have been modified by the army for use as sniper rifles (M24). The rounds you are referring to are more powerful than their semi-automatic counterparts, having a longer range/penetration capability.

I fixed the questions later in the thread and even re-posted them right above this post, one last time...

Ah, I was thinking of a different rifle ( I read 750 as 700) . At any rate, you shoot small animals with it. A .308 (7.54x51mm) nato round is similar to what AKs fire, though I think the AK round is slightly smaller (7.54x39mm) (and packs less oomph). The guns you linked are basically the same thing, though the ak looks "scarier."

If I'm wrong, please correct me. I am by no means an expert on guns.

I know AKs have a reputation for insane reliability. You can pretty much toss them off a cliff and they still work. I wouldn't advocate banning either weapon, but I believe it is fair to regulate the sale of the guns and ammunition.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: Carmen813
A pistol is a much better self-defense weapon. I'd go with a .40 S&W personally, 9mm is a little weak. Pistols are very easy to conceal. You can reload them very quickly. They are light, and it's easy to aim and fire. It is easier to use in close-range situations, such as in a home.

Don't forget the AWB impacted handguns and shotguns as well.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: Carmen813

Originally posted by: knightc2

Originally posted by: Carmen813
There was no such thing as an organized police force designed to protect all citizens from law breakers. Today there is very little chance that even a massive armed militia could defeat the U.S. military in combat.

I enjoy shooting assault rifles. I did it as a teen. But really those weapons serve no real practical purpose. You can't hunt with most of them, the rounds are to weak. I personally feel the real intention of the amendment has been manipulated by the *minority* of individuals who simply like guns. I have no problem with people owning shotguns, bolt action rifles, and pistols (provided some proper training). It's the relative ease with which you can purchase an assault rifle that I find troublesome.

Police rarely protect people from law breakers. Most criminals are apprehended AFTER they break the law. I have no ill will towards law enforcement officials but there are not nearly enough of them to adequately enforce the law and protect everyone from harm.

I don't know the law where you are from but I have to fill out a form and get an instant FBI check to purchase a firearm unless it is from a private seller. I just bought an "assault weapon" and while I had no trouble buying it, they did record the sale and run a background check on me. Personally I am fine with that. It keeps felons and crazies from buying dangerous weapons and lets law abiding folks acquire legal firearms.

I do take offense to the term assault weapon as it is makes little sense. I don't intent to assault anyone with mine and prefer to call it a self defense weapon. Deer rifles are far more powerful than the average AR-15/AK-47 and are far more prevalent than assault rifles.

A pistol is a much better self-defense weapon. I'd go with a .40 S&W personally, 9mm is a little weak. Pistols are very easy to conceal. You can reload them very quickly. They are light, and it's easy to aim and fire. It is easier to use in close-range situations, such as in a home.

I keep a 10" barreled PS90 with an Eotech, and Surefire rail light next to the bed. There's a pistol in the nightstand, but if something goes bump in the night, I prefer the firepower and pointability of a carbine. Plus 50 rounds of SS190 can take care of a lot of night bumpers.

 

[Carmen813]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: Carmen813

Originally posted by: knightc2

Originally posted by: Carmen813
There was no such thing as an organized police force designed to protect all citizens from law breakers. Today there is very little chance that even a massive armed militia could defeat the U.S. military in combat.

I enjoy shooting assault rifles. I did it as a teen. But really those weapons serve no real practical purpose. You can't hunt with most of them, the rounds are to weak. I personally feel the real intention of the amendment has been manipulated by the *minority* of individuals who simply like guns. I have no problem with people owning shotguns, bolt action rifles, and pistols (provided some proper training). It's the relative ease with which you can purchase an assault rifle that I find troublesome.

Police rarely protect people from law breakers. Most criminals are apprehended AFTER they break the law. I have no ill will towards law enforcement officials but there are not nearly enough of them to adequately enforce the law and protect everyone from harm.

I don't know the law where you are from but I have to fill out a form and get an instant FBI check to purchase a firearm unless it is from a private seller. I just bought an "assault weapon" and while I had no trouble buying it, they did record the sale and run a background check on me. Personally I am fine with that. It keeps felons and crazies from buying dangerous weapons and lets law abiding folks acquire legal firearms.

I do take offense to the term assault weapon as it is makes little sense. I don't intent to assault anyone with mine and prefer to call it a self defense weapon. Deer rifles are far more powerful than the average AR-15/AK-47 and are far more prevalent than assault rifles.

A pistol is a much better self-defense weapon. I'd go with a .40 S&W personally, 9mm is a little weak. Pistols are very easy to conceal. You can reload them very quickly. They are light, and it's easy to aim and fire. It is easier to use in close-range situations, such as in a home.

I keep a 10" barreled PS90 with an Eotech, and Surefire rail light next to the bed. There's a pistol in the nightstand, but if something goes bump in the night, I prefer the firepower and pointability of a carbine. Plus 50 rounds of SS190 can take care of a lot of night bumpers.

Well, a PS90 is certainly more portable than an AR-15/AK-47. They aren't really the same thing.

 

[knightc2]

...I don't think there should be any such thing as a concealed carry permit. Defending your own house and family is one thing but taking it upon yourself to become a vigilante killer and saving random strangers from evil? LOL. You're living in a comic book.

So my right to protect myself and my family only extends to my own home? I'm glad that you have deemed that the 2nd Amendment is only applicable on my private property. When I am accosted at gun point at an ATM machine, carjacked at a stop light or my wife is overpowered and being raped neither of us will have the right to defend ourselves.

 

[Atheus]

Originally posted by: daishi5

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: Venix

Originally posted by: Atheus
Your example only reinforces my point. Cars are registered, you require a test and a licence to drive them, their performance is restricted, etc. All of those things lower car accident deaths. Many still happen of course but it would be much worse without those measures. Same measures for guns then? Didn't think so.

Cars are registered to be driven on public roads. You are licensed to drive on public roads. Neither registration nor a license is required to own a car and use it on private property.

If you're advocating a similar licensing system for guns (unrestricted private use, license required for public use), I'm happy to inform you that it already exists--it's called a concealed carry permit.

If a weapon, or any rounds from that weapon, NEVER leave the owner's property, nobody else can see it or hear it, nobody else has to be involved in any way, then I don't see how that's anyone's business but the owner's. Unless they're seriously mentally ill of course, like some posters here.

Of course, most people want to take their guns hunting, or to the range. That's what they're for after all. So I don't see how that situaion applies.

I don't think there should be any such thing as a concealed carry permit. Defending your own house and family is one thing but taking it upon yourself to become a vigilante killer and saving random strangers from evil? LOL. You're living in a comic book.

You are very misinformed about concealed carry, I won't bother with the studies because honestly you people act like an Intelligent Design believer, or Global warming denier when confronted with any form of study that does not fit your views. However, just for your education please consider the following concealed carry permit owners commit crimes at a rate so far below the general public, and even police officers that its almost unbelievable. But just so I am not talking without proof, here are the statistics from the two states that keep those records. However, I am sure that you will blow by this and completely ignore the facts so that you can remain comfortable in your disdain for the common man, and aloof in your belief that you know better than us.

Florida

Texas

It's purely a matter of prinicipal for me, I'm not ignoring any facts, I'm simply not interested in statistics on this particular point - the concealed carry thing that is. I don't think it should be legal for any normal citizen, not involved with any kind of police force or military outfit, to carry a weapon on a public street. BTW I hold no disdain for you. You're apparently one of about two or three people on this board capable of arguing for gun rights without foaming at the mouth.

Originally posted by: daishi5
I agree with you that there are a lot of very stupid arguments made in opposition, but if you read the thread a lot of people still mistakenly believe that "assault weapon" = machine gun. And those people do believe in this ban, even though legal machine guns have been used in 2 crimes TOTAL. One by a police officer.

Fair point but those people are only misinformed. Many on your side are violent and irrational.

 

[knightc2]

Originally posted by: Carmen813

Originally posted by: knightc2

Originally posted by: Carmen813
There was no such thing as an organized police force designed to protect all citizens from law breakers. Today there is very little chance that even a massive armed militia could defeat the U.S. military in combat.

I enjoy shooting assault rifles. I did it as a teen. But really those weapons serve no real practical purpose. You can't hunt with most of them, the rounds are to weak. I personally feel the real intention of the amendment has been manipulated by the *minority* of individuals who simply like guns. I have no problem with people owning shotguns, bolt action rifles, and pistols (provided some proper training). It's the relative ease with which you can purchase an assault rifle that I find troublesome.

Police rarely protect people from law breakers. Most criminals are apprehended AFTER they break the law. I have no ill will towards law enforcement officials but there are not nearly enough of them to adequately enforce the law and protect everyone from harm.

I don't know the law where you are from but I have to fill out a form and get an instant FBI check to purchase a firearm unless it is from a private seller. I just bought an "assault weapon" and while I had no trouble buying it, they did record the sale and run a background check on me. Personally I am fine with that. It keeps felons and crazies from buying dangerous weapons and lets law abiding folks acquire legal firearms.

I do take offense to the term assault weapon as it is makes little sense. I don't intent to assault anyone with mine and prefer to call it a self defense weapon. Deer rifles are far more powerful than the average AR-15/AK-47 and are far more prevalent than assault rifles.

A pistol is a much better self-defense weapon. I'd go with a .40 S&W personally, 9mm is a little weak. Pistols are very easy to conceal. You can reload them very quickly. They are light, and it's easy to aim and fire. It is easier to use in close-range situations, such as in a home.

A pistol is a much better self-defense weapon? I'd take a 12 gauge shotgun almost any day over a .40 pistol. The only time a pistol is a better self-defense weapon is when concealment is desired. If someone broke into my home and threatened my family I'd rather have a shotgun or my AR at my disposal than a pistol.

Reloading an AR is just as easy as a pistol and aiming a shotgun is far easier to do and much more forgiving than a pistol especially in a high stress situation. I am not saying that a pistol is a bad choice for SD but in most situations I'd prefer a shotgun or carbine. And while .40 is generally a more powerful round, I wouldn't consider 9mm to be weak. My Hornady 9mm 147 gr hollow points don't like being called "weak".

 

[Possessed Freak]

Originally posted by: Carmen813
A pistol is a much better self-defense weapon. I'd go with a .40 S&W personally, 9mm is a little weak. Pistols are very easy to conceal. You can reload them very quickly. They are light, and it's easy to aim and fire. It is easier to use in close-range situations, such as in a home.

I just purchased a springfield .40 XD. Easy to disassemble.