No, it's factually true, and if it wasn't, you'd have refuted it instead of just making assertions. Every weapon you could use to defend yourself is illegal in the UK, precisely because you've disarmed your cops. No tasers, no chemical sprays, nothing.
I doubt you have a defensible argument - I haven't heard one yet
I've actually made quite a few arguments in this thread, all of which await your response.
I guess some work on what legal ammunition gets manufactured and sold would also be required. So there's no overlap.
How would there not be overlap? Any round fired from a rifle is, in principle, capable of being fired from a handgun because rifles and handguns are the exact same technology. You act like people would just stop using handguns because 90% of them couldn't get ammunition, but wouldn't people just modify or manufacture handguns that fired your permissible "hunting" rounds?
This is where experts would need to come together and figure out the best way to do that.
Oh, right. "Experts" make all things possible, I guess.
I get that. But evidence of places that have these laws show that people aren't going out of their way to manufacture their own handguns and assault rifles.
How do they know? Market surveys?
And are we talking about 'Murica?
Rome wasn't built in a day. I'm good with starting it now and having my children's children reap the benefits of it. Slavery was under the same time constraints, yet here we are with a black prez.
Handguns are the best for personal defense. I don't see those going away.
Says you. I'll take a shotgun over a handgun for home defense any day.
For home defense, sure. But not for personal defense. There's a reason cops carry handguns.
I like Bill Burr. He's right that you miss a lot with handguns, but that only takes training. And he counters your point about only limiting handguns and "assault rifles" with his I'll-take-the-shotgun joke
Except that it's already been made illegal to carry those items, based on the premise that legitimate self-defense is accomplished with handguns and the others aren't protected by the Second Amendment
What? You said you can be stabbed, strangled, or beat to death with a bludgeon. Knives, your hands to strangle someone and a small bat (as an example of something to bludgeon with) are not illegal to carry at all. I don't know what you mean by this statement.
How would there not be overlap? Any round fired from a rifle is, in principle, capable of being fired from a handgun because rifles and handguns are the exact same technology. You act like people would just stop using handguns because 90% of them couldn't get ammunition, but wouldn't people just modify or manufacture handguns that fired your permissible "hunting" rounds?
I don't know enough about it to answer that. Can someone modify a weapon to fire those rounds? Maybe. I guess. I don't know.
It seems though that it's not a problem in any of the countries who've adopted this law of no handguns of assault rifles.
Oh, right. "Experts" make all things possible, I guess.
You said you can be stabbed, strangled, or beat to death with a bludgeon.
Yes, but these are ineffective self-defense strategies (to say the least) particularly when one is substantially weaker than one's attacker. And again, the sort of fixed-blade knife that would be effective as a self-defense solution - something like a Fairbairn-Sykes knife - is illegal in most jurisdictions. Carrying around a baseball bat or other bludgeon is impractical, particularly for someone without the upper body strength to swing it effectively.
I don't know why you insist on characterizing a self-defense scenario as being between two people of matched physical ability; it's people who lack much physical strength, like women, the disabled, etc who are most at risk of being attacked. It's precisely those people that are best served by handguns, which can be operated without significant physical strength, from a seated position, a wheelchair, or from the ground, etc.
My own personal experience.
Your own experience that a paraplegic can learn mixed martial arts?
And that's fine, but you need to accept that your proposed policy has a critical flaw that you don't have a solution for. Which is fine as far as it goes but you can't expect that to be convincing.
It seems though that it's not a problem in any of the countries who've adopted this law of no handguns of assault rifles.
Those countries actually made it illegal to own a handgun or assault rifle. We're discussing your policy, the one where you make it illegal to manufacture, sell, or distribute handgun and assault rifle ammunition but hunting ammunition is OK.
Yes, I have. And I don't understand the basis by which it's ok for you to call me a liar, but if I do the same to you, that's a violation of the forum guidelines that merits suspension.
Yes, but these are ineffective self-defense strategies (to say the least) particularly when one is substantially weaker than one's attacker. And again, the sort of fixed-blade knife that would be effective as a self-defense solution - something like a Fairbairn-Sykes knife - is illegal in most jurisdictions. Carrying around a baseball bat or other bludgeon is impractical, particularly for someone without the upper body strength to swing it effectively.
I don't know why you insist on characterizing a self-defense scenario as being between two people of matched physical ability; it's people who lack much physical strength, like women, the disabled, etc who are most at risk of being attacked. It's precisely those people that are best served by handguns, which can be operated without significant physical strength, from a seated position, a wheelchair, or from the ground, etc.
I'm not doing anything like that. You said all those things can be used to kill so I said you can equally use them to defend yourself.
Your own experience that a paraplegic can learn mixed martial arts?
Any round fired from a rifle is, in principle, capable of being fired from a handgun
Though this could sort of be technically correct it is ridiculous and ludicrous in practicality.
In principle you could make a handgun, other than a single shot, that fires a 30-06, but that would be extremely difficult to design and fire with any control. The handguns that fire rifle calibers are single shots. Look at the Thompson Contender. You are not going to have a semi-auto handgun that shoots a rifle caliber.
because rifles and handguns are the exact same technology.
No they are not. Just look at the actions. Also, semi-automatic rifles usually are some sort of gas powered, there are very few gas powered handguns. The Desert Eagle is an exception. You also can find .223 pistols but they are actually cut down AR type guns and they could easily be regulated.
Rifle calibers produce a much higher pressure than pistol calibers. This makes design much more difficult.
Have you ever pulled the trigger on a handgun shooting a rifle caliber? You aren't going to get many shots off very quickly and you can't just point and shoot. Shoot more than a couple rounds from a T/C and you will feel a little beat up. They are a handful, but fun.
Those countries actually made it illegal to own a handgun or assault rifle. We're discussing your policy, the one where you make it illegal to manufacture, sell, or distribute handgun and assault rifle ammunition but hunting ammunition is OK.
Fair enough. I'm all for altering my own proposed idea. So lets include making them illegal as well.
You said all those things can be used to kill so I said you can equally use them to defend yourself.
But it doesn't follow that just because those things can be used to kill, they're appropriate tools for self-defense. There's no logic to that at all. It's not just the lethality of a handgun that makes it an appropriate tool for self-defense. It's the fact that it can be used from the ground, upside-down, in a narrow or constricted environment, in the rain, etc that makes a firearm an effective tool for self-defense. Not effective in every circumstance, not appropriate for every circumstance, but of sufficiently broad use that they're the tool chosen by basically everyone who is an expert in the protection of their own person and the person of others.
Fuck yes... Kyle Maynard!
Ok, I guess, except that he loses. Like, virtually every time. Despite basically devoting his life to training. When he wins, he wins on points; what use is that in a self-defense situation?
Your inability to think things through is one of the reasons it's so hard to talk to you. You think the fact that there's a quadriplegic MMA "competitor" who loses every match in order to drum up interest in his public speaking tour somehow proves that it's realistic to expect everybody to train as an expert in brazilian jiu-jutsu. The whole point of a handgun is that it can overcome years of training in the martial arts. People shouldn't have to become ninjas, as a full-time job, just to protect themselves from street crime. That's the point of a handgun.
™ Version 4.2
(1)