reply to post by 0010110011101
No offense taken, mate. Sometimes a little forthright description of one's reasoning is needed to really drive the point home, is all. =)
I would also like to think that an intruder in my house would not be armed, but that, in my opinion, is ignoring reality and shortchanging the
potential for maintaining my family's most basic right; life.
Just to get back on topic, why is owning SAs a neccesity when presumably his desire to ban them will not effect the ownership of handguns,
The problem with banning semi-autos is huge. In fact, they account for the majority of guns that exist.
A semi-automatic weapon is any gun (shotgun, rifle, handgun) that only requires a trigger pull to fire. This includes everything BUT bolt/lever action
rifles, pump/single shot scatter guns, and single action pistols/revolvers.
You may be thinking of fully automatic here, where you just hold down the trigger and cartridges are continually fed - a constant hail of bullets with
one squeeze and hold of the trigger.
A Semi at this point in time encompasses basically everything
in a handgun short of specialized cowboy action guns, target weapons, and the odd
outlier. There aren't a lot of regular ol' single-action pistols around any more. As for shotties, people tend to prefer the pump action for the
intimidation factor, but a semi-auto is a good choice for home defense use as it allows the barrel to be kept further back toward the body's core -
harder to take away like this. Rifles have been made in semi form for lots of years - bolt and lever action guns are primarily saved for hunting,
target, and sniper use now.
So a ban on semi-autos eliminates not only a huge amount of one's selection, but also a great deal of functionality and safety in a handgun. Cocking
the hammer manually for every shot is not only a pain in the arse, but takes seconds longer per magazine/wheel than just squeezing the trigger. This
could mean life or death in close quarters. Regarding safety, most single action revolvers do not have a safety, as their use is specialized to a
narrow demographic, and self defense circles have largely abandoned them. This makes a dangerous weapon for carry, or home defense use.
In short, removing semi automatic weaponry from citizens removes a great deal of their affordable and reasonable self defense capability. It also
removes a great deal of the modern gun's (as in, last 100 freakin YEARS or so.
) safety against accidental discharge.
Bad, bad idea.
Regarding the case of Mr. Martin, it seems that he was jailed rightfully based on the English Law - which means the law itself needs to be changed. If
one can always be jailed for defending oneself with lethal force, there is a problem.
This particular case is a bit sketchy, though, as the man shot the burglars in the back. One of the main points that my city's Chief of Police and I
discussed during my Concealed Carry Licensing Interview was the issue of robbery. Massachusetts law is similar in that you're up the creek already if
you ever shoot someone in the back after they robbed you. The basic premise is that if the burglar wants material possessions, you should let him go
and phone the police. If there is "immediate threat to life" then the need to defend oneself is real and killing is generally regarded as a
reasonable action by the courts.