What a surprise. You have no idea what the word “brandishing” means just like you know practically nothing else about firearms or their usage. In the photo I am shooting, not brandishing, a Bulgarian Krinkov. Brandishing is defined “wave or swing (something, such as a weapon) in a threatening or excited manner” which is not what I was doing. One wonders if you might be cherry picking the word that fits with the narrative you prefer.
If you actually read the Kleck survey you’d find that he actually was very critical of his findings which is why his estimate had such a large margin of error, and the Lott studies also did so. In fact if you read the rebuttal, which I’ve already read, you’ll find that even they agree that the number of DGUs (defensive gun uses) each year exceeds the number of criminal uses. One wonders if you might be cherry picking the evidence that fits with the narrative you prefer.
“The quality of which sadly is rather poor” equals “which does not agree with my assumptions” I suppose.
Yeah, either that or the FACT that the statistics that ATF, FBI, and CDC have compiled over the years simply don’t support the narrative you insist must be the result. One wonders if you might be cherry picking the result that fits with the narrative you prefer.
They didn’t oppose “scientific” research, they opposed gun control hit pieces funded by taxpayer dollars. The Joyce Foundation, Bloomberg, and others provide plenty of money for bought and paid for results and the NRA watched the Democratically controlled Congress prior to 1996 funnel money to hacks like Heminway whose conclusions were a given before they even spent to funding. The CDC study was done without bias using raw data, not cherry picked information like the Heminway studies. One wonders if you might be cherry picking the researchers that will provide the narrative you prefer.
Yup…citing the actual reduction in violent crime, the actual reduction in homicide, and the actual record breaking firearm sales occurring at the same time was difficult work. It requires looking at two sources, the FBI Uniform Crime Report and the ATF Background Check data. I guess you’re accusing ATF and the FBI of being biased or something? You’re citing a “researcher” who used newspaper articles which he even admitted were a terribly inaccurate source of information. One wonders if you might be hostile to hard information that counters the narrative you prefer.
We can both use the FBI, CDC, and ATF data to draw conclusions from, they are very clear. In every area except drug-related crime, firearms accidents, homicides, and violent crime have decreased by double digits percentages over the last 30 years while firearms purchases have greatly increased. That isn’t even questionable. It isn’t a funded “hit piece” and it wasn’t compiled by a pro-gun group. If you can’t surmise that firearms ownership has no causal connection to firearms crime from that your ability to read and review ANY study is likely highly suspect.
Maybe someone else in this thread wants to have this argument.
It’s a Bulgarian Krinkov and a legally registered NFA item because it’s an SBR (short barreled rifle) which means that the owner submitted passport type photos, fingerprints, and a check for $200 to the ATF and underwent background checks by the local CLEO (Chief Law Enforcement Officer, here it was our county sheriff) and the FBI and waited six months or more to take possession of the gun. There is no “clip” in the photo but it has a standard capacity 30-round magazine. Nice gun, not great for long range but good for cramped spaces.
How many rounds does it take? That’s a question that gets answered after the encounter, not before. Any good instructor will tell you that having more than you need is ALWAYS better than having less.
A shotgun would be fine, but it really doesn’t provide any advantages over a rifle and has a lower capacity. I’m not really a shotgun guy and don’t shoot them often so I’d rather protect myself with a weapon I am more familiar with because it’s safer for me, safer for innocent bystanders, and more dangerous for the intruder. Typically that equates to either my AR or a 9mm handgun, both of which would offend you with their standard capacity magazines.
A hunting rifle? Probably the WORST choice for a self-defense firearm. Too long, too heavy, and mine has a scope on it since I’m usually shooting at least 100 yards or better and is therefor next to useless for home defense. Plus, the ammunition for most big game hunting rifles is FAR more powerful than the ammo for guns like the Krink and the opportunity for over penetration, shooting through walls, etc. is greatly increased.
But, of course, those are the sort of questions I expect to get from people who have absolutely zero training in armed self-defense and generally no clue about firearms and their usage. I assume that the Dunning-Kruger Effect is involved in their combined lack of knowledge of the subject and their sanctimonious declarations of how it should be done. Do yourself a favor and stop thinking that ANYTHING you see in movies and on TV concerning armed self-defense has any bearing on reality, and also realize that Joe Biden’s two shots from a shotgun advice was stupid (I know that’s repetitive when referring the something Biden said), dangerous, and in most places also illegal for very good reasons.
