Fair enough. A lot of people who know little or nothing about guns assume that anything that is black in color or that has cosmetic "tactical" features is an assault weapon that needs to be banned simply because it is scary looking. I am glad you are capable of a more nuanced view.
Again, the advantage of this particular gun is not so much its overall capacity as it is the ability to switch between magazines and select ammunition appropriate to the task that poses less of a threat to neighbors or family behind nearby walls.
As always you miss the point.
that's quite ironic as you totally miss the FACT that proclaiming a 15 shot 12 gauge shot gun as a 'Home Defense Weapon" is completely absurd.
There is a lot of truth to that as well. Note how nobody is saying to ban them. I have no problem with regulations limiting their production speed to 186 mph. At 145 I tended to lose my nerve.
Did anyone say to ban it or is it your default stance to make that assumption?
Because a lot of people who are ignorant of guns will be ok with a rifle that has a wooden stock and looks "traditional" but if you take the same rifle and drop it into a stock made of black plastic and add a couple of "tactical" cosmetic features to it then it becomes an "assault weapon". It has also become commonplace to refer to all military-styled weapons as "black guns". My Ruger Mini-30 is a perfect example, it is a magazine-fed semi-automatic rifle and in its current configuration (normal wooden stock) it would be legal to own in California as long as it only had a 10 round magazine. The stock is removeable with a couple of bolts and if I dropped it into a black polymer "tactical" stock with a pistol grip....or put a flash suppressor on the end of the barrel...under California law it would automatically go from being legal to being classified as a prohibited "assault weapon" based on cosmetic features alone.
YOU may not be saying to ban them, but it seems to be the default assumption of the gun-ban crowd that anything that looks "tactical" is one of those evil "assault weapons" that should be banned. Again, I will commend you personally for your ability to take a more nuanced view.
If we applied the same logic to regulating motorcycles that we do to trying to ban "assault weapons", then any motorcycle with a fairing would be banned for being a "race" bike regardless of engine displacement, top speed, or capabilities of its rider.
That depends on how many people are trying to invade your home, how fast they dodge, and how good the aim of the person firing it. On a scary situation like a home invasion, many shots will simply miss their target due to the person firing trying to get off the shot quickly, rather than taking the extra time to be accurate. I don't know how accurate I would be of someone broke I to my house and I was trying to save my family. But I sure as heck would try to do something quickly. Accuracy would be second to that.
What if the person was not able to move? You and I are fortunate to have the kind of income and benefits that we have, but a large percentage of the population will never reach the economic success we have achieved.
With respects to purchasing liability insurance, that is already the case. Many can afford the price of an FZ1 but because the "heart of the beast" is a retuned R1 engine, it is considered a sport bike and insurance rates skyrocket.
sounds like the manufacturers are engaging in cosmetic marketing.
mate you fire 15 shots with a 12 gauge in your home, i'll wager hard earned money you'll either kill or maim your family in the process
Not if you aim right, but regardless of what you hit you will wind up with ruptured eardrums leaking down the sides of your neck.
