Side arm (duty size) vs carbine

@Corndog
Ya know it is more specific if you follow the political science. You could of course understand the current "evolved" governments of the usa wants guns in the gestpo's hands and ultimately none in the tax paying hands. That is a blanket statement I believe true.
But back to following the science, moreover as you rightly pointed out, sidearms do not draw their ire yet, but obviously, pcc's, do. Why becomes my first question.
Those who really voted for joe I would guess would say "to make us safer!".
Those of us with experience in life know better. So why?
Availability of ammo.
Here watch this.

They seem to actually Like 5.7 and .30 super carry. They hate the 9x19. Take a stab at the price tag of replacing the 5.56, but its still a goal they chase. Your 45-70, hell that's awesome to them! .45 lc? You lowly peasants have a good time now.....

I could go on all day. The .22lr bucks that trend, but consider the .22lr has actually killed more innocent folks than most..... but facts of course do not matter in the game, it is emotion they want to stir.

(Remember, I am pro freedom, and not for ANY infringement)

Corndog said:

My problem with PCC’s, and I have one of what I believe is the best, is the ammunition.

If you stuck the 5.56 round into a PCC, then you would have something…😎

@maddmatter1970 , you touched on what I have been saying for years. The government really wants handguns. That’s what they were after in the GCA almost a century ago. Banning evil black rifles is a way to cut the herd. I would wager even here at RF.net, there are plenty of people that don’t care what the government does with any of the military style play toys we enjoy.

Apathy over any type of gun control is dangerous.

Click to expand...

All the efforts to require registration of pistol braces and the efforts to ban ”assault rifles“ are not based in fact. The ATF identified just two crimes where braced pistols were present and doubled down on the fact they were mass shootings. That was 2 out of over 2600 mass shootings, by the “4 or more people shot“ (including gang bangers offing each other, and crazed individual killing their families in the home) definition when I submitted public comment on the pistol brace rule.

Long guns of any kind are only used in 1.5 percent of crimes at most in any given year, and when it comes to “mass shootings” 86% are committed solely with handguns.

Assault weapons, pistol braces, etc are seen as easy targets due to the mis portrayal of these firearms in the media.

They are also seen as easy targets as not all gun owners have them, and thus don’t see themselves as having any skin in the game. Consequently, they don’t oppose those gun control efforts as they buy the “no one needs to have a ‘military grade’ assault weapon” while refusing to acknowledge all the inaccuracies in that statement.

There‘s also the “if it saves just one life“ argument and of course the massive overhyping of the risk of school shootings. Don’t take that wrong, one school shooting is one to many. But we have on average about 20 deaths per year in school shootings (barring inadequate responses by law enforcement) out of 40 million K-12 students in the US.

That’s 1 in 2 million students and a rate of 0.05 per 100,000. Again while that is still 2 too many to put it in perspective we have 125 kids killed in school bus accidents every year. When you consider only 23 million school kids ride the bus, that’s 1 in 184,000 students and a rate of 0.54 per 100,000.

I don’t know how many of those school bus accident deaths could be prevented by things like seat belts to reduce deaths in roll over accidents, or stricter background checks and licensing requirements for bus drivers, or front mounted cameras to decrease the chance of running kids over, but those numbers are all non-zero. And yet despite a death rate 10 times higher and a death toll on average 6 times higher, it’s absolute crickets when it comes to school bus deaths. Where are the “if it saves just one life” crowd then, especially on an issue where we can significantly reduces deaths and do it without infringing on any ones rights?

The problem is that school bus accident deaths, despite being far more numerous than school shooting depths are still low enough incidence that it’s not seen as a problem. It’s also not a hot button issue that can be used to stir up a base to try to win elections.

But imagine for a moment that “assault rifles” (including braced pistols that the ATF wants to reverse its position on and define as rifles) were both banned and successfully confiscated. Gun violence in the US would not decrease at all. In fact it would continue to increase due to continued worsening of social and economic issues that under pin violence:

• lack of educational opportunity;
• lack of employment opportunity;
• declining wages (in terms of buying power);
• decreasing availability of livable wage and more importantly family supporting wage jobs;
• affordable and accessible health and mental health care; and
• increasing diversity combined with a growing intolerance of others.

When the desired reduction in gun violence is not achieved after a ban, they‘ll have to double down and ban other things, like semi auto handguns, then revolvers, then pump action and lever action rifles, then repeating rifles.

Fault rests with all sides as one side wastes capital and resources trying to ban guns and the other side wastes capital and resources but resisting the social and economic policies needed to minimize the stressors and disengagement that underpins violence, not just gun violence.

The other frustrating issue is that the “if it saves just one life” argument willfully ignores the number of live saved, and physical and sexual assaults prevented by the defensive use of firearms, of which around 95% do not even require the firearm to be fired. Until we are willing to invest the resources to literally put a police officer on every corner (which sharp downsides in terms of personal privacy and freedoms) or address the social and economic issues that under pin violence all individuals will continue to be responsible for their own self defense as we lack the law enforcement resources to have the police intervene in time to prevent violence.