Patroklos wrote:You are a psychopath then. I have my 9mm to prevent me and mine from getting killed, I could care less what the end state of the attack is.
Unless you are using the pistol to achieve a kill then the nebulous goal of "defense" shows a misapplication of intent. You can just as well protect you and yours (whatever that means) from kill by moving away, or carrying mace, or a tazer, or hiring personal security, or so on.
Firearms are more convenient than relocating, more demonstrably effective than mace or a tazer, and cheaper than a full time security detail. They achieve this by being constructed for the express purpose of firing balls of metal into the target, not by warning off criminals or deflecting enemy attack. They are only useful on attack, or as a threat of attack. If you don't care what the end state of the attack is then I would suggest the mace or pepper spray. Possibly upgrade it to bear mace if you enjoy being cruel and literally melting the face off an assailant. Flamethrowers and acid defensive items are similarly effective at protecting "me and mine" from assailants. You could also invest in running shoes, as running is still the most effective survival technique, even in an armed confrontation.
It's nice to say you have a gun "for defense" but a handgun is not really a defensive item, even when you discount the threats of stray gunfire. Saying the end state is not relevant just makes you sound callous at best, stupid at worst. Of course the end state is important--are you carrying rubber bullets? Beanbags? Blanks? Or are you loading it with actual ammunition? Would you consider loading it with blanks instead? If not, then the end state (or potential end state) does indeed matter.
I don't mean this as a criticism, but so much of the gun debate revolves around two broad classes of firearms (handguns and automatic weapons) which provide almost no benign function. People who honestly want to defend their home from invasion can do so quite easily, and with less risk to their fellow neighbors, with a shotgun. Most deaths involving guns have nothing to do with "personal defense of my home and family" so the whole question is absurd, but for those people who do have an honest interest in self defense, or hunting, or casual target shooting, the shotgun is the best fit, bar none. Cheap, dependable, useful for a variety of things, great for defending oneself in any environment and very unlikely to simply "be found" and used to kill a fellow kid, especially if you have to rack the thing to even load ammunition into the chamber.
Even the woman who had blasted her rapist with a firearm wasn't using a handgun, she used a shotgun. Shotguns are much better defensive weapons, for a multitude of reasons, and they also have more functional purposes and hunting value than a handgun does. If your neighborhood is so dangerous that you feel the need to carry a hot-loaded firearm on your person even while in a car or while going about your normal business then I would honestly ask if expecting an armed confrontation, with the result of possible death, is the lesser evil than relocating. I'm not made of money, but I'd rather drop my current lease and find some other section of town to live than have to buy defensive firearms just to feel safe here.
