[maxerickson]

We are starting from a compromise.

A reasonable thing would be to almost totally restrict pistols, but the Constitution hasn't been amended on the matter since the days when a rifled barrel on a long gun was cutting edge technology, so we have people walking around with highly dangerous concealable weapons.

I mean, I wouldn't want to face someone wielding a machete anymore than I'd want to face someone wielding a bag of revolvers, but at least with the machete they are going to have to physically work quite a bit to kill each person they want to kill.

[CapitalistCartr]

When the constitution was written, repeating rifles existed. Lewis and Clark took one on their famous expedition.[0] Owning cannons was legal, and people did. During the American Civil War, wealthy men outfitted their own company of men and led them. American history has some crazy stuff in it. Private ship owners acting as privateers, for instance. My (lawyer) wife dearly wants a "letter of marque"[1] ever since she found out what they are in maritime law class.

0: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni_air_rifle

1: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_of_marque

[maxerickson]

A curiosity that was also cutting edge: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni_air_rifle

It seems to have taken to ~1850 for practical military repeating rifles.

edit: Your comment is still young, but I'll note for history that I replied with the wiki link before you had added it to your comment.

[CapitalistCartr]

Yeah, thank you. It took me a bit to get there. My Google-fu is weak today. I need mind-linked cyber-Google . .

[bmelton]

> but at least with the machete they are going to have to physically work quite a bit to kill each person they want to kill.

Without meaning to be glib, this is exactly the reason I would not recommend a machete to my grandmother for personal defense, but I would recommend her a Ruger LCR, or a Smith & Wesson M&P.

The fact that she is physically disadvantaged against almost anyone would do her harm is a use case that the firearm solves quite nicely.

[j9461701]

Hence the old saying "God Created Men and Sam Colt Made Them Equal!".

My approaching-70 year old father will be retiring to the middle of nowhere, along with his wife. What's he going to do if someone breaks in - fight them? He's an old man with COPD. Call the police? They're an hour away. But with a good dog to alert him to intruders, and a good gun he can reach for? He can protect himself against anyone, no matter how much of a physical advantage they might have.

[maxerickson]

I'm happy to be glib about it.

Undermining your grandmother's ability to defend herself is worth it if the policy that does so statistically reduces violence (or even statistically reduces the consequences of violence).

[Karunamon]

This exchange is a case study in why people who cherish their gun rights don't care one iota for the opinions of people who don't.

[maxerickson]

So what's your point?

I'm certainly not expecting any of my comments here to persuade someone who cherishes their gun rights.

But I don't believe that such people come anywhere near representing a majority, so I still see value in staking out a clear position.

[Karunamon]

Perhaps an attempt to ask you to zoom out and see some perspective. You just told someone that you're totally okay expecting someone's family to be unable to defend themselves from an attacker.

But, if you were just blasting an opinion out there rather than attempting to have a discussion - why are you here again? - fine. Can't argue with an opinion, even if it comes off as completely insensitive and tone-deaf.

[maxerickson]

It goes both ways.

People project their gun attitudes onto their grandma's that have never been attacked anyway and demand that we live in a less safe society because of it.

My mom was pretty unnerved when her house got broken into (she was there, asleep, didn't wake up, wasn't attacked). She wouldn't be any better off with a gun because she isn't prepared to use it. Effective restrictions on guns would be a 100% win for her.

So do I lack perspective? Or have I maybe come to different, reasonable conclusions and am sick of people making absurd emotional arguments about how guns make people safer?

[cat199]

Yes, but then this brings up the intent behind the 2nd amendment - to ensure an armed popular militia to defend against corruption of concentrated power. The citizens arms need to actually be effective in such circumstances.

As for 'highly dangerous concealed weapons' - you were probably more likely to encounter this on a day-to-day basis at the time of the constitution being written than even in the most heavily gunned state with low-barrier carry laws.

If you are updating constructions, this also means that the context is important; in the constitutional times people were responsible for defending themselves primarily - if that assumption can/should/has been changed, where then is that change legally codified?

[mirimir]

Have you ever worked with machetes?

[maxerickson]

I've only used a lightweight one to cut long grass.

[mirimir]

I have an 18" military issue machete. It takes and holds a razor edge. I can sever 4-5 cm saplings with one angled cut.

[maxerickson]

From several feet? While the sapling runs away?

I'm also not real sure what your point is. I said I wouldn't want to face someone wielding a machete anymore than. I was acknowledging that a malicious person can be plenty dangerous with weapons that basically can't be restricted (a machete can be improvised much more easily than a repeating firearm or ammunition for said firearm).

[mirimir]

No, saplings don't run away. But sometimes people don't either, especially when they're getting ready to shoot.

We agree that both machetes and guns are dangerous. But I'm arguing that a machete can be more dangerous than a handgun, in the hands of a trained attacker.

I was quibbling with the "physically work quite a bit" aspect of your comment.

[upvotinglurker]

My workplace provided "active shooter training" in which a police officer demonstrated a potential way for a group of unarmed people to disarm a person with a gun. When one of my coworkers asked "What if they have a knife?" the officer replied with something to the effect of "There's no good way to disarm them without getting your hands cut up, I'd much rather face an assailant with a gun than a knife."

[vetinari]

Cold weapons _are_ more dangerous at near distances, than guns.

The gun has exactly one business end and you know how it is going to be used. An attacker wielding a knife can use multitude of moves, how to attack.

[MrFantastic]

Shooting someone that is running away is murder not self-defense.

[maxerickson]

Yes, the context of the discussion is the malicious use of weapons.

[mirimir]

I have no argument with that.