Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This is a terrible defensive choice. It is unlikely to be available if needed, and doesn't work well at short-moderate range. Longer ranges are too far for credible self defense. Also, the lethality is limited; you're going to need to get lucky to stop someone from stabbing the fuck out of you. I did talk about range. I did talk about deterrence rather than stopping power. > There are a whole lot of sketchy people…
> I grew up in a rural area, I own rural property and I will be back for Christmas. I think you have some odd ideas about why people live in rural areas. I have odd ideas about the behavior of itinerants who pass through rural areas. It's amazing the amount of crime you can have when law enforcement effectively doesn't exist. > Do you need an assault rifle (I didn't mention semi-auto rifles) to defend against meth he…
It isn't really, because we have lots of other evidence to show that reducing access to means and methods is useful.
Mann JJ et al(2005), "Authors identified 6 studies that have demonstrated a decrease in firearms-related suicides after introduction of firearm control legislation, two of which also proved a positive effect on overall suicide rates without substitution of methods (in Canada and the USA"
Lambert MT, Silva PS(1998) "This review concludes that reducing the availability and accessibility of firearms appears to decrease firearms-related suicide rates without this leading to substitution of means of suicide"
There are others.
But let's assume that method substitution does happen immediately: that's still a good thing, because it means that fewer people will die.
"While firearms are used in less than six percent of suicide attempts, over half of suicide deaths are with firearms." - Miller M, Azrael D, Barber C. Suicide mortality in the United States: the importance of attending to method in understanding population-level disparities in the burden of suicide. Annual Review of Public Health. 2012;33:393–408.