Women are nearly half of new gun buyers, study finds

It’s not the murder rate itself. That doesn’t matter as much to people emotionally. They know it happens, but for the most part it is so concentrated in areas people mostly want to not think about that they ignore it. I have never heard of anyone say that they want to outlaw guns because of handgun murders in the inner cities (which is obviously a problem, obviously wrong, and obviously fucked up in its own way). I think the main reasons people want guns gone is because of school shootings. And the percentages and chances here don’t play as much of a role as the fact that most people like kids and don’t want them to get shot and that it’s not the kind of tragedy you can easily write off. When some random person is murdered by some other random person I think people assume either bad luck or bad judgement. But most people aren’t willing to accept that children could have their lives cut short and that preventing this should a top priority compared to private gun ownership.

I am sympathetic to the idea that a targeted minority or an oppressed group greatly benefits from gun ownership. If the day Zimmerman followed Martin and Martin was the one with the gun then both might well be alive or at least the person being attacked would be. Or every time a woman can fight off her domestic abuser with the help of a gun. But how do you do the cost benefit analysis on that calculation? I think it’s difficult but the majority rarely thinks of the needs of a minority. On the other hand everyone thinks about children whether they want to or not.

Lastly and slightly off topic: I am baffled by the fact that mosr police officers are pro-gun. If I was afraid for my life on my job I would want the threat at least reduced if not eliminated. Outlawing private gun ownership will reduce private gun ownership and more importantly their availability to criminals who the police might apprehend. So why would they not want to have that happen?

Generally the rule on such matters is that there is no such thing as a warning shot, both ethically and legally. For the same reason that shooting for the legs is a bad idea, bringing a lower caliber firearm to warn someone off is kind of a no-no. You should either be shooting to end the engagement, or not shooting at all.

Obviously retreating from an encounter is always the best course of action (and a legal obligation in some states) if possible.

> It is interesting that 22lr hasn't really been technologically updated.

22lr has seen tons of advancement, just not as much in the realm of terminal ballistics. There is incredibly intense competition for more accurate and consistent 22lr ammo, as this is the caliber used for a lot of olympic shooting and some increasingly popular non-olympic competitions.

Fundamentally, it's really not possible to squeeze much more energy out of 22lr. Every production cartridge has a set maximum pressure and firearms are certified for this pressure by nation specific proof houses. For 22lr the max pressure is about 72% the pressure of a 9mm[0]. Squeezing more terminal power out of this cartridge would risk catastrophic firearm damage and probably company liability.

Making matters worse is the fact that semi-automatic (e.g. handgun) firearm design changes pretty radically around or above 380ACP pressures. Above that firearms must have some sort of mechanism to delay opening until chamber pressures fall to a safe level, otherwise cartridges will potentially rupture during extraction and hurt the shooter. All 22lr pistols are of a much simpler design that improves accuracy and lowers price, but makes getting 9mm pressures into an existing 22lr handgun an impossible task. Much easier still to just start with a 9mm, since those work and are well understood.

Also, it's a rimfire cartridge, and that's undesirable for a variety of reasons I'm too tired to explain right now.

0 - 64% of the higher spec +P ammo.

I’m not sure how you mean adorable and misguided.

1) If you mean it would be ineffective against a military invasion, I have to disagree. The military has never won a guerrilla war, let alone one on their own turf. Think Afghanistan on steroids with how many guns are in the states.

2) If you mean that being politically active would be far more effective though then I 100% agree.

I know some gun owners in the states, and my impression is that for some it quickly turns into standard consumerism. Maybe their first gun was for self defence, but not the 20th. They can obsess over their guns, similar to how people obsess over other gizmos like the latest iPhone etc.