this post was submitted on 22 Apr 2025
429 points (96.7% liked)
A Comm for Historymemes
2396 readers
1045 users here now
A place to share history memes!
Rules:
-
No sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, assorted bigotry, etc.
-
No fascism, atrocity denial, etc.
-
Tag NSFW pics as NSFW.
-
Follow all Lemmy.world rules.
Banner courtesy of @setsneedtofeed@lemmy.world
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Since you bring up the car analogy, would you be OK with normal people who target practice, hunt, shoot competitively, etc carrying liability insurance for the weapons they own?
Absolutely, and like sports cars and trucks having higher costs. I believe single fire, burst action, and shotguns would have a lower cost than fully automatic or heavier caliber weapons would. Its relative destructive power would determine its cost to maintain a registration.
They are luxury items after all, no person really "needs" a weapon. Even with government tyrany, molotovs, home made liberator pistols, and the killdozer come to mind as more than viable alternatives.
Automatics and other weapons and explosives already require heavy tax stamps and long approval processes. I've also needed a weapon multiple times in my life in multiple states. I suppose people who live in a sheltered utopia may never need one but I certainly have, along with many people I've known including my father. Wildlife, humans, wild dogs even in cities (pepper spray isn't a guaranteed deterrent, but I go for switchblade first with sidearm as backup), etc.
I know but they were asking specifically about liability insurance. and I summed up the total cost similarly to that of a vehicle as "maintaing a registration" sorry for the confusion.
I wrote this later on in the conversation. It probably seems contradictory but, Im with you man, you cannot be too careful nowadays, but I do strongly believe all of the mentioned situations (except wildlife) do not require a weapon of the caliber i was describing in reference to the liability insurance. sometimes a less lethal option would have been completely viable options. However in the case of animal attacks such as bears, dogs, wolves and coyotes. A slighly higher caliber would be necessary hence why you often see park rangers and handlers with .45/.50 on their hip.
What would you recommend for less lethal home defense? An another user suggested a shotgun with loaded with rocksalt, which has me looking into different non lethal cartridges. This seems like the best option for me and my antigun gf. Im looking for something she could wield in a worst case senarion im not around.
I already carry a quickdraw knife (cant and shouldnt carry a switch in my state) Example of the quickdraw with no springs https://youtu.be/PfIXVvwFnQo