Fair enough …
Maybe I interpreted badly .

The point is yes , u called the police , film with your phone anything u can to identify the guy , etc .

You can’t do Justice by yourself , police exist for that .
It would be anarchy.

I doubt it.

You can clearly see that many people believe the gun is simply the conflict decider. LOLOL is the perfect example who clearly indicates the key to killing others, is not making sure you act legally or appropriately in a way that is self defense or the defense of others, but simply acting due to any offense and ensuring you say the right things to make it pass law enforcement.

That is exactly what he says time and again. Not that the shooting was wrong and unnecessary and the person was not in fact defending anyone, but that they made a mistake in explaining it. that is what matters.

Guns for many are both the big equalizer and big empowerment tool. Suddenly I can be right in any confrontation, regardless of fact, and any one who pushes back on that better not give me any excuse or way to use my gun and make up an excuse.

it is the ultimate empowerment tool for those who otherwise feel weak and feel like they might be forced to be the one to back down.

I think the people here think I am trying to be insulting or provocative, but i am not when I say, they really are the tool of pussies. Guys who otherwise feel scared and weak but suddenly become powerful and insistent as long as they have their gun with them. Many of whom who make sure they never leave home without it for that reason.

Do you have any sort of math or credible data to back up the idea that 6 rounds is the right call for a home defense situation?

No, the idea that he gets a free pass because you don't shoot him is what I thought was odd.

As if there are only two ways to deal with any offense. Free pass or death.

X - Y = X
X = total instances of homeowners defending themselves with a firearm.
Y = total instances of homeowners failing to defend themselves with a firearm because they ran out of ammunition after 6 rounds.

I've always heard shotguns are the best home defense weapon.
They don't have all that many rounds.

Of course if someone is firing a shotgun inside 12 X 15 room there likely won't be the need for more than one of two shots. They're kind of ez pz.

While there are some anecdotal, fluke examples of Y, it is indeed uncommon.
The overall problem is there are no (credible) statistics kept on defensive gun uses, so we're both forced to rely on internet anecdotes, since news doesn't report them.

Yes, correct, but statements at the scene are common, the suggested course of action by pretty much every attorney who has background in this is "I was in fear for my life, I'd rather not give a statement until I have a lawyer present". If you wind up getting charged, the statement you give at the scene will be recounted to the jury, lawyering up without any caveat isn't always tactically the best idea.

Good point. You have to invoke your fifth amendment right or your silence will be used against you....because we really do live in a **** hole fascist country.

I don't know why that amuses me. I guess because of all the dummies who will be wearing red white and blue next month throwing fire crackers at each other patting themselves on the back for living in 'the best' country.

Like Romans in 500 AD.

This is absolute nonsense, of course you lawyer up immediately and without exception.

I'm fine relying on common sense. Criminals aren't soldiers willing to die for some higher cause. So they're not going to be saying "He's only got a revolver so at best he can only take out six of us.... charge" or anything remotely like that. And if someone does anticipate the alternative there are other options "and such":

Yeah, but you can't appeal to 'common sense' in this situation, because 'common sense' says that the people who would comply with your proposed law aren't the ones you'd have to worry about.
The ones you would have to worry about would still have their Glocks.

Did you not read what I said?
Or are you suggesting that what I said there is wrong and some of the best RKBA/2A lawyers have it all wrong and an internet poker forum tard is the one who has it right?
Its not like this issue hasn't been dissected down to the subatomic level in that world but good thing we have you here with your theories...

I'm not appealing to anyone's common sense in the way you're implying because I'm not really trying to get anyone to change their mind on this issue. In other words, I know some people aren't going to give up their semi-autos for revolvers as a compromise fix, just as I know anti-gun advocates aren't going to accept it as something we have to make the best of either.

As I said, I'm not really trying to change minds. Instead, I proposed something that would likely find appeal on both sides of the aisle to serve as a political wedge on both sides of the aisle to basically neuter or marginalize the political extremists on both sides of the issue.

nailed it.

this could be apply to gun
abortion
etc.

today politics is not about trying to find a reasonable social contract to all live together in harmony
(and so the irony to live in a "free world"),
but to beat down to submission the opposite side to submission to a a lonely vision of a fascist state.

US is not the defender of the free world in his own country anymore....

It would have 0 appeal on the side of the aisle that supports gun rights.

Britain first banned all handguns, but allowed 'some target pistols'.
They then banned those, too.

Once you start banning them, you're down the road that ends up at a predictible place, which is why the idea of 'compromise' is not credible.

It's not credible to the extreme positions because if it were then their positions wouldn't be credible since their extreme positions would render them all alone and opposed to a supermajority.
For example, take a fictional issue with 25% adamantly opposed, 25% adamantly for, and 50% willing to compromise. In politics the two poles become de facto allies working against the middle 50% because if the middle wins they both lose, even though their positions are diametrically opposed.

If there is absolutely 0 compromise possible , how isn’t being extremist ?
It’s like certain religious group ….

We've already touched on this but citizens in Britain are allowed to own guns.

You're literally using an example of a compromise and saying that example makes compromise impossible.

The United States won't go as far as Britain in restricting gun ownership but even if they did, that's not the total ban you keep arguing is inevitable.

They totally banned handguns and have been progressively banning guns for quite some time.
The argument that "well they allow A gun to be owned" but have (essentially) banned all other guns thus "gun ownership is allowed" is a bullshit technicality argument that isn't going to be appealing to very many people outside those that want to ban all guns.

But its not an extreme position to say "you have no compelling argument to want to ban the gun I have for some gun that holds less ammo because of some vague social theory about bodycount in school shootings".

That argument would rely on the principle of trust that if they compromised here, you wouldn't take it further, with additional mental gymnastics and ban the gun you allowed them to keep.

The UK is literally a WORKING, REAL WORLD EXAMPLE OF PRECISELY THAT HAPPENING ON THIS EXACT ISSUE, so the argument basically ends there.

The regulation debate ultimately boils down to one group trusting that if they allow for certain regulations, or certain parameters, the other group won't use that as a stepping stone to just push for more. There is ZERO trust here, for very obvious reasons.

This is why the issue stalls.
"Yeah well see here's my plan... I'm gunna ban your guns that are semi auto, but I'll allow you to have some gun that holds less bullets" indicates you're a naive idealist who is apt to believe in naive-idealist things and doesn't ever account for your beliefs against a reality you're probably not very expeirenced with.

I've fired those^ a lot--very doubtful you're getting off 6 clean shots more like 3 Add in the re-loading time/stress of an actual fight and that's probably only going down

You're using a country where they don't even let the cops walk around armed as your worst case example and that country still allows citizens to own guns.

I'm happy to let people draw their own conclusions but I wanted to clarify your position.

FWIW I'm sure in 50 or 75 years even America will have pretty strict gun laws as the fetishists aren't helping their long term prospects.

Most people really don't care until you start walking down the street with guns and making a fuss. Then they care. But not in the way you would like them to.

50 years. LOL. Freedom as we know it won't last half that long.