>>105663595>>105663635Not to turn this to /pol/ but I never did see the mainstream appeal in a mechanical tool who's main purpose was to discharge an explosive that fired a shard of metal at rapid enough speeds to pierce flesh and bone and cause lethal damage.
If you're a mechanic, you get powertools for the job.
If you're an officer, you get guns for the job.
If you're a scientist, you get research tools for the job.
A mechanic shouldn't have microscopes. A cop shouldn't have a belt sander at his station. A regular dude shouldn't have a gun sitting next to his bed.
I get you want to defend against things like burglary, but looking up statistics, you stave off burglars just by having security and not leaving your shit unlocked.
Most burglaries happen when you are not home, so the gun is pointless already at that point.
If you are home, if you had security, most burglars change their mind and fuck off.
In that -small- percentage, perhaps a gun may be useful, but it's a dangerous situation and it'd be much better to lock yourself and anyone else in a singular room and barricade.
It just bugs me more because people would rather have the gun and risk harm than get the items (security, metal doors, barred windows, etc) that'd prevent possible damage to themselves or property in the first place.
Or maybe people just really want a fucking gun to pewpew who knows 
