The idea that any gun would have made my grandma more safe is ludicrous to me. Giving my grandmother a gun would have either made her less safe, or way way less safe.
> If people are allowed to have guns, they should be allowed to have any gun and any gun attachment that improves their safety.
She was allowed to have one, but the only attachment that would have improved her safety is no gun.
Maybe with training, your grandma could enjoy plinking targets and also be safer in her home?
There are grandmas that love hunting and spending time at the range.
It'd be nice to live in a world where nobody ever commits acts of violence. Unfortunately, we banned violence long ago, and it seems that criminals are still doing it anyway. The next best thing we can do is be prepared.
Guns don't go bad, after all.
(And if you count things like the Holodomor, Holocaust, Cambodian Genocide etc as murder, I think the correlation between 'murder rate' and 'civilian gun ownership rate' takes a decidedly different slope)
A lot of people want to compare because money or gdp is similar or whatever - but they are all totally different.
I'd love to have the same kind of social safety nets that many Euro countries have, I think much of the US violence in related to the lack of stability in families that is a reflection of financial insecurities honestly.
Other things like the value of the drug markets here, and the quick access of Latin countries to here ( https://www.businessinsider.com/latin-america-is-the-worlds-... ) - make a huge difference. comparing stats about any other place is just apples and oranges.
I have about a dozen grandmas in my neighborhood that are all physically and mentally doing very well. They don't need walkers or wheelchairs. some still work, some run businesses. They garden, the go out. Every single one of them can wield a shovel or a firearm if need be.
Sadly there is advice out there that puts them in more danger in a similar way that you describe with yours - I've heard popular advice repeated like 'you need a revolver that don't jam' - best thing is 'a double barrel 12 ga shotgun' - quite frankly I think that is terrible advice for most of them.
For many with the kind of physical limitations in our area, something like a GSG-16 .22 , a Mossberg 715 Pistol .22 , even a Walther Arms Uzi Tactical Rifle Semi-Auto .22 - these things would be easier to use, less fear of recoil, easier to keep on target of bad guys and less chance of inuring self, or bystanders / neighbors..
yet some of the GC ideas would limit access to exactly these kinds of safer features all in the name fear mongering 'military assault accessories' -
the grandma next door would be less safe being forced not to have access to these options and instead forced to use something will less control and options. That's simply truth.
again, it may not be true for every grandma in the world, but a majority of them (that are not bedridden / incapacitated etc), I think so.
I don't think the way to reason about this is based on "serious fire power" vs some other kind of weapon that you feel is more acceptable. All guns can be lethal.
If grandma feels unsafe, she might get a gun. I can understand how older people might want firepower when they know they can't physically fend off an attacker.
If you accept grandma's right to be armed, would you rather she use a more or less dangerous gun?
Most gun controls make the weapon less safe. It's similar to how people think sharp knives are more dangerous, but they're actually much safer than dull knives.
The way to think about it is that the round is doing most of the work. The gun is just a delivery system for the round, and besides fully automatic weapons, every other weapon choice is about safety, accuracy, and reliability.
A "Short Barrel Rifle" or "Short Barrel Shotgun" is easier to operate, and therefore more safe than a non-NFA rifle. They were regulated to make people feel better, not to add safety. The velocity of NFA SBRs is actually lower than the velocity of a bullet leaving a non-NFA 16" barrel.
A silencer is not silent, it's just hearing protection, but also requires an NFA tax stamp. They don't sound like they do in the movies, and there's no mistaking it's a gunshot.
Expandable stocks and foregrips are scary looking, but the whole point of them is to gain accuracy, which makes the gun safer. These are usually legal, but there are silly regulations around these too.
Larger magazines allow you to focus on your threat instead of counting your bullets. For now, these are legal, but banning magazines with large capacity is a common talking point.
The reason all of these items look scary is because we see military with them. But even in the military, they're not to make the guns more lethal. The whole point is operational safety.
If you don't think anyone should be allowed to have a gun, that's actually a more defensible position. If people are allowed to have guns, they should be allowed to have any gun and any gun attachment that improves their safety.