Where do your clients live to need guns for protection? I presume it's for wildlife? What kind of wildlife poses that kind of threat? I know it's mandatory to carry firearms outside of settlements on Svalbard for polar bear protection, and friends of friends have found out why the hard way. (One literally woke up with his head inside a polar bear's mouth.)
Also, I don't think "licensed hunting firearm for wildlife protection" is quite relevant to "gun rights". You don't need to buy your fifth AR-15 or full auto Uzi at the grocery store to protect yourself against bears.
To answer your question, the firearms are needed for protection from both wildlife and people, but much more so people. It's useful to have a rifle to put down a cow that's been hit by a vehicle and/or broken a leg or something.
However, I live in an area where stumbling upon foreign cartel marijuana grows is relatively common. They are known to aggressively defend them with firearms which are not legal to own in the jurisdiction they're in. It's also not uncommon for a truck full of guys intent on committing armed robbery to roll up onto a client's property.
An AR-15 would be an ideal defensive weapon for that use-case.
I have to admit, I'm not very experienced in armed conflicts with drug cartels, but the idea that engaging their people with your AR-15 would be better than retreating and/or deescalating seems more like a gun fantasy to me than a realistic assessment of such situations.
I have significantly less experience on the topic than Enginerrrd seems to, but I can confirm that:
> the idea that engaging their people with your AR-15 would be better than retreating and/or deescalating seems more like a gun fantasy to me than a realistic assessment
is more a product of your
> not very experienced in armed conflicts with drug cartels
that it is a accurate assessment of how effective/possible retreating and/or deescalating is.
Thanks! I can definitely see the merit of the cartel argument. Also good point about putting down injured animals.
(I still think gun regulation is a good thing, with some background checks to reduce the chances of people with e.g. psychosis getting their hands on assault rifles.)
You're coming into this pretty hot and it seems like you've fast-forwarded a few exchanges into a conversation that hasn't happened. It's going to difficult to exhibit empathy in that circumstance.
I don't understand most of your comment (English is my fourth language). I don't understand "coming into this pretty hot" and "fast-forwarded a few exchanges". I also don't understand the part about empathy. What's empathy got to do with anything? I obviously understand the individual words, but not the idioms behind or what you are trying to convey.
In case any parts of my comment were unclear, I'll try to reiterate or clarify.
First I'm genuinely curious about what kind of wildlife would pose a threat to the point where you need to defend yourself by carrying guns in your car, and where you would risk such an encounter. I try to convey that this is curiosity more than criticism by comparing it to the genuine need on Svalbard.
I then address their claim about "gun rights". My point is that protecting yourself from wildlife isn't about gun rights. No one (as far as I know) is looking to ban a licensed hunting rifle or high-caliber handgun where the owner would need it for protection. My point is that many "gun rights" advocates want to have five AR-15 or a fully automatic Uzi—guns that are highly capable of killing a high number of people and not very effective against bears. In other words, I understand their clients' (legitimate) needs but I don't think it's relevant to the concept of "gun rights".
