RE: "Offensive Weapons" in the UK
November 24, 2012 at 5:15 pm
(This post was last modified: November 24, 2012 at 5:18 pm by Autumnlicious.)
Good Guy Rhythm -- Owns guns legally, realistically assesses what's needed to fight off hypothetical criminal incursion.
In all honesty, the scenarios where being unexpectedly attacked and having military training as a given often end in death.
Surprise is very powerful -- our armed forces know exactly how much surprise kills, often from bloody first hand experience.
I can think of a hundred distinct scenarios where I can end up the dead man by simply being there.
Walking into a sniper sight, for example, and being the first target.
Guns will fire rounds through walls.
Guns will fire in a direction regardless of if there is a criminal, child or empty space.
A bat can do something similar, but by the nature of it being a melee weapon, the only ones in harms way are within throwing distance and melee distance.
How many cases have our gun advocates heard of some gang-banger doing a drive by shooting and murdering a three year old who just happened to be behind a wall in the ray-trajectory of said bullet?
Is there something wrong with guns?
No, not really.
But they are a very, very powerful tool to do one thing -- cause grievous harm or death.
The reality of the situation between gun ownership, regulation and potential prohibition boils down to weighing public safety, the ease of which one can murder someone else in a fit of rage and the inherent criminal elements that populate our society.
I don't see wholesale Kalashnikovs being traded around in the US or being used commonly in the commission of crimes.
Guess that Assault Weapons Ban is "just stupid".
In all honesty, the scenarios where being unexpectedly attacked and having military training as a given often end in death.
Surprise is very powerful -- our armed forces know exactly how much surprise kills, often from bloody first hand experience.
I can think of a hundred distinct scenarios where I can end up the dead man by simply being there.
Walking into a sniper sight, for example, and being the first target.
Guns will fire rounds through walls.
Guns will fire in a direction regardless of if there is a criminal, child or empty space.
A bat can do something similar, but by the nature of it being a melee weapon, the only ones in harms way are within throwing distance and melee distance.
How many cases have our gun advocates heard of some gang-banger doing a drive by shooting and murdering a three year old who just happened to be behind a wall in the ray-trajectory of said bullet?
Is there something wrong with guns?
No, not really.
But they are a very, very powerful tool to do one thing -- cause grievous harm or death.
The reality of the situation between gun ownership, regulation and potential prohibition boils down to weighing public safety, the ease of which one can murder someone else in a fit of rage and the inherent criminal elements that populate our society.
I don't see wholesale Kalashnikovs being traded around in the US or being used commonly in the commission of crimes.
Guess that Assault Weapons Ban is "just stupid".
Slave to the Patriarchy no more
