tyjet3 Posted October 28, 2004 Share Posted October 28, 2004 That doesn't change the fact that there is never a need to shoot that many bullets, that fast unless you want to kill a lot of people. Does that mean I should also never order the buffet unless I'm going to eat EVERYTHING?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ImmortalSnafu Posted October 28, 2004 Share Posted October 28, 2004 .... There's a slight difference between eating and killing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NinjaSalad Posted October 29, 2004 Share Posted October 29, 2004 I live in Canada, you americans are all gun craizy, you think that the second you leave you gun, the god danm queen of england is going to kick in the door and kick your as* now this doesn't go for all americans (of course) but even if they banned all AMR's they would still be here and there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peregrine Posted October 29, 2004 Author Share Posted October 29, 2004 It means everything. 40% of households possess a gun, and yet only they are used for protection in only 2% of home invasions. Again, you haven't proven the value of that statistic. Does that 40% include a house with a hunting rifle locked in a safe in the basement (completely unavailable)? Does "used for protection" include crimes where the threat of a gun is enough to send the intruder running, or just the ones where shots are fired? You're more likely to have your gun wrestled out of your hand and used against you. If you have the proper training and willingness to use your gun (if you don't, you shouldn't have it), that isn't going to happen. If the gun owner is willing to shoot (not all people are), that gun isn't leaving their hands. If anything, this is just an argument for having rifles with bayonets attached! A very large portion aren't even occuring in homes...should people carry guns everywhere? Why not? A lot of people do already, and a lot are still alive and unhurt because of it. If I thought there was a serious threat to my life (where I live, there isn't), I'd be carrying an AK-47 everywhere I go. I'm arguing against all guns here, assault weapons and handguns included. I can see that. And you're hijacking the thread from its original point, most likely because you have to concede that I was right on the AWB debate. That doesn't change the fact that there is never a need to shoot that many bullets, that fast unless you want to kill a lot of people. Too bad the US constitution says nothing about rate of fire being relevant to our right to own weapons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.