Quote:
Originally Posted by SlaveNoMore
In respect to Trane, who've Ive never met in person, yet a poster I respect immensely, copying and pasting here:
Any shooter, every shooter, will tell you this is a lie. Having friends wounded by a .22 in a mugging, friends killed by a .45, and personally knowing the Amerlite rifle well, this is total BS. Physics, dude. Small, fast bullet.
But hey - let's promote shotguns - not as scary-lookin' as those mean AR-15s, and far less dangerous. Ish.
SlaveNo(DanaLoeshIsMyPenPal)More
|
A .22 will kill most effectively if you shoot someone in the head (rattles around). But in terms of shots to the body, it’s nowhere near an AR-15.
Nobody needs an assault rifle. But still, I agree, a sane person who wants one has a technical right to it. The issue isn’t which gun kills most effectively. It’s why not have reasonable background checks? It’s only sensible, and it’s constitutional. If the right to bear arms isn’t one of degree, subject to reasonable constraint, any paranoid billionaire could own tactical nukes.
I personally don’t get why anyone needs assault weapons. However, if you want them, is it unreasonable for us to ask you prove you’re not crazy prior to acquisition? I know it’s apples and oranges, but if we make folks jump thru hoops for weed, and tell them they shan’t take psychedelics, it seems we can tell them they have to prove they’re not cuckoo pants before we allow them to obtain something that can quickly kill a room full of people.
