| seretogis |
11-18-2003 08:55 PM |
That site is absolutely absurd, to the point of being offensive. Aren't you the person on the "Why join the NRA" thread that claimed to be "anti-ignorance" and "anti-bias"?
On the very first page of that site (if you ignore the patronizing song that plays in the background) you'll see that they define semi-auto rifles as "military-style semi-automatic weapons -- lethal killing machines that can put 12 slugs in a cop's body in 2 seconds." I'm willing to bet that the makers of this site have never fired a firearm and have absolutely no clue what "semi-automatic" even means.
Quote:
Originally posted by txlovely
The countries to which I have traveled where the populace does not carry weapons have been infinitely safer.
|
That's a pretty hefty claim. Are you able to back it up with any sort of evidence whatsoever, or are you just going on "intuition"?
Quote:
Originally posted by txlovely
I'm no expert, I just choose to distance myself from them whenever possible - difficult to do when you live in a conceal/carry locale.
|
Move? It's not likely to be a policy that will change, in Texas.
Quote:
Originally posted by txlovely
I make a personal choice to not obtain firearms. Don't know if I'm safer or more vulnerable as a result. It's just a choice.
|
Yes, it is a choice. Make no mistake, guns are very possible of killing people and do so very well. However, suggesting that one type of gun "kills more people" or "is more dangerous" is really quite silly. The people that legally own fully-automatic weapons (ones that keep firing until you let go of the trigger) are not the problem. Hell, people that legally own supplies of dynamite are not the problem. Criminals are. Less than 1% of guns used in crimes even meet the criteria for an "assault weapon" *, so what exactly is legislation like the 94 "assault weapon" ban supposed to do, other than punish legal gun owners? |
