The Brady bunch is at it again. Of course, either way, you’d think that the press would stop paying attention to them. If, that is, they weren’t sympathetic to gun grabbing themselves.
5 thoughts on “Ignorance, Or Lies?”
Comments are closed.
The Brady bunch is at it again. Of course, either way, you’d think that the press would stop paying attention to them. If, that is, they weren’t sympathetic to gun grabbing themselves.
Comments are closed.
Sullum wrote:
Everywhere I’ve seen the term used, it’s referred to the capacity of the magazine, not the size of the bullets.
Lordy, even those on the right side of the question can’t help but get basic details wrong.
I’d hate to see what they’d think about the old Calico .22s…
The mendacity of the anti-gun crowd knows no bounds. In pursuit of the “assault-weapon” bogeyman, they go all out. They have always claimed almost supernatural killing power from so-called “assault-weapons”, and not just supernatural rates of fire.
If the anti-gunners really and truly wanted to limit potential firearm mass-murders by some kind of legal restriction, banning so-called “assault-weapons” isn’t how you do it. That German punk killed 15 people with just a handgun, 5 of which AFTER the police showed up. The Alabama killer ran amok for two hours with his ‘arsenal’ and only killed 10.
No, the only legal restriction that could work in theory (since most gun-control laws fail in practice) is prohibiting the private possession of more than 5 rounds of ammunition at a time. I can imagine the anti-gun sophistry for such ban already, “Nobody NEEDS more than five rounds of ammunition for hunting.”
Nah, there are other approaches, Brad. For example, you could make everything but muzzle-loading muskets illegal, and you can’t even buy cartridges — you have to pour the powder in, ram down the ball with your ramrod, then fire. Hard to do that more than once every minute or two.
However, obviously the best solution is the Swiss one. Require every able-bodied male not otherwise disqualified (by reason of insanity, felony conviction, or being a politician) to own and carry a handgun, and train for 4 hours every 12 weeks or so in its safe and effective handling.
Not saying this would prevent gun deaths, of course. But there’d be no more mass killings, that’s for sure.
Er…except when we all whack out at the full of the moon and engage in huge spontaneous recreations of of Shiloh along the Interstate, of course.
Personally, I’ve always felt we should start with air travel. Frequent flyers should be eligible for government-subsidized gun safety and handling courses. Airlines keep a bin of small-caliber pistols at the front of each plane, near the door, and hand one out to everyone flashing a course-certificate card when he boards, if he wants one.
Planes may still crash, people may still die, but there’ll be no more of this plane is going to Cuba crap or just sit still and nobody gets hurt.
Why arm people who get on planes when the current system is working so well? Oh, ok, I see your point.
And what a piece of crap that M-16 is. 10 kills for 200+ rounds expended. That’s in a town where no one is shooting back. Then, of course, there was one report of the gun having jammed. 1+ jam in 200+ rounds is not very impressive either. But we care about our troops.