...to someone who's woefully ignorant of firearms and the situations in which they're used and lets his inner whiny bitch out when someone tries to educate him?
http://leftfieldperspectives.blogspot.com/2008/01/gun-control.html
All I said is I don't see a NEED to own anything other than single shot rifles and pistols. And that's my OPINION! So get off my back!
Sure it's your opinion, Sparky, but it's dangerously devoid of any knowledge of how defensive situations go down, in addition to ignorant. And it makes you look like a petulant ass when you tell people more knowledgeable than you to shut up.
Now, I have no love for criminals who are willfully trying to take the lives of myself and my family, and who try to steal my property. But if I can prevent them from doing so with one small caliber bullet, and I can, why would I need to blow him into an unrecognizable mass of tissue and blood? Wouldn't that be non-essential overkill?
If a criminal can be stopped by wounding them with one shot from a small caliber weapon, why would we need to use a multiple shot weapon using armour piercing shells? Unless a burglar is trying to break into my house with a tank, I think a .22 or a .38 is sufficient for protection.
Sweet-bleedin' Jeebus, PSH in abundance here! One small-caliber bullet. Unrecognizable mass of tissue and blood. Whatever, dude. Personally, I'd prefer at least six of something at least 0.357 inches in diameter, with a speed of about 1450 feet per second. As it happens, I have eight on hand in my nightstand, each with a diameter of 0.451 inches and a speed of about 825 feet per second. If you would like to take that as a definition of "small-caliber" (I am betting you wouldn't, though), then that's cool, but as for that single-shot bullshit, I like to leave as much margin for error as I can get away with. Which, in my case, is where those other seven 0.451-inch diameter projectiles come in. Whiny bitches' qualms about "non-essential overkill" (more like non-existent) be damned.
(h/t SayUncle)
|