LogFAQs > #925617107

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, DB4, Database 5 ( 01.01.2019-12.31.2019 ), DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	My sister and two cousins are at a mall that has an active shooter
wolfy42 08/04/19 4:47:56 PM #179:	TheWorstPoster posted... wolfy42 posted... Limiting bullets would not be a solution short term, but could help long term and law abiding citizens don't need tons of bullets. One gun, with 6 shots, would be enough for a home intruder etc. Suppose you have a criminal with an uzi? Is a handgun going to be any good? Remember, the criminal doesn't care for the law, and likely picked out a place that was a Gun Free Zone due to that fact. Law abiding citizens should be able to defend themselves, and others, by ANY MEANS NECESSARY. That is also one of the reasons why we have a court system, because somebody might be forced to commit a criminal act that would save another person's life, and would otherwise land the guy in prison. Actually a hand gun vs an uzi, if it's one person against 1 person is a pretty even match. The uzi is great at killing large number of people especially in a crowd, but nobody needs that to defend themselves, at least till we have a zombie apocalypse. One person with a hand gun in a crowd of people, can take out the person with an uzi without collateral damage MUCH easier in fact. A hand gun gives a small person defense against a much larger intruder etc. I can see arguments for having them (although I would say tranq guns would accomplish the same objective without killing anyone. If you limit guns to only being able to fire a few times, it solves pretty much all the problems, while still allowing people to defend themselves. --- We are 4 oreos from Heaven!!!! <cite>wolfy42 posted [p:925617107] in My sister ... [t:77911985]...</cite> <quote>TheWorstPoster posted...</cite> <quote>wolfy42 posted...</cite> <quote>Limiting bullets would not be a solution short term, but could help long term and law abiding citizens don't need tons of bullets. One gun, with 6 shots, would be enough for a home intruder etc.</quote> Suppose you have a criminal with an uzi? Is a handgun going to be any good? Remember, the criminal doesn't care for the law, and likely picked out a place that was a Gun Free Zone due to that fact. Law abiding citizens should be able to defend themselves, and others, by ANY MEANS NECESSARY. That is also one of the reasons why we have a court system, because somebody might be forced to commit a criminal act that would save another person's life, and would otherwise land the guy in prison.</quote> Actually a hand gun vs an uzi, if it's one person against 1 person is a pretty even match. The uzi is great at killing large number of people especially in a crowd, but nobody needs that to defend themselves, at least till we have a zombie apocalypse. One person with a hand gun in a crowd of people, can take out the person with an uzi without collateral damage MUCH easier in fact. A hand gun gives a small person defense against a much larger intruder etc. I can see arguments for having them (although I would say tranq guns would accomplish the same objective without killing anyone. If you limit guns to only being able to fire a few times, it solves pretty much all the problems, while still allowing people to defend themselves. --- We are 4 oreos from Heaven!!!!</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1