ky_man
Member
I would like some insight into how to successfully argue against the following point if I ever were to encounter it in a debate:
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/04/16/virginia-tech-and-gun-control/
"Because I can." would not be considered an acceptable response.
First of all, I seriosly doubt that this response was written by the "son of a police officer" unless the officer's son somehow was allowed to morph into a tofu-munching, tree-hugging, liberal arts college kid. The use of the term "assult (sic) weapon" kinda tips off his lack of knowledge.
Any other suggestions?
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/04/16/virginia-tech-and-gun-control/
As the son of a police officer, and having been exposed to guns my whole life, I simply do not see the need for personal ownership of an easily concealed 10-15 round semi-automatic pistol. This weapon was designed for one simple purpose, killing humans at very close range. The same is true for guns which are modeled after military weapons. These also only have one purpose, killing humans. These “assult (sic) weapons” have very accurate long-range small-caliber bullet and accept magazines capable of holding up to 60 rounds. I challenge anyone to a debate on a legitimate reason for a private citizen to own such a weapon.
"Because I can." would not be considered an acceptable response.
First of all, I seriosly doubt that this response was written by the "son of a police officer" unless the officer's son somehow was allowed to morph into a tofu-munching, tree-hugging, liberal arts college kid. The use of the term "assult (sic) weapon" kinda tips off his lack of knowledge.
- I would begin by asking him is his dad ever carried such a weapon, and if so how many rounds it carried.
- Then I would ask him if he felt that his dad was safer for having said extra capacity. What if his dad only had 6 rounds against a criminal's 10+ rounds? Who has the advantage?
- I would then inform him that unlike in the movies, in the real world under duress shooters most likely will miss their targets, requiring multiple shots.
- I would then ask why a private citizen is to be denied the opportunity to produce and use comparable force to what a criminal is likely to have.
Any other suggestions?