The Gross National Debt

Monday, September 10, 2012

The dominos fall

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
An online chum recently said that AK47s and similar guns "designed for killing" should be banned.
The BA-K 47!

For the record - I own an AK47. To the best of my knowledge it has never killed anything. It has fired bullets at a herd of wild hogs, all of which escaped.

That being said, what my online compadre was actually saying is that guns designed for the express purpose of killing another human being should be banned.

Being me, I thought for all of a milisecond and fired back a reply.

I personally own a number of guns which were manufactured for the express purpose of injuring and killing human beings. Yes. They were constructed for the sole purpose of bring down another person.

I ask you, should these guns be banned?

Before you answer, let me share this info with you. I also own a rifle manufactured for the express purpose of hunting - deer, bear, elk and so forth.  Millions of this rifle and ones similar to it have been created, all for the express purpose of putting meat on the table and trophies on the wall.

Should this gun be banned? If you say yes, then we have nothing further to discuss. Go away.

If you say no, my deer rifle should not be banned, but guns designed specifically to kill people should be banned, the consider the two pictures below. One rifle was manufactured with the intention to kill human beings. One rifle was manufactured with the intention to kill deer.
Which rifle is the human killer?
Lemme further obfuscate this for you. Both rifles shoot almost the exact same bullet. There is a .002 difference in optimal bullet size. In terms of firepower, they are so close to being identical as make no practical difference.

Each rifle holds 5 rounds and one in the chamber. Each is a bolt action. Owing to the manufacturing process, one of these rifles shoots much better out of the box than the other. But with 30 minutes, some sandpaper and stick, they will shoot equally well.

According to my chum's definition, one of these rifles is a human "killing" firearm and so should be banned while the other is a hunting firearm and is perfectly acceptable. Which one is which?

I own several rifles of the above human-killer type. It is a 100 percent probability that three of those rifles were fired at another human being with intent to wound and kill. I'd say chances are in the 70 percent range that one of those rifles actually fired a projectile that hit a human.

I own a different kind of rifle which was also made with the express purpose of killing another human being and it like was used to kill humans. It is incredibly similar to the above two examples.

Which one you wanna ban?
The original "assault" rifle. About 3 shots a minute maybe, useless in the rain and dangerous to the shooter too.
I do not own one of the above-type rifles, a slow-fuse black powder muzzleloader. Frankly, I cannot afford one of these rifles which was manufactured for the express purpose of killing someone. I could probably buy a replica, designed to be shot at paper, critters or simply hung on the wall.

What's the difference, aside from the original is a few hundreds years old?

It is not the gun which is dangerous. It is not even the hand wielding the firearm which is dangerous. The danger rests solely in the mind operating the hand which operates the firearm.

So, if you seek to ban "human killing" guns, then where do you stop? The very first firearms were manufactured for the express purpose of killing people and destroying castles and boats. Which domino do you push first?

While the AK47 may appear "scary" to some people, others marvel at the engineering which makes this one of the most durable firearms on the planet. Today it may be a human killer. 100 years from now, it may be wall hanger while the real "human killers" are things we cannot even envision today.

No comments:

Post a Comment