Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben E Lou
I've personally witnessed an incident in Colorado not involving humans at all where if the landowner had had an automatic weapon in hand, he might have been able to protect his rather expensive property from an aggressive attacker.
Property = horse
Attacker = charging mountain lion
He shot twice. He missed. There was no time to get off a third shot. The mountain lion maimed the horse to the point where it had to be put down.
I do think people on both sides of this debate forget that Americans don't live in anywhere close to the same situations. THAT guy has a good reason to own an automatic weapon to protect his livelihood. (EDIT: And I would imagine most staunch anti-gun folks would readily concede such a point.) (And yes, the term "assault weapon" is likely very misunderstood by many.)
Unfortunately, I suspect that this is one of those areas where compromise that is acceptable to both sides is virtually impossible.
|
This is a perfect response to my question to JIMGA, and one that despite your comment at the end I think does encourage compromise and thoughtful response. If people would more often respond with real worries or examples, and less fearmongering we'd get somewhere. I now have this in my head as one example of why someone would want a gun like this. That breaks down the monolithic thinking.