Quote:
Originally Posted by Autumn
And do any of them involve anything but armed rebellion? Is there any other situation in which a crowd of armed individuals are going to attack your house?
|
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.