Need some stats to silence a co-worker...

<h1>Ahem....</h1>
I wish we could stop using those arguments that say "pistols are better 'cause they are less lethal" or "had this guy used a 12ga rather than an assault rifle, more would have died".

We are setting ourselves up for a comeback that says: "ban hunting rifles and shotguns, as even the evil gun nuts admit they are more lethal than the mere assault rifles carried by our glorious police."



------------------
Cornered Rat
ddb.com/RKBA Updated March 20
"Turn in your guns, get a a free tattoo on your arm"
 
Cornered Rat: I agree in principle, but we're talking here about a rather one-on-one type of situation. It is common for even a friendly type to say something on the order of "Hunting guns are okay, but pistols are terrible." Pointing out this sort of fallacy in the context of *their* "approval zone" can sometimes be useful.

When faced with a totally anti-gun type, who would indeed use your argument, I merely ask whether I am allowed to defend myself or my family, and if so, how? Anything else is a waste of time...

Regards, Art
 
I agree with Art about not wasting time on the totally anti-gun types. It seems that the "rule of thirds" which was operating as long ago as our Revolutionary War (1/3 of the colonials were for independence, 1/3 were against it, and 1/3 were neutral)is still operating. In my experience, today we have roughly 1/3 of of the population in the pro-gun camp, 1/3 in the anti-gun camp, and 1/3 in the neutral camp. Sparing with people in the anti-gun camp is generally entertaining but a waste of time - better to spend the time & energy educating people in the neutral camp, where the return on investment is greater.

Cordially, ...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top