Posted by MikeT23 on 12/31/2012 2:37:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 12/31/2012 1:33:00 PM (view original):I'm not a farmer so I don't know how they defend themselves against the occassional bigfoot attack. Nonethless, when the Yeti is bearing down on them, I doubt they give a flying **** about six year olds in a classroom or their comparison to them. I imagine they wish they had a bazooka, federal laws be damned.
Posted by MikeT23 on 12/31/2012 1:22:00 PM (view original):Would you say that comparing a group of six year old children in a first grade classroom to a farmer in a field being cornered by a "dangerous predator" is a fair comparison?
Posted by tecwrg on 12/31/2012 1:10:00 PM (view original):
1) That less than 1% is insignificant within the context of this discussion.
2) What percentage of the population hunts for their own food? Again, insignificant within the context of this discussion.
3) Do you need high-capactity assault weapons to protect you from rogue IRS paper pushers?
1. Would 20 six year olds in Conn also be considered "insignificant"? That's certainly far less than 1% of US citizens.
2. Probably 1%ish. See #1.
3. Maybe. I haven't had use for them yet but I'm still alive and Madame FutureTeller can't tell me what's going to happen over the next 20-30 years.
Do farmers tending their crops tend to carry an assault weapon slung across their backs, just in case a grizzly bear / mountain lion / sasquatch happens to show up in the corn field?
FWIW, the comment about the farmer having an assault weapon slung across his back was prompted by a comment that a pro-gun person had made in the days after the Newtown attack.
He had said that if the Principal had an assault weapon in her office when this all started going down, she might have been able to take some action to stop or minimize the scope of the attack as it started.
What he failed to note was that the Principal was not in her office when this went down, she was in a conference room in a meeting. The point being, arming teachers, principals, or other non-security personnel might not be the end-all solution the pro-gun people like to portray it to be, because not everybody is going to be within arms reach of their weapons every minute of the day.