[thechat] Bowling for Columbine

[deke]

On 26 Jan 2003 at 20:46, Erik Mattheis posted a message which said:

> I'm on the fence on the issue of outlawing
> handgun ownership by private citizens. Seems to me that a rifle would be
> just as effective in self-defense, and far harder to commit many types
> of crimes with.

Rifles have high-velocity slugs. That's the reason the barrels are
rifled. A small-calibre rifle slug will pass right through the leg of
the  person you're shooting at, doing relatively little harm, go
through two walls, and end up in the brain of a sleeping baby, killing
it.

What you want is a slower slug, and in order to have stopping power, a
more massive one. A shotgun is a slower slug, but you end up shredding
the guy you're shooting at. If you hit him in the leg with a 38, you
knock him down, perhaps break his leg, and the hospital can put him
back together.

If you at the night depository, you've got your deposit in one hand,
and you're using the other hand to turn the key. You're going to set
down your rifle - and that's when the guy steps out of the shadows to
rob you.  A rifle requires *both* hands to be free, and since it
requires that you have room to swing the gun up to your shoulder, it
isn't very good against someone who is actually close enough to present
much of a danger to you.

In order for a rifle to be any good as a self-defense weapon, you're
going to have to shoot anyone who comes within six or eight feet of
you.

> And for those who enjoy using handguns for target
> shooting could rent them at the range, much like most people who enjoy
> aiming at bowling pins don't actually own their own bowling balls.

I've done *lots* of target practice in my life, and I've *never* seen a
shooting range except on TV and in the movies. We'd just go out behind
the barn and set up a row of tin cans and start plinking.

deke





--
If I have seen farther than others, it is by stepping on the toes of
giants