[thechat] Bowling for Columbine

[Erik Mattheis]

On Monday, January 27, 2003, at 10:21 AM, deke wrote:
> On 26 Jan 2003 at 20:46, Erik Mattheis posted a message which said:
>
>> 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. [...] 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.

OK, I suppose I just proved that I'm not a gun afficianado. By "rifle"
I meant things with long barrels, IOW, not handguns.

> 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.

Good point, but two alternates that would seem to work just as well:
two people go to the night depository so you have four hands at your
disposal, or even better, carry a taser instead of a handgun.

> 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.

There's at least one shooting range in a strip mall in the Mpls/St.
Paul area - in Robbinsdale, I believe.

-----------------------
Erik Mattheis
(612) 377 2272
<http://goZz.com/>
-----------------------