DIYbanter - View Single Post

In article , says...
As for gun control, I'm more inclined towards bullet control.

As if there was any real difference in practice. That's akin to saying
it's ok to let people have hammers, but we're going to have to ban nails.

Guns don't kill people. Bullets kill people.

That's nonsense. *People* kill people. The gun, or the bullet if you
prefer, is simply a tool, the implement by which the intent to kill is
made a reality.

I propose a compromise gun control. Everyone can have as
many as they want. But each must be a) taller than the person
carrying it

Which obviously renders it useless.

and b) be limited to a single shot. If you can't
disable an assailant with one shot you probably shouldn't
have a firearm anyway.

Easy for you to say - but it's obvious you've never been in a situation
where you felt threatened enough to need to draw a gun. When the
adrenaline gets pumping, it's tough to aim carefully, especially when
there's very little time to do so.

If you're worried about mulltiple
assailants then carry two or three firearms of the type and
size suggested.

Obviously making you an even easier target, encumbered by all that
hardware. No, one large-capacity semiautomatic handgun would be a much
more practical method of defending against multiple assailants.

Now will someone please explain why a private citizen
should be able to , and perhaps use, armor piercing
bullets?

Defense against
a) criminals wearing body armor
b) invading foreign troops
c) our own government, should it prove a greater threat to liberty than
the hypothetical foreign invaders in b) above

and also in target practice, to prepare for any of the above cases.