Or the eight year old boy who accidentally killed himself at a gun show this past October when he lost control of the Uzi they let him try. I'm sure that was FUN!
Why did they have bullets in the gun to begin with? That was stupidity on the gun vendors/parents parts. Everytime the Col has looked at a gun the gun owner/sales person has always looked in the chamber to make sure there was no ammo in it.
You're selectively answering the questions, Mig. Babe asked you a two part question, yet you conveniently answered only one, so I'll ask you.
What about Columbine? What about Virginia Tech?
If Becky were there and, God forbid, she was killed, would the fact that she was killed by a LEGAL AUTOMATIC WEAPON still be outweighed by the fact that they're "fun to shoot"?
Fatherson made a very astute post about the different cultures in the United States and guns being part of people's lives in rural areas. I agree 100%. I vacationed in upstate New York all throughout my childhood, and as a teenager, yes, shooting a rifle or a shotgun up in the Catskills was a thrill; a right of passage. I'm a meat eater. I fully support hunters, as long as they're hunting for food and not for the "thrill of the kill."
That said, there isn't a single, solitary reason why assault weapons should be legal. Not one. They're sole purpose is the kill the most people in the least amount of time. Great for a war, but INSANE for John Q. Public (or Jane in your case) to own because "they're fun to shoot."
The truth is, if the weapons at the aforementioned college campuses hadn't been automatic, most of those young people would still be alive today. So why don't you write a letter to their parents telling them how much fun you and the Colonel have in the backyard shooting at trees. I'm sure they'll understand .
"I got news for you. If it wasn't for the toilet, there would be no books." --- George Costanza.
.
