To debate, means to listen to the other side.

The terminal end of the year is a shining beacon towards which we are moving at a very average pace. It is the time for reminiscing, and the time to think of the future. And, for now, it is time to talk about projectile-based weaponry.


It is often the case that people who are pro-guns, so to say, are more able at argumentative reasoning than the people who wish stricter gun control. Now, while the beginning of the argument goes relatively well, with the host bringing out the obvious problem of bringing guns to where little children run around and the counterpoint being that children are not limited to schools, thereby the danger of a kid acquiring a gun is present everywhere a gun and a kid are somewhat near to each other. However, the next point that is made is about assault rifles. The problem here is that while firearms can be used in self defence, the likeliness of anyone using an assault rifle for it is pretty slim. A small revolver or a semiautomatic pistol can be carried in a small purse or strapped to one's body, limiting access to it by third parties - first they'd have to see it, then make a quick play for it. An assault rifle kind of sticks out, literally. You don't want to look like you're going into a war zone when you are walking into a meeting where you are supposed to look trustworthy. And at 2-3kg, they weigh about a laptop, so one does not really want to lug one around on one's everyday business, especially in addition to a laptop.
In fact, the assault rifle has a higher rate of fire, a larger clip and the bullets fly a wee faster. Where does that come in handy except for a war or a zombie outbreak? Even if you are burgled at your home, a small handgun is probably a better choice due to room limitations. If you need more bullets than are in a small clip, you are doing something terribly wrong. Since we have no experience with zombie outbreaks, the only reasons to own an assault rifle is if you were part of the military (though technically the soldiers rarely 'own' 'their' guns) or a SWAT team member (the same technicality). So civilians really have no reason to own assault rifles. And yes, I do realize guns can be jolly good fun, I doubt that is sufficient reason to endanger the public this much. While smaller weapons do pose a threat, the threat is somewhat smaller due to the incapability to shoot a lot in a short amount of time. Moreover, the self defence value is really important. After all, you can't really get rid of all firearms.
Small handcannons are quite sufficient. Assault rifles are a bit too much


Happy new year and may you have better health than I do right now.