Bang-Bang, You’re Arguement is Invalid

Put your AR15 down. Go home. If the government wants you dead, you are dead and you can’t pour enough concrete to fix that.

So if your AR15 won’t protect you from the Muslim Black Guy / Corporate White Woman Government, you don’t need it.

So let’s get back to the idea that your cap is an OCE of 7800. I don’t care how you get there. If it was good enough for the guys who wrote the “2A”, it’s good enough for you.

You need a weapon for dealing with “varmits”? Or to go deer hunting? Sure. Tell me again how two-taps with a scoped rifle delivering 1948 ft-lbs of energy in a .49 caliber profile isn’t enough? That will defeat a Level IIIA (3A) kevlar-and-padding protective vest. There is nothing in the natural wilderness of North America that won’t do the job on.

Want to argue with me? Sure. Bring out your math. Nothing else stands.

Want me to be quiet because I’m in Canada and it’s not my problem? Sorry. Trolls & Politi-Bots are already posting memes quoting the NRA on Canadian political forums with the same BS that they use in the USA. The USA’s gun-control problem is Canada’s gun-control problem, because you can’t keep your safeties on.

Here’s some more math:

What is the kinetic energy of a 3000 Ib car traveling at 60 mph ?

v=60 mph = 88 ft/s
Let g = 32 f/s^2

KE = (1/2)*(w/g)*v^2
KE = (1/2)*(3000/32)*88^2 = 363,000 ft-lbs

For those of you unfamiliar with driving in North America, you have to get a license, and carry significant public liability insurance.  To get that insurance, you have to pass a risk assessment / background check process.

Cars are dangerous.  1 car at highway speeds hit with the impact energy of a clip from a NATO battle-rifle.  We regulate who can use cars and where they can be used and how they can be used.  We restrict them from certain areas.  That’s all part of public safety.

If you somehow think that a gun needs less regulation than a car, I would humbly submit it’s because you actually know you are wrong, but don’t want to lose the argument.  I would openly posit it is because you are more about saving face than saving lives.

Please.  Stop and think. Stop and reason.  The math is plain-as-day.  Most reasonable people in this discussion are not saying “no more guns for anyone in America.”  What most reasonable people are saying is that “NATO-grade bullets and the weapons to fire them with have no place in civilian hands in America.

These are two entirely different statements.  Most reasonable people want guns to be as subject to regulation as a cement truck or a taxi.  That’s all.

That’s not taking away your rights.  That’s ensuring your rights don’t take away someone else’s.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.