Who Needs A Rapid-Fire Weapon?

So, I haven't been writing in a while, but then I've been trying to survive.  Only recently have I been able to focus on the things that really piss me off, and be able to write about them.

This is an example.

So, I was talking to someone that I met today and we were talking about gun control.  He was adamant that people should have the right to buy whatever they wanted, as part of their Second Amendment right.  He pointed out that the massacres of late were the responsibilities of those who did the shooting.

I had to ask--how much shooting power does someone actually need?

To me, there are four types of people who own guns these days, the competent who use their firearms as a part of their job (i.e. police, diamond dealers, etc.), collectors who never actually use their guns, criminals who are looking for firepower, and citizens who might want to scare a burglar.

The person I was talking to wanted all weapons, semi-automatic and, even automatic, weapons, legal.  I had to ask "Why? .  He said "Because not everyone can shoot."

Well, you have to know where the conversation went from there.

The whole discussion about automatic and semi-automatic weapons hinges on the idea that they are a right to own.  Yet, no one has entertained the discussion about the "competency" of the people wielding the weapons outside of a professional organization.

Current laws try to keep the weapons in question (AK-47, etc.) out of the hands of the mentally incompetent and felons who might return to their roots, but do little to address the situation of the stupid, careless and ignorant.

I believe that everyone who owns a gun should go through the same vetting process as getting a driver's licence.  Long ago should be the days when fat, boozy home-boys can amass a cache of weapons just because it feeds their personal paranoia.

Think about it.  How many bullets does it take to shoot someone?  Even at twenty feet, a reasonably competent person without training has a respectable chance of wounding and incapacitating an assailant.  Who has to go for the kill-shot, except maybe someone who shouldn't have had a gun in the first place.

Anything over a weapon with ten bullets in the hands of a private citizen should be considered a "war" weapon and has no place in our society.

I think that we use different quantification's to explain the gun violence in out cities.  What I don't see is anyone actually looking at the damage a bullet can do.

Maybe the yardstick we should start using is:  "How much ammo do you need?"

That would put us onto the "crazy" and "fringe" people fairly soon.

Let people buy all the esoteric weapons they want, limit the ammo.  Doesn't make a lot of sense to buy that T-1 tank if you only have one shell that costs $1,000.00.

This is one of those Fecaliths, in the Circle of Willits.

I'm definitely sending this link to the NRA.

Thanks for Reading.