Arms and the Duck (plus 34%)

[Are_grits_groceries]

Arms and the Duck
<snip>
Nine passers-by were also wounded, and it seems almost certain that some or all were accidentally hit by the police. This isn’t surprising; it’s only in movies that people are good shots during a violent encounter. In 2008, Al Baker reported in The Times that the accuracy rate for New York City officers firing in the line of duty was 34 percent.

And these are people trained for this kind of crisis. The moral is that if a lunatic starts shooting, you will not be made safer if your fellow average citizens are carrying concealed weapons.
<snip>
The magazines used to be illegal before Congress let the assault weapons ban elapse. Getting rid of them again would not stop mass shootings, but it would limit the number of victims. And you do not need a high-capacity magazine for hunting. In fact, many states outlaw them for hunting because they don’t want one person mowing down an entire flock or herd.

Under federal law, you only can use guns with a maximum three-bullet capacity if you’re hunting migratory birds. Even the most completely mindless faction in the National Rifle Association appears willing to give that a pass.
<snip>
So the guy driving toward the Sikh temple with the high-capacity magazine on his gun was legal until he started shooting. The guy sitting in the duck blind, no. Mull that one over the weekend.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/25/opinion/collins-arms-and-the-duck.html?_r=2&smid=tw-nytimescollins&seid=auto

Yah...you are really safer if everybody is armed and can shoot back!
Arm the ducks! It's only fair.

Wonderland has more intelligent gun laws.

[xchrom]

1. du rec. Nt

[Bandit]

2. One small quibble with something in this

"Under federal law, you only can use guns with a maximum three-bullet capacity if you’re hunting migratory birds."
Shotguns do not fire bullets.....rounds would be a better term or shells, but most definitely not bullets...It is against the Law to use bullets to hunt migratory fowl