He didn’t say you should be allowed to shoot people and/or use a gun in any unlawful way (which is what’s analogous to ‘drink and drive’), he said you should be allowed to own a gun (which is what’s equivalent to owning a car).
but interestingly, Kirk was killed by a single shot outside the range of an AR15. Perhaps a musket, as the forefathers were considering when they wrote the second amendment.
Have you ever shot an AR? The effective range is about 600 yards and this shot was 140. That’s stupid easy with an AR. I’m not a great shot and I can easily shoot a <1-inch grouping at 150 yards.
That being said, it was a bolt action rifle which is inherently more accurate.
In this case it would be akin to someone arguing that you should be allowed drink and drive getting hit by a drunk driver.
No it wouldn’t, that’s a false analogy.
He didn’t say you should be allowed to shoot people and/or use a gun in any unlawful way (which is what’s analogous to ‘drink and drive’), he said you should be allowed to own a gun (which is what’s equivalent to owning a car).
He literally said that we have to accept people are going to be shot and killed in the name of gun rights though
Maybe someone could own a gun. Possibly a shotgun for a farm or game hunting. But there is no need for anyone to have a hand gun or an AR15.
So for this analogy: Shotgun = car with regular driver AR15 = car with a drunk driver
but interestingly, Kirk was killed by a single shot outside the range of an AR15. Perhaps a musket, as the forefathers were considering when they wrote the second amendment.
Have you ever shot an AR? The effective range is about 600 yards and this shot was 140. That’s stupid easy with an AR. I’m not a great shot and I can easily shoot a <1-inch grouping at 150 yards.
That being said, it was a bolt action rifle which is inherently more accurate.
Semi-automatic muskets as god intended!