A woman in Georgia used a revolver to shoot an intruder, much to the delight of the internet's great big fans of the bang-bang-stick. Glenn Reynolds, however, laments that the woman lacked a bang-bang-stick of sufficient heft to satisfy his love of great big bang-bang-sticks.
See, this is where one of those “assault weapons” might have come in handy.
UPDATE: A reader emails: “When some politician starts pontificating that no one needs more than a 10 round clip capacity (or 5, or 3) this is the story that should be shoved in their faces. She fired 6 shots, put 5 in the attacker and he was still kicking. What if there had been multiple attackers. Then that 30 round clip suddenly seems appropriate.”
Well, since she could have purchased one those great big bang-bang-sticks, and didn't, relying on a measly little .38, she was just basically asking for whatever the crowbar-carrying attacker had in mind for her, I suppose.
But why stop at quote-unquote "assault rifles"? After all, as another of Reynolds' inestimable correspondents points out,
I also read on another blog the comments by a western rancher who explained that he always carries a .223 semi-auto rifle when working his own property. Why? Because of wolves. Six charged him one day and it took far more than 10 rounds from his “assault” rifle to drop two of them, after which the other four fled.
What if this woman had not simply faced one intruder with a crowbar, but multiple attackers who were armed with wolves?
Well, her tiny little puny toy bang-bang-stick would have done her about as much good as a tuna-fish sandwich! Stupid "politicians." You can barely hurt anyone with a .38. Even a .40 wouldn't hurt a fly, even at close range, which is why thoughtful gun owners keep lots more weapons lying around the house for emergencies.
Clearly, though, following Reynolds' logic and that of his freedom-loving audience, in a more ideal, paradisical society, this woman would have had the following:
- 14 handguns;
- 43 semi-automatic weapons;
- 9 bazookas;
- Two or three Handy Home Howitzers;
- 15 armed guards on the porch;
- An electrified fence around her property;
- A moat filled with alligators, each equipped with a flamethrower;
- 5 grizzly bears with hand grenades (to repel the wolves).
More responsible "politicians" would subsidize each of these thoroughly necessary items of domestic defense, instead of leaving the suburban-propertied-classes helpless before the wolf-lugging hordes. Likewise, the Airforce needs to be privatized, so that for a nominal annual fee, in a pinch, homeowners can at least call in a drone strike.
Then the Reynoldsian vision for America will at last come to fruition. (Also we will all be immortal robots. The proper sort of "we," anyhow.)
And if anecdotal evidence such as that he cites here proves insufficient to prove his case that all homeowners truly ought to possess firepower of the sort capable of efficiently shooting up elementary schools, the free market provides a solution. People like Reynolds should be permitted to rent out invaders of the variety referenced in the news story above (and I know you know what I mean), so they might finally live out what is obviously their most devoutly-wished personal fantasy.
At a minimum they ought to be able to blow up farm-raised wolves with rocket launchers. I mean, do we or do we not live in a civilized, 21st century nation?