What King says above does not really make much sense. If I am being assaulted, you're darn right I want an assault weapon. I want the most efficient tool I can get, if the job is to save my life or the lives of family members. At that, most shootees these days survive, if they are near to a hospital and someone phones 911.
I seem to recall some people in King's novels facing gruesome deaths. As a reader, I sided with the victims, not the monsters. Maybe I am missing the point of his stories, but in real life, I would much rather the victim shoot holes in a deadly attacker. Justifiable self defense is something the law approves, and it stands up also to the closest moral scrutiny. It is better if the person perpetrating the crime is the one who gets hurt, not the victim who had no evil intentions going into the situation where the violence occurs.
Of course, death is unfortunate in and of itself, but did you ever notice, in real life, how many times bad guys flee once they know they face deadly resistance? Look at the stats: armed resistance works. Often it works merely by a display of a weapon and the will to resist. Draw a gun and the bad guy rethinks, quite often while sprinting away. Lesson to learn here: Scare the bad guy to death and you likely won't have to shoot him to death. It is better if your weapon is a scary one: just the sort King deplores.
If you have to take responsibility for your own defense, you should provide yourself with weaponry appropriate to the task, which means weapons at least as good as what the bad guys are wielding--or better weapons than theirs, if you can manage that.
Should I use a flintlock and fight with one foot in a bucket, just to make it easier for them?
I just figured out whose next novel I won't be buying. This guy doesn't make sense.
'via Blog this'
Happy Independence Day, UK!
1 hour ago