Which is it, Aubra?

 

Aubra Thomas says there is absolutely no reason for a civilian to own an "assault" rifle. She says only those who want to "play soldier" get them. She says that "it must be a terribly frightened and insecure individual who thinks he needs one for self-defense."

 

I assume that Aubra would also argue that there is little defense against an assault rifle, hence her argument that civilians shouldn't have them. Think about it, Aubra . . . if the evil and criminally insane among us have assault rifles (and it's a sure bet that they don't care whether they're legal or not), isn't our best defense against them to have our own assault rifles? Do you think any of those people are so insane or so evil that they would go to a place where they think their potential victims are just as well-armed as they are?

 

So Aubra, if it's silly to think you need a gun to defend yourself, then it's also silly to think that nutcases with guns are dangerous. If it's not silly to think that nutcases with guns are dangerous, then how would you suggest all us "frightened and insecure" people protect ourselves?

 

"Gun lovers are playing soldier." The Dallas Morning News; January 21, 2013; p. 18A.