On the one side Liberals say that a pistol is too impotent to hurt anybody or stop a shooter.
On the other side they want to ban pistols as being 'too dangerous for the common public'.
Well, which is it? Are they ineffective pea shooters, or are they dangerous implements of war? They can't be both.
Only a demented Liberal mind could possibly think this way.
You are correct. I've noticed quite a few comments from liberals who are absolutely sure that a handgun is worthless against a person armed with an "assault" rifle.
When they do, I like to mention the incident in Texas a year or so ago when several jihadis armed with automatic rifles drove up to a building where a speech was being given by some conservative speaker.
The place was guarded by two security guards armed with handguns.
As the jihadis got out their car they began firing at the security guards who were outside the building. One of the guards shot both jihadis with his handgun killing one and wounding the other.
And this was not in a confined space, this was outside of a building where supposedly it was easier for a person with a rifle to defeat a person armed with a handgun.
The incident proved that a trained person with a handgun can defeat a person or persons armed with automatic rifles.
