"Pa, look out!  It's a monster on the ceiling!  I'll blast 'im good!"
 
"Relax there, son.  That's just what the folks around here call "air conditioning."

 
"I don't understand, Pa."
 
"You know how we're always sayin' 'Gawd, I wish it weren't so dang hot!'?"
 
"Yeah."
 
"Well, son, with that there "air conditioning", it's like Gawds actually listenin'."
 
"Wow-eee!"
 
"Yer damn right 'Wow-eee'.  Now come on son, Ma needs a new Bowie knife."

http://www.ohioccw.org/article2186.html

Nice.

It's interesting, though, that the majority of assault-style weapons are more likely to wound than to kill.

I'd much rather get shot by an M-16 than by a rifle designed to take down a moose.  I mean, I've been putting on a little weight, but I have a long way to go before I'm anywhere near moose-sized.

Hunting rifles (the nice legal ones you can buy once you're eighteen) are meant to bring down large game from farther away.

Assault-style rifles mostly just hurt you a whole helluva lot.

Guns that wound instead of kill are more effective in a combat situation for a few reasons.  A wounded enemy will need attention from another combatant, effectively removing two enemies, sometimes three, for one.

Once wounded, the enemy will still require the same resources as an enemy in fighting condition.  This depletes the resources of the enemy.

Also, seeing their buddies wounded brings down morale.

The Art of War by Sun Tzu.  Everyone should read that book.

I should probably mention that I'm all for gun control as long as there are no guns anywhere in the entire world.  Mostly, because I'm a very lousy shot.

Until that day.