[QUOTE=KmartSqrl;21968761]You can't honestly tell me that you think an assault rifle is comparable to a hunting rifle in it's intended purpose. It's in the name, an [B]assault[/B] rifle.
Read my posts. I'm not saying we should ban them now. I'm saying we would have been much better off if they had been banned a long time ago.
And yes, I'd put money on the fact that handguns are easily more dangerous than other guns strictly because more people carry them and they're much more easily concealed.[/QUOTE]
Assault rifles account for around 5% of guns used in shootings. Handguns, by far, are the most used guns in shootings. Assault rifles were banned from 1994-2004. It did nothing really considering they weren't a problem to begin with.
[QUOTE=KmartSqrl;21968582]Yes, but unlike an assault rifle or a handgun it's not explicitly designed to kill people, and like I already said, [b]you can't hide a hunting rifle in your pants and walk around town.[/b][/QUOTE]
Unless you're wearing baggy pants.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IskfFKiuh3Y[/media]
[QUOTE=JDK721;21968815]Assault rifles account for around 5% of guns in shootings. Handguns, by far, are the most used guns in shootings. Assault rifles were banned from 1994-2004. It did nothing really considering they weren't a problem to begin with.[/QUOTE]
What's even more idiotic is that some guns are banned based on how they look.
SPAS-12: OMGSCARY banned in California
Mossberg 500: Looks civvy. Legal. (But it's far more practical and reliable than a SPAS-12)
[editline]05:12PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Comtochus;21968827]Unless you're wearing baggy pants.[/QUOTE]
Let's see him walk around.
She is so dumb its beyond belief.
Are you guys arguing that handguns are less/more dangerous?
It shouldn't even be a contest, handguns are more deadly because of how easily you can carry them around, and that they're semi auto.
[QUOTE=Gummylamb;21968991]Are you guys arguing that handguns are less/more dangerous?
It shouldn't even be a contest, handguns are more deadly because of how easily you can carry them around, and that they're semi auto.[/QUOTE]
That doesn't make them more deadly. Rifles are "more deadly" than handguns because they use larger rounds.
[QUOTE=Gummylamb;21968991]and that they're semi auto.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, no rifles or shotguns are semi auto.
:downs:
[QUOTE=the_KMM;21968814]Quick question for you. Which do you think is more dangerous?
This?
[img]http://guns.wolfcrews.com/ruger_10_22/ruger10-22-1a.jpg[/img]
Or this?
[img]http://www.engstromauctions.com/November3Coin/pics/Ruger10_22.jpg[/img][/QUOTE]
Those both look like what I'd consider a hunting rifle, although I'm sure you're going to tell me that one is for killing animals and one is for killing people.
I'm not a gun guy, so when I say assault rifle I'm talking about m16s and ak47s and shit like that, and when I say hunting rifle I'm talking about guns like the ones you pictured. I'll admit that might have caused some confusion, but you still get the gist of what I'm saying, especially now that I've clarified that.
[QUOTE=JDK721;21968815]Assault rifles account for around 5% of guns used in shootings. Handguns, by far, are the most used guns in shootings. Assault rifles were banned from 1994-2004. It did nothing really considering they weren't a problem to begin with.[/QUOTE]
Yeah that's kind of what I'm getting at here. Handguns would be pointless if they had been banned from the get go. Even under the second amendment. Anyone who plans on trying to overthrow the government with a handgun would have to be an idiot.
[QUOTE=JDK721;21969068]That doesn't make them more deadly. Rifles are "more deadly" than handguns because they use larger rounds.
Yeah, no rifles or shotguns are semi auto.
:downs:[/QUOTE]
The "larger the round" doesn't matter, one shot with a handgun and you're likely dead, or at least unable to do anything.
semi-auto rifles and shotguns are hard to come by, whereas nearly every handgun is...semi-auto.
[QUOTE=KmartSqrl;21969138]Yeah that's kind of what I'm getting at here. Handguns would be pointless if they had been banned from the get go. Even under the second amendment. Anyone who plans on trying to overthrow the government with a handgun would have to be an idiot.[/QUOTE]
It's better than nothing. And chances are they'd have a long gun and use the handgun as a backup weapon. Also, banning guns is unconstitutional.
[QUOTE=JDK721;21969068]That doesn't make them more deadly. Rifles are "more deadly" than handguns because they use larger rounds.
Yeah, no rifles or shotguns are semi auto.
:downs:[/QUOTE]
Enough with the semantics. They're more deadly in the sense that much larger numbers of people die from them, which is obviously what he meant.
[QUOTE=TheSpy;21967386]For protection yes. But for killing no[/QUOTE]
They're fucking great at killing.
[QUOTE=Gummylamb;21969142]The "larger the round" doesn't matter, one shot with a handgun and you're likely dead, or at least unable to do anything. [/QUOTE]
Not really. Most people who get shot do survive. Also, you're much more likely to survive being shot by a pistol caliber such as a 9mm than a rifle round.
[QUOTE=Gummylamb;21969142] semi-auto rifles and shotguns are hard to come by, whereas nearly every handgun is...semi-auto.[/QUOTE]
Where do you live? Semi-auto rifles are everywhere.
[QUOTE=JDK721;21969172]It's better than nothing. And chances are they'd have a long gun and use the handgun as a backup weapon. Also, banning guns is unconstitutional.[/QUOTE]
You are the worst kind of gun supporter. "BUT IT'S IN THE CONSTITUTION LALALALALA CAN'T HEAR YOU CONSTITUTION CONSTITUTION CONSTITUTION!!!"
You say that like constitutional amendments can't be made. Are you forgetting the fact that the right to bear arms is an amendment in the first place?
I'm also not sure how you have missed where I've repeatedly stated that I'm against trying to ban guns at this point in time.
[editline]02:33PM[/editline]
Perfumely is the only person arguing for gun ownership that gets it.
[QUOTE=KmartSqrl;21969261]You are the worst kind of gun supporter. "BUT IT'S IN THE CONSTITUTION LALALALALA CAN'T HEAR YOU CONSTITUTION CONSTITUTION CONSTITUTION!!!"
You say that like constitutional amendments can't be made. Are you forgetting the fact that the right to bear arms is an amendment in the first place?
I'm also not sure how you have missed where I've repeatedly stated that I'm against trying to ban guns at this point in time.[/QUOTE]
The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Constitutional amendment banning handguns = hell to pay. It's not going to happen. Supporting the ban of guns at any time is ridiculous so it doesn't really matter if you don't support it right at this moment.
[QUOTE=Heroms;21967152]Canada doesn't let you just walk into a store and buy a gun and it's citizens are doing just fine. You don't absolutely need guns.[/QUOTE]
Late reply, but yes it does. You just need to go through some red tape, which is perfectly fine and probably the best way to go about this.
Palin should try herself with Pr0n, 4chan did enough promotion for her.
Pffft, Obama would never ban guns, he needs them for his Blackhouse Shootouts.
[QUOTE=Gummylamb;21968991]Are you guys arguing that handguns are less/more dangerous?
It shouldn't even be a contest, handguns are more deadly because of how easily you can carry them around, and that they're semi auto.[/QUOTE]
Why is it in the last month, you've suddenly gotten retarded? Or did I just start noticing how retarded you really are...
[QUOTE=KmartSqrl;21969261]Perfumely is the only person arguing for gun ownership that gets it.[/QUOTE]
You're just misinformed. You said you banning handguns at one point would be a good thing. All it does is hurt law abiding citizens. They tried that in Washington D.C. and it was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.
[QUOTE=JDK721;21969306]Supporting the ban of guns at any time is ridiculous so it doesn't really matter if you don't support it right at this moment.[/QUOTE]
this is not how politics works guy. You don't just say "it's never going to happen" and end all debate.
[QUOTE=Sigma-Lambda;21969410]this is not how politics works guy. You don't just say "it's never going to happen" and end all debate.[/QUOTE]
It's highly unlikely. ~70 million gun owners and ~270 million guns in the country.
[QUOTE=Sigma-Lambda;21969410]this is not how politics works guy. You don't just say "it's never going to happen" and end all debate.[/QUOTE]
No, but banning guns is outright bad. It doesn't work, or make a lick of sense.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;21969355]Why is it in the last month, you've suddenly gotten retarded? Or did I just start noticing how retarded you really are...[/QUOTE]
I'm retarded because I think that easily concealed, easily carried around, faster at shooting are more efficient at murder than a big rifle that isn't very easy to conceal?
Really, rifles do kill in less shots, and all that, but concealment is a big factor in the efficiency in murder.
[editline]02:42PM[/editline]
I'm not saying ban guns at all, I'm just saying that handguns are better for murder.
[QUOTE=KmartSqrl;21969138]Those both look like what I'd consider a hunting rifle, although I'm sure you're going to tell me that one is for killing animals and one is for killing people.
I'm not a gun guy, so when I say assault rifle I'm talking about m16s and ak47s and shit like that, and when I say hunting rifle I'm talking about guns like the ones you pictured. I'll admit that might have caused some confusion, but you still get the gist of what I'm saying, especially now that I've clarified that.[/QUOTE]
Here's the thing:
They're both the same gun. The only difference is that one has a wooden stock, while the other is synthetic.
In fact, they're both Ruger 10/22's, basically 'Billy's First Rifle'.
Actually, I just realized it's totally situation whether it's better.
If you're going straight up to murder someone, then rifles are better, if you need to be stealthy, then handguns.
[QUOTE=Gummylamb;21969482]I'm retarded because I think that easily concealed, easily carried around, faster at shooting are more efficient at murder than a big rifle that isn't very easy to conceal?
Really, rifles do kill in less shots, and all that, but concealment is a big factor in the efficiency in murder.
[editline]02:42PM[/editline]
I'm not saying ban guns at all, I'm just saying that handguns are better for murder.[/QUOTE]
My reply wasn't so much to this post as it was to the general argument.
Handguns probably are better for domestic disputes, and in an urban enviroment, that makes sense, but that's not the point. You're not going to take a hunting rifle to kill someone probably, you'll take a handgun, a shotgun, a semi automatic civilian issue assault rifle, or something like that. A hunting rifle is impractical for other reasons.
[QUOTE=Gummylamb;21969575]Actually, I just realized it's totally situation whether it's better.
If you're going straight up to murder someone, then rifles are better, if you need to be stealthy, then handguns.[/QUOTE]
Either one will work. Two in the chest, one in the head.
[QUOTE=Bepo5;21968700]This, the founding fathers of america knew that at one point, the government was going to go down the shitter, all nations eventually do. But instead of having their citizens take it up the ass like china has forced it's citizens to do, they are armed and would instead rebel. It's also why states have individual rights, if the nation goes to hell, you still have a fairly stable local state government.[/QUOTE]
You speak as if a large number of chinese want to overthrow their government.
[QUOTE=Gummylamb;21969482]Really, rifles do kill in less shots, and all that, but concealment is a big factor in the efficiency in murder.[/quote]
Um
You play too many vidya gaems. Unless it's the difference between a .22LR and a .50BMG, any gun can kill you just as easily as any other gun. You'll bleed out pretty damn quickly.
[quote]I'm not saying ban guns at all, I'm just saying that handguns are better for murder.[/quote]>Implying handguns are only good for murdering others
Or self defense, just maybe
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.