CONSERVATIVES: Liberals have nothing to contribute to the gun debate because they don't know anything about guns. ALSO CONSERVATIVES: Handguns and AR-15s are basically the same thing. munition caliber doesn't matter munition velocity doesn't matter weight & ergonomics effect on recoil doesn't matter maintaining control & aim through multiple rounds via ergonomics doesn't matter clip size doesn't matter
So you are disputing the fact that handguns can't be every bit as lethal as an AR-15 when it comes to school shootings? If that was the case, why was the most deadly school shooting in US history a shooting involving handguns and not one of the AR-15 attacks? Also, are you disputing the fact that if you are killed by a handgun, you are every bit as dead as someone killed with an AR-15? I'm really interested to see what your argument is here.
Well of course there are differences....but when it comes to lethality, it can be negligible or even a slight nod in the favor of the handgun in a scenario involving close quarters shooting such as you would find inside a school. Situations like that are simply not where a long rifle is most useful. Shotguns, pistols, and submachine guns are what you'd want for that type of situation. Obviously that's not to say that you can't still get the job done with an AR-15, I'm just pointing out that other weapons are better in those situations so if you have to switch from an AR-15 to one of those other weapons...it's not the end of the world for you, in fact, it might work in your favor.
Actually you are the very definition of someone that doesn't operate in the real world. Clinging to an amendment in a document that was written over 200 years ago and has no real world application in 2018. You have no solutions, you offer no solutions, all you care about are your stubborn beliefs and how things impact you. You are no better then those religious zealots with their archaic beliefs in their fairy tales, all because someone wrote it down a few hundred or thousands of years ago. Its quiet sad.
Ah yes, crazy people "clinging" to civil rights....who needs those amirite? I'm glad that you aren't even trying to hide your disdain for civil rights as so many of your kind do. You at least deserve credit for that.
Just for clarification, which of the Constitutional Amendments can be safely ignored? Just the second? What about the first, fourth, fifth, sixth, eighth, thirteenth, fourteenth, fifteenth, nineteenth, twenty-fourth? Should those still be clung to? Of the twenty seven amendments (twenty five if you don't count 18 and 21), how many are worth holding onto?
I'm okay with just the one that results in the loss of lives. The one that would prevent any mass murders. To me lives of children and people are worth more then crazy peoples right to buy guns.
Just for clarification, which of the Constitutional Amendments can't have restrictions placed on them? Just the second? Always intellectually dishonest. It's like your trademark.
Who is talking about ignoring an amendment? Nobody but a strawman. No amendment is limitless. As currently instituted, the 2nd is about the strongest, but even then, you can't (yet) legally own a tank. We've been through this a million times. It's like the more common sense that rises before you, the more you guys build up this completely counter-factual strawman of confiscation and erasing amendments. It's really lunacy. Sorry.
Love how the right has to lie and tar and feather an 18 year old. Shows that the only way the NRA can win is by making up lies about young people in order to scare gun owners. It's really sickening and it's beyond me how conservatives support this kind of propaganda: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...nd-teens-are-villains/?utm_term=.ea65d396b54b
Still no reason assault rifles need to be legal. No matter how many school shootings or public assaults they have or have not been used in. I don't need to own a grenade launcher, as it's a military weapon. Same goes for an assault rifle. I'm all for owning guns, be it for self defense or hunting, but neither of those things involve an assault rifle.
Would you want people going through your life determining what you need and don't need and determining what you are and aren't allowed to do or own based on their opinons? If not, why would you think your opinion as to what someone would need is relevant? I have 3 AR-15's all set up differently and I've absolutely used them for hunting. There's absolutely no valid reason why they shouldn't be legal. .
I'm asserting that most handguns are less effective than an AR-15 for the job of efficiently killing as many people as possible in a short period of time because most handguns fire smaller munitions at slower velocity, and those handguns that are equal in caliber and velocity are harder to control and aim through rapid semi-automatic fire, and have smaller magazines. In case you missed the link in my previous post, I'll provide it here again, because it describes very clearly how and why the munitions fired from an AR-15 are much more effective at killing targets. https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...land-should-change-the-debate-on-guns/553937/ One mass shooting is anecdotal, insufficient evidence to settle the question of firearm lethality. It would be more logical to make an apples-to-apples comparison by comparing the weapons to each other, rather than compare a small set of mass shootings in which the weapon of choice is one factor, including others such as marksmanship, layout, number of targets, total time spent, number of reloads, etc. But for the sake of discussion, quoting Wikipedia: Perhaps other mass murderers weren't meticulous to shoot each victim at least three times, including the head? Perhaps they spent less time? (Parkland was six minutes.) If you were trapped unarmed in a large classroom with two dozen other students, would you prefer the active shooter to have a Glock with a 10 round clip or an AR-15 with 30 rounds? Victims of multiple handgun wounds can and do survive, but one round of an AR-15 through your center mass is likely to kill you even if you live long enough to reach the ER. A small, underpowered pistol could certainly be more deadly than an AR-15 when in the hands of a great marksman (I'm not saying Cho was). But an AR-15 in the hands of that same marksman would be even more so. If I told a group of survivalists who had stockpiled weapons to fight a tyrannical government that they only needed handguns because I've been assured they're just about as lethal as an AR-15, what would they say to me? What a silly question. A child who dies from a peanut allergy is every bit as dead as a child who dies from a gunshot wound. Dead is dead. The discussion is over the relative lethality of different killing machines, which ones should be available to citizens, and what restrictions, if any, there should be in acquiring them.
This sounds like someone who knows very little about guns so let me educate you. An AR-15 generally shoots a 55 grain .223 round, that's approximately the caliber of a 22. For example, a .45 handgun is twice the caliber of a typical AR-15 and it fires a 230 grain projectile. It's true that there is a drastic difference in velocity, but that just means the AR-15 round is more likely to go completely through a person which means that their body doesn't absorb the full energy from the projectile. What can make the AR-15 round incredibly lethal is that it tends to tumble when going through the body which creates a much larger wound canal than otherwise. Now sure, if you only compare a 9mm to an AR-15, then yeah, you'll find the AR to be much more lethal wound for wound, but as I pointed out before, the handgun will still be more effective in a close quarters situation which is part of the reason why 9mm handguns were used in the most deadly school shooting ever. I would very much prefer they have an AR because in a situation like that you'd have some chance if you could close the distance on the shooter. Like I said before, an AR-15 is not very good in close quarters situations. A handgun is VERY good in close quarters situations. I know the AR is big and scary, but I'd be much more concerned about a shotgun or handgun in that situation. That's not really true. It all depends on multiple factors. Given equal skill in close quarters the guy with the handgun will fare better than the guy with the AR. They would tell you that different weapons have different uses. If you are attacking from distance, the AR is vastly superior to a handgun. That's why they have many different types of weapons. The point that you missed is that in a school shooting situation, a handgun would be more lethal than an AR so if you got people to switch from AR's to handguns, you wouldn't see a decrease in body count...thus you wouldn't have accomplished anything beneficial.
Hunting with an AR is stupid. I know you'll laugh at that, but it is. Also, my opinion on them being ridiculous to hunt with as well as them needing to be banned is just as valid as your opinion on a handgun being more lethal in a school shooting. Just because more kids have used handguns in the deadlier school shootings doesn't mean that statement is true. ARs cause more bodily damage. Fact. Most of these kids are not experienced with guns. Fact. ARs allow them to lob bullets at a mass of people, thus, they're deadlier. Why on Earth do you need a military ASSAULT rifle to hunt?
Lol lets talk about mass shootings. I like how you manipulate the conversation. How many are done by semi automatic weapons? Bobby you are failing yet again. It is sad
Case in point. This poster is EXACTLY the type of person who should not be allowed to own an AR-15, let alone 3. Yikes.
Not really, hunting with an AR makes a lot of sense depending on what you are hunting. Also I have to laugh at the "military ASSAULT rifle" line, would it be better if I used my "military ASSAULT handgun"? What about my "military ASSAULT shotgun"? Trying to make a semi automatic .223 rifle (or .25-45 in one instance) sound more menacing with that type of rhetoric really fails with people who know what they are talking about. They aren't fully banned, they are just highly regulated. I actually support those regulations because fully automatic weapons are inherently dangerous. Scary looking semi-automatic rifles aren't the same....especially when you consider that the bans only look to go after specific semi-automatic rifles, it's just a feel good move pushed by people that know next to nothing about firearms.
