Originally Posted by WeooWeoo
Now, I am one for making guns, preferably semi automatics, or just weapons like the AR-15. There is no reason to have guns like those to be held by citizens. Unless they've served in the military and it's theirs, but still, no need really.
When I speak of Gun Control, I don't mean the restriction of weapons all over, just the ability to gain them legally and what kinds of guns are allowed needs to be changed.
If someone had a gun in that night club they could have saved 50 lives.
No, I don't expect people to carry """"assault weapons"""" with them in their every day lives, but you can imagine a situation where it is necessary to have something more powerful than a handgun.
(And actually just so you know, in the US handguns kill 20x more people than rifles do - and that's even ignoring that an """"assault weapon"""" is just one type of rifle. What's more there is 0 evidence that a gun ban would actually reduce gun crime at all in the first place, in Australia it did absolutely nothing, in the UK gun crime actually doubled after the ban whilst in the same period gun crime in the US decreased!)
Originally Posted by wibblefox
If someone had a gun in that night club they could have saved 50 lives.
No, I don't expect people to carry """"assault weapons"""" with them in their every day lives, but you can imagine a situation where it is necessary to have something more powerful than a handgun.
(And actually just so you know, in the US handguns kill 20x more people than rifles do - and that's even ignoring that an """"assault weapon"""" is just one type of rifle. What's more there is 0 evidence that a gun ban would actually reduce gun crime at all in the first place, in Australia it did absolutely nothing, in the UK gun crime actually doubled after the ban whilst in the same period gun crime in the US decreased!)
Hand Guns are one of the most commonly used weapons in mass shootings, mainly school shootings. I know of this, but that is not my point. Which gun is going to cause more damage faster? An Automatic or a Hand Gun? It takes much more longer to reload, giving anyone around the area more time to get out of there. Yes, concealed carry is a great thing for these incidents. But we need to make sure these people that carry them are actually qualified and are, well, sane and safe. Background checks are a hell of a thing.
Originally Posted by wibblefox
but you can imagine a situation where it is necessary to have something more powerful than a handgun.
Bullets are Bullets. No.
"Dear reader, I hope this email finds you before I do."
Originally Posted by WeooWeoo
Hand Guns are one of the most commonly used weapons in mass shootings, mainly school shootings. I know of this, but that is not my point. Which gun is going to cause more damage faster? An Automatic or a Hand Gun? It takes much more longer to reload, giving anyone around the area more time to get out of there. Yes, concealed carry is a great thing for these incidents. But we need to make sure these people that carry them are actually qualified and are, well, sane and safe. Background checks are a hell of a thing.
In the US most handguns are semiautomatic, the same as most rifles In terms of getting rounds down range, 1 trigger pull = 1 shot, in a practical sense there's no difference between an FN Five-seveN and a """baby killing""" AR15.
Reload time is practically identical too, if anything a handgun may be faster...
Originally Posted by WeooWeoo
Bullets are Bullets. No.
Not at all true. Energy, range, accuracy, there is a lot different between a 5.7 and a 5.56.......
«
Previous Thread
|
Next Thread
»