Rifles make up 4% of gun homicides...Handguns make up 72%

[-p.tiddy-]

OhNoTimNoSho are you aware that currently there are much more laws in place for HANDGUNS than there are rifles...???

[bmulls]

We had this conversation before. Initially, you stated that there was no difference between the two other than the case and color. I said the grips make the second more accurate. You have obvioisly come off your original stance and use the term "comfortable". So there is a difference. The second allows more "comfort" in your words, and thus makes it easier operate. The bottom line is there is a difference. Slight but it is.

Its the same a saying a Shelby GT500 and Mustang GT are the same. Theyre both Mustangs, but more is involved in the Shelby.

NO. A Shelby GT has a larger engine and sooped up parts for greater horsepower. A "tactical" gun has NOTHING that changes it's functionality. It will shoot the same bullets, the amount of bullets at the same rate with the same reload speed as the ranch rifle version. Horrible analogy.

I have not come off of anything, I've been beating you morons over the head with logic since day 1. The idea that a pistol grip improves accuracy is simply absurd and laughable. You are doing nothing but proving my point that you have no idea what you are talking about.

[-p.tiddy-]

it's like all some of you fools see is bullet size...it's such a stupid and simple minded way to look at things...


"handguns killed 6,000 people last year and assault rifles only 18?...who cares everyone look at how powerful those rifles are!!!....never mind the fact that no one is using them, they need to be dealt with FIRST!!!"

[bmulls]

Yes, but you cant just skip the first step. You have to ban assualt rifles first and move from there. Stop trying to avoid the common sense involved. There are too many factors at play when comparing handgun deaths vs rifle deaths.

This guy sees 4% of murders are committed with rifles compared to 72% with handguns, then tries to tell us it's common sense to ban rifles.



Only on fcking ISH.

[-p.tiddy-]

This guy sees 4% of murders are committed with rifles compared to 72% with handguns, then tries to tell us it's common sense to ban rifles.



Only on fcking ISH.

but come on...rifles are more powerful!...except for magnums, those don't count as pistols of course...

[OhNoTimNoSho]

wtf? why?...why do you think we have to do these 'steps"?

have you heard of the "Brady Bill"?...it is the reason we have to wait 2 weeks for a HANDGUN...when we did that how come we skipped these steps you speak of and hoped over rifles?

I am just saying if you wish to eventually ban handguns you have to ban assault rifles first. Otherwise there will be too much resistance, the people will not accept the change otherwise.


Stop preaching the other side to me.. I am not a gun owner.. id be happy if all guns were banned, but i dont care either way. Im just merely looking at it from a logical point of view.

[OhNoTimNoSho]

This guy sees 4% of murders are committed with rifles compared to 72% with handguns, then tries to tell us it's common sense to ban rifles.



Only on fcking ISH.

how many handguns are guns are in circulation vs rifles. Whats the ratio? Stop being a jackass. Its common sense to ban them FIRST

[bmulls]

I am just saying if you wish to eventually ban handguns you have to ban assault rifles first. Otherwise there will be too much resistance, the people will not accept the change otherwise.


Stop preaching the other side to me.. I am not a gun owner.. id be happy if all guns were banned, but i dont care either way. Im just merely looking at it from a logical point of view.

"I want to eventually strip people of their constitutional rights, but I don't want to do it too suddenly because that will make them angry. We have to do it gradually."



Is this real life right now? Do people this dumb really exist?

[-p.tiddy-]

I am just saying if you wish to eventually ban handguns you have to ban assault rifles first. Otherwise there will be too much resistance, the people will not accept the change otherwise.


Stop preaching the other side to me.. I am not a gun owner.. id be happy if all guns were banned, but i dont care either way. Im just merely looking at it from a logical point of view.

1. thinking we have to ban rifles before handguns is NOT logical

2. we have already put stricter laws in place on handguns than rifles with no public resistance...again, see the Brady Bill which focused exclusively on handguns

[OhNoTimNoSho]

So what exactly are you guys saying.. ban handguns but not rifles? What is your point.. do you even have a point?


Is there any sort of progressive though in your thinking?

[bmulls]

So what exactly are you guys saying.. ban handguns but not rifles? What is your point.. do you even have a point?

The point is fck off and stop trying to mess with my constitutional rights, especially when you have no idea what you're talking about.

[-p.tiddy-]

an overall "BAN" will never happen btw...that isn't an option at all...handguns or rifles

I am saying that we should focus the laws around owning guns to handguns, not rifles...why? because the handguns are the ones killing people, not the rifles

[OhNoTimNoSho]

"I want to eventually strip people of their constitutional rights, but I don't want to do it too suddenly because that will make them angry. We have to do it gradually."



Is this real life right now? Do people this dumb really exist?

Yes lets blindly follow a piece of paper from ~200 years ago

[OhNoTimNoSho]

The point is fck off and stop trying to mess with my constitutional rights, especially when you have no idea what you're talking about.

Yes `Murica.



are you 12? Do you even own guns?

[OhNoTimNoSho]

an overall "BAN" will never happen btw...that isn't an option at all...handguns or rifles

I am saying that we should focus the laws around owning guns to handguns, not rifles...why? because the handguns are the ones killing people, not the rifles

We can do both.