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

[QUOTE=-p.tiddy-]furthermore, why should we have to work upward or downward in any of this?...as though it is impossible to address both at the same time or something?

why do you think it is impossible to address handguns without addressing "the more powerful" rifles first?



high powered hunting rifles are "the most powerful"...so your "logic" says we start there and then work our way to BB guns?"...there is no logic in that at all, just address them all at once.[/QUOTE]
Logically no we should be able to address both at the same time, but people wont accept it that way. Because just as the way your dumbass is arguing 1 side there are similiar dumbasses arguing the other side.


I apoligize for my rudeness. but yes we should adress all at once, but we cant. so we need to do the next logical thing and address one at a time. starting from the top

[QUOTE=-p.tiddy-]IDK what kind of handgun a .22 or a Desert Eagle?...why does it even matter when it is clear which one is ACTUALLY doing the most damage?[/QUOTE]
SO a D Eagle is just as potentially dangerous as any assault rifle?

a d eagle is a magnum also and doesnt fall under the regular handgun category anyway

what a stupid thread.

[QUOTE=OhNoTimNoSho]SO a D Eagle is just as potentially dangerous as any assault rifle?[/QUOTE]
handguns have more potential damage than any rifle because you can conceal them...

and what a coincidence, they cause more actual damage as well...

[QUOTE=-p.tiddy-]handguns have more potential damage than any rifle because you can conceal them...

and what a coincidence, they cause more actual damage as well...[/QUOTE]
you can conceal anything, cmon man you know what i mean, i know you are intelligent enough to interpert what im saying stop dancing around it and answer me straight

[QUOTE=OhNoTimNoSho]you can conceal anything, cmon man you know what i mean, i know you are intelligent enough to interpert what im saying stop dancing around it and answer me straight[/QUOTE]
a rifle is more powerful (on average)...that doesn't mean it is the most dangerous

and IMO you are the one dancing around facts and ignoring the fact that handguns are 10x the problem of assault rifles

[QUOTE=OhNoTimNoSho]So 1 assualt rifle can do less damage than 1 handgun?

thats logic? thats what you claim to base your argument on? some bullshit strawman argument?

As long as you ignore shit like that you cant be taken seriously.


[B]You ban the most powerful thing and then go downwards.[/B][/QUOTE]


This is exactly why I brought up the atomic bomb comparison a few pages back.

Hey, A-bombs kill 0 people every year. Let's unban them.

[QUOTE=-p.tiddy-]a rifle is more powerful (on average)...that doesn't mean it is the most dangerous

and IMO you are the one dancing around facts and ignoring the fact that handguns are 10x the problem of assault rifles[/QUOTE]
There in lies the argument. The pro gun side feels rifles with high capacity magazines are needed for protection and hunting. Heres the flaw in this argument. It shouldnt take 60-90 rounds to kill a dear or pig. And only a fool would really feel theres a need for that kind of firepower to defend a home. And saying you need it to fend off the government is just beyond retarded. So what legitimate purpose could having a high capacity rifle have?


Handguns do more damage because THERES MORE OF THEM. They dont need to be banned, but sure as hell need to be more regulated as to help lower the risk of them falling into the wrong hands. Your chances of surviving a shot from a handgun are much better than a rifle. Rifles with big clips arent needed in civilized society.

[QUOTE=Sarcastic]This is exactly why I brought up the atomic bomb comparison a few pages back.

Hey, A-bombs kill 0 people every year. Let's unban them.[/QUOTE]
:facepalm

[QUOTE=97 bulls]
[B]Your chances of surviving a shot from a handgun are much better than a rifle.[/B] Rifles with big clips arent needed in civilized society.[/QUOTE]


The bold is just simply not true. It is well established on these boards that you do not have the knowledge necessary to participate in this debate. Go away.

[QUOTE=97 bulls]There in lies the argument. The pro gun side feels rifles with high capacity magazines are needed for protection and hunting. Heres the flaw in this argument. It shouldnt take 60-90 rounds to kill a dear or pig. And only a fool would really feel theres a need for that kind of firepower to defend a home. And saying you need it to fend off the government is just beyond retarded. So what legitimate purpose could having a high capacity rifle have? [/QUOTE]
who cares though? maybe they just like to look at rifles?...your opinion is that they don't need those rifles and they disagree...the fact remains is that the rifles aren't doing much harm in this country so why are we focusing so much on them?

[QUOTE=97 bulls][COLOR="Red"]Handguns do more damage because THERES MORE OF THEM[/COLOR]. They dont need to be banned, but sure as hell need to be more regulated as to help lower the risk of them falling into the wrong hands. Your chances of surviving a shot from a handgun are much better than a rifle. Rifles with big clips arent needed in civilized society.[/QUOTE]

exactly!...let's focus on the guns we actually have...no one even owns assault rifles

assault rifles are designed for long range gun fights...

handguns are designed for close range/indoors...and because of that all the murders in this country are done with handguns

[QUOTE=97 bulls]There in lies the argument. The pro gun side feels rifles with high capacity magazines are needed for protection and hunting. Heres the flaw in this argument. It shouldnt take 60-90 rounds to kill a dear or pig. And only a fool would really feel theres a need for that kind of firepower to defend a home. And saying you need it to fend off the government is just beyond retarded. So what legitimate purpose could having a high capacity rifle have?


Handguns do more damage because THERES MORE OF THEM. They dont need to be banned, but sure as hell need to be more regulated as to help lower the risk of them falling into the wrong hands. Your chances of surviving a shot from a handgun are much better than a rifle. Rifles with big clips arent needed in civilized society.[/QUOTE]
That's where the pro-gun side is failing rhetorically. Don't argue for why they're necessary, argue simply that a) you want them and b) your right to have them is protected.

If they're so hung up on "necessary", they need to make more compelling arguments.

[QUOTE=Sarcastic]This is exactly why I brought up the atomic bomb comparison a few pages back.

Hey, A-bombs kill 0 people every year. Let's unban them.[/QUOTE]

You can't use an atomic bomb for self defense without injuring many innocent people in the process.

Yes atom bombs are totally relevant to this argument.

nukes are just like assault rifles...they should be treated the same way :facepalm

[QUOTE=bmulls]The bold is just simply not true. It is well established on these boards that you do not have the knowledge necessary to participate in this debate. Go away.[/QUOTE]
Are you implying Rifles arent more deadly than Handguns?


And who established this? You? Theres no way you can honestly tell me the accessories that can be added to Rifles are added just for looks.

[QUOTE=Scoooter]That's where the pro-gun side is failing rhetorically. Don't argue for why they're necessary, argue simply that a) you want them and b) your right to have them is protected.

If they're so hung up on "necessary", they need to make more compelling arguments.[/QUOTE]
And I coukd see that. But then my stance is just to regulate them. Have more responsibly for gun owners who allow their guns to fall into the wrong hands. Thats the root of the problem.

Trying to ban assault rifles is useless. I mean its a good effort but if our goal is to actually to slow crime, I agree with PT's theory that handguns should be the focus

[QUOTE=KingBeasley08]Trying to ban assault rifles is useless. I mean its a good effort but if our goal is to actually to slow crime, I agree with PT's theory that handguns should be the focus[/QUOTE]
stop it, you're making too much sense...

[QUOTE=97 bulls]Are you implying Rifles arent more deadly than Handguns?


And who established this? You? Theres no way you can honestly tell me the accessories that can be added to Rifles are added just for looks.[/QUOTE]

:facepalm

How many times do I have to explain this to you?

[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/ko08v1d.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/4yQX1c8.jpg[/IMG]

These are the SAME gun, a Ruger Mini 14. They shoot the same bullet, hold the same magazines, have the same action, have the same barrel, etc etc.

There is NOTHING the second gun does that the first does not. The black stock, pistol grip and all the rest of the tactical bullshit is for looks and ergonomics. It looks cool and it's more comfortable to hold a pistol grip.

That's it. Period.

There is no +5 damage to little children bonus for a pistol grip. A black stock does not grant +10% to murder.

This is not Call of Duty.

Get this through your head.

[QUOTE=97 bulls]Are you implying Rifles arent more deadly than Handguns?
[/QUOTE]

How are you quantifying "deadliness"? A .223 AR15 is no where near as devastating as a .50 Desert Eagle. A .45 Colt like John Wayne used to use would leave a much larger wound than an AR15.

Here is a chart for ammo size comparison:

[URL="http://herohog.com/images/guns/ammo/all_ammo_comparison.jpg"]Link[/URL]

.223, the round used by most AR15s, is #13 on top. It is what is called an "intermediate" cartridge. Look at the size of the bullet, then compare it to the handgun rounds on the bottom. The projectile from a .223 is smaller than the vast majority of them.

There were a whole bunch of people who shit their pants when the military switched over to .223. They thought it was too small.

There is nothing magical about a rifle that makes it more dangerous than a handgun. It does not have bigger bullets, more power or any magical killing ability.

Seriously man it's getting ridiculous having to explain this to you. It's like if we were debating politics and you came in with no knowledge of the issues but a very strong opinion one way. Your opinion is based on misinformation, and if you aren't even willing to educate yourself on the subject you shouldn't be opening your mouth. All you are doing is muddling the debate with your bullshit.

yeah like I said earlier, most people don't understand that the only difference between an "assault rifle" and a "hunting rifle" is the clip...that's it

oh, and the way it looks...

[QUOTE=KingBeasley08]Trying to ban assault rifles is useless. I mean its a good effort but if our goal is to actually to slow crime, I agree with PT's theory that handguns should be the focus[/QUOTE]
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.

[QUOTE=bmulls]:facepalm

How many times do I have to explain this to you?

[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/ko08v1d.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/4yQX1c8.jpg[/IMG]

These are the SAME gun, a Ruger Mini 14. They shoot the same bullet, hold the same magazines, have the same action, have the same barrel, etc etc.

There is NOTHING the second gun does that the first does not. The black stock, pistol grip and all the rest of the tactical bullshit is for looks and ergonomics. It looks cool and it's more comfortable to hold a pistol grip.

That's it. Period.

There is no +5 damage to little children bonus for a pistol grip. A black stock does not grant +10% to murder.

This is not Call of Duty.

Get this through your head.[/QUOTE]
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.

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

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

[QUOTE=97 bulls]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.[/QUOTE]

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.

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...


[I]"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!!!"[/I] :facepalm

[QUOTE=OhNoTimNoSho]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.[/QUOTE]

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.

:yaohappy:

Only on fcking ISH.

[QUOTE=bmulls]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.

:yaohappy:

Only on fcking ISH.[/QUOTE]
but come on...rifles are more powerful!...except for magnums, those don't count as pistols of course...

[QUOTE=-p.tiddy-]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?[/QUOTE]
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.

[QUOTE=bmulls]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.

:yaohappy:

Only on fcking ISH.[/QUOTE]
how many handguns are guns are in circulation vs rifles. Whats the ratio? Stop being a jackass. Its common sense to ban them FIRST

[QUOTE=OhNoTimNoSho]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.[/QUOTE]

"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."

:roll: :roll: :roll:

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

[QUOTE=OhNoTimNoSho]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.[/QUOTE]
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

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?

[QUOTE=OhNoTimNoSho]So what exactly are you guys saying.. ban handguns but not rifles? What is your point.. do you even have a point?[/QUOTE]

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.

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

[QUOTE=bmulls]"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."

:roll: :roll: :roll:

Is this real life right now? Do people this dumb really exist?[/QUOTE]
Yes lets blindly follow a piece of paper from ~200 years ago

[QUOTE=bmulls]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.[/QUOTE]
Yes `Murica.

[IMG]http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQwveOlTe-2fOfZURqOSr0A7oNyXuVYJroUmvWDG63sGrVP4yfU[/IMG]

are you 12? Do you even own guns?

[QUOTE=-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[/QUOTE]
We can do both.