Originally Posted by 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.
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.