I've shot an AR 15 only once and it was maybe 5 shots, so forgive me if I'm a bit off. But reharding handguns, they are super easy to use...Except for when you hit the .44s and above. Those just beco,e plain difficult to shoot at any reasonable rate.
Yeah, I know he was shouting Allahu Akbar and all, while killing people condemned by his religion but..., it's inconclusive. /s
Nightclubs, dangerous ****!
You win the internet.
That's not a problem when someone actually takes responsibility for one:
http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/myth-3-25-million-defensive-gun-uses-each-year-cant-be-accurate
Right.... The worse weapon that is, remember, SO EASY TO GET, is killing the least amount of people for a gun.
Again, so are knives and blunt objects. They account for more deaths than rifles every year.
The drawback is you punish the people who do enjoy owning them because of a small handful of lunatics. Meanwhile, more people are getting murdered by everyday objects. Explain why I need to have my rifle taken away when you're more likely to die by a knife than by my rifle. 300 deaths a year from a rifle, show you have very, very little chance of being killed by one.
Again, so are knives and blunt objects. They account for more deaths than rifles every year.
This goes for everything, including the things you don't want to ban. Accidents or not, deaths still happen. You might not like guns, but that doesn't make them objectively worse than other things.
I still don't see what this has to do with anything. Even if it's true, it's probably true in part thanks to making the guns illegal so that only people willing to do illegal things would be holding them.
They could blow it up instead. The argument against the ban is that people who have done nothing wrong shouldn't be punished because of the guilty. It's not like taking an all or nothing approach would make the world completely safe anyway.
Those people using rifles for fun have nothing to do with people being murdered. I see no reason to force them to give something up so that you feel safer. You could take away all the guns and make it impossible for someone to shoot you and they could still get run over a by a driver distracted by birds. It's accident, but the result is the same.
We don't need much. If we followed your logic, we would all basically be in jail cells with a water source and some bread. That's all we need, and on paper it would save every life. It sounds completely stupid though.
And yet, as you clearly failed to read the study, 1 extreme example doesn't change the fact that your problem with guns isn't the problem at all when they're being used more for defense than offense.
Oh my god, look at all these people about to murder everyone!
Just as I'm sure anyone would doubt someone would go into a marathon & place pressure cookers on the street instead of shooting everyone with a rifle that's so easy to acquire....
So by that logic, I can spare even more lives banning a knife as well.
Too bad this isn't a valid argument. Just because you don't find any enjoyment in it doesn't mean someone who does should give it up.
I can say it to the families where a gun saved them just as well.
The difference is they have the right to do that & showing not everyone walking around with a rifle is a bad guy. Sorry, dynamite isn't protected by that right.
That's funny. Up until Orlando, the deadliest shooting in America was done by a handgun. 3 of the top 5 current shootings don't involve a rifle at all, either.
You're not going to be able to go up and grab the trigger. Ignoring again that these people do learn how to properly own & use these weapons.
Last I checked, this & San Bernardino were classified as terrorist attacks as well.... It doesn't change the fact that just as you assume no one would go into a club with a knife to kill 50 people, no one would assume someone would try to bomb a marathon in the US. The reality is, no one ever assumes these things to begin with because it creates fear.
That's a disturbing assumption to make that still comes down to the sick individual.
Nope. Your preferences don't get to decide for everyone else.
Then you take issue with the laws & not the weapon, that's the difference in the debate. I think the gun should be allowed to own, but require a much harsher requirement for that privilege. You just want to gun gone because you don't like it.
You posted you had problems with guns (not just rifles) & why they're unnecessary. Those problems are not problems for others, esp. if is a study is finding guns are used more often for defensive purposes than used for crimes.
It's not because most people actively carrying in the public are given training on how to use their weapon in public; self defense & only as a last resort. You're attempts to use my own rebuttal don't work if you don't understand the responsibilities legal gun owners abide by.
I'm amused you think you could just grab a gun off someone without a fight ensuing, not taking into account that the gun likely has a safety on, and there's no round in the chamber. Adding in a "buddy" only shows your attempt at trying to convey an extreme situation where you win & validate your fantasy. In all likely hood, even a criminal including yourself theoretically, would not try to mess with a man carrying a rifle in public. These people aren't morons without a clue of what they're carrying.
Just as you would like to think you & a group of people would take down a man with a handgun, despite history showing otherwise?
And what happens when the law decides something for you that you wouldn't decide for yourself? This situation, because you don't get to have everything tailored to what you'd like.
In your opinion. There are substitutes to plenty of things people do not need.
That's interesting considering people have lobbied for certain video games to be banned because it influences people to carry out what they see. They blamed something else instead of the person.
