Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Svifnymr]

A poster earlier said it best.

If it's a choice between preventing me from having fun at a shooting range or saving 9,000 lives a year, I'm going with the 9,000 lives per year.

It's not, it's the choice between millions of people enjoying shooting and collecting guns and using them for self defense, vs possibly saving 9,000 lives a year.

Though of course it depends on which law you're talking about, which deaths you're worried about, and lots of other factors ignored.

[Dillon]

You kind of people that talk like that Over my cold dead fingers or that thread a week ago that had a banner in Texas that Read Come and take it don't act so native your pretending your unsure of what the person thought you meant. In fact a author of a book on guns was murdered by an Iraqi War Vet..at the shooting range.

If guns make everything and everyone so much safer. Using that logic solely the gun range would've been safest place in the world. This took place in Texas where some of the most relaxed gun laws in the United States

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_2611789.html

...what are you even talking about? Cold dead fingers... Texas...

Yes, I'm aware of what the phrase come and take it means, and I'm glad you do too.

On the other hand, I would much rather take an anti-gunner out shooting and see if I can't recoil some sense into him. I'm fairly positive that most anti-gun folks have never even fired a gun- it does make a difference. When you operate a firearm, you will understand what an incredible responsibility it is, and why it should never be a power that a government has a monopoly on.

Not being armed is a mistake a free people can afford to make only once.

[FusedMass]

...what are you even talking about? Cold dead fingers... Texas...

Yes, I'm aware of what the phrase come and take it means, and I'm glad you do too.

On the other hand, I would much rather take an anti-gunner out shooting and see if I can't recoil some sense into him. I'm fairly positive that most anti-gun folks have never even fired a gun- it does make a difference. When you operate a firearm, you will understand what an incredible responsibility it is, and why it should never be a power that a government has a monopoly on.

Not being armed is a mistake a free people can afford to make only once.

Cold Dead Fingers..I thought at least you would be familiar with that phase. Let me explain if you are not. It's a saying Gun Owners (some) to describe if they would ever turn in their weapons. They usually say once you pry them from my cold dead hands. Showing that some would rather die then give up their weapons to me at least is insane.

It's not that people never fired a gun before. It's not as if shooting at the gun range will suddenly turn their view. I'm fairly certain it will not. A gun is a deadly weapon with a single purpose to kill. Of course we cannot ban hand guns but we can make it harder for bad guys to get guns. How many murders with an AK-47 ..not many since those are heavy regulated.

It's a well known fact twice as many people will get shot when they're is an assault weapon because you have 100 bullets. Why do you need exactly so many bullets. How many times would you logically have to fire to defend yourself. Even if you're a bad shot and they're is numerous people ..100 bullets is a tad excessive. What about gun range shooting..how did that guy die there..if guns make everything safer.

[Svifnymr]

Cold Dead Fingers..I thought at least you would be familiar with that phase. Let me explain if you are not. It's a saying Gun Owners (some) to describe if they would ever turn in their weapons. They usually say once you pry them from my cold dead hands. Showing that some would rather die then give up their weapons to me at least is insane.

And he didn't, so you're just randomly putting words into peoples mouths again. Paint with a very broad brush so you can denigrate as many as possible.

It's not that people never fired a gun before. It's not as if shooting at the gun range will suddenly turn their view. I'm fairly certain it will not. A gun is a deadly weapon with a single purpose to kill. Of course we cannot ban hand guns but we can make it harder for bad guys to get guns. How many murders with an AK-47 ..not many since those are heavy regulated.

You still don't know the difference between a machinegun and a semiautomatic, do you?

It's a well known fact twice as many people will get shot when they're is an assault weapon because you have 100 bullets. Why do you need exactly so many bullets. How many times would you logically have to fire to defend yourself. Even if you're a bad shot and they're is numerous people ..100 bullets is a tad excessive. What about gun range shooting..how did that guy die there..if guns make everything safer.

It is not a fact, it's a theory dreamed up out of nothingness. Virginia tech was more than Sandyhook, as an example. Rifles don't come with 100 bullets, you can buy it separately, same as for a handgun. "Guns make everything safer" is an overstatement as well, but obviously the shooter only shot two rather than 20+, right? so it must be guns that minimized it, right? Or maybe every shooting is different.

Your two most common reasons for the AWB are:
1) 100 round magazines
2) they're easy to convert to full auto

So, find how many mass shootings occured with a 100 round magazine or an illegally converted rifle, bonus points if they used both. The drum used in the Aurora shooting was the only drum I recall offhand, and it caused the gun to jam, so we should assume that 100 round drums save lives using your logic.

The video posted earlier:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yATeti5GmI8

It even has a law enforcement guy saying no one converts them and that's all a load of hogwash.

Have you ever even acknowledged the drum magazine for handguns?

Ever acknowledge shotguns aren't single shot?

[FusedMass]

And he didn't, so you're just randomly putting words into peoples mouths again. Paint with a very broad brush so you can denigrate as many as possible.

He implied it. Even other posters did not clearly get the signal what he meant then he on purpose acted native about taking someone to gun shooting range. Since you completely ignored my earlier post. I will re-post it. A man in TEXAS an Author of Book about GUNS was killed at a shooting range by an iraq war vet. Now explain to me in detail if guns make everything more safe then how did he die. Here's an article to it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_2611789.html

You still don't know the difference between a machinegun and a semiautomatic, do you?

The Irony in your earlier post putting words in peoples mouth then you are implying I do not know. I know the difference quite well. If you paid attention to my earlier posts you would know that.

It is not a fact, it's a theory dreamed up out of nothingness. Virginia tech was more than Sandyhook, as an example. Rifles don't come with 100 bullets, you can buy it separately, same as for a handgun. "Guns make everything safer" is an overstatement as well, but obviously the shooter only shot two rather than 20+, right? so it must be guns that minimized it, right? Or maybe every shooting is different.

If you are using a pistol let's say capable of firing 30 bullets. You shoot it into a crowd you would not hit as many people as an assault weapon. These weapons are designed to shoot the most amount of bullets in the shortest amount of time. Guns in general are deadly things. However an assault weapon makes it more dangerous the chances of more people being killed goes up.

These weapons with 100 drum magazine. Not talking about plastic grip were designed for weapons of war. You don't need them to feel safe.

Your two most common reasons for the AWB are:
1) 100 round magazines
2) they're easy to convert to full auto

So, find how many mass shootings occured with a 100 round magazine or an illegally converted rifle, bonus points if they used both. The drum used in the Aurora shooting was the only drum I recall offhand, and it caused the gun to jam, so we should assume that 100 round drums save lives using your logic.

The video posted earlier:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yATeti5GmI8

Of course I realize they're are other weapons with a 100 bullet drum which is why I am in favor of high capity magazine clips personally over assult weapon. Those assult weapons can be changed just slighty to make them legal. That's why the gun for new town shooting would been legal because last bill left out majority of the weapons.

People who make the guns tweak them every so slighty to make them legal again. However if you kept magazine to a limit of 10 bullets max. Then no matter what weapon you had you couldn't fire nearly as many shots. 10 bullets is still a lot.

It even has a law enforcement guy saying no one converts them and that's all a load of hogwash.

Source please

Have you ever even acknowledged the drum magazine for handguns?

Yes which is why I'm in favor again of a magazine ban over assult weapons. No matter type weapon you had if you could only put ten bullets at a time.

Ever acknowledge shotguns aren't single shot?

Have you even read article I posted about man killed at the gun range. I'm sure your going to ignore it just as you ignored leaders from both party's while President have called for a ban on these weapons. As former President Bill said these weapons are dangerous with sole purpose is to kill. That's why they were banned for 10 years before it expired.

[Dillon]

Cold Dead Fingers..I thought at least you would be familiar with that phase. Let me explain if you are not. It's a saying Gun Owners (some) to describe if they would ever turn in their weapons. They usually say once you pry them from my cold dead hands. Showing that some would rather die then give up their weapons to me at least is insane.

It's not that people never fired a gun before. It's not as if shooting at the gun range will suddenly turn their view. I'm fairly certain it will not. A gun is a deadly weapon with a single purpose to kill. Of course we cannot ban hand guns but we can make it harder for bad guys to get guns. How many murders with an AK-47 ..not many since those are heavy regulated.

It's a well known fact twice as many people will get shot when they're is an assault weapon because you have 100 bullets. Why do you need exactly so many bullets. How many times would you logically have to fire to defend yourself. Even if you're a bad shot and they're is numerous people ..100 bullets is a tad excessive. What about gun range shooting..how did that guy die there..if guns make everything safer.

No, I'm absolutely familiar with the phrase, and I don't necessarily disagree with it. I was more confused about what exactly your intention was, because I didn't understand what it had to do with what I said. I said, basically, come and take it, or instead we could go shooting.

From my experience, most people for weapons bans or complete removal of arms/2nd amendment have some kind of personal aversion to firearms. Whether it's because they were told they were bad, decided they were instruments of death and nothing more, or they watch too much television news where reports of self defense are rare, they have in some way been persuaded that nothing good can come of the gun.

Make no mistake, I feel that it's possible that there would be less death in the world without firearms. But the entire reason crimes are perpetrated is because the person decided to do it, the instrument of their deed is simply along for the ride. If it isn't a gun, it's a knife, or a bat, or their fists. Taking down poverty, lack of education, improving the economy, better access to healthcare and ending drug prohibition would go a long way to solving this problem, rather than focusing on a single instrument of destruction.

Your third statement, I'm not sure what you're on about. I mean, I do see your point, and even if everything went straight to hell in the US and we had to dismantle the government by force, I still wouldn't use a 100 round magazine if I was a part of that fight. It's impractical, unless you're suppressing for advance, in which case you're probably not hitting anything but a wall or the ground anyway. Banning the magazines doesn't solve the problem, in fact it's nothing like enough. If it isn't a 100 round magazine, they'll use a standard 30 round magazine, if not then ten, if not then they'll pick people off from a clock tower with a rifle. Ease of use through higher capacity is irrelevant, because at its worst the criminals would simply resort to the New York reload and carry more than one gun.

And, for how many bullets you have to fire to defend yourself, the answer is simply, as many as it takes to end the threat. If its a single mother, and multiple perpetrators, a ten round mag just isn't a guarantee, with stress, missing shots, malfunctions, etc.

As for that poor retired serviceman, he's at a gun range... gunfire, everywhere, and then somebody walks up behind him and murders him. Guns don't make everything safer by their very existence, they simply give you a chance rather than being at the complete mercy of scumbags.

[mvaliz]

It's not, it's the choice between millions of people enjoying shooting and collecting guns and using them for self defense, vs possibly saving 9,000 lives a year.

Wow...

It's still worth it if millions of people enjoy shooting vs saving 9,000 lives. Hell, in my book it's worth saving ONE life, never mind 9,000.... Happiness and fun can be found in many places, not just the gun range. Ana M. Marquez-Greeney's (victim of Sandy Hook) are rare...

EDIT: on a side-note, nobody is saying "Get rid of shooting ranges". Why not just keep the guns at a shooting range? People do that with Lazer Tag... people do that with bumper cars... what would be the difference?

Collectors? Fine... have a license with restrictions and mounted display that's fixed to a board with absolutely no ammo allowed in-home for the assault-style weapons.

[mistuhbull]

I mean, we still have low lifes and the usual scumbags. We have gangs. Albeit not so violent that they cower the police into submission. But I am confident that it would be much worse if people had little chance to change their lot in life so dramatically as they can now.

Even if your gangs were as violent, the US would still have dramatically more (even accounting for population).

Denmark has 1 city with over 250,000 residents whereas the US has 75.

US has 60x the population of Denmark and 75x the amount of BIG cities (at 200,000 it's 2-107)

Why is this relevant? because our crime stats tell us that cities with over 250,000 residents have almost double the national violent crime rate

[Svifnymr]

He implied it. Even other posters did not clearly get the signal what he meant then he on purpose acted native about taking someone to gun shooting range. Since you completely ignored my earlier post. I will re-post it. A man in TEXAS an Author of Book about GUNS was killed at a shooting range by an iraq war vet. Now explain to me in detail if guns make everything more safe then how did he die. Here's an article to it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_2611789.html

It's in my post you quoted, just below that. Since only 2 people died, using your logic, it must be because they were at a range, so more people weren't shot.

The Irony in your earlier post putting words in peoples mouth then you are implying I do not know. I know the difference quite well. If you paid attention to my earlier posts you would know that.

Nyah, you regard the AK47 as banned because the machinegun is banned, while regarding the semi-auto AR15 as the M16, ignoring all the AK copies in semiauto.

If you are using a pistol let's say capable of firing 30 bullets. You shoot it into a crowd you would not hit as many people as an assault weapon.

Why is that? Is it because the pistol is smaller and easier to use in closed confines such as inside a building, thus meaning it hits less? I assume you're going to ignore the AR pistols since the line might get too foggy.

These weapons are designed to shoot the most amount of bullets in the shortest amount of time. Guns in general are deadly things. However an assault weapon makes it more dangerous the chances of more people being killed goes up.

Then why don't any of the statistics back up your data?

Of course I realize they're are other weapons with a 100 bullet drum which is why I am in favor of high capity magazine clips personally over assult weapon. Those assult weapons can be changed just slighty to make them legal. That's why the gun for new town shooting would been legal because last bill left out majority of the weapons.

If you enact a law saying "you can't have a threaded barrel", and the manufacturers come out with a gun without a threaded barrel, that is called "complying with the law".

People who make the guns tweak them every so slighty to make them legal again. However if you kept magazine to a limit of 10 bullets max. Then no matter what weapon you had you couldn't fire nearly as many shots. 10 bullets is still a lot.

So show me the mass shootings that used:
1) a drum magazine of 100+ rounds
2) an illegally converted machinegun

Source please

I linked a video, that has the source in it, that's why I linked it. What other source do you want?

Have you even read article I posted about man killed at the gun range. I'm sure your going to ignore it just as you ignored leaders from both party's while President have called for a ban on these weapons. As former President Bill said these weapons are dangerous with sole purpose is to kill. That's why they were banned for 10 years before it expired.

As I said above, I replied to your article in the post you quoted. The president knows so little about guns, he posts a picture of him shooting skeet with the shotgun pointed straight ahead, so I assume the skeet were running along the ground at the time, because they are craft like that.

While they were banned for 10 years, are you saying that there were no mass shootings? Columbine didn't happen? McCree didn't shoot 5 with his handgun with 10 round magazines? None of that happened? Have you found a study that shows how 10 round magazine limits reduced crime in Canada after enactment? Maybe one from the USA that shows something useful? Or just anti-gunners making vague statements of lower crime and trying to take credit for something that started before the ban and continued after the ban?

---------- Post added 2013-02-03 at 05:00 PM ----------

Wow...

It's still worth it if millions of people enjoy shooting vs saving 9,000 lives. Hell, in my book it's worth saving ONE life, never mind 9,000.... Happiness and fun can be found in many places, not just the gun range. Ana M. Marquez-Greeney's (victim of Sandy Hook) are rare...

EDIT: on a side-note, nobody is saying "Get rid of shooting ranges". Why not just keep the guns at a shooting range? People do that with Lazer Tag... people do that with bumper cars... what would be the difference?

Collectors? Fine... have a license with restrictions and mounted display that's fixed to a board with absolutely no ammo allowed in-home for the assault-style weapons.

As I said elsewhere, why not remove the 4th, 5th and 6th amendments then, you'd save a lot more people? You want to infringe on 100's of millions of people to save thousands, let alone "a single life". You also ignore the self-defense lives that will now be lost if guns are banned.

It's simple, you can't base society on living in a bubble so that no harm is possible. Every freedom has inherent risks.

[PhaelixWW]

It's a well known fact twice as many people will get shot when they're is an assault weapon because you have 100 bullets.

It's a well known fact that FusedMass has no idea what she's talking about, makes up fake statistics, and ignores posts with links to factual data that don't support her narrow, myopic view.

Everything you said there was wrong, by the way. You'd know that if you opened your mind and stopped ignoring information.

Infracted: Please refrain from personal attacks

[GreatOak]

Handy Tutorial for people who want to make their AR's even deadlier

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z2jhlXnDdg8

[Catta]

Even if your gangs were as violent, the US would still have dramatically more (even accounting for population).

Denmark has 1 city with over 250,000 residents whereas the US has 75.

US has 60x the population of Denmark and 75x the amount of BIG cities (at 200,000 it's 2-107)

Why is this relevant? because our crime stats tell us that cities with over 250,000 residents have almost double the national violent crime rate

I dont really think that has anything to do with the actual size of the city but rather you having a large historically poor urbanized minority which is still seen today.
The US has 60 times more people than us? Then divide it with 60 and we see that you still have a homicide rate 5 times higher.
We have an abnormally high crime rate in the outer skirts of the country rather than the major.

[Templar 331]

I believe artificially limiting the capacity of a handgun to less than what the handgun naturally holds via the space of the grip should be justified before being enacted. It's going to adversely affect the defensive shooter more, less room for error in a stressful situation with his life on the line. You have arbitrarily decide that because a situation usually only involves a few rounds, that we should enact a hard limit on the peaceful.

The trade off is that in one of the very rare mass shooting situations, the guy will have more magazines and reload more often, in the hopes that at some point someone will take one of the breaks to stop the guy. Assuming the person that's going to stop the criminal has a gun and doesn't miss.

You refuse to see any defensive scenario in which a person would need more than 11 rounds? Even in your wildest imagination, you can't see such a defensive scenario occurring say, 5 times a year? Thus making it much more likely to use a Standard Capacity magazine much more than the occurrence of a mass shooting?

And again, what is wrong with a magazine limit that says "you can't have a magazine that extends more than 1/2 inch below the magazine well"? 15-17 for handguns would be normal, An AR15 would be 20 rounds. An AK47 doesn't have much of a magwell, nor does a Mini14, so they'd be screwed at like 5 rounds probably, but I'm just using it as an example. Why is "ten rounds" reasonable?

That does sound like a good idea. And you are right about me not see a situation where you'd need more than 10-15 bullets. Even if there are multiple targets, you carrying more rounds wouldn't help. Lets say there are 3-4 mass shooters with "assault" weapons loaded to the brim with ammo. You pull out your pistol and shoot at them. If you don't kill them in the first few shots, they'll shoot you. If you had more ammo you could spend more bullets finding your mark, but how long before they shoot back? What if they have on armour? It wouldn't matter how many bullets you shot. But this is an extreme example.

A mild scenario would be you are walking down a dark street at night and a gang of muggers jumps you. Would you be able to shoot all of them with a bigger clip if they cought you by surprise? What if they knock you out before you could draw? What if they all had handguns with the same clips as you? What good would a bigger clip do if you have 2 or more guns already pointed at you? At least you would get one or more. But all of them? Not likely. So that's my reasoning behind not making bigger clips. Another one would be someone breaks into your home. Do like Biden says and use a shot gun. LOL

As for the 10 round thing, thank the metric system, XD.

[hakujinbakasama]

I dont really think that has anything to do with the actual size of the city but rather you having a large historically poor urbanized minority which is still seen today.
The US has 60 times more people than us? Then divide it with 60 and we see that you still have a homicide rate 5 times higher.
We have an abnormally high crime rate in the outer skirts of the country rather than the major.

I really wish people would take a Statistics or advanced math course and Sociology before trying to jigsaw numbers from reports.

[Catta]

I really wish people would take a Statistics or advanced math course and Sociology before trying to jigsaw numbers from reports.

Actually i just took the homicide rates from Wikipedia. Not much jigsaw there. Its like when discussing healthcare and someone says its harder for the US because there are more people - but that also means that there are more tax money, more workers etc etc. I dont really see the scope of the city being the reason rather than the socio economic factors.

And I've had plenty of math, thank you very much.

[GreatOak]

Actually i just took the homicide rates from Wikipedia. Not much jigsaw there. Its like when discussing healthcare and someone says its harder for the US because there are more people - but that also means that there are more tax money, more workers etc etc. I dont really see the scope of the city being the reason rather than the socio economic factors.

And I've had plenty of math, thank you very much.

It's harder for the US for a variety of reasons, but I agree. A simple comparison between populations doesn't make any sense at all if that's the basis of an argument.

[hakujinbakasama]

Even if there are multiple targets, you carrying more rounds wouldn't help. Lets say there are 3-4 mass shooters with "assault" weapons loaded to the brim with ammo. You pull out your pistol and shoot at them. If you don't kill them in the first few shots, they'll shoot you.

Do like Biden says and use a shot gun. LOL

1. Read the Columbine report. Both shooters were engaged and retreated after a brief exchange of fire. Neither the shooters nor the officers were hit.

2. Shotguns are not end all be all and are actually more difficult in a self defense situation to manipulate than a handgun. Biden can go fuck himself.

A main point....
I'm really tired of this bullshit of "mass shootings." We rarely have "Mass Shootings" in the United States. We have shootings, mass executions, and on the rare occasion a mass shooting. Aurora was a Mass Shooting. I suppose the Mall incident last year could be classified as a Mass Shooting, but I will admit I've not looked into it much past the first week. I was left with the impression that LEOs were thinking it was an actually assault on a specific group or person.

The problem is that we consider shootings which take place in public to be "mass shootings" instead of public assaults with a deadly weapon. There used to be a clear distinction between "Mass Shooting" and something like Shady Hook. Hell, even Columbine by and large isn't a Mass Shooting. It was a tragedy sure, but it was also a very specific execution of a group of people.

That's the real issue at the heart of most of this controversy. You aren't going to stop mass killings/executions/murder by simply limiting the rounds in a magazine from this point forward. That didn't work last time and isn't going to work this time either. People need to stop looking over the fact that ones committing these acts have a specific desire to KILL and MURDER not just open fire and hope they hit something.

And I really don't give two fucks what the supporters and fairytale people seem to think. There has only been two things shown which stops someone who is currently in the process of committing such acts. 1. A bullet to the head or 2. Armed Resistance.

This notion that "adding more guns just adds more problems" is horse shit no matter how you try to spin it. Want more cops? Guess what, that's more guns being added. Either way the only solution of actual force to stop people relies on guns. Delusional people just want them in the hands of the police because then THEY aren't responsible for having to do anything.

Then again. Some of the loudest motherfuckers on the internet constantly beating the shit out of my speakers who support all of these gun bans and limits, while presenting the argument that we need more police or that we don't need them because we have police, are also the same one who turn around and bash the police for all the captured brutality and corruption. I'M LOOKING AT YOU INDEPENDENT MEDIA!

---------- Post added 2013-02-03 at 04:59 PM ----------

And I've had plenty of math, thank you very much.

Oh, ok. So I just wish we could some how create a class for adults focused around teaching common sense.

[Svifnymr]

That does sound like a good idea. And you are right about me not see a situation where you'd need more than 10-15 bullets. Even if there are multiple targets, you carrying more rounds wouldn't help. Lets say there are 3-4 mass shooters with "assault" weapons loaded to the brim with ammo. You pull out your pistol and shoot at them. If you don't kill them in the first few shots, they'll shoot you. If you had more ammo you could spend more bullets finding your mark, but how long before they shoot back? What if they have on armour? It wouldn't matter how many bullets you shot. But this is an extreme example.

It's all an exercise in "creative thinking" really.

Imagine a scenario where someone opens fire, and a guy with a gun fires at him, missing. The Criminal takes cover behind a wall, trying to shoot at the GoodGuy, the Goodguy can't get a shot, returns fire occasionally. Neither can end the siege. Of course, it DOES give plenty of time for the police to show up. The Criminal has prepared for killing lots of folks, so he has lots of 10 round magazines. The Goodguy was shopping for underwear, so he has 1.

A mild scenario would be you are walking down a dark street at night and a gang of muggers jumps you. Would you be able to shoot all of them with a bigger clip if they cought you by surprise? What if they knock you out before you could draw? What if they all had handguns with the same clips as you? What good would a bigger clip do if you have 2 or more guns already pointed at you? At least you would get one or more. But all of them? Not likely. So that's my reasoning behind not making bigger clips.

What would it harm you if the criminals in this case had 17 rounds instead of 15? If you're dead, are you MORE dead now? It can only work to your favor to have more rounds on you, right?

How about this scenario. Guy is heading to a resteraunt, as he gets out of his car, the guys robbing the resteraunt come running out, surprised to see someone, they raise their guns, he ducks behind his car, they open fire, he shoots back. The two guys robbing the resteraunt run off. He fired 12 rounds before they ran off, according to the report. They fired 4 from counting the holes in his car. No one managed to hit each other, but had he run empty, how would it have gone? (The old "nothing loader than an empty gun" cliche.)

Another one would be someone breaks into your home. Do like Biden says and use a shot gun. LOL

Plenty of folks think a shotgun is good for home defense, I disagree. The recoil is excessive, and the idea of sending a cone of 9 .30 pellets off somewhere seems very imprecise to me. 223 has a good profile for not over penetrating walls and is more accurate. Still loud though. In addition, given an actual lawless situation such as a hurricane scenario (what Biden was replying to), a 5 shot shotgun vs a 30 shot AR seems a bad trade off for me.

When my aunt asked me what gun she should get, I suggested an 1894 in 44, loaded with a bunch of 44 special rounds, heavy hitting, easy to shoot and operate. Plus, if it makes it to trial, they'd hold up;

At least until they ban Assault Lever Guns.

As for the 10 round thing, thank the metric system, XD.

"Firearms Laws as enacted by Adrian Monk"

[FusedMass]

It's a well known fact that FusedMass has no idea what she's talking about, makes up fake statistics, and ignores posts with links to factual data that don't support her narrow, myopic view.

Everything you said there was wrong, by the way. You'd know that if you opened your mind and stopped ignoring information.

It is not only offense when you make comments. It's against the rules of the site. That's like me calling you a troll every single time you post and completely ignoring what you are saying. It's not a well known fact. In fact the poll reflect's that DOUBLE people support it over the small minority that doesn't. If your frustrated and upset. That's fine but calling names is virtually when you have no argument. It's like stomping your feet throwing a little temper because you didn't get it.

In fact you saying it's a well known fact. Just blows up your so called fact. Because it isn't. It's misleading to say something like that. And it seriously calls into question the creditably of your other posts. I am here to debate not insulting. If you want to insult that's fine but TAKE IT OUT OF THE THREAD.

[Laize]

I dont really think that has anything to do with the actual size of the city but rather you having a large historically poor urbanized minority which is still seen today.
The US has 60 times more people than us? Then divide it with 60 and we see that you still have a homicide rate 5 times higher.
We have an abnormally high crime rate in the outer skirts of the country rather than the major.

Are we really going to argue about why the US has a higher crime rate than Denmark?