Quote Originally Posted by PTMartin View Post
Gladly:






First you said,

then when I pointed out that if rifles disappeared the weapon of choice would be a handgun and it would be just as deadly.

Then you said, followed by this train wreck of a sentence:



Which is factually wrong, as I said, a semi-auto handgun can fire just as many rounds just as fast as a semi-auto rifle. If there were no rifles all your stats would simply shift to show that mass shootings would be just as deadly and just as bad with handguns.



Clearly you are looking for some sort of "reasonable gun restrictions" on rifles. My point was that the goal of a vast amount of anti-gun nuts is total confiscation of all guns. That goal cannot happen in one move, therefore the strategy is to move in that direction one step at a time, starting with "reasonable gun restrictions".



See the above. If you are concerned with safety, banning rifles will not fix things, and could potentially make them worse. See below.



Clearly you do have an English language writing and comprehension problem. I made the point that from a mass shooters perspective, a handgun could be better since it is easier concealed. Just so you get it, that means from a public safety perspective a handgun could be much worse since it can be transported and deployed with much less visible presence.



Actually you did: Clearly implying that Japan's laws should be applied in the US.



So there is nothing broken thus nothing needs fixing. Sounds like you got a knee jerk reaction and demand that "something, anything" be done. And that something is apparently banning rifles which won't fix anything or trying to import Japan's laws to the US.



LOL. Calls me an idiot and doesn't understand the basic mechanics of firearms, namely that pistols can deliver just as many rounds, just as fast as a rifle. The only edge a rifle has is accuracy long distance. These mass shootings are mostly close range point and shoot, not sniper picking off specific individuals. Oh, and keeps yapping about "stats" which I've already pointed out are meaningless in the context that handguns would simply replace rifles as the instrument of choice and the rest of the numbers would be the same or worse. But hey, let's go down the slippery slope of banning rifles, that will surely make things better, and everyone will be satisfied at stopping there on infringing on the 2nd amendment.
You ignore anything I say the stats already exist and show hand guns are not as deadily. You obv know better than stats from 100s of mass shootings.