Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

XorXor

(605 posts)
Sat Jun 11, 2022, 11:34 PM Jun 2022

I don't understand why the gun debate is focused on a certain type of rifle.

Most gun deaths comes from handguns. The rifles that get the most focus make up like 3% or something of total deaths. So, I don't understand how we can discuss this issue without also including handguns in this conversation. I mean, even if we snapped our fingers all of these rifles were gone, we'd still have a huge problem with gun violence. Maybe it would reduce the deaths in the mass shootings that get the most attention, but I have my doubts about that. Given the fact that most mass shootings don't happen in places where the rifle gives an "advantage", since it almost always targets unarmed and unsuspecting people at close range. I understand the point that those rifles may cause more brutal damage to a body, but at that point we're just dealing with variations of the horrific awfulness.

I'm not making a point about how to solve this. I'm not smart enough for that. But rather I wish people would take it all into account when discussing this topic. Whether you think the solution is to ban guns, increase regulations, increase mental health stuff, work on the root causes of crime, or combination of these, we need to also discuss handguns.

Now maybe the focus on this limited subset is due to strategic political reasons that I'm too dense or stubborn to understand. Such as the argument that going after handguns too politically impossible and something is better than nothing. But I don't know how much of a difference it would make in the end if we don't consider rifles and handguns in any solutions. If we expend the political capital to implement some solution, but we still maintain the 95% of gun violence that was taking place before.

I'm curious what others think about this, particularly if you disagree with anything I said. Also, to clarify, this isn't a "do nothing" argument, but rather a "do more" argument.

This recent shooting was carried out with a handgun (this is what sparked me finally post my thoughts) https://democraticunderground.com/10142927925

48 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
I don't understand why the gun debate is focused on a certain type of rifle. (Original Post) XorXor Jun 2022 OP
Assault weapons are the moist doable target to start with. Mr.Bill Jun 2022 #1
Do you feel that a ban that focuses only on AR-type rifles would have a significant impact on deaths XorXor Jun 2022 #4
It woiuld have a signifigant impact Mr.Bill Jun 2022 #6
One can get high capacity magazines for handguns, though. XorXor Jun 2022 #13
California's magazine laws were thrown out by the courts. Mr.Bill Jun 2022 #17
That's going to be an issue with anything. XorXor Jun 2022 #21
Interesting LiberatedUSA Jun 2022 #25
Oh for Christ's sake, not this stupid pile of fetid dingo's kidneys again AndyS Jun 2022 #38
Police use their ARs for defensive purposes only. SYFROYH Jun 2022 #41
You have a really funny definition of 'defensive' use. AndyS Jun 2022 #42
Police cannot shoot without justification. SYFROYH Jun 2022 #43
We simply disagree. AndyS Jun 2022 #45
Not interested in what you are selling. N/t LiberatedUSA Jun 2022 #46
Folks who are heavily invested in a true religion seldom are . . . AndyS Jun 2022 #47
A "win" against the AR and high capacity magazines would be a crack in the Chainfire Jun 2022 #31
K n R ! Thanks for posting! JoeOtterbein Jun 2022 #2
Because on balance, we are a society dominated KPN Jun 2022 #3
There you go again AnyFunctioningAdult Jun 2022 #5
Post removed Post removed Jun 2022 #7
It's a fair point. Look to the Virginia Tech shooting NickB79 Jun 2022 #8
As someone who's fired a Glock 18... WarGamer Jun 2022 #9
In a crowd of unarmed people at close range NickB79 Jun 2022 #10
Yikes... the thought of that is scary. WarGamer Jun 2022 #12
I think re-enacting Sgent Jun 2022 #14
Definitely NickB79 Jun 2022 #27
I didn't realize that many people were killed there. XorXor Jun 2022 #16
With the AR-15, it's not so much the caliber Mr.Bill Jun 2022 #20
... Crepuscular Jun 2022 #33
... Mr.Bill Jun 2022 #35
... Crepuscular Jun 2022 #40
It's just trying to get what we can . We wont be able to do what most sensible civilized countries JI7 Jun 2022 #11
It's the types of killings these movie merch guns cause gulliver Jun 2022 #15
Exactly. paleotn Jun 2022 #19
So your point is what? Do nothing? paleotn Jun 2022 #18
Not my point at all. I tried to make that clear and even explicitly stated it. XorXor Jun 2022 #22
"From his 32nd-floor suites in the Mandalay Bay hotel, more than 1,000 bullets, killing 60 people." Ellipsis Jun 2022 #23
That is a no doubt a valid point for doing something about rifles. XorXor Jun 2022 #24
Because the Pistol Grip Rifle (PGR) was designed for mass kill war (link) uponit7771 Jun 2022 #26
There are now lots of non-pistol grip AR's manufactured NickB79 Jun 2022 #29
Straight stock VS PGR is *NOT* "cosmetic", the VPC article is objective and factual if we can ... uponit7771 Jun 2022 #30
So guns like this, even though they fire at the same speed, same cartridge NickB79 Jun 2022 #32
Why do I see the Fla_Democrat Jun 2022 #36
"spray and pray" works when relatively unskilled are wanting to kill a bunch of humans who aren't... uponit7771 Jun 2022 #37
Aw, look how happy you made our resident gun enthusiasts! Paladin Jun 2022 #28
I'm not sure why it would. XorXor Jun 2022 #48
LOL. Iggo Jun 2022 #34
You are right. Mass shootings make a big splash AndyS Jun 2022 #39
A bolt-action .303 doesn't have cops crapping in their pants. TheBlackAdder Jun 2022 #44

Mr.Bill

(24,103 posts)
1. Assault weapons are the moist doable target to start with.
Sat Jun 11, 2022, 11:39 PM
Jun 2022

They have been banned before. It would be much more difficult to ban handguns.

The AR-15 type weapons are also far more deadly and do far more damage than handguns.

XorXor

(605 posts)
4. Do you feel that a ban that focuses only on AR-type rifles would have a significant impact on deaths
Sat Jun 11, 2022, 11:47 PM
Jun 2022

I like to think I'm usually pretty pragmatic and I support the "something is better than nothing" approach because that something usually has a pretty large impact even if it's not everything we may want. My concern remains that even if we were able to get rid of those rifles we won't have much of an impact, and we would suffer politically as a result of not only the implementation, but also the ammunition it would give the gun absolutists as they cite the limited reduction in gun violence. So, for me, what I need to hear is how I'm wrong in my assumptions that it would have minimal impact on total gun deaths. I figure if we're going to expend that political capital and take whatever hits we might take in taking action, then we should go all in in whatever bans or regulations we go with.

Mr.Bill

(24,103 posts)
6. It woiuld have a signifigant impact
Sat Jun 11, 2022, 11:58 PM
Jun 2022

on a certain type of shooting. It's a weapon designed to kill as many people as possible in a short amount of time. Not so much with a handgun. For one thing, most handguns require more frequent reloading. A lone shooter is vulnerable while reloading. If I wanted to kill as many unarmed people as possible in an enclosed space not knowing how much time I will have before someone from outside shoots me, the AR-15 is the most efficient for that scenario.

For concealment while walking in to do a hold up at a liquor store, the handgun would be best. For home protection, a pump shotgun would be best.

XorXor

(605 posts)
13. One can get high capacity magazines for handguns, though.
Sun Jun 12, 2022, 12:47 AM
Jun 2022

We can make laws that limit the capacity of magazines in both handguns and rifles. Obviously this wouldn't prevent the most dedicated person from obtaining or even making their own, but it would make it significantly harder for the majority of people who attempt shootings. I don't see the magazine capacity as being much of a difference here. Another thing is that even if they were limited to a 10 or 12 round magazine, that's still 10 to 12 people who could be shot. Then they spend maybe 10 seconds to swapping out the magazine? Now maybe there is a case for making it so they can't have detachable magazines (I believe this is a thing in California), but in that case I would want that to apply to both handguns and rifles.

Do you think it would be easier for someone to get closer to victims without alarm if they had a handgun instead of a larger rifle?

*I appreciate your feedback and thoughts.

Mr.Bill

(24,103 posts)
17. California's magazine laws were thrown out by the courts.
Sun Jun 12, 2022, 12:57 AM
Jun 2022

That's another consideration. The current make-up of the Courts are going to be the main obstacle to any gun laws.

XorXor

(605 posts)
21. That's going to be an issue with anything.
Sun Jun 12, 2022, 01:03 AM
Jun 2022

Even with regards to the mental health aspects. The NRA-types love talking about mental health in order to focus attention away from guns, but you know that any legislation that actually addresses that will be opposed when it comes down to it.

 

LiberatedUSA

(1,666 posts)
25. Interesting
Sun Jun 12, 2022, 07:36 AM
Jun 2022

“ It's a weapon designed to kill as many people as possible in a short amount of time.”

That sounds like the opposite of “To Serve and Protect”. Will your bill include banning these from the police?

If not, then explain why you feel the same cops we protest for murder should have, and let me use your words here, “It's a weapon designed to kill as many people as possible in a short amount of time”. Maybe it is just me, but if I viewed a group of people to be hostile, I would not make sure they have all the guns worth a damn while everyone else gets stuck with Fudd guns. Doesn’t seem logical.

AndyS

(14,559 posts)
38. Oh for Christ's sake, not this stupid pile of fetid dingo's kidneys again
Sun Jun 12, 2022, 03:28 PM
Jun 2022

Cops had .38 revolvers as standard issue for YEARS until the civilian market got combat weapons. It was only THEN that police armed themselves with the stuff gunners have.

Don't want the police to have them? You armed up first so it's up to you to disarm first.

SYFROYH

(34,127 posts)
41. Police use their ARs for defensive purposes only.
Sun Jun 12, 2022, 08:18 PM
Jun 2022

They use them when there is a single suspect...

...a single suspect without a rifle.

...a single suspect without a rifle inside a dwelling.

They have them for defensive use just in case they are needed.

Most people with ARs (or other firearms) just want to have the same opportunity to defend themselves and family.

After all, criminals are generally committing their crimes against nonpolice.



AndyS

(14,559 posts)
42. You have a really funny definition of 'defensive' use.
Sun Jun 12, 2022, 09:08 PM
Jun 2022

You describe the situations when the SWAT teams are called in. SWAT teams are not defensive. They are definitively and violently offensive.

A target, a mission to take that target down and tactics that take the fight to that target.

Defense is by definition preventing an opponent from gaining access to your location, not aggressively taking the fight to an opponent.

That is what the AR and other semi/full auto military style rifles are designed to do. Close in offensive-take-territory combat. On the other hand the Colt 1911 was designed for defending a trench position. Relatively low muzzle velocity, very heavy projectile designed to impart all of it's kinetic energy into the body of an aggressor. Perhaps to actually push the body backward out of the trench. That, sir, is defensive.

We've had this discussion. How many sheet rock walls separate the 'bad guy' from your family members in another room? You posted proof (in another thread) that the AR will penetrate at least 4 walls. At what point do you concede that firing a .223/5.56 inside a home is a stupid thing to do? Or any other rifle?

SYFROYH

(34,127 posts)
43. Police cannot shoot without justification.
Sun Jun 12, 2022, 09:21 PM
Jun 2022

Of course, sometimes they manufacture that justification, but if they enter a premise (lawfully) they can't just start shooting. Their lives have to be in danger to shoot.

You had the drywall discussion with someone else, but lots of rounds, even 22 lr, go through multiple walls.

https://www.theboxotruth.com/threads/the-box-o-truth-1-the-original-box-o-truth.278/

Of course, you don't have to worry about rounds through walls if you hit your target which is generally easier to do with a shouldered rifle.




AndyS

(14,559 posts)
45. We simply disagree.
Sun Jun 12, 2022, 09:31 PM
Jun 2022

I'm qualified on the M-14, the M-16, the M-60, the M-1911 and the M3 & M5 tear gas dispensers.

I'm pretty sure which of these can be construed as 'defensive'.

The possibility of a rifle round, any rifle round, staying inside a human target is slim at best.

I repeat, any use of a rifle inside a home is an incredibly stupid thing to do unless the goal is to clear the area of all possible combatants. Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out.

Of course if you are already invested in a bad decision for self defense it just may color your perceptions.

ETA Yes, that discussion was with someone else and I thought you participated as a third party. Apology for confusing the two of you.

Chainfire

(17,305 posts)
31. A "win" against the AR and high capacity magazines would be a crack in the
Sun Jun 12, 2022, 10:06 AM
Jun 2022

dike of the Constitutional claim that firearms can't be attacked. It may only have a small impact on the huge numbers of firearm deaths, but even a few is important. Keep in mind that these are the weapons of choice of mass murderers everywhere. We need a win and the AR types of weapons offer the best opportunity.

JoeOtterbein

(7,697 posts)
2. K n R ! Thanks for posting!
Sat Jun 11, 2022, 11:42 PM
Jun 2022

Also, lots of suicides by handguns.

(tears)

Before I forget, Welcome to DU! We need you!

Response to XorXor (Original post)

NickB79

(19,111 posts)
8. It's a fair point. Look to the Virginia Tech shooting
Sun Jun 12, 2022, 12:02 AM
Jun 2022

32 dead, 23 injured, with a 9mm handgun and .22 caliber handgun. Neither are high powered weapons.

At the close distances most mass shootings take place, the caliber doesn't matter much anymore.

My biggest worry is the proliferation of Glock switches, small plastic or metal pieces that can be 3D printed, installed in minutes, and convert handguns to full auto.

WarGamer

(12,103 posts)
9. As someone who's fired a Glock 18...
Sun Jun 12, 2022, 12:07 AM
Jun 2022

At a firing range in AZ that rents full auto...

They're useless.

Completely uncontrollable after the first 2-3 shots.

I'd be more afraid of full auto conversion rifles.

NickB79

(19,111 posts)
10. In a crowd of unarmed people at close range
Sun Jun 12, 2022, 12:10 AM
Jun 2022

Bullets flying in all directions just means less time spent aiming.

WarGamer

(12,103 posts)
12. Yikes... the thought of that is scary.
Sun Jun 12, 2022, 12:14 AM
Jun 2022

I rented it once, shot a couple 30 rd mags and took it back to the counter.

Sgent

(5,857 posts)
14. I think re-enacting
Sun Jun 12, 2022, 12:47 AM
Jun 2022

the magazine limits from the AWB would do more good in controlling the 3d printing since they wouldn't have large capacity magazines. That said, there are so many on the street now I don't know how you would ever get them off other than a required buyback which I unfortunately don't see the political will for.

XorXor

(605 posts)
16. I didn't realize that many people were killed there.
Sun Jun 12, 2022, 12:57 AM
Jun 2022

I saw some youtube videos of people easily converting semi-automatics to full auto using some fairly simple component. I'm thinking they were the same thing you're talking about. Do you think someone firing full auto would be more deadly in most situations? I'm not a gun person so I wasn't too sure about that. My rather uninformed thoughts were that they would be less accurate and quickly have to change out their magazines. Although, if someone is willing to go as far to modify a firearm to be full auto, then they are probably also the type to obtain or even create some high capacity magazines or drums. Which is really concerning. Which could be a strong argument for all out bans on most firearms. I'll let others have that debate, though.

Mr.Bill

(24,103 posts)
20. With the AR-15, it's not so much the caliber
Sun Jun 12, 2022, 01:03 AM
Jun 2022

it's the velocity. I saw an interview with a doctor who worked on some of the kids shot at Parkland. He had military combat surgery experience. He said he has saved livers, kidneys and other organs that were shot. He said when the AR round hits an organ, the organ looks like it was thrown into a blender.

Crepuscular

(1,057 posts)
33. ...
Sun Jun 12, 2022, 11:14 AM
Jun 2022

There is nothing unique about an AR in regards to velocity. Any centerfire rifle caliber will produce a substantially greater amount of kinetic energy, than most pistol calibers will. When a physician talks about the damage done by an AR (typically .223 Remington/5.56), the same degree of damage would result from almost any other rifle round, whether it's your grandaddy's 30/30 or a 30-06 or a .243 winchester. The other relevant factor is the type of bullet used. Some bullets expand more than others, depending on their construction. Full metal jackets, the type used in most military ammo (commonly bought in bulk by AR shooters) do not tend to expand much at all when hitting soft tissue, it just goes through like a knife through butter. Lead tipped bullets or hollow points designed for hunting, tend to expand even when hitting soft tissue and cause substantially larger wounds. When they hit bone, they tend to fragment which causes a ton of damage. It's somewhat ironic that lead tipped or hollow point bullets are banned for military use under the Geneva convention, as being inhumane.

Again, there is nothing special about AR's when it comes to wounds, the relevant distinction is pistol calibers vs. rifles. Pistols cause less damage in comparison.

The OP asks a legitimate question, as to why the focus is simply on banning AR's, when handguns cause the lions share of gun deaths in this country.

Crepuscular

(1,057 posts)
40. ...
Sun Jun 12, 2022, 07:36 PM
Jun 2022

Nothing in that video contradicts what I said. They were comparing the wounds caused by a .223 rifle bullet to a 9mm pistol bullet. Had they compared the wounds caused by virtually any other centerfire rifle cartridge to a 9mm or any other pistol cartridge, the drastic difference in the damage caused by each would be equally dramatic. Despite causing less dramatic wounds than rifles, pistols are still very deadly and account for the vast majority of gun related deaths every year in this country.

JI7

(89,173 posts)
11. It's just trying to get what we can . We wont be able to do what most sensible civilized countries
Sun Jun 12, 2022, 12:11 AM
Jun 2022

have done because we are a backwards nation compared to other wealthy democratic nations.

gulliver

(13,142 posts)
15. It's the types of killings these movie merch guns cause
Sun Jun 12, 2022, 12:49 AM
Jun 2022

Mass shootings by crazy, broken young men are a different thing from suicide or the usual crime-related homicide. It should come as no surprise at all that these types of weapons are in a different category and treated as crossing the line.

The killings caused by assault rifles are especially heinous, and they happen in people's everyday settings like school, work, the store, and churches. They therefore have a drastically magnified impact on everyone.

An assault rifle with a giant magazine makes one shooter much more extremely dangerous than a handgun. That's no good, but that's the reason these configurations are popular. I consider them unmanly when in the possession of civilians, necessary when in the possession of the military or law enforcement.

paleotn

(17,778 posts)
18. So your point is what? Do nothing?
Sun Jun 12, 2022, 12:57 AM
Jun 2022

Because in your mind it won't make a significant dent in the body count? At the very least, it's a step in the right direction. No civilian should ever possess the firepower of semi-auto chambered in 5.56 NATO (or its slightly lower psi cousin, .223) with extended magazines. Period. Full fucking stop. A personal protection argument could be made for semi-auto pistols...maybe, but I don't buy it. Knock off assault rifles for the unwashed masses outfitted with high capacity magazines are for mass slaughter and dick extension. Nothing more.

In my mind (and won't happen in my lifetime, but it should in a sane society), no civilian should possess anything but bolt, lever, pump and break action rifles with a limit of no more than 5 rounds. Humans should get the same breaks as migratory waterfowl, so cut that to 3 if you like. Revolvers only in extreme circumstances with a shit ton of paperwork and loads of sign off. Get caught with an unlawful firearm, just like today with full auto, go to jail for long, long time. You need more rounds to "hunt"? My dad's "marksmanship" snark still rings in my ears.

Semi-auto needs to join full auto in a modification of the Firearms Act of 1934. You wanna play "shoot 'em up", join the fucking National Guard, buy an xbox or maybe find a more constructive hobby. You want home protection? Get a goddamn shotgun. It will do all you'd ever need without the potential for mass destruction if a responsible gun owner becomes not so responsible.

XorXor

(605 posts)
22. Not my point at all. I tried to make that clear and even explicitly stated it.
Sun Jun 12, 2022, 01:24 AM
Jun 2022

I ramble incoherent thoughts, though. So I understand if it was missed or misunderstood. The main point I'm making is that whatever we do it should also include handguns. What we should do about gun violence is obviously huge topic. I tend to lean toward laws that limit magazine capacity, or better yet, make it so that they can't have detachable magazines that can quickly be changed out. I would want that applied to both handguns and rifles, though. Even a standardized mechanism that is required by law to be used in order to reduce creative workarounds. This has the issue of essentially making all nonconforming firearms illegal, or at least put into a grey area. Not sure how to deal with that, but I'm thinking buy backs are one way to partially get there. Then of course we have the various red flag laws, age limits, etc.. are also all on the table as far as I'm concerned. But again, all of this should apply to all firearms. Maybe have special exceptions and programs for things like hunters or rural folks if that makes sense (maybe it doesn't... I'm just spitballing again)

As for your suggestions. That's fine. I'm not arguing that you're wrong. I'm just saying that handguns should be included in that too if our goal is to reduce gun violence. Like I said, this is an argument to do more, not do less. I don't think our views are too far removed here.

Actually, the only comment I have about what you said was with regards to the long jail sentence for having an illegal firearms. This is a big of tangent here, but it is something that I have thought about a bit. That goes against my overall view on how we handle criminal justice in this country. It's basically just extending everything we do wrong. We warehouse people away and forget they exist, and then they get out and we expect them to continue on with their lives. That often times doesn't end well. Also, the majority of people who would be impacted by such policies are young poor minorities when they get pulled over by police. It's not going to be mostly asshole NRA-types who are getting arrested by the police and given long sentences. I would much rather spend that money and effort on trying to combat the issues of poverty and all the other contributing factors to that complex issue. Well, more accurately, I would rather people who are much more informed and intelligent than myself to spend time and money toward that instead of on incarcerating people.

Ellipsis

(9,123 posts)
23. "From his 32nd-floor suites in the Mandalay Bay hotel, more than 1,000 bullets, killing 60 people."
Sun Jun 12, 2022, 01:38 AM
Jun 2022

On October 1, 2017, Stephen Paddock, a 64-year-old man from Mesquite, Nevada, opened fire on the crowd attending the Route 91 Harvest music festival on the Las Vegas Strip in Nevada. From his 32nd-floor suites in the Mandalay Bay hotel, he fired more than 1,000 bullets, killing 60 people[a] and wounding 411. The ensuing panic brought the total number of injured to 867. About an hour later, he was found dead in his room from a self-inflicted gunshot wound. The motive for the mass shooting is officially undetermined.

The incident is the deadliest mass shooting committed by an individual in United States history. It focused attention on firearms laws in the U.S., particularly with regard to bump stocks, which Paddock used to fire shots in rapid succession, at a rate similar to that of automatic firearms.[4] Bump stocks were banned by the U.S. Justice Department in December 2018

XorXor

(605 posts)
24. That is a no doubt a valid point for doing something about rifles.
Sun Jun 12, 2022, 03:16 AM
Jun 2022

But my issue is that's we shouldn't do anything, but rather that in addition to discussing rifles we should also be talking about handguns. So even if before 2017 we had super effective laws that made it so that Paddock couldn't get those rifles (or bump stocks), then we may have prevented those 60 deaths, but still would have had all those other deaths caused by handguns. And I'm not convinced that the most recent shooting Texas would be much different if the murderer only had a handgun. This applies to most of the other mass shootings too. They would have been prevented if the shooters didn't have any guns, though. That doesn't have to mean an all ban either. It could, but it could also be much stricter regulations on purchasing or maybe high taxes on them. We can debate whether that would work and if it would be feasible, but whatever we're discussing should also include other firearms.

The Las Vegas shooting is one of the few cases where it's obvious that a rifle was required for it to be carried out. If that was how most gun deaths happened, then I'd totally understand the laser focus on rifles.

And again, I'm not saying that we should ignore the issue with rifles and only focus on handguns or something. In fact, if we did that then I'd be making the same argument I'm making now but in reverse, because I think the logic would still apply.

NickB79

(19,111 posts)
29. There are now lots of non-pistol grip AR's manufactured
Sun Jun 12, 2022, 09:17 AM
Jun 2022

That are just as deadly and fire just as fast. It's another cosmetic feature that people like to think makes a difference.

Christ, I didn't think the VPC was still pushing that "hipfire" bs anymore.

uponit7771

(90,225 posts)
30. Straight stock VS PGR is *NOT* "cosmetic", the VPC article is objective and factual if we can ...
Sun Jun 12, 2022, 09:47 AM
Jun 2022

... discuss the evidence in it from the DOJ etc that would be a great starting point.

NickB79

(19,111 posts)
32. So guns like this, even though they fire at the same speed, same cartridge
Sun Jun 12, 2022, 11:11 AM
Jun 2022

Take the same magazines, AND even use AR upper parts, are less lethal than a pistol gripped AR-15?



Hell, that gun is legal in every state, even those with AWB's in place.

As for VPC's "spray and pray" comment, you know what encouraged that? In Vietnam it was poorly trained soldiers in dense jungle unable to see their targets. In the 80's and 90's it was kids watching action movies with Stallone and Schwarzenegger hip firing machine guns. Now? Everyone with a gun wants to be John Wick. "Tacticool". Fast AND accurate.

uponit7771

(90,225 posts)
37. "spray and pray" works when relatively unskilled are wanting to kill a bunch of humans who aren't...
Sun Jun 12, 2022, 03:21 PM
Jun 2022

... firing back at them and that's objectively harder to do with a straight stock weapon.

Also, the PGR was designed *FOR* greater mask kill while straight stock was not and the DOJ records bear this out in tests.

Paladin

(28,202 posts)
28. Aw, look how happy you made our resident gun enthusiasts!
Sun Jun 12, 2022, 08:52 AM
Jun 2022

And all you had to do was ask a single, silly-assed question.

XorXor

(605 posts)
48. I'm not sure why it would.
Mon Jun 13, 2022, 09:54 PM
Jun 2022

It's one of the bigger arguments for net when it comes to gun legislation (whatever that may be)

AndyS

(14,559 posts)
39. You are right. Mass shootings make a big splash
Sun Jun 12, 2022, 03:33 PM
Jun 2022

but make up 1-2% of gun deaths. But they get the public's attention and that gets leverage for legislation.

Lets just cut to the chase and outlaw ALL semi and full auto weapons that have removable magazines.

That is the only way to keep the gun industry from finding a work around.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»I don't understand why th...