Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Feelings on the gun laws
Want less restrictive gun laws 57 50.89%
Want more restrictive gun laws 41 36.61%
Happy the way it is 5 4.46%
Don't care 9 8.04%
Voters: 112. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 06-23-2016, 03:52 PM
 
6,089 posts, read 4,987,805 times
Reputation: 5985

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by neutrino78x View Post

Banning semiautomatic rifles, assuming it is an effective ban, would make mass shootings less deadly, especially in the long term as they slowly disappear from the streets.
But Seung Hui Cho committed the 2nd deadliest (used to be #1 deadliest before Orlando) mass shooting in the history of the country utilizing handguns.

Elliot Rodgers committed the deadliest shooting in California for 2014 utilizing handguns.

So why wouldn't you want to ban handguns? But only semi-automatic rifles which kill thousands LESS people overall?

According to your logic, handguns are "not as deadly" as rifles because they don't deliver as much "energy" as rifles, but Seung Hui Cho committed the 2nd deadliest mass shooting spree in the history of the country using handguns, so they do deliver enough energy to kill lots of people very quickly, so why don't you want to ban them as well as semi-auto rifles?

 
Old 06-23-2016, 03:55 PM
 
Location: "Silicon Valley" (part of San Francisco Bay Area, California, USA)
4,375 posts, read 4,070,027 times
Reputation: 2158
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaliRestoration View Post
So why wouldn't you want to ban handguns? But only semi-automatic rifles which kill thousands LESS people overall?
Guy goes into a nightclub and starts shooting. Hits 100 people. A CCW person is present and eventually kills him, but he hits the 100 people first.

Would you rather those 100 people were shot with a pistol or with a rifle?

Just common sense here. And like I said, this is the lesser issue. Who has access to firearms in general is more important.
 
Old 06-23-2016, 03:57 PM
 
6,089 posts, read 4,987,805 times
Reputation: 5985
Quote:
Originally Posted by neutrino78x View Post
Guy goes into a nightclub and starts shooting. Hits 100 people. A CCW person is present and eventually kills him, but he hits the 100 people first.
Guy walks onto a college campus in Virginia and commits the 2nd deadliest mass shooting in US history utilizing handguns. So why don't you want to take away the ability of someone being able to do that?

According to your logic, handguns are "not as deadly" as rifles because they don't deliver as much "energy" as rifles, but Seung Hui Cho committed the 2nd deadliest mass shooting spree in the history of the country using handguns, so they do deliver enough energy to kill lots of people very quickly, so why don't you want to ban them as well as semi-auto rifles?

 
Old 06-23-2016, 04:03 PM
 
Location: "Silicon Valley" (part of San Francisco Bay Area, California, USA)
4,375 posts, read 4,070,027 times
Reputation: 2158
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaliRestoration View Post
Guy walks onto a college campus in Virginia and commits the 2nd deadliest mass shooting in US history utilizing handguns.
Answer my question please.
 
Old 06-23-2016, 04:05 PM
 
6,089 posts, read 4,987,805 times
Reputation: 5985
Quote:
Originally Posted by neutrino78x View Post
Answer my question please.
I don't want anyone to be shot neutrino by any gun, handgun or rifle!! They can both kill LOTS of people very quickly. Handguns killed 33 people on a college campus in a matter of 10 minutes!

That's why I want you to consider the guy who walked onto a college campus in Virginia and commited the 2nd deadliest mass shooting in US history utilizing handguns. So why don't you want to take away the ability of someone being able to do that?

According to your logic, handguns are "not as deadly" as rifles because they don't deliver as much "energy" as rifles, but Seung Hui Cho committed the 2nd deadliest mass shooting spree in the history of the country using handguns, so they do deliver enough energy to kill lots of people very quickly, so why don't you want to ban them as well as semi-auto rifles?

 
Old 06-23-2016, 04:05 PM
 
Location: "Silicon Valley" (part of San Francisco Bay Area, California, USA)
4,375 posts, read 4,070,027 times
Reputation: 2158
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaliRestoration View Post
According to your logic, handguns are "not as deadly" as rifles because they don't deliver as much "energy" as rifles,
btw if you don't already know that it is true that rifles apply more kinetic energy to the projectile than pistols do, please read a book.
 
Old 06-23-2016, 04:06 PM
 
Location: "Silicon Valley" (part of San Francisco Bay Area, California, USA)
4,375 posts, read 4,070,027 times
Reputation: 2158
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaliRestoration View Post
That's why I want you to consider the guy who walked onto a college campus in Virginia and commited the 2nd deadliest mass shooting in US history utilizing handguns. So why don't you want to take away the ability of someone being able to do that?
Pistols have a valid self defense application for civilians. Semiautomatic rifles do not.
 
Old 06-23-2016, 04:07 PM
 
6,089 posts, read 4,987,805 times
Reputation: 5985
Quote:
Originally Posted by neutrino78x View Post
Pistols have a valid self defense application for civilians. Semiautomatic rifles do not.
Civilians can't "validly" defend themselves with a semiautomatic rifle?

According to you a semi-auto rifle delivers more energy and is more effective, so shouldn't it be even better for self defense than a handgun using your own logic?
 
Old 06-23-2016, 04:09 PM
 
6,089 posts, read 4,987,805 times
Reputation: 5985
Quote:
Originally Posted by neutrino78x View Post
btw if you don't already know that it is true that rifles apply more kinetic energy to the projectile than pistols do, please read a book.
But wasn't Seung Hui Cho able to kill 33 people including himself utilizing a handgun? Does it matter how much energy a bullet delivers if it's enough to kill a person regardless? Does less energy mean less suffering? I'm not getting your logic.
 
Old 06-23-2016, 04:16 PM
 
Location: "Silicon Valley" (part of San Francisco Bay Area, California, USA)
4,375 posts, read 4,070,027 times
Reputation: 2158
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaliRestoration View Post
Does it matter how much energy a bullet delivers if it's enough to kill a person regardless?
It isn't, in many cases. It is deadly force, and if the person doesn't have medical attention, they will probably still die. But a rifle imparts more kinetic energy and is therefore more lethal at the same range.

Quote:
I'm not getting your logic.
Perhaps you should get a book then get back to me. I obviously have more extensive training on the subject than you do.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:19 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top