Why do libs obsess over "assault rifles" when handgun deaths are so much more common?

[RB 60]

You can still do the job with hand guns. that should make you sleep better. But it is much easier and most killers select semi automatics. Wouldn't you? Isn't that what you plan on using? And no. I did not say that. make more shit up.

Why do these idiots chose to use sporting rifles in these mass shootings?
I'll tell you why.
You liberals keep them in the forefront of the public's eye. Anyone with a hint of firearm knowledge knows that...
1) A rifle is much harder to conceal than a handgun
2) At close range, a handgun is as accurate and easier to manipulate than a rifle
3) A handgun is easier and quicker to reload than a rifle
But no, you liberals think that sporting rifles are the main problem, so you keep plastering them on the nightly news
and then these idiots use them to commit their carnage. That gives you more reason to ban them, when in fact, with
a few pre-loaded cylinders, my black powder revolver is just as deadly and easier to use at close range.

[CFM]

You can still do the job with hand guns. that should make you sleep better. But it is much easier and most killers select semi automatics. Wouldn't you? Isn't that what you plan on using? And no. I did not say that. make more shit up.

According to JD, no mass murders have been done with handguns. That's not true.

[Nordberg]

According to JD, no mass murders have been done with handguns. That's not true.

Proving what? That semi automatic rifles and not used? You are quibbling. Address the point. These ARs should not be in the hands of civilians. They are anti personnel weapons designed for war. They are designed to spray bullets. That is not exactly what people need to defend their homes. Killers are using them to do wht they are supposed to. Kill a lot of people in a short time. We are all less safe with their proliferation.

[RB 60]

Proving what? That semi automatic rifles and not used? You are quibbling. Address the point. These ARs should not be in the hands of civilians. They are anti personnel weapons designed for war. They are designed to spray bullets. That is not exactly what people need to defend their homes. Killers are using them to do wht they are supposed to. Kill a lot of people in a short time. We are all less safe with their proliferation.

I could fire as many rounds in the same amount of time with my black powder revolver and a few pre-loaded cylinders.
And the smoke would provide cover for me.

[SmarterthanYou]

Not looking for slow. Americans do not need weapons. They should all be taken away. We would all sleep much better and be more safe. Tombstone Ariz.was a long time ago and they did not allow you to walk in town with guns. I quit playing cowboys and Indians when I was 10. You guys go to sleep thinking you are John Wayne.

that puts you in complete opposite of the founding fathers. how do you feel about that?

[SmarterthanYou]

Assault weapons make it so much easier and increase the dead and injured toll. Yeah, all guns should be taken away and then you have to qualify to get them back, Have to take classes in using them. Have to pass a background check and have to pass a mental health check. All these guns do not make the people safer. That is proven once or twice a week by a big shooting of innocent people.

would that background and mental health check include pledging loyalty to the federal government in all things??????

[Boris The Animal]

Several handguns, stocks of ammo, and body armor, correct? It wasn't just a person with basic arms, so it's getting into realms we always discuss.

So are people actually wanting to push an argument against handguns, as opposed to just assault weapons? Are they really that dumb? That's a prime example of shooting yourself in the foot. I always thought it should go a more sensible route with arms, as a solution for everyone, but If people want this route instead, be my guest.

"Sensible" to the Left means full on confiscation. Don't be fooled by these Communist Bolsheviks people.

[Sirthinksalot]

incrementalism.

the long term goal is an outright ban on guns, but it can only happen if they are allowed to slow chipping away at the rights currently remaining.

This is the truth that most lying liberals believe, but won't admit to in public. That's the real reason why we can't give an inch. It's also the real reason they want universal registration.

[Sirthinksalot]

Typically these are the best "counter arguments" liberals can come up with. Make a caricature of the other side and attack the caricature. Pathetic.

[Sirthinksalot]

Please stop, or you'll give reason to their sides complaints. The side you advocate here shows, as much reasoning skills as the gun crazies. Not only shouldn't we get rid of guns in that vicious a manner, there is little way to accomplish it. We just need to get things off market that were insane to be put on the market to begin with. People don't need war arms, unless they are in combat in enemy countries, or God forbid if it happens and war is brought to us. Civilians shouldn't have access to such things.

Feel free to decide for yourself what you "need" and the rest of us will decide for ourselves.

[Jade Dragon]

Proving what? That semi automatic rifles and not used? You are quibbling. Address the point. These ARs should not be in the hands of civilians. They are anti personnel weapons designed for war. They are designed to spray bullets. That is not exactly what people need to defend their homes. Killers are using them to do wht they are supposed to. Kill a lot of people in a short time. We are all less safe with their proliferation.

According to JD that fucktard, CFM is missing what I'm saying anyway. No mass shootings were done with just a basic hand gun, or two, alone. There is always mass ammunition, body armor, or another thing we are discussing outside of basic hand guns. A simple thing occurs that CFM doesn't get. What is being called basic hand guns being used, isn't basic at all, when you add all the extras.

[Peridot]

Proving what? That semi automatic rifles and not used? You are quibbling. Address the point. These ARs should not be in the hands of civilians. They are anti personnel weapons designed for war. They are designed to spray bullets. That is not exactly what people need to defend their homes. Killers are using them to do wht they are supposed to. Kill a lot of people in a short time. We are all less safe with their proliferation.

If we are less safe why is our murder rate decreasing?

[Nordberg]

I could fire as many rounds in the same amount of time with my black powder revolver and a few pre-loaded cylinders.
And the smoke would provide cover for me.

Total bullshit. And we have no mass shooters using them.

[Nordberg]

According to JD that fucktard, CFM is missing what I'm saying anyway. No mass shootings were done with just a basic hand gun, or two, alone. There is always mass ammunition, body armor, or another thing we are discussing outside of basic hand guns. A simple thing occurs that CFM doesn't get. What is being called basic hand guns being used, isn't basic at all, when you add all the extras.

Why the childish name calling? are you OK? Should we take your guns away because of your immaturity and anger issues? I think so. Of course yopu gun molesters must know the Supreme Court allowed a 4th district court of appeals ruling stand that permitted Maryland to prohibit assault weapons and large capacity magazines. I am suer you know that. You are such an immature gun lover, that you must have done SOOOMMME homework.,

[Boris The Animal]

Wonder if Nordberg the Communist knows history. Knows that the Nazis and Soviets disarmed their citizenry and look what happened.