The vast majority of shootings are done with handguns. There is nothing specific to semi-automatic rifles that make them deadlier in a school or grocery store.
I don't even know what "ability to spray bullets in front of several people" means, but the Las Vegas massacre didn't happen in a school or grocery store so it's entirely irrelevant to the point I was making.
Call it whatever you want, but the fact remains that the vast majority of gun killings are done with handguns. Yes, you can point to certain events (like Las Vegas) that would only be possible with a rifle, but it still doesn't change the numbers.
To many of the commenters that have almost certainly never fired a firearm, or maybe even held or seen one, it's the mere scariness of them--the boogeyman in their minds implanted by a corrupt media and political machine--that determines their danger.
This is such a cop out. You do not need to have held or fired a firearm to have a valid opinion on the matter. Further, rifle rounds are typically far more deadly and accurate than pistol rounds and rifles provide a better platform for rapid and accurate fire. Rifles also tend to have higher capacities making them easier to dump. My 1911 holds 8+1, my sig p320 with the extended mag holds 21+1, and my AR-15 holds 30+1. I can accurately put rounds in a target with my pistol at, say, 20 yards? I can accurately put rounds on a target at 5-10x further with a rifle.
It's not. Most people in America, especially young voters in city centers, are incredibly inept regarding guns, gun laws, and gun culture. If you can't see the propaganda campaign, I don't know what to tell you.
Being inept at using a gun does not make you immune from getting shot by one. It's a cop out because you should not need to have gun proficiency in order to have a valid opinion on guns. Similarly, owning a gun does not make your opinion on gun control more valid.
> Being inept at using a gun does not make you immune from getting shot by one.
Okay? Not sure what you're getting at here.
> It's a cop out because you should not need to have gun proficiency in order to have a valid opinion on guns.
It's not a cop out. There are too many leading with arrogance and ignorance on gun control, and a vast majority of them are folks who have never gone near a gun in their life. Keep thinking that it's informed voting to understand absolutely nothing about gun laws and gun culture but
_demand_ that it change. That's a terrible policy no matter the subject.
People aren't suggesting how to improve your timing or how to hit the ten ring, which you might rightfully say should only be done by people with gun experience... they're trying to keep people from getting shot. Their opinions matter.
> There are too many leading with arrogance and ignorance on gun control, and a vast majority of them are folks who have never gone near a gun in their life.
So what? Most politicians have never murdered people. Would you suggest they're unable to suggest ways to regulate murder?
> Keep thinking that it's informed voting to understand absolutely nothing about gun laws and gun culture but _demand_ that it change.
In what universe does being proficient with a gun equate with understanding gun laws? You don't go to law school when you're taking beginner pistol courses or getting your LTC. This is just pointless gatekeeping.
> Implying those buying guns are trying to get people shot...? Bold strategy.
Now _that_ is a ridiculous strawman. The only implication is that all people are subject to the absurd risk of gun violence in this country and that their proficiency with weapons has nothing to do with the validity of their opinions on solutions to that problem.
