Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

flatdanny t1_is9zodw wrote

Reply to comment by Kindly_Vanilla4928 in Bristol shooting. by iamsce

No matter what you call it, it kills people efficiently at distances greater than handguns.

8

nutmegger2020 t1_isa7jn6 wrote

Although hand guns can be effective as a weapon of mass murder, I doubt the Las Vegas Shooter would have killed 60 and injured 867 with a hand gun.

6

ccwilson84 t1_isas4jy wrote

All rifles do this. That is the point of a rifle, it has longer range.

2

flatdanny t1_isasugb wrote

To kill people more efficiently. That is the point. Thats why so many mass shooters use them.

2

HelloMalt t1_iscyxvq wrote

a longer range to do what?

1

ccwilson84 t1_iskdt7j wrote

To put bullets into targets. Mine are usually for animals that I want to consume, but if my life is threatened I have no issues using it to put bullets into people who would try to do harm.

Rifles have longer ranges and much more power than handguns. This has always been the case, and as long as the laws of physics hold, it will always be the case.

1

HelloMalt t1_isly8au wrote

there's a bunch of words for folks who are armed and ready to kill others and they're generally not flattering.

1

ccwilson84 t1_isqn0l2 wrote

Well, if someone breaks into my home or place of business with intent to do harm, I am not going to be bothered by those words.

As a test, if someone breaks into your home to kill you, you use your unflattering words, and I'll use my armed and ready weapon. Afterward we can discuss the outcome over beers if we are both able.

I have twice used my weapon to prevent potentially violent robberies of my property and feel comfortable that my approach is better than resorting to hand to hand combat or less suitable tools.

1

HelloMalt t1_isqqpe4 wrote

"Statistically that gun of yours is most likely to kill the owner so if you want to play your tough guy numbers games, be my guest.
edit- https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2759797/
"Results. After adjustment, individuals in possession of a gun were 4.46 (P < .05) times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession. Among gun assaults where the victim had at least some chance to resist, this adjusted odds ratio increased to 5.45 (P < .05).
Conclusions. On average, guns did not protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault. Although successful defensive gun uses occur each year, the probability of success may be low for civilian gun users in urban areas. Such users should reconsider their possession of guns or, at least, understand that regular possession necessitates careful safety countermeasures.

1

ccwilson84 t1_istwjd6 wrote

So far I have beat the odds, trained extensively, and made a choice, so I will accept your invitation. I have no problem with it and if I am shot with my own gun it will be after a hell of a struggle.

0