Better still, to save him the trouble of making his own argument, I’m supposed to go buy a book and read it.
So,to save him a ‘chunk of time’ making his own point clear, he’s entitled to name call me because I don’t want to spend my money and a chunk of my own time to understand what he cannot explain himself.
And that makes -me- lazy? Le sigh.
You’ve called me lazy, said I was demanding, and you’re swearing at people who are asking you to be a touch more informative. Now I’m a troll?
You’ve lost this debate, have a great day.
Which I’ve already explained simply to you twice.
I’ve also have not been engaging in name calling.
Maybe not, but you have done a great job of running this thread straight down the drain. Kudos, I guess.
Strangely the vast majority of homicides and armed robberies are committed with handguns. They almost seem to have some kind offensive utility.
It’s not my job to make your point. I’m not asking for extensive detail. I’m asking for a few examples of weapons you referred to as ‘defensive’.
You pointed to an outlet, yes, but it’s not a free resource, and it’s not readily available to me. You are, so clarify or abandon your point, please.
It’s not about you or me. Please stop attacking my person and character in lieu of making your point.
Please cite a source here. All reliable data I have on the subject says that disease was the top killer.
I’ve already gave you a simple break down. You’ve ignored it repeatedly.
A pistol is nearly a purely defensive weapon.
And there it is for a third time for you.
No no no the US is the ultimate shining beacon of freedom in the world! All others are just a inferior imitation of that glory!
Sarcasm aside: If you look at the last decade it appears Europe is (becoming) definitely LESS tyrannical than the US.
There are thousands of kinds of pistols. I am seeking some models. A .38 snub nose is a pistol, as is a Luger, as is an M1911
my apologies if that wasn’t clear.
In what context(s)?
And what do you mean by “defensive weapon”?
How is using one in a robbery not using it “offensively”?
Just pistols in general.
They make terrible offensive weapons as they are inaccurate, short ranged, and offer little in terms barrier penetration compared to long arms. They can be used offensively, but long arms renders them irrelevant in that area.
Yes, they are better than a bat or knife for when being used offensively, but those all to suck compared to long arms. Yes, I can even use a carrot as a offensive weapon, but like a knife or pistol it is not a good one.
Just because some one can use it that way does not make it a offensive weapon. Some one can also use a bat or knife for the same purpose, but that does not make either of those primarily a offensive weapon.
Sounds to me like you’re talking about battle on a war field.
Gun control advocates, on the other hand, are concerned about the “offensive” use of guns in, you know, daily life. Apparently you’re in the wrong forum.
Well, there definitely weren’t any school shootings prior to gun control laws.
Reduced to desperate sophistry I see.
All this malarkey about rights implies or explicitly relies on some kind of confection about how widespread firearms bring some sort of good to the community, a dubious proposition.
And I find it stunning that these advocates of their favourite constitutional right so typically appear relatively unconcerned about their general disenfranchisement at the hands of the sort of fatcats who own arms companies.
An automatic rifle isn’t gonna do shit to stop Wall St taking away your pension.
I feel I may regret jumping in here. But let’s concede the point that pistols are much less deadly than rifles, and somewhat more deadly than baseball bats.
How can you separate their defensive and offensive ability? They don’t block bullets, they fire them. They can only plausibly defend you by making a credible threat to emit pieces of metal at high speed in somebody else’s direction.
If they are useful for that purpose in a situation where you are attacked, how can they be useless for that purpose where you are the attacker and have first-mover advantage?
Actually my point still stands there as well.
Not that they’re going to listen, but. . .
