Originally posted by: exdeath
Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Originally posted by: exdeath
It looks as if you are the one not wanting to admit you are wrong now isn't it? You completely circumvented someone else's point because you couldn't offer a counter-point. You did not make the claim that a derringer is ineffective in a sniping position on a roof top. You made the claim that "some weapons are more dangerous than others". Cho wasn't sitting on a roof, and he didn't have a sniper rifle or a derringer. But he still killed 32 people. You blanket statement that one type of weapon is inherently more dangerous than another, without regard for the human role in implementing those weapons, is blatantly wrong.
A gun is a tool, and like other tools, they each come with difference capabilities suited for different things, such as range, ammo capacity, accuracy, penetration against hard or soft targets, ease of concealment, etc, all of which have trade offs for differing circumstances. Simply sitting there however, an AK47 is no more dangerous than a derringer, and a derringer is no less dangerous than a nuclear missile offline in a underground silo or a Skilsaw sitting on a work bench all by itself. Being more powerful or more capable at something does not make any tool more dangerous than another. Do you care if you cut your hands off on a 7 1/4" saw blade or a 36" saw blade? Human skill, intention, and intervention, is required in all cases.
The point was the illustrate that any person intent on doing harm to others will competently use any tool at his disposal in order to do so, thereby completely rendering the anti-gun arguments null and void. Tell me why Cho chose a G19 9mm if a AK47 would have been more dangerous and deadly? Last Monday, his 9mm handgun was infinitely more dangerous than everything in my house, which includes AK47s, AR15s, etc.
Like a Skilsaw or a book of matches, it is only in the hands of a competent individual that weapons of differing types can be used to kill people in different circumstances. A sniper on a roof top isn't going to use a derringer any more than an assassin is going to stuff a semi automatic .50 BMG in his pocket. One is no more inherently dangerous than the other; conversely, and more accurately, you could say that no gun is safe at all. It all comes down to the needs of the application. Bottom line, if you are against private ownership of any guns, you are against them all, as they all have the same purpose in the end: to launch a projectile at high speeds by means of chemical propellant.
And you know this, assuming you are as smart as you claim you are, and you can't even state your pro-gun or anti-gun stance for what it is and speak your peace. You just want to make a fuss for the sake of fussing in and of itself.
PS: I'll take that silenced .22 and you can have a .50 cal machine gun. Unless you provide me your serial number so that I can confirm whether or not I have plausible reason to believe otherwise, I will win. Are you going to blame my weapon and claim that I cheated because I had a superior and more dangerous weapon?
End of debate. Go home.
Ah, so you give up. You should be the one to "go home" then, not me. My statementt is not "blatantly wrong". LOL It is obviously true. It's an interesting technique to tell someone their viewpoint, as if you can convince anyone that way...
One gun may be inherently more dangerous than another. A sniper rifle is inherently more dangerous than a small derringer. It is ridiculous to claim otherwise. One shoots projectiles with more force and accuracy, and has more range. Similarly, an automatic weapon is inherently more dangerous than a non-automatic weapon that is otherwise similar.
You are incorrect that one who is against one gun must be against them all. Look at the legislature's treatment of automatic weapons-- does that show a different level of restriction or not? I guess, typically, that you haven't thought this through. You're just eager to make blanket statements that will be pleasing to other gun nuts on this board.
As I said, two different purposes. A sniper rifle in it's intended role of hitting a target 2000 yards away will indeed impact it's target with the same force as a derringer held to the back of someones head point blank.
The fact that the sniper rifle fires a more powerful charge is irrelevant in this discussion because:
a) sniper rifle point blank or derringer point blank? Doesn't matter, the person will be dead either way. If a 124gr bullet at 1200 fps is sufficient to kill, the excess of the sniper rifle is irrelevant, and if anything, overkill and wasted energy.
b) nobody sticks a sniper rifle in their pocket and shoots people through a scope from 10 feet away, so comparing it to a derringer in this way makes no sense in the first place.
c) even if they DID commit b), and even though the sniper rifle IS more powerful, that doesn't make it more deadly. The argument isn't about one weapon being more powerful, it's about one weapon being more deadly. Indeed a sniper rifle is more powerful than a derringer, but that doesn't make it more deadly. See point a)
d) we are talking levels of dangerousness, not power. you are confusing "powerful" with "dangerous". The power of a weapon has nothing to do with it's lethality. If a 9mm can already kill someone and be considered dangerous, how is a .45 "more" deadly? Dead is dead. Period. Sure a 120mm tank cannon is more powerful than a 9mm. But hold both up to your head and pull the trigger, either will kill you just as dead.
Next?