There is no need to be aggressively stupid here

All weapons were designed for combat, the blunderbus, the black powder rifle, the cap and ball rifle, the handgun, the bolt action rifle, the lever action rifle, the semi-auto rifle, and the machine gun. All except the machine gun have been used for hunting and target practice through the years. So the point you are trying to make is invalid.

 

your bersa is functionally identical to an AR, and should be banned according to your argument.

 

Busses are used for transportation. They serve a purpose. Unlike AR-15's.

 

My bersa looks nothing like this... and is not functionally identical to an AR.

 

Rifles are used for hunting and target practice and self defense. They serve a purpose. Like the AR-15.

 

What prevents an AR-15 from being used for safety?

By what means does your logic apply the argument to only AR-15's and not your handgun?

Be explicit

 

And two pistols commonly available to the populace were used to kill 32 innocent people at Virginia Tech. In case you wondering, 32 is more than 20.

It's immoral to forcefully deprive individuals of their natural and Constitutional rights, and it will just fail like every other government ban in existence, for instance, the ban on handguns in Chicago was clearly a MASSIVE FAILURE. This is because laws or bans do not actually prevent determined criminals from engaging in criminal activity. That should be obvious to anyone with a shred of common sense, which you seem to think you have a lot of...

 

of course it matters in this case. you are advocating a ban on a firearm that is functionally identical to a handgun. AR's are used in .0000000000001% of firearm related crimes/deaths. You have no justification for banning it.

 

The VTech shooter went to multiple locations spanning over an hour. This guy walked in to a classroom and killed 20 children within minutes lodging 3-11 bullets in each of them. I fail to see the comparison and why AR-15's should be legal because of it?

 

Why do you want to defend a gun that was used to kill 32 innocent people at Virgina Tech? Man, you are one sick puppy!

 

Have you ever fired one? Also I do not have the standard pistol grip I have a thumbhole olympic grip similar to the MAK90.

The Pistol grip/Olympic grip is more natural than the traditional grip and allows faster response and better control in free standing shooting. If I don't have a prop it is much better than a traditional rifle.

It does require a magazine. All semi autos are magazine fed. Yeah I hate to do this but to be an ass here. Even bold action rifles with no clip are magazine fed. It is an internal magazine.

Rapid fire? It is semi auto. It is not rapid fire unless you want it to be by pulling the trigger more.

 

That's not a reasonable purpose. You can hunt, target practice, and have self defense with a normal handgun/shotgun. There is no reason to need an AR-15.

 

Oh, so it doesn't look like your Bersa?

So you are basing it on looks?

How cute.

AR-15, magazine fed.
Bersa, magazine fed.

AR-15, semi-automatic.
Bersa, semi-automatic.

The only notable difference here is the Bersa lacks a buttstock.

 

Because handguns provide protection to millions of families all across the country. There is a purpose to handguns and safety. There is no reason for someone to pick up an AR-15 and kill 20 children with it. Why are you defending a gun used to kill 20 children in minutes? Man, you are one sick puppy!

 

I never once carried a rifle capable of automatic fire in the military. I guess the military doesn't use weapons with "military applicability".

 

Yeah A Ruger ranch rifle is great! Same 30 rnd clip and .223 ammo. Course we could move to the mini 30.

(*)(*)(*)(*) people need an education.

 

What difference does it make to the 32 dead people at VT Tech!? God, you are sick to defend this!!!

 

Then you didn't carry an assault rifle now did you?

 

You are incorrect on that count, and the military doesn't usually use the burst setting on its rifles.

 

Yea, it carries 7 rounds and it's a handgun. There is a lot of difference other than the buttstock, lol.

 

So you are making an Appeal to Popularity?

A logical fallacy?

Stunning.

 

I carried an M-16A2, the standard issue rifle for the US military.

It has no full auto capability.

 

people hunt with AR's all the time. It is a very effective varmint rifle.


not trying to be insulting or arrogant, but this again speaks to the ignorance of the topic by people trying to debate it.

 

What point are you trying to prove? That someone is able to kill someone with both weapons therefore both should either be banned or both should be legal? That's a weak argument. Like I said, pistols are used for reasonable protection. There is no reason to own, produce, or sell weapons like the AR-15. There is no reason 20 children should be slaughtered with 3-11 bullets in each of them because the VTech guy killed 32 people with pistols. That's such an embarrassing argument. But I'm used to that from you. Good job protecting gun nuts over children. Really sick people around here.

 

So? Handgun is only defined by the absence of a buttstock. You are being redundant. I take it you have never read BATFE regulations?

Interesting.

Your handgun's magazine holds seven rounds. There is nothing about your handgun that prevent it from accepting a magazine of more than 7 rounds, and magazines are not difficult to manufacture.

Are you incapable or unable to provide an argument that does not apply to your handgun?

Please, continue digging.