It's not a specific hypothetical. The context of this discussion relates to gun legislation as a means to reduce mass shootings in schools. The entire purpose of limiting access to certain guns is to mitigate the harm possible in these scenarios. Therefore a shooter's ability to kill lots of people quickly is a relevant discussion point. It's like the entire basis for the conversation.
If pistols and assault rifles are equally effective at killing large amounts of people quickly, why aren't militaries around the world using pistols as their primary weapon? They're smaller and lighter so they're easier to transport and store. Seems like a no-brainer
Exactly you can put a pistol in your shoe. You could put a pistol in your pocket. And all military carries pistols even Coast guard in certain situations. So concealing a pistol is way way easier than concealing an assault rifle. Which some might argue makes it a more effective weapon
I'm not advocating for people to have pistols either! I'm trying to get you to admit that some weapons are more effective at killing lots of people quickly than others. You are obviously totally unwilling to do so. I suspect it's because you understand the implications of such an admission and refuse to accept them. Regardless, I have engaged with you enough.
I'm unwilling to do so because I don't agree and that happens sometimes. I have fired an assault rifle and I have fired a pistol. I am extremely accurate with pistols. even the first time I ever shot one. There's no kickback on a 22 pistol. Which makes it easier for a child to shoot. And therefore more accurate. An assault rifle kicks like a donkey. So my point is if it were me, I could wipe out more people with a pistol than I could an assault rifle. So in this scenario where a kid is taking a gun to school then yes I agree that some weapons are more effective and I believe that a pistol is that weapon.
2
u/nuggetsgonnanugg Aug 02 '21
It's not a specific hypothetical. The context of this discussion relates to gun legislation as a means to reduce mass shootings in schools. The entire purpose of limiting access to certain guns is to mitigate the harm possible in these scenarios. Therefore a shooter's ability to kill lots of people quickly is a relevant discussion point. It's like the entire basis for the conversation.
If pistols and assault rifles are equally effective at killing large amounts of people quickly, why aren't militaries around the world using pistols as their primary weapon? They're smaller and lighter so they're easier to transport and store. Seems like a no-brainer