Re: BOLO pervert cyclist

On Mon, 9 Sep 2024 11:27:27 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

On 9/9/2024 10:51 AM, John B. wrote:

On Mon, 9 Sep 2024 10:06:06 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
 

We do have people posting in favor of essentially unrestricted public
possession of rifles capable of rapidly killing dozens of people. I
argue against them, because I see the societal disadvantages greatly
exceeding the (nonexistent!) societal advantages.

 
And once again Frankie demonstrates his ignorance of firearms.
 
Your dreaded AR fires at the same rate as the nearly every pistol in
the U.S. one round with each trigger pull.
 
And strangely these strange weapons can be fitted with large magazines
https://themagshack.com/product-category/pistol-magazines/
In fact here's one even larger than the dreaded AR
https://themagshack.com/shop/pistol-magazines/9mm/glock-9mm-33-round-magazine/

>
Yet again, you're sidestepping into a pedantic discussion of gun
technology, to avoid addressing my points.
>
I'm saying ARs in public hands have far more societal detriments than
benefits.

It's not as though what you're saying is the least bit significant.

The detriments include horrific mass murders and extreme
public expenses to prevent those mass murders. Based on the societal
detriments and lack of societal benefits, I think ARs should have far
more restrictions than they do now.

Saying "But other guns shoot as fast" (but 9 rounds instead of 30?) or
"But there are big magazines for handguns" (which are extremely
uncommon?) are not logical rebuttals of my points.
>
Your argument is similar to a guy with a speeding ticket, saying "But
I'm not the only lawbreaker, so I should get off free." ARs are not the
only offensive choice; but that doesn't justify sanctifying them.

--
C'est bon
Soloman