If Obama Took 'Executive Action' On Guns, What Might He Do?
View Single Post
01-11-2013, 12:33 PM
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Pyongyang, NK
My Ride: A car
View My Garage
Originally Posted by
No need to rustle. Simmer down. We get it, you don't like me. Carry on.
First, you are right. I don't like you (at least the way you present yourself online).
But, allow me to provide a quick explanation on the other side. Not understanding the other side makes these arguments pointless. The anti-gun group has the advantage to argue from emotion of sympathy. Whereas gun owners as also arguing from emotion, but it comes off as more angry.
Let me explain to you the argument in pictures:
This a .40 next to a 7.62x39. You can see the difference. There is also velocity differences, etc. etc. Granted no one would want to be hit by either.
Now you see the difference in magazine capacity. The Kahr magazine holds only 6 rounds. The AK magazine holds 30. 3 Kahr magazines (1 in the gun, 2 backups). That is a total of 18 rounds (19 if I keep one in the chamber, but I don't). It would take 5 Kahr magazines for the same capacity of 1 AK magazine.
Now you can see 6 AK magazines next to each other totaling 180 rounds. For the Kahr to carry that amount would require 30 magazines.
Here are the 2 guns that I used. Now at a close range they are both equally effective, but at increasing distances the handgun starts to lose out. Are you the handgun is just as effective as the rifle at a range of 30m? 100m?
Once you begin to understand that you will really begin to understand the other side. The reality is it is all emotional. Either one of those guns and bullets give the capacity to kill. This isn't a statistics based issue at the moment because as you can see there are stats to support both sides.
Learn to understand the other side first, then you can better support your own side.
View Public Profile
Find more threads by badfast
Find More Posts by badfast
Leave feedback for badfast (1)