I really couldn't disagree more. Frankly, I think it's an insane opinion.

I'm curious to hear ToxicMasculinity's take on it.

Many that is true, but an incomplete statement.

Do a little reading beyond this site and espn.

If a truck driver and a cop each have guns and try to kill eachother in a plane that is crashing, does either even die?

get ridiculous with it.

I don't think Will Smith's had a hit song since that one.

I am not a legal expert, how many times do I have to say it?

I don't really need to. This is pretty simple if you have a basic understanding and familiarity with firearms.

Many that is true, but an incomplete statement.

You really should. I mean having information is pretty smart before you start calling people insane.
Anyway it's funny this came up, because literally two days ago I was watching a video from an emergency room surgeon about firearm wounds and how they're treated and the difference between handguns, rifle and shotgun rounds and this was exactly the kind of thing he was discussing.

Well, handguns, rifles, and shotguns are all guns, so they would all apply here. One being more efficient than another is irrelevant.

I never called anyone insane. I said the opinion that guns are not an efficient way to kill someone is insane. It is.

Many that is true, but an incomplete statement.

None of that is relevant, and let's stop talking about war scenarios. We are clearly talking about domestic policy here. There are a million factors that would affect those statistics, not just the efficiency to kill someone of a gun. If we were in the same room and I had a gun and wanted to kill you, you would be dead if you weren't armed. Same if you the scenario is reversed. It's really that simple. Your scenarios don't apply because not every single bullet is fired with the sole intention of killing, most people aren't trained or skilled shots, and a lot of victims won't get the chance to get trauma care before dying, and it also doesn't factor in getting shot several times for a no doubter murder.

Listen, I really don't feel like arguing with you on this since we're more or less on the same side. But saying a gun isn't an efficient way to kill someone is just a ridiculous statement. There's nothing more efficient in the hands of someone trained to use it.

Actually, being gored by a chainsaw is a surer way to meet your demise than putting a 9mm bullet in your head (people have survived that).

We have a guy on this very message board who survived getting gored by a chainsaw.

If somebody cuts your limbs off and head off with a chainsaw you will die. Are you gonna try and argue that? Are you going to disagree with me about what time it ist?

If somebody cuts your limbs off and head off with a chainsaw you will die. Are you gonna try and argue that? Are you going to disagree with me about what time it ist?

I smell a bit....

I really couldn't disagree more. Frankly, I think it's an insane opinion.

I'm curious to hear ToxicMasculinity's take on it.

Have a terrible night and die in MANY fires.

There are several who post here like their heads have been cut off.

I am not a legal expert, how many times do I have to say it?

Have a terrible night and die in MANY fires.

There is no more efficient way to kill someone than a firearm. I say this as an avid shooter, veteran, and someone with an operational brain.

Police investigating the deadliest terror attack to hit the UK in 12 years named the perpetrator Thursday as a 52-year-old British man, Khalid Masood.

As the inquiry into the atrocity gathered pace, Prime Minister Theresa May revealed the attacker was once linked to violent extremism. He was thought to have been inspired by Islamist ideology, she said.

The Religion of Peace strikes again:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/23/europe/london-attack/

I smell a bit....

I'm a big dumb shitlib baby

Same thing applies to kitchen knives, tire irons and chainsaws in your secnario, so I really don't see your point. Tons of things, from bleach to your car, can achieve identical lethality to a gun if used a certain way. Actually, being gored by a chainsaw or drinking a few gallons of bleach is a surer way to meet your demise than putting a 9mm bullet in your head (people have survived that).

Guns are very good at scaring the shit out of people and, if you hit, incapacitating them.

I'm a big dumb shitlib baby

I just read this thread. Are the opinions here serious? A gun isn't an efficient killing weapon?

This is a perfect example of the American epidemic of not acknowledging obvious realities solely because they might lead to laws that you don't like.

Look, I'm a fan of the 2nd amendment and all amendments. I don't like meddling with the Bill of Rights...

But guns aren't efficient at killing? Are you fucking kidding me? Let me know the next time a vindictive individual set on murdering their neighbor sneaks over at 3 AM with a frying pan and a steak knife. Some of the opinions in this thread are laughable.

Laurence Holmes is a fucking weirdo, a nerd in denial, and a wannabe. Not a very good radio host either.

If somebody cuts your limbs off and head off with a chainsaw you will die. Are you gonna try and argue that? Are you going to disagree with me about what time it ist?

I'm a big dumb shitlib baby

Yeah, saying guns aren't an efficient way to kill people is about the dumbest thing I've read on this board in 5 years. ( excluding GD cubs posts)

I'm a big dumb shitlib baby

Are you stoned or pissed off, or both, when you create these postings?

What I don't get is why these people set their sights so relatively low...this guy mows down a few dozen and kills four, which is certainly terrible. But how hard is it to get hold of a hand grenade or small bomb and lob it into a soccer stadium? (Or a packed baseball/football game etc) Thankfully we haven't seen that yet and hopefully never will (the Boston Marathon would seem the closest example), but the obstacles to doing something horrific like that seem relatively low, when considering the potential carnage. So in that sense, guns are inefficient compared to bombs. And with bombs there is the chance one could avoid being caught or killed (though in many of these cases, they want to be a martyr).

Laurence Holmes is a fucking weirdo, a nerd in denial, and a wannabe. Not a very good radio host either.

It's a good thing these guys are pretty dumb, how hard is it to get diesel fuel and fertilizer in Europe?

I'm a big dumb shitlib baby

I just read this thread. Are the opinions here serious? A gun isn't an efficient killing weapon?

This is a perfect example of the American epidemic of not acknowledging obvious realities solely because they might lead to laws that you don't like.

Look, I'm a fan of the 2nd amendment and all amendments. I don't like meddling with the Bill of Rights...

But guns aren't efficient at killing? Are you fucking kidding me? Let me know the next time a vindictive individual set on murdering their neighbor sneaks over at 3 AM with a frying pan and a steak knife. Some of the opinions in this thread are laughable.

Many that is true, but an incomplete statement.

What I don't get is why these people set their sights so relatively low...this guy mows down a few dozen and kills four, which is certainly terrible. But how hard is it to get hold of a hand grenade or small bomb and lob it into a soccer stadium? (Or a packed baseball/football game etc) Thankfully we haven't seen that yet and hopefully never will (the Boston Marathon would seem the closest example), but the obstacles to doing something horrific like that seem relatively low, when considering the potential carnage. So in that sense, guns are inefficient compared to bombs. And with bombs there is the chance one could avoid being caught or killed (though in many of these cases, they want to be a martyr).