According to DeFranco, the AR-15 is a "seemingly more dangerous weapon than a handgun"... Is he right, or intentionally misleading his audience?
According to DeFranco, the AR-15 is a "seemingly more dangerous weapon than a handgun"... Is he right...
>According to DeFranco, the AR-15 is a "seemingly more dangerous weapon than a handgun"... Is he right, or intentionally misleading his audience?
It doesn't matter if it is or not. It's our right to own one.
It's a loaded question intended to make people believe that because the firearm is "dangerous" it should be illegal.
Not an argument.
nice source there buddy if you want to have an actual discussion here you need to include the particular video he said that
at around 8 minutes in
Not gonna watch the video, but of course it is.
>larger magazine capacity
>more damage per bullet
>less recoil for faster reacquiring target between shots
>longer effective range
Only downsides are it is less concealable, weighs more, and the ammo weighs more and takes more space
Yes, a weapon that can kill you at 1000yrds is more dangerous than one with an effective range of 50 yrs.
Depends on the situation. From a tactical standpoint I would rather have an AR than a handgun. But if you're looking at what guns are used for murders it's going to be handguns and not rifles.
So basically he's lying by misrepresenting the argument and is provably wrong.
no, you are misleading you're audience by not mentioning the context. He was saying that you have to be over 21 and do a background check to purchase a handgun and 18 with a less thorough background check for an ar-15
AR-15s are the only guns faggot leftists know off the top of their heads and it's made out scary black plastics, so of course it needs to be banned.
Cho still holds the record for school shooting and he had two handguns.
in a fucking school shooting kids huddled up against a wall it really doesn’t matter what gun you’re using
Handguns killed twice as many people in 2016 than ANY other firearm. If anything should be "banned" or "restricted" it would be them.
BTW I don't agree with banning/restricting policies, I'm merely stating what WOULD be LOGICAL.
Columbine shooters didn't use an AR-15 either.
Its seems to be a start of something more in depth.
Cho killed more with handguns
In the U.S., most firearm homicides are committed with handguns, not rifles. He is misleading his audience. bbc.com
This is one of the biggest faggots I've ever seen.
Look at the damage that can be achieved with a KNIFE, at least you can hear a gunshot and run the opposite direction. Plus guns need reloading knife don't.
it goes in all fields
What is this obsession with fricking youtube e-celebs? who the fuck cares what this clown has to say? ignore him, youtube's going to demonetize him off of youtube.
He used wall hacks tho
Isn't this the guy who scammed a shit ton of money for his "up and coming news network".
what are the firearm laws like in the Bahamas? i went there once and all i can remember is pic related
forgot to post
WHY IS THIS GUY'S OPINIONS RELEVANT FOR THE KIDS???
You have to go back, user.
It is more efficient at killing than a hand gun, it has a better range, better bullet velocity etc over a hand gun. Its also bigger, more expensive, harder to conceal, harder to operate, etc.
AR-15s are a small minority of gun violence cases. Its just not on the same level as handguns. If you ban AR-15s mass shootings wont stop. Then someone will start whining to ban different kinds of weapons, capacities, etc. Banning AR-15s wont stop people from killing eachother, they will just find another method to do so. Hand guns will never ever be outlawed in america and they cause the vast majority of deaths. Talking about banning semi-automatic guns is completely pointless, retarded, and fucking annoying because it will never ever ever in a million years be banned. The only way guns will be banned is if liberals win the second civil war.
post the videos of the responding officers in that city and county that were walking around with AR15s and the New York City Kremlin Red Guards that were taking over the city on New Years Eve with (((their))) AR 15s and some may have been real fully automatic M16s or M4s. Meme that everywhere and ask all these mouthpieces why they are okay with state sponsored thugs intimidating citizens with their 'weapons of war' as (((they))) call them??? Autists bring it to being. Ask the media why Hillarys bodyguards carry FN p90s full auto with 'cop kiler' armor piercing rounds into public and into schools. Point out ((((their))) hypocrisy and lies and every oppportunity
He looks gay.
hammers are used in more murders than rifles. point that out to the liars
Most accurate statement
He's right objectively, but also intentionally misleading the audience.
A weapon is only as good as the person using it. Most rifles are just as difficult as handguns to aim indoors. That's why swat or anit terorrism teams prefer not using them indoors.
The VT shooter killed 32 people with handguns because he smuggled them in undetected and chained the doors shut to a crowded building. Handguns are smaller and more easily carried into crowded areas which gives them an advantage in most situations. Also can carry more ammunition per person. This is proof that it depends on the situation and individual to determine the gun's "danger".
Hollow point bullets at close range will do just as much damage as a .223 caliber rifle so it's not just about pure kinetic energy either.
I still don't understand how this bland, milquetoast man is so popular when hes not funny or entertaining in any way.
Which AR is that?
>More damage per bullet
Holy fuck you need to git. Also innacurare is irrelevant in a school.
The. 223 would pierce the target and then leave the body. A 9mm or .45 would expand and create larger cavities
I can unload my semi auto shotgun with buck shot and switch to a 45,40 or 9 and unload 2 mags on multiple targets in under two mins. The argument he makes is dumb.
Nothing like some Fudd lore to spice up the day.
>>Larger magazine capacity
Not necessarily, you can easily have 30 to 100 round mags for handguns.
>>More damage per bullet
Not necessarily. AR-15s are usually chambered in .223. Many handguns are chambered in a higher caliber. (Damage also varies based on the type of ammo)
>> More accurate
Not necessarily, it really depends on the shooter's skill level and training
>>Less recoil for faster reacquiring target between shots
Most likely yes, but again, not necessarily.
Might as well post this, it relates.
Yes, of course its deadly. Handguns are more deadly, as they are cheaper + you can hold two of them at once, with faster fire rate
Most gun homocides are caused by people using handguns.
On top of all that he is one of those 3 second jump cut nignogs. Jump cuts are fucking nauseating.
Damage is based on energy delivered, other than some goofy novelty pistols the AR will have a higher energy.
Accuracy does not depend on shooter skill it's the inherent performance of the machine.
Recoil is a function of mass and any recoil damping. The AR platform has extremely low effective recoil. While most pistols have high recoil. You would not find a pistol that did even equal damage to the AR that didn't have massive recoil.
You don't know what you are talking about.
Are you implying that firearms aren't dangerous? You sound pretty fucking stupid.
>have a bullet kill someone in my general area but I'm left totally fine
>Therefore I decide what is a constituional right and what isn't
Liberals are retarded
>Are you implying that firearms aren't dangerous? You sound pretty fucking stupid.
Yeah. Never once seen a firearm act on it's own. I know it can happen but that's news worthy rare.
He talks to the audience as if they're helpless children and makes them feel special by validating their opinions no matter how utterly stupid they are.
So of course he's very popular among millenials.
Guns don't kill people, people kill people!
>what are temporary cavities
A .223/5.56 round does way more damage than a 9mm or a .45. A .44 mag or bigger carry similar muzzle energy though.
Accuracy is always relevant unless you are straight up walking up to the target. I’m not talking about minute of angle at very long range, just the multiple points of stabilization and longer sight radius you get with a rifle.
Take some untrained shooters to the range sometime and have them blast away, they will all be more accurate with a rifle than with a pistol and will be capable of faster follow up shots.
Is a rock dangerous? How about a stick?
This guy doesn't know about guns.
Gun control will never work in the US. Might be easier to make guns compulsory. or re-deploy Mexican wall to all schools.
yes?? this shouldn't be a difficult concept to understand
Man fuck that nigger faggot franco jew ass bitch shill faggot
>more damage per bullet
>longer effective range
either you're retarded or a kikel
Stop trying to argue this point fucking retard.
ARs are better at killing than handguns. You don't see soldiers using handguns as their primary weapon.
>>> More accurate, Not necessarily.
Yes, I want to see you hit a 5" group with a .45 or 9mm at 300 yards
>The second weapon is a pistol..
Not sure if retarded, or stupid.. OP's point is about AR's vs pistol.
muh rifles are dangerous
>watching cringy ecelebs
gtfo of here with those jew words
>That's why swat or anit terorrism teams prefer not using them indoors.
Hollow point bullets at close range will do just as much damage as a .223 caliber rifle so it's not just about pure kinetic energy either.
[Citation VERY Needed]
I'm pro gun as they come but those 2 statements are BS dawg.
>both barrels are same length
>same caliber for both guns
>same firing action (semi-auto)
>both capable of using optics
and you call me the retard XD
If pistols are more dangerous. Why doesn't the Military turn in all its M4's and replace them with M9's?
I'm not auguring that a Mini-15 and an AR are nearly the same, what i'm arguing is that you don't seem to know what a pistol is..
Mini-14 I mean.
Well from the obvious standpoint that a 5.56 has the same energy as 4 9mm's yes but there are like 30 handgun murders for every rifle murder so not really realistically.
i pistol is anything that has a pistol grip. Notice in my original picture that the "scary" gun has a PISTOL GRIP, while the other rifle does not have one.
>i pistol is anything that has a pistol grip
OK nogunz just shut up now.
But in case you want to know what the ATF considers a "pistol"
The term “Pistol” means a weapon originally designed, made, and intended to fire a projectile (bullet) from one or more barrels when held in one hand, and having:
a chamber(s) as an integral part(s) of, or permanently aligned with, the bore(s);
and a short stock designed to be gripped by one hand at an angle to and extending below the line of the bore(s).
Note: This illustration shows the primary characteristics exhibited in the pistol category. Since pistol configurations differ significantly, various models in this classification may exhibit any of the illustrated components in a revised configuration, but not necessarily all components shown will be incorporated in any given design.
thats how the laws are written you faggot. i'd prefer no classifications because it allows anti-gun fags more leah-way to take more of them away
You dumb fucking faggot.
The military generally uses rifles as they are in warzones where shooting is often at longer ranges.
In addition to that, the modern military is on defense far more often than on offense, so they need versatile weapons.
Special forces do use very small carbines as they are on the offensive, but in the US short barreled rifles are already extremely heavily regulated, they are more effective than a handgun true enough though.
However, it'd be better to have a handgun than a rifle if you're in exceptionally close ranges and you have the element of surprise and stuff.
No it isn’t you retard, a pistol is something with no shoulder stock, usually a fairly short barrel, and usually something that fires “pistol” cartridges that are short with a wide bullet and fairly low muzzle velocity.
It's really simple.
Handguns (or any weapon with a sub-10" barrel) should be banned. Semi-auto & full-auto weapons should be banned. Any magazine holding more than 5 shots should be banned (allows for stripper clips, 1+5 rifles and 1+5 shotguns). This leaves shotguns, and bolt action rifles. Yes, you can kill someone with either weapon, but the chance of causing mass casualties is much lower. A 12 gauge is more than powerful enough for any home defence situation, especially with buckshot or slugs. It would allow any calibre rifle for hunting (.22 varmint all the way up to .338 lapua magnum).
This literally solves America's mass shooting problem immediately. The only people unhappy with this solution are larping tacticools who think using a $2000 m416 with a bumpstock or a $20000 full auto, pre-1986 piece of shit will save them if the gubbermint decides to go full commie.
Of course he's right. If a handgun was more dangerous, shooters would use them instead. Dumbass.
LINK me to this defrano guy
>tfw live in Florida
>tfw have 2 AR-15, 5 shotguns, 7 rifles, and 3 handguns
feels good. DeFranco can go suck a dick.
>a 12 gauge is more than powerful enough for any home defense
tell that to the chinese store owners who had to defend their property from niggers during Katria
Because he's a faggot. Numbers point to handguns being more dangerous... or hammers, or 5 gallon buckets... or plastic bags being more dangerous than AR15s.
Yes, which is why the constitution guarantees the right to own them.
Can't overthrow a tyrannical government with nerf blasters.
How about we trash the classification of pistol and just make regulations based on overall length? Also stop caring about un-rifled barrels.
>.223 Energy ~ 1300 ft-lb
>.45 Energy ~ 450 ft-lb
Do you physics much? The .223 was designed to be an effective medium range round that was balance between stopping power and light weight, so that more rounds could be carried by one soldier.
Handguns are useful because they are easily carried and concealed and useful in tight places.
AR's and AK's are preferred by mass shooters because they can do more damage, both in velocity, energy, control ability , and firepower.
makes sense to me. the one with a stock is a rifle
If someone is going to shoot me from 10 meters away, I'd much rather be shot by a .223 (5.56mm) from an ar15 type than by a .44 magnum or a .45 acp hollowpoint.
If the shooter is a 19 year old mental school kid and I'm over 100 meters away however, I'd much rather they did not have the ar15.
The police can test this out first for 10 years.
>Yes, which is why the constitution guarantees the right to own them.
No it doesn't. the NFA effectively banned automatic weapons. The same could be done for AR's and AK's
>the NFA effectively banned automatic weapons
no it didn't. it just make it hard as fuck to own one without the government having clear access to snoop up your asshole.
because it's the military?
400 rifle deaths a year who gives a flying fuck
Yes, and those niggers probably (definitely) had semi and full auto handguns, subs, carbines and rifles. It's risk mitigation - sure, if you ban all guns apart from the categories I said then you MIGHT get someone with an ar15. But the chances are much higher that they're going to be coming at you with more powerful weapons if there isn't any regulations in place.
I'd much rather be a competent shooter with a choked 12 gauge in the second scenario.
The mass shooting “problem” isn’t so bad that it needs “solving” via such draconian solutions, but I wouldn’t expect a britbong to understand, seeing as how the whole reason we have gun rights is because we needed them to kick you assholes out and figured it was a good idea to stay armed in case you or your ilk tried something again.
>hard as fuck
AKA effectively banned, and now you can't own one made after 1986..
why am i arguing this with you, you're a BONG. you brits will never understand the right to bear ALL arms because you're all eternally cucked by her Majesty and her (((masters)))
>who gives a flying fuck
I bet the parents of 15 students and the wives of 2 teachers in Florida probably do.
>It's really simple.
Yea, "shall not be infringed" you fucking faggot.
Well, the .44 mag and the .223 will do similar damage, .44 is a beast. An untrained shooter at 10 meters is probably going to miss you with the handgun though, and is probably going to hit you with the rifle. Especially with the .44 which is a big clunky revolver with a very heavy trigger and low rate of fire.
what is the second weapon on there? A mini-14?
Can nuke the world 10 times over
Nobody invades us because we own AR's
this nigger gets it
theres no small print writing in the 2nd amendment that says (only if its less dangerous than muskets)
i believe so
Funny its been "infringed" time and time again.
>What is the NFA and amendments too to it in 1968 and 1986
>What are gun permits.
my old man had one of those back in NZ. Some nigger stole it
>Accuracy is always relevant unless you are straight up walking up to the target.
They generally are.
More civilians have been killed by their own governments than by enemy governments in the last 100 years.
Define more dangerous...
It will kill someone the same as a handgun, just with better range.
i don't need ANY permits where i live you homo. i can buy 10,000 rounds and 50 rifles and 25 handguns all at the same time without needing any special bullshit
But this is what it comes down to isn't it. Some kind of crazy mentality where you've decided 250 years ago was the pinnacle of law regarding guns and no further evidence, thought, logic, or children getting slaughtered by military grade weapons will change your minds.
You know we had legal handguns up until 1997? The licensing was a bit more strict than the US but it wasn't particularly hard to buy one. And then they were banned, because some nutcase went into a primary school (that's 5 to 11 year olds) and killed 16 kids and a teacher in Dunblane.
You see, we actually learn from tragedies.
>Chemical and Bioweapons
>Muh gun will save me.
that's a shame. here's a Hitler for your troubles
WE SHOULD BAN GUNS JUST LIKE DRUGS SO NO ONE USES THEM ANYMORE!!!
Technically right, It's seemingly more dangerous, to those who don't understand guns.
Though, hand guns in tight spaces are capable of more damage due to being easier to conceal and spring at the right time, as well as being less to carry.
>you see, we actually learn from tragedies
so is that why you're allowing thousands of muslim goat-fuckers into your country to rape your women and kill your children after watching the same shit happen to Germany?
First thing, a cartridge is a cartridge no material what gun it is on. Second, different pistols use different caliber of bullets, depending on the gun itself. Get this bullshit about pistols only can use "pistol cartridges" outta here, faggot.
But you can't buy this with out being a manufacturer or dealer..
And you still have to pass a background check.
So yes they have been "infringed"
>bad people break the law and do bad things
>therefore the state should take away all of your rights
You're going to wish you had a gun when Mohammed and his cousins reach a high enough percentage of the population and start open rebellion.
He wouldn't know if I had a handgun. An AR is a bit harder to hide. But guns are supposed to be dangerous to their target and a rifle is better than a handgun in a shootout. If you are a lunatic after mass casualties, you pick a "gun free zone" and then it doesn't matter what you use. They are sitting ducks.
Disappointed to be honest, DeFranco is usually not this ignorant and when he is. He usually admits he's ignorant and take his opinion lightly. For some reason I thought he was most likely a gun owner and knew better.
>If I move enough goalposts a pistol can be more dangerous..
yes i can. All i need is to apply for a FFL to legally purchase one, and a NFA tax stamp
Fuck these faggots
>Look at all these restrictions I have to go through to buy a firearm
But yet "Shall not be infringed"
You basically are supporting my argument. All of those restrictions "infringe" on the 2nd. So its just as easy to apply these restrictions on AR's and AK's
Also you can't own a full auto in certain states. Again. "infringed"
You're talking in hypotheticals & daily mail headlines. I'm talking about those kids who got gunned down literally last week.
You know what I mean about logic and evidence?
Buying a firearm will start a background check. There's no difference in whether it's for a handgun or a long gun. It's the same type of background check.
>firearm will start a background check
What is a private party purchace..