Terrorist attack in Orlando

Revolvers are essentially semi-automatic though. Every time you pull the trigger, they fire. Some of them are even hammerless and can be fired just as quickly as a semi-automatic. Some of them hold more than 6 rounds.

Oh and they can be loaded with things like .44 magnum and .50AE that are far more deadly and better at going through armor than anything a semi-auto can fire.

 

There is no manual action required with a revolver. You just pull the trigger and it fires. It's a longer trigger pull than with a semi-auto because you have to engage the hammer with the trigger pull.

I think you are under the misconception that you need to pull the hammer back on a revolver between shots. You don't need to touch the hammer at all. People who have never used one seem to think that but that's not how they work. Pulling the hammer back just gives you a shorter trigger pull. Revolvers can be rapid fired just as fast as semi-autos.

So you can't come up with any concrete examples of defensive weapons that aren't semi-auto or at least rapid firing.

You basically think people should only be allowed to carry muskets.

The semi-auto thing is a slippery slope that will lead to pretty much all guns being banned.

 

Maybe. But with speed loaders they can be reloaded just as quickly as semi-autos.

Alterego doesn't know much about guns. He thought revolvers needed to be cocked between shots. Now he's just backpedaling.

 

It's still rapid firing and can be fired and reloaded just as fast as a semi-auto. You are arguing semantics at this point.

Also revolvers can be chambered for much more powerful rounds than semi-autos. .44 Magnum and .50AE will kill most anything in one hit.

 

Mass shooters have actually used revolvers or shotguns nearly as often as semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/national/weapons-and-mass-shootings/

Mass shootings are overwhelmingly carried out with semi-automatic pistols. But revolvers can be used in effectively the same fashion.

 

It's a delicious irony to see all of these Republicans who have been nothing but horrible to gay people in the past but who also want to look tough on terror and like they support the victims. They're now all saying they support gay rights and always have even though their records say otherwise.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...u-really-a-champion-of-the-gay-community.html

The shooter wanted to terrorize gays, but if anything the shooting has made everyone more tolerant and accepting of gays than ever. ISIS will surely disown him for being gay, so he won't get the martyrdom he was after. He accomplished the exact opposite of what he set out to do. He probably just pushed gay rights ahead by decades. Pam Bondi supports gay marriage? The Republican presidential candidate saying he supports the gay community? These are things I didn't think we would see for years, or maybe ever.

 

I disagree with you about pretty much everything. Bad guys will get a hold of guns regardless. This shooting was carried out in a gun free zone. It took five hours for the police to properly respond. It was an absolute bloodbath. It goes to show you that the police can't protect you in these situations. If even a few people in the nightclub had guns, they could have shot back and stopped this guy. People like you want to take away our second amendment right to protect ourselves at a time when we need it most. You are just as bad a Trump wanting to ban an entire group of people from the country. If we abandon our values, the terrorists win. The terrorists are also laughing at us for our response being to stupidly disarm ourselves. We could have made it a little harder for this guy with better background checks. There were many warning signs that went ignored. But he was determined and probably would have gotten a gun regardless. If not in a store then on the black market out of the trunk of a car.

 

Obama isn't talking about the kind of gun ban alterego is talking about though. He just wants better background checks, and maybe to require people to take safety courses and go through some kind of licensure (although he didn't seem to be pushing the licensure idea that hard, probably because it's been a complete failure in Chicago). What alterego is talking about would leave people defenseless. The bad guys are going to have semi-automatics. His argument doesn't even make sense because he seems to be arguing that shotguns and revolvers are weaker. So if he really believes those weapons are weaker, why would he want law abiding citizens to be left with weaker guns than the bad guys? People like alterego would turn the entire country into Chicago, where only bad guys have guns, the murder rate is insane, and law abiding citizens can't protect themselves from gangs of gun toting thugs who don't care about gun laws. People make comparisons to the UK and Australia with regard to gun control, but those countries are nothing like the US with regard to guns and crime. Chicago is place where the extreme left has already had its way, and we can see what strict gun control would look like in America, and it's been a disaster.

 

So what you're saying is bad guys will still get guns regardless of the laws and only law abiding citizens will be without them. And bad guys will come into the gun free zone and murder people because they can get away with it. This is currently happening in Chicago, and what would happen all over the country if you banned guns.

Chicago is a perfect example of "if you make guns illegal, only criminals will have them."

I'm also not convinced you believe your own bullshit about revolvers and shotguns being enough for defense. You and people like you just flat out want to take away all of the guns.