The earlier link listed 1.4 million, then after they added around 400k more (looked like 100k-ish per year) it was bumped to around 2 million... seemed fairly reasonable unless you are pretty certain all new guns are being registered... None of these numbers are exact. The US may have only 350 million... or it may have 450 million. But I don't see why Hawaii's Attorney General would lie about their estimates... 400 million is a pretty darn round number as well.
Not thinking anyone is lying, just thinking that these are all numbers pulled out of butts. It seems you agree that the error bars on these estimates are so large that the comparison could go either way, depending. barfo
Yeah for sure. But I'm not sure if a percentage point or two different either way is hugely relevant with these kinds of things. None of these numbers are exact.
The only thing that is verifiable from this article is in the title. Don't care how many unregistered guns there are there and I am definitely not going on a limb to determine from this unfounded number that they somehow have more than the average continental US. What we do know for sure is that these additional restrictions seem to work and given that Hawaii actually has real penalties behind unregistered firearms - even if they exist but people do not want to use them mostly because of the penalties, it just another point in favor of increased restrictions and proper penalties. Once we start putting "estimated" numbers without reference, we might as well resort to the following:
Hello, I am not sure, But I would counter this with, why does not the military just go with hand guns when in urban combat? I am pretty sure most any infantry unit would choose the AR over any hand gun almost every time, so I'm not sure of that opinion being the most accurate.
New Republican argument: gun free zones cause mass shootings. And tobacco free zones cause lung cancer.
Ok, well I linked multiple local news sources... but here is the actual report they were referencing...
Brilliant! I've long thought that no guns and no tobacco would cause more shooting with guns and more lung cancer. I've just gotta vote for this genius.
The guns the military enters with are far more lethal than an AR15. The military has actual assault rifles capable of full auto and burst fire. And they have backup. And every one of them is carrying a hand gun.... The rifle the military uses is a far more versatile weapon than either a hand gun or anything any American citizen can buy without a VERY expensive permit with a VERY extensive background check.
We were taught not to use auto fire too often because pretty soon you run out of bullets when I was in the Army in combat. Therefor most shots were single fire.
But it's there in case you need it, just as handy as your safety switch. And it will clear a hallway better than anything else... aside from a grenade, or possibly a cabbage based lunch...
Or by modifying weapons themselves. But now that I say that I realize you will just go back to your "black market" argument, stating that people will modify whatever they want to achieve their goals. Idk, man. Its gotten pretty tiring. I know you have suggested solutions, it's just the "yeah, but" arguments you come back with make it seem like you don't want to stop these heinous acts... I can understand why people are frustrated with the discourse they have had with you in this thread.
But is any of that relevant when a hand gun doesn't have any more versatility than a civilian AR 15? Your statement/opinion was you would rather have a hand gun. Short burst option or not, Im still not sure any infantry would agree with you. A hand gun in 5’ or less close combat? Possibly. Busting a door open and scanning a room with the barrel of a gun? I doubt it. I think they would prefer the civilian AR over the military issue handgun. All infantry carry a handgun, as a backup. Not as their primary weapon in hand. I am sorry, I am just not seeing what you Re seeing.
