# Handguns, portable and convenient but ballistically deficient



## PhotonGuy (Sep 8, 2015)

Handguns are very portable and convenient. Carrying around a handgun, as its been mentioned here before, is much easier than lugging around a big awkward rifle or shotgun. The tradeoff is that a handgun lacks the ballistics and stopping power of long guns. Rifles and shotguns are much more powerful and much more likely to kill than handguns. A handgun more or less is just a smaller, powered down version of the rifle. Being smaller its much easier to carry but also much less powerful. Therefore if somebody is shot with a rifle they are much more likely to die than if they're shot with a handgun. I know a case of a woman taking a handgun class who accidentally shot herself in the foot. They called in a helicopter, flew her to a hospital, patched her foot up, and the next day she was back and finished the class. Now, if somebody gets shot in the foot with a long gun, no more foot. They most likely will be fitted for a prosthetic. Anyway, although handguns don't have the power and destructive ability of a long gun, personally I prefer them because they have the advantages of being much more portable and much easier to carry around. After all, for a weapon to have any level of effect, it has to be with you in the first place. Therefore I like handguns over long guns simply for the reason that its much easier to have one with you. After all, you always see police carrying handguns but you usually don't see them lugging around long guns, those are usually kept in the cruiser and used when the situation warrants it. 

Anyway, that being said, I just would like to say that although long guns are much more lethal than handguns, its handguns that are usually much more regulated. In the USA, in lots of states you can buy a long gun from a state even if you're not a state resident but you can only buy a handgun if you're a state resident and handgun purchases are usually state registered. In other countries too handguns are more highly regulated than long guns if not outright banned. Like I said, I think that is a bit screwed up since I consider handguns more convenient, easier to carry, ect. Yet, even though long guns are more likely to kill its handguns that are more restricted, a bit silly isn't it.


----------



## ballen0351 (Sep 8, 2015)

No.


----------



## elder999 (Sep 8, 2015)

PhotonGuy said:


> Handguns are very portable and convenient. Carrying around a handgun, as its been mentioned here before, is much easier than lugging around a big awkward rifle or shotgun. The tradeoff is that a handgun lacks the ballistics and stopping power of long guns. Rifles and shotguns are much more powerful and much more likely to kill than handguns. A handgun more or less is just a smaller, powered down version of the rifle. Being smaller its much easier to carry but also much less powerful. Therefore if somebody is shot with a rifle they are much more likely to die than if they're shot with a handgun. I know a case of a woman taking a handgun class who accidentally shot herself in the foot. They called in a helicopter, flew her to a hospital, patched her foot up, and the next day she was back and finished the class. Now, if somebody gets shot in the foot with a long gun, no more foot. They most likely will be fitted for a prosthetic. Anyway, although handguns don't have the power and destructive ability of a long gun, personally I prefer them because they have the advantages of being much more portable and much easier to carry around. After all, for a weapon to have any level of effect, it has to be with you in the first place. Therefore I like handguns over long guns simply for the reason that its much easier to have one with you. After all, you always see police carrying handguns but you usually don't see them lugging around long guns, those are usually kept in the cruiser and used when the situation warrants it.
> 
> Anyway, that being said, I just would like to say that although long guns are much more lethal than handguns, its handguns that are usually much more regulated. In the USA, in lots of states you can buy a long gun from a state even if you're not a state resident but you can only buy a handgun if you're a state resident and handgun purchases are usually state registered. In other countries too handguns are more highly regulated than long guns if not outright banned. Like I said, I think that is a bit screwed up since I consider handguns more convenient, easier to carry, ect. Yet, even though long guns are more likely to kill its handguns that are more restricted, a bit silly isn't it.





 
/


----------



## elder999 (Sep 8, 2015)

elder999 said:


> View attachment 19487
> /


Oh, and...*neither do you.*


----------



## Danny T (Sep 8, 2015)

PhotonGuy said:


> Handguns are very portable and convenient. Carrying around a handgun, as its been mentioned here before, is much easier than lugging around a big awkward rifle or shotgun. The tradeoff is that a handgun lacks the ballistics and stopping power of long guns. Rifles and shotguns are much more powerful and much more likely to kill than handguns. A handgun more or less is just a smaller, powered down version of the rifle. Being smaller its much easier to carry but also much less powerful. Therefore if somebody is shot with a rifle they are much more likely to die than if they're shot with a handgun. I know a case of a woman taking a handgun class who accidentally shot herself in the foot. They called in a helicopter, flew her to a hospital, patched her foot up, and the next day she was back and finished the class. Now, if somebody gets shot in the foot with a long gun, no more foot. They most likely will be fitted for a prosthetic. Anyway, although handguns don't have the power and destructive ability of a long gun, personally I prefer them because they have the advantages of being much more portable and much easier to carry around. After all, for a weapon to have any level of effect, it has to be with you in the first place. Therefore I like handguns over long guns simply for the reason that its much easier to have one with you. After all, you always see police carrying handguns but you usually don't see them lugging around long guns, those are usually kept in the cruiser and used when the situation warrants it.
> 
> Anyway, that being said, I just would like to say that although long guns are much more lethal than handguns, its handguns that are usually much more regulated. In the USA, in lots of states you can buy a long gun from a state even if you're not a state resident but you can only buy a handgun if you're a state resident and handgun purchases are usually state registered. In other countries too handguns are more highly regulated than long guns if not outright banned. Like I said, I think that is a bit screwed up since I consider handguns more convenient, easier to carry, ect. Yet, even though long guns are more likely to kill its handguns that are more restricted, a bit silly isn't it.



Uh..., I am at a loss.
Ok sir, I have been on the receiving end of a 7.62 x 39mm round in the rt calf in 1975. Guess what, My Leg Is Still There! Amazing.
Not only that but the calf muscle is still intact and functions well. Was sore for a couple of weeks but that was about all. Was walking on it the next day.
Lucky, yes. Didn't hit the bone or anything other than muscle. Flesh wound. Didn't qualify for a purple heart. Got light duty for 3 days. 

"Rifles are much more lethal than handguns"
Lethal - capable of causing death. Both can be equally as lethal when used within the range they are designed for. Even a big gun like the 50 cal has a range where it becomes non lethal. 

"...long guns are more likely to kill..."
I understand what you are attempting to say here. However, there are places and times where the long gun simply is ineffective.
Also; Guns are inanimate objects. They can not thing or do things on their own. Something has to cause an effect on the gun for it to be discharged. Guns do not kill. The person handling the gun is responsible. The gun is simply a tool that the person is using to kill with.

Automobiles are more lethal than guns; maybe you should just strike the bad guy with your vehicle. They are common, easily accessible, and far more people die from their use than guns.


----------



## Tgace (Sep 13, 2015)

Well...in the end...he's right.

Pistols are a compromise of terminal performance for convenience/portability. Always have been.

If you KNOW you will be entering into a likely gunfight...bring a rifle.


----------



## elder999 (Sep 13, 2015)

Tgace said:


> Well...in the end...he's right.
> 
> Pistols are a compromise of terminal performance for convenience/portability. Always have been.
> 
> If you KNOW you will be entering into a likely gunfight...bring a rifle.



Sure. But my M1 won't fit on my belt.


----------



## Tgace (Sep 13, 2015)

That's exactly what I stated.

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk


----------



## Danny T (Sep 13, 2015)

For myself it is more along the lines of practicality. The weapon which is more practical for me is the one I am inclined to have. It would be far more convenient to not carry at all. For my lifestyle and work it is more practical to carry a handgun though there are other firearms accessible in my vehicle, home, and school.


----------



## ballen0351 (Sep 13, 2015)

elder999 said:


> Sure. But my M1 won't fit on my belt.


It will u just Need to eat a lot more


----------



## Argus (Sep 15, 2015)

elder999 said:


> View attachment 19487
> /



That's not just any pancake! That's a Japanese "pancake" filled with sweet red bean paste.

_...just helping to clear up one of the more important misconceptions in this thread _


----------

