WaPo: The carnage that AR-15s cause to the human body

[TheReckoning]

Someone is way more likely to be killed in America by someone else’s bare hands than they are to be killed by an AR-15. Gun violence is a serious issue in America today, but AR-15s are not cause of the problem- handguns are.

[TheReckoning]

Someone is way more likely to be killed in America by someone else’s bare hands than they are to be killed by an AR-15. Gun violence is a serious issue in America today, but AR-15s are not cause of the problem- handguns are.

Okay, so let's ban handguns to.

With 120 million handguns in circulation, vast majority of which are unregistered? Cat may be out of the bag on this one. Best we can hope for at this point, at least in the time being, is making law-abiding, responsible citizens armed as well- which can be done with a strict regulation program.

Someone is way more likely to be killed in America by someone else’s bare hands than they are to be killed by an AR-15. Gun violence is a serious issue in America today, but AR-15s are not cause of the problem- handguns are.

You have a better chance at survival against someone attacking you with their bare hands than being up against an AR-15. You also have a better chance of fleeing from handgun fire and of surviving being shot. AR-15's are designing to cause death almost instantly.

Clearly, this isn’t how most murderers think, given how they’re much more likely to use handguns- and even hands- than an AR-15 to kill someone.

[TheReckoning]

Someone is way more likely to be killed in America by someone else’s bare hands than they are to be killed by an AR-15. Gun violence is a serious issue in America today, but AR-15s are not cause of the problem- handguns are.

You have a better chance at survival against someone attacking you with their bare hands than being up against an AR-15. You also have a better chance of fleeing from handgun fire and of surviving being shot. AR-15's are designing to cause death almost instantly.

... and the ability to kill more people, more rapidly, at any given time.
This is what gun proponents don't want to hear. They know it's true, but instead, they try and delude their own tiny brain with "other hogwash," and try to deceive others by telling you/us/everyone that "handguns" kill more people.

Mass shootings are not known to happen with "a handgun." Do you get it now (a certain blue avatar in this thread)?

No, most mass shootings are committed with a handgun, as a simple Google search will tell you.

[TheReckoning]

No, most mass shootings are committed with a handgun, as a simple Google search will tell you.

I'm not sure of this. "Mass shooting" is a very broad term (at least legally).

Gang members committing a drive-by shooting against 5 rival gang members would be considered a "mass shooting". A man at home shooting his wife, 2 children and then himself would be considered a "mass shooting".

While all gun violence is horrible (unless in the case of self-defense), that's not what most people think when they hear the term "mass shooting". Randomized shootings in public like the shooting in Nashville, Uvalde, Parkland, Pulse, Las Vegas, Sandy Hook, etc are what people think of.

Among the latter, it definitely seems to me as the majority of those shootings (though not all) are committed using rifles and not handguns (sometimes with both).

Sure, but those mass shootings make a tiny portion of all gun homicides in this country. It seems rather foolish to focus on such a small cause of gun violence, when other forms are a much more serious issue.

[TheReckoning]

No, most mass shootings are committed with a handgun, as a simple Google search will tell you.

I'm not sure of this. "Mass shooting" is a very broad term (at least legally).

Gang members committing a drive-by shooting against 5 rival gang members would be considered a "mass shooting". A man at home shooting his wife, 2 children and then himself would be considered a "mass shooting".

While all gun violence is horrible (unless in the case of self-defense), that's not what most people think when they hear the term "mass shooting". Randomized shootings in public like the shooting in Nashville, Uvalde, Parkland, Pulse, Las Vegas, Sandy Hook, etc are what people think of.

Among the latter, it definitely seems to me as the majority of those shootings (though not all) are committed using rifles and not handguns (sometimes with both).

Sure, but those mass shootings make a tiny portion of all gun homicides in this country. It seems rather foolish to focus on such a small cause of gun violence, when other forms are a much more serious issue.

What a tedious, disingenuous argument. You’re right, most shooting deaths are caused by handguns. But saying that that means we should do nothing about rifle shootings is like saying we shouldn’t try to cure liver disease because more people die from heart disease and cancer. The mass shootings we’re talking about are a distinct category of violence from the average gun homicide. We’re talking about the shootings where schools, churches, and other vulnerable, victim-dense public places are targeted. Why shouldn’t there be specific efforts tailored towards addressing that specific phenomenon? Our society is being terrorized by these attacks right now, and if you don’t think that’s a serious problem, then you can’t be reasoned with.

Why is gun control talk preoccupied with semi-automatic rifles? Well for one thing, you have a much more plausible argument that the average law-abiding citizen should be allowed to keep a handgun in their home for self defense. I probably think there should be more rules than you do on how a person acquires one and where you get to carry it, but I don’t advocate for eliminating all handguns.

AR-15s and their ilk, on the other hand, are designed to inflict a specific type of violence. Simply put, they are tailor-made for committing mass shootings. Intentionally. That’s what they are built for. No one needs one to hunt a deer. No one needs one to ward off a mugger. They’re designed to kill as many opponents as possible as quickly as possible. And I acknowledge that many people use those guns lawfully to blow off steam at the gun range or have fun playing commando when they’re hunting or whatever, but they don’t need a weapon like that. I’m sorry, but the toll these weapons are taking on society is too high to be outweighed by the fun of gun hobbyists who think they’re cool.

Do I think banning or heavily restricting those guns will magically solve all violence? Of course not. But I think we owe it to the victims of Uvalde, Nashville, and all the other attacks to try something, anything, to take away the tools that keep making these tragedies possible.

I never said that we shouldn’t do anything to regulate AR-15 style rifles- of course we should, and we should more than we do right now. You are the one main making disingenuous arguments.

There’s two very simple facts on this matter: 1) Gun violence is a serious issue in the United States, and 2) Handguns, by a very wide margin, are used for gun violence. Does that mean that we can’t propose solutions to gun violence that target other weapons? Of course not. But when people who claim to want to end violence seem to solely target AR-15 style rifles which are behind a tiny fraction of gun violence, it seems to be security theater. I’m not scared at all of being in a mass shooting, but I am worried some hothead/psycho/criminal will pull a handgun on me one day- and for good statistical reason.

[TheReckoning]

Well, according to statistics (which you like you bring up) and the article in the OP I posted, while both obviously can be lethal - being shot at with a rifle is deadlier than being shot at with a handgun.

Is that true?

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-gunshots/handguns-more-lethal-than-rifles-in-mass-shootings-idUSKCN1OU11G

I mean, think about it logically for a second- if rifles were superior to handguns at killing people, wouldn’t more murderers use rifles than handguns?