"But Chicago, Chicago, Chicago!"

[koriwhat]

capacity and stopping power. yeah lets go with that.



now you tell me. why would one use a semi auto rifle instead of a semi auto handgun if they wanted to drop as many people as possible in as little time as possible?

i'd use a shotgun tbh. best home protection yet. you don't even have to be a good aim either.

[spurraider21]

i'd use a shotgun tbh. best home protection yet. you don't even have to be a good aim either.

i'd agree for home protection

i dont know if i'd ever buy a gun, but if i did for home protection, would definitely go with a shotty

[TSA]

capacity and stopping power. yeah lets go with that.



now you tell me. why would one use a semi auto rifle instead of a semi auto handgun if they wanted to drop as many people as possible in as little time as possible?

What re ed website did you pull this graph from that header is re ed Semi vs pump/bolt action wasn’t even up for debate.

The actual study admits the data is limited and highlights intent of mass shootings (w/rifle) we are discussing compared to active shootings used in study.

“Limitations of this study include the lack of data on specific injuries, demographics, and other details of the incidents. Incidents involving semiautomatic rifles may differ from other incidents in ways that may partially explain the association but could not be controlled (ie, intentionality of the shooter)”


“Semiautomatic rifles are designed for easy use, can accept large magazines, and fire high-velocity bullets, enabling active shooters to wound and kill more people per incident.4”

Handguns can accept just as large sized magazines as the AR-15’s you want banned. Rate of fire is basically the same as well. You are now left with stopping power being the reason you want them banned. Mass shooters are generally not sniping people from hundreds of yards away so then the stopping power angle of the rifle becomes weakened. There are many semi auto rifles with far greater stopping power as well. You aren’t very convincing in your argument.

[Pavlov]

I've never seen TSA flat out lie about guns so much. According to him the army shouldn't be using assault rifles because handguns are just as effective if not moreso but assault type rifles are the ONLY gun females should ever use.

[spurraider21]

What re ed website did you pull this graph from that header is re ed Semi vs pump/bolt action wasn’t even up for debate.

The actual study admits the data is limited and highlights intent of mass shootings (w/rifle) we are discussing compared to active shootings used in study.

“Limitations of this study include the lack of data on specific injuries, demographics, and other details of the incidents. Incidents involving semiautomatic rifles may differ from other incidents in ways that may partially explain the association but could not be controlled (ie, intentionality of the shooter)”


“Semiautomatic rifles are designed for easy use, can accept large magazines, and fire high-velocity bullets, enabling active shooters to wound and kill more people per incident.4”

Handguns can accept just as large sized magazines as the AR-15’s you want banned. Rate of fire is basically the same as well. You are now left with stopping power being the reason you want them banned. Mass shooters are generally not sniping people from hundreds of yards away so then the stopping power angle of the rifle becomes weakened. There are many semi auto rifles with far greater stopping power as well. You aren’t very convincing in your argument.

so are you telling me that the guy who shot up pulse nightclub, mr paddock, the guy who shot up walmart, etc. had no advantage in using a semi auto rifle over a semi auto handgun when it came to the efficiency with which they killed people?

if you were tasked with killing 20 people in one minute or less in a walmart, or to make it less morbid, tasked with killing 20 isis members at a syrian marketplace in one minute or less, and your options for weapons were a 9mm handgun or an AR-15, you'd choose the handgun?

[Chris]

so are you telling me that the guy who shot up pulse nightclub, mr paddock, the guy who shot up walmart, etc. had no advantage in using a semi auto rifle over a semi auto handgun when it came to the efficiency with which they killed people?

if you were tasked with killing 20 people in one minute or less in a walmart, or to make it less morbid, tasked with killing 20 isis members at a syrian marketplace in one minute or less, and your options for weapons were a 9mm handgun or an AR-15, you'd choose the handgun?

Using a bomb seems like a bigger advantage so your argument doesn't really have any legs. Bad people will do bad things regardless of the tools at hand. Acting like this is some kind of band-aid is asinine and you know it.

[spurraider21]

Using a bomb seems like a bigger advantage so your argument doesn't really have any legs.

im for banning bombs too

but i phrased my question with the choice specifically being semi auto rifle or semi auto handgun.

Bad people will do bad things regardless of the tools at hand. Acting like this is some kind of band-aid is asinine and you know it.

100% agree tbh. what is more dangerous though, a bad person with a BB gun or a bad person with a loaded AR-15?

[Chris]

im for banning bombs too

but i phrased my question with the choice specifically being semi auto rifle or semi auto handgun.


100% agree tbh. what is more dangerous though, a bad person with a BB gun or a bad person with a loaded AR-15?

You can ban all the bombs until the cows come home. People will make a homemade bomb or get one on the black market just like an "assault rifle". Asinine.

[spurraider21]

You can ban all the bombs until the cows come home. People will make a homemade bomb or get one on the black market just like an "assault rifle". Asinine.

and yet we see many more shootings than bombings here in the states... just a coincidence tbh. nothing to do with the fact that you can buy one legally, and not the other

even if the shooter didnt acquire HIS gun legally (say he stole it from a legal owner)... the fact that there is such an absurd amount of guns in circulation just makes the ease of access there. you can go to a gun store and buy a gun, break into the home of a known gun owner and steal a gun. no such options for a bomb. consequently, we see very few bombings here

[Chris]

Just put up a sign that says "Gun free zone" and call it a day.

Democrat solutions.

[spurraider21]

Just put up a sign that says "Gun free zone" and call it a day.

Democrat solutions.

strawman solutions

[TSA]

so are you telling me that the guy who shot up pulse nightclub, mr paddock, the guy who shot up walmart, etc. had no advantage in using a semi auto rifle over a semi auto handgun when it came to the efficiency with which they killed people?

if you were tasked with killing 20 people in one minute or less in a walmart, or to make it less morbid, tasked with killing 20 isis members at a syrian marketplace in one minute or less, and your options for weapons were a 9mm handgun or an AR-15, you'd choose the handgun?

In the mass shooting situations we are discussing I don’t really see an advantage of one over the other. Please don’t think I’m being nonchalant when saying this but it’s basically just about spraying as many bullets as possible into a crowd. Rate of fire is about the same, stopping power inside 20 yards is about the same, magazine capacity is the same. I do appreciate this discussion with you as it lead me to do some more research and I found something quite different than the study you presented. Completely different conclusions and now I’m completely stumped.

Handguns more lethal than rifles in mass shootings
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-h...-idUSKCN1OU11G

In public mass shootings in the U.S., victims shot with a handgun were more likely to die than in the events associated with a rifle, according to a new study in the Journal of the American College of Surgeons.

“With public mass shootings rapidly on the rise, we wanted to know the reasons why people die and if any aspect is preventable,” said lead study author Dr. Babak Sarani of the George Washington University Center for Trauma and Critical Care in Washington, D.C.

Previous studies show that in mass shootings, about 45 percent of people who are wounded during the event die.

“If we’re going to have conversations around gun violence and public mass shootings, we need to know the facts,” Sarani told Reuters Health by phone. “We started down this road of looking at actual autopsies so there would be no speculation.”

Sarani and colleagues analyzed autopsies from 23 mass shootings from FBI records in 2000-2016 to understand where victims were shot, how many times they were shot, the organs that were hit, the firearm type and if any injuries or deaths were preventable. Of the 232 victims whose bodies were autopsied, 73 were shot with handguns, 105 by rifles, 22 by shotguns and 32 by multiple firearms.

The research team found that events with a handgun were associated with a higher percentage of people killed, whereas events involving a rifle were associated with more people shot. About 26 percent of those shot with a handgun had more than one fatal wound, versus two percent of people shot with a rifle. Handguns were also more likely to be associated with brain and heart injuries.

“All of us were shocked. We came to the table with our bias that an assault weapon would be worse,” Sarani said. “This should inform the medical community about what to expect at trauma centers and lawmakers about reasonable gun laws.”

The differences in firearm lethality could be due to several factors, Sarani explained. Close-range handguns and longer-range rifles change the distance between the shooter and victim, as well as the accuracy and velocity of the bullet. Although the higher muzzle velocity of a rifle is typically associated with more accuracy, public mass shootings with handguns tend to lead to more gunshot wounds per victim and a higher likelihood of injuries to vital organs.

[Chris]

Just put up a sign that says "Gun free zone" and call it a day.

Democrat solutions.

eyup

[spurraider21]

In the mass shooting situations we are discussing I don’t really see an advantage of one over the other. Please don’t think I’m being nonchalant when saying this but it’s basically just about spraying as many bullets as possible into a crowd. Rate of fire is about the same, stopping power inside 20 yards is about the same, magazine capacity is the same. I do appreciate this discussion with you as it lead me to do some more research and I found something quite different than the study you presented. Completely different conclusions and now I’m completely stumped.

Handguns more lethal than rifles in mass shootings
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-h...-idUSKCN1OU11G

In public mass shootings in the U.S., victims shot with a handgun were more likely to die than in the events associated with a rifle, according to a new study in the Journal of the American College of Surgeons.

“With public mass shootings rapidly on the rise, we wanted to know the reasons why people die and if any aspect is preventable,” said lead study author Dr. Babak Sarani of the George Washington University Center for Trauma and Critical Care in Washington, D.C.

Previous studies show that in mass shootings, about 45 percent of people who are wounded during the event die.

“If we’re going to have conversations around gun violence and public mass shootings, we need to know the facts,” Sarani told Reuters Health by phone. “We started down this road of looking at actual autopsies so there would be no speculation.”

Sarani and colleagues analyzed autopsies from 23 mass shootings from FBI records in 2000-2016 to understand where victims were shot, how many times they were shot, the organs that were hit, the firearm type and if any injuries or deaths were preventable. Of the 232 victims whose bodies were autopsied, 73 were shot with handguns, 105 by rifles, 22 by shotguns and 32 by multiple firearms.

The research team found that events with a handgun were associated with a higher percentage of people killed, whereas events involving a rifle were associated with more people shot. About 26 percent of those shot with a handgun had more than one fatal wound, versus two percent of people shot with a rifle. Handguns were also more likely to be associated with brain and heart injuries.

“All of us were shocked. We came to the table with our bias that an assault weapon would be worse,” Sarani said. “This should inform the medical community about what to expect at trauma centers and lawmakers about reasonable gun laws.”

The differences in firearm lethality could be due to several factors, Sarani explained. Close-range handguns and longer-range rifles change the distance between the shooter and victim, as well as the accuracy and velocity of the bullet. Although the higher muzzle velocity of a rifle is typically associated with more accuracy, public mass shootings with handguns tend to lead to more gunshot wounds per victim and a higher likelihood of injuries to vital organs.

it makes sense. guy with a rifle is going to try to nail guys at farther distances, so accuracy will be diminished. they even said they tend to hit more people (which contradicts claims of them having comparable capacity/net fire rate). its like how stabbings are more fatal than shootings. but mass stabbings are few and far between, much less practical.

by way of example...

guy stabs 2 people, both die
guy shoots 18 guys with handguns, 12 of them die
guy shoots 50 guys with rifles, 25 of them die

the rifle is the least "lethal" of the 3 but still does the most damage, in that scenario. the degree of lethality is less important in the discussion of mass shootings, imo

wouldn't surprise me one bit if automatic weapons were even less "lethal" although ultimately capable of the most damage. if there was a shooting where 70 people died, nobody would take solace in the fact that "well, 700 people were shot at, so it was only a 10% mortality rate"

[TSA]

im for banning bombs too

but i phrased my question with the choice specifically being semi auto rifle or semi auto handgun.


100% agree tbh. what is more dangerous though, a bad person with a BB gun or a bad person with a loaded AR-15?

You’ve always been able to buy a rifle legally here though. That right doesn’t explain the uptick in mass shootings.

[spurraider21]

You’ve always been able to buy a rifle legally here though. That right doesn’t explain the uptick in mass shootings.

you're right

i'm not saying we shouldn't investigate and address the root causes of the uptick. but that doesnt mean that in the meantime, we should continue to let people easily access guns capable of that amount of damage just because it's not the cause of the uptick.

hmm, for some reason, more people are using rifles in mass shootings. but in the meantime, lets keep letting them buy those weapons. what can go wrong?

it's not sound logic

[TSA]

it makes sense. guy with a rifle is going to try to nail guys at farther distances, so accuracy will be diminished. they even said they tend to hit more people (which contradicts claims of them having comparable capacity/net fire rate). its like how stabbings are more fatal than shootings. but mass stabbings are few and far between, much less practical.

by way of example...

guy stabs 2 people, both die
guy shoots 18 guys with handguns, 12 of them die
guy shoots 50 guys with rifles, 25 of them die

the rifle is the least "lethal" of the 3 but still does the most damage, in that scenario. the degree of lethality is less important in the discussion of mass shootings, imo

You just presented a chart and study saying semi auto rifles were more lethal

Are you moving the goalpost now to most non-lethal damage?

[Chris]

Philo

[spurraider21]

You just presented a chart and study saying semi auto rifles were more lethal

the two studies were comparing different things. the one i posted said shootings with rifles ended with more injuries and deaths than with other weapons.

the study you posted said that a victim who is shot is less likely to die when shot by a rifle than handgun.

both could be true. look at the hypothetical numbers i posted which you just quoted. they would be consistent with both studies, for instance

Are you moving the goalpost now to most non-lethal damage?

nope, see above

[spurraider21]

Philo

Chris

[TSA]

you're right

i'm not saying we shouldn't investigate and address the root causes of the uptick. but that doesnt mean that in the meantime, we should continue to let people easily access guns capable of that amount of damage just because it's not the cause of the uptick.

hmm, for some reason, more people are using rifles in mass shootings. but in the meantime, lets keep letting them buy those weapons. what can go wrong?

it's not sound logic

Restrictions on purchasing AR-15 style rifles have only gotten tougher since the uptick in mass shootings started, solely focusing on the firearm and not the root cause is not sound logic. (not saying you are)

This is why I continuously bring up that banning a certain type of firearm won’t curtail . There is a serious problem with the people in our country willing to do this and they’ll do it regardless of what is banned.

[Chris]

BAN ALL THE THINGS!

[spurraider21]

Restrictions on purchasing AR-15 style rifles have only gotten tougher since the uptick in mass shootings started, solely focusing on the firearm and not the root cause is not sound logic. (not saying you are)

completely agree

This is why I continuously bring up that banning a certain type of firearm won’t curtail . There is a serious problem with the people in our country willing to do this and they’ll do it regardless of what is banned.

im fine with banning the ones that are more likely to cause more damage in a mass shooting and aren't particular practical for self defense purposes either

studies have shown that people with rifles tend to shoot more people and kill more people per incident (even if the ratio of people killed/shot is lower)

[Chris]

6 Reasons Why The AR-15 Is Actually Ideal For Self-Defense

https://bearingarms.com/tom-k/2018/0...-self-defense/

[spurraider21]

oh wow. bearingarms.com says AR-15's are good. NO WAY

whats next, chris, a link to peta about how eating beef is bad?