An AR-15 is no more dangerous than a 9 millimeter handgun

ExpertKipWatcher wrote:

Prove Me Wrong wrote:

Yes, it may have more round capacity, but a handgun can still hold around 15 rounds of ammunition, and reload time is very quick. In a mass shooting in a large crowd, reload times don't have much impact in the ending result. Handguns are also easily concealed. It is also harder to disarm a person with a handgun compared to a rifle.

So why don't the military save a load of money by just using handguns?

obviously an AR15 is more powerful, but the point is that mass shootings take place feet apart, and even point blank, unlike most military shots

300 blackout is a .223 with a .308 bullet. More caliber, less powder. It's not an ar10. That is a 7.62x51 (basically) . Different casing, more powder, similar bullet.

Also completely wrong 6/10 deadliestused semi auto Rifles (nowhere does it specify "assault rifle"). And that doesn't change the fact that 60% of all mass shootings use pistols. And 15% use shotguns leaving 25% that use rifles of any kind including semi auto carbines. Where are you getting your facts from? Because they are either put dated or just plain wrong these numbers are from doj stats along with FBI stats.

Ok both and ar 10 and 300 blackout fire .308s one (being the ar 10 just has more powder behind it being 7.62x51 vs blackout 7.62x39) and the platform designs are nearly identical.

thatrunner#5 wrote:

obviously an AR15 is more powerful, but the point is that mass shootings take place feet apart, and even point blank, unlike most military shots

I would ask Armyvet's opinion here: when you are training for close combat situations, are you trained to use your 9mm handgun or your rifle? My strong bet would be the rifle.

That is not what the second amendment is for. It is not made for hunting shooting sport or protecting just yourself and your family. It's there to protect your freedom. And no we will not see semi automatic weapons banned. And just like bump stocks that are now technically illegal if you already have one and have proof that you owned it before they were outlawed you can't be charged with a crime because they were grandfathered in.

The very first response proved the OP wrong. This has to be a record for “prove me wrong” futility.

In the army you always trained with your rifle first but you also always trained with your sidearm. You use the correct tool for the job in an open area you use your rifle. Only when there is not adequate room for maneuverability of the rifle do you switch to side arm. But again that is military training most mass shooters have minimal training. And to the person who brought up Dayton saying he killed 9 in 30 seconds firstly that was still legally a pistol. I know you called for a ban or all semi autos but two revolvers and 12 dead in 10 seconds or more realistically they make a bomb and try to kill as many as the can by whatever means possible.

You obviously have no understanding of guns and have watched one too many movies. Hand guns are very inaccurate even in someone well trained. An impulse buyer with very limited shooting experience would be lucky to hit a target from less than 10 yards with a hand gun, even most law enforcement personnel are only accurate out to about 30 yards. A rifle with a scope, however, has about 10 times the effective range (US Army lists the effective range on an M16A4 rifle at 550 meters on a single point target vs 20-50 meters for a Colt Hand Gun).

Ok random guy what I learned while SERVING in the Army what I can speak on. Firstly a handgun is NOT inaccurate in the slightest it all depends on the skill and training of the shooter. Secondly the Army hasn't used colts in decades and it is not even part of our training much less listed with e.r.f (effective range of fire). Yes an M16A4 does have a single target MAXIMUM effective range off 550 yards but we don't train with Scopes and even during basic you shot 300 yards with iron sights all day. That being said of the 40,000 gun deaths per year ONLY 8,863 were murders and of those 416 were committed with a rifle of any kind. Let's not forget 29,250 were suicides 1628 law enforcement shootings and 274 accidental discharges. So instead of "common sense" gun laws ( mind you we have over 20,000 gun laws on the books already) how about we address the real issue since 2400 of those gun murders occur in 4 cities Chicago, Baltimore, Detroit, and Washington DC. Almost all with the very poor parts of those cities. That have had the same leadership in place for decades and instead of helping all the time the only time it seems to matter is during election years. And even then they only partially treat the symptoms because it benefits them the treat symptoms but not to cure the cause. Most gun murders are committed by a very small group in those cities that could be solved quickly but are ignored until elections come around. And that is why it's a mental health issue NOT a gun issue because 8,863 murders in a population of 327,000,000 is not enough to keep infringing on a constitutional right more than they already have. And if mental health was treated guess what other number goes down? The suicides and if we teach gun safety instead of fear mongering maybe then we can get the 274 accidental discharges resulting in death down to 0. Oh and let's not forget about the scary ar-15 though because of those 8,863 murders by use of gun, only 416 were committed with a rifle of any kind. So if you think banning a certain style of rifle because of how it LOOKS will have any effect you're lying to yourself or just didn't have the FACTS.

I hear what you are saying, but even those with training, I am specifically thinking about law enforcement officers, are very inaccurate with handguns in real life situations. I don't think the analysis of the short range accuracy of handguns v. long guns should be based on how well trained combat troops would perform for purposes of the present discussion; but rather the short range accuracy of those most likely to be doing these mass shootings.

I am not advocating for bans on long guns here; just trying to keep the facts straight with respect to the deadliness of the two classes of firearms, which is influenced in part by accuracy.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/may/25/shannon-watts/do-more-7-10-police-bullets-miss-their-mark-gun-co/

joedirt wrote:

You obviously have no understanding of guns and have watched one too many movies. Hand guns are very inaccurate even in someone well trained. An impulse buyer with very limited shooting experience would be lucky to hit a target from less than 10 yards with a hand gun, even most law enforcement personnel are only accurate out to about 30 yards. A rifle with a scope, however, has about 10 times the effective range (US Army lists the effective range on an M16A4 rifle at 550 meters on a single point target vs 20-50 meters for a Colt Hand Gun).

You, like many others on here, forget that the vast majority of these mass shootings take place indoors, in confined spaces like clubs and classrooms with dense population of potential victims. We’re talking 10-20 feet, not yards. All the ballistic, range and accuracy benefits of a carbine/rifle are better but not necessary. There are plenty of semi auto 9mm pistols which are available with 18-20 round magazines, and with hollowpoint ammunition. In that environment, you don’t have to be an expert marksman with either type of gun. And as one earlier poster noted, a pistol is actually more concealable, as are the far lighter magazines and ammo for reloads. So yeah, an AR might be “better”, but if it wasn’t available, a Glock 19 could do just as much damage indoors.

Prove Me Wrong wrote:

Yes, it may have more round capacity, but a handgun can still hold around 15 rounds of ammunition, and reload time is very quick. In a mass shooting in a large crowd, reload times don't have much impact in the ending result. Handguns are also easily concealed. It is also harder to disarm a person with a handgun compared to a rifle.

Read interviews with ER surgeons and then come back with his bunk. Troll

Protect your freedom from government in colonial times. Unless you believe in a Red Dawn plot, this is outdated. Any responsible lawmaker would react to what is occurring presently with guns in this country. But sure, thwart history and intent of “founders” centuries ago for your “freedom”

AR-15 bullets travel almost three times the speed of a typical handgun. When a bullet from a hand gun enters the body, in travels in a straight line and either stops or goes all the way through. When a bullet from an AR-15 enters the body, it causes a significant cavitation effect because it moves so fast it sends shockwaves through the body. The bullets often will flip over upon impact, making the cavitation effect much worse. The result is that when someone is hit with an AR-15 bullet, there will at the very least be massive blood loss that will be fatal without immediate medical attention. Those who actually make it to the hospital have very poor survival odds because the trauma surgeons often find that organs that can usually be saved when hit with a bullet from a hand gun are just disintegrated when hit with a bullet from an AR-15.

AR-15s have hair triggers and are very light and stable. There is no weapon legally available that can better make an average person into a highly effect mass shooter than an AR-15.

The fact that there is an epidemic of gun violence does not mean that we should give the AR-15 a free pass. Banning the AR-15 should just be one part of comprehensive gun control. Mass shooting have had a disproportionate impact compared to generic gun violence. Mass shootings have caused nationwide psychological trauma. My 7 year old came home from school asking if I knew what day the bad guy would come to school so he could stay home. They had active shooter training that day. Security measures for special events are now ridiculously expensive and intrusive because of the threat of mass shootings.

What is really all boils down to is whether people's right to be free from gun violence is greater than the right of a very small group of anti-social gun nuts who have fetishized guns and fantasize about taking over the government because they cannot dump motor oil in the sewers and hate paying income taxes.

I don't think people quite understand that a handgun and rifle have the EXACT same accuracy in close range shooting. All that matters is skill of the shooter and the reason most law enforcement struggle with accuracy compared to soldiers or mass shooters is because they don't go out with the intention of shooting people. So they are only responding to a situation and the flood of adrenaline does affect accuracy. A bullet always flies straight and barrels are always aligned so if you shoot straight you have the same accuracy with a handgun as you do a rifle. Now is it easier to fire a rifle or modified handgun (like Dayton shooter had) yes because two hand support helps to mitigate recoil. But seeing as how over 60% of mass shootings use hand guns and rifles of all kinds are only used in 416 deaths per year (that's the all time highest number not the actual yearly number) banning them makes 0 sense. And to be honest if the Vegas shooter didn't use a stupid bump stocks he had 9 minutes of firing if he actually had training and picked his shots 51 dead is because of the bump stock causing massive inaccuracies. With 9 minutes of solid fire and single shots he could have killed over 200. He had elevation, cover, and a huge crowd as a target it doesn't get any more fish in a barrel but yet for all that he killed 51 now granted that is horrendous and a tragedy no question. But Timothy mcvaeigh killed how many with never firing a single round? The Oklahoma City bombing? 168 with 600+ more injured. Boston bombings killed 3 injured hundreds and took limbs from 16 my point is a bad person who wants to kill a mass number of people will always find a way. Overreacting and blaming a certain type of rifle is insane. Besides on a different note those who call for "assault weapons" to be banned are still perfectly ok with the mini rancher 14 being legal. The amount of stupidity or lack of knowledge/ willingness to learn from those who fear monger guns is nuts.

Not a conservative wrote:

ThatAverageRunner wrote:

+1.

The right’s argument is that if guns are controlled and possibly ‘taken away’ from people, the government then has full control of us and we can’t stop them.

We couldn’t stop them anyways if that’s what they wanted. Have fun shooting a tank or a helicopter with your pistol.

Do you really think the government would come after its citizens using tanks and helicopters? That would be a bad look. They would come after citizens using the police just as they have in many other countries. The only time they bring even the national guard is if things get out of control like David Koresh. ICE isn't even flying around in helicopters and they take people by force all the time.

And as Michael Brown, Freddie Grey, and about +1000 people/year learn, if you merely appear to resist, they will kill you.

So having a lot of weapons just gives them the excuse to destroy you ala Ruby Ridge, Waco etc.

Face facts - we have to trust our own collective action, in the form of government. If you want to protect yourself, vote.

The First Amendment is not a public health issue. Nothing is going to happen to it. And yes, you’re right, the Constitution is not going to change based on the ignorance and corruption throughout this country and the brain washing that has occurred in the last 3 decades. And bringing god into this confuses the Declaration of Independence with the Constitution and ignores the lack of religion expressed by people like Madison.

Armyvet101 wrote:

of those 8,863 murders by use of gun, only 416 were committed with a rifle of any kind. So if you think banning a certain style of rifle because of how it LOOKS will have any effect you're lying to yourself or just didn't have the FACTS.

So ban handguns and limit any sort of semi-automatic weapon, and a large part of the problem is solved.