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

"So save all that crying for someone who cares we will NEVER strip rights and freedoms from citizens"

Except we had an assault weapons ban for 10 years and it would have been extended had Democrats been in power in 2004.

Alan

Smoove wrote:

All true, but the accuracy of a long gun as compared to a handgun is much greater.

And when a .223 round hits home from a long barreled rifle, the effect is much different. The round often tumbles and splinters and creates a much bigger wound cavity the impact is greater as well. You take a 9mm wound to the torso, it’s not great, but you have a chance of living. You take a .223 wound to the torso, it’s likely fatal.

So greater effective range, greater magazine capacity, and significantly more ballistic damage make an AR far deadlier.

Not quite that simple. Context determines that. In close quarters (inside a building with small cubicles for example) a handgun is less cumbersome and thus more effective/deadly. Also, the amount of wound cavity damage is related to relative velocity of the bullet and type of bullet design (full metal jacket vs. wad cutter vs. hollow point). A 9mm hollow point, 124-135-147g bullet will do significantly more damage internally as it expands upon impact. A .223/5.56 round is traveling so fast it often leaves a clean hole through the target. If someone were using BlackHills Honey Badger Ammo, a 9mm round would be the way to go as it 'cavitates' in the milliseconds following impact. You can look up videos of these rounds fired into ballistic gel as proof. Does significantly more internal damage than a .223 round unless the .223 round is military grade (i.e., 'tumbler' rounds as you illustrate...many which are not available to the public in all states).

Runningart2004 wrote:

"So save all that crying for someone who cares we will NEVER strip rights and freedoms from citizens"

Except we had an assault weapons ban for 10 years and it would have been extended had Democrats been in power in 2004.

Alan

Yeah and we also had slavery for 87 years and it would have been extended had the Democrats been in power.

What's your point.

democrats hate human rights wrote:

Runningart2004 wrote:

"So save all that crying for someone who cares we will NEVER strip rights and freedoms from citizens"

Except we had an assault weapons ban for 10 years and it would have been extended had Democrats been in power in 2004.

Alan

Yeah and we also had slavery for 87 years and it would have been extended had the Democrats been in power.

What's your point.

Fewer deaths via mass shootings during the assault weapons ban.

I don't understand the obsession with assault weapons. Civilian ownership is relatively new. Why not limit civilian ownership to hunting rifles, handguns, and shotguns? Just cuz?

Alan

Runningart2004 wrote:

democrats hate human rights wrote:

Yeah and we also had slavery for 87 years and it would have been extended had the Democrats been in power.

What's your point.

Fewer deaths via mass shootings during the assault weapons ban.

I don't understand the obsession with assault weapons. Civilian ownership is relatively new. Why not limit civilian ownership to hunting rifles, handguns, and shotguns? Just cuz?

Alan

The AR-15 is the most popular hunting rifle in America.

I guess Columbine didn't happen during that ban huh? Oh wait. Besides even enacting an "assault weapons" ban now would accomplish next to nothing as it won't last much less be upheld by scotus due to AR-15s being in common use. But even if it did the 11,000,000 already out there would be grandfathered in or just kept not like there is a registry of who owns what weapons and that's for this reason exactly.

Armyguy wrote:

I guess Columbine didn't happen during that ban huh? Oh wait. Besides even enacting an "assault weapons" ban now would accomplish next to nothing as it won't last much less be upheld by scotus due to AR-15s being in common use. But even if it did the 11,000,000 already out there would be grandfathered in or just kept not like there is a registry of who owns what weapons and that's for this reason exactly.

Ban possession of assault weapons and require license and registration for all gun owners. Got it. On the list for gun control legislation. Any other good ideas?

Having a gun registry is already a law stating that it can't be done was challenged by democrats and the supreme Court ruled a gun registry would be unconstitutional. So without new evidence to the contrary they won't even take up the case and even if they did 5-4 majority says no registry. Quite crying about guns they kill less people than drunk drivers. Rifles kill less than base ball bats and all gun deaths in the last 40 years in the United States doesn't even add up to 6 months of unborn babies killed by planned Parenthood who kills about 600,000 unborn children a year. So go be outraged at that oh wait you're pro choice for killing those babies because they aren't born yet right? Guns aren't going anywhere they won't be banned , federally licensed, or outlawed either you can deal with that or leave. You haven't given a single shred of proof to back up your argument against guns just emotional nonsense. Guns stop between 300,000 and 1,500,000 crimes per year as researched by the CDC under Obama. And gun murders make up 8,863 a majority of which involve drugs or gangs (per the FBI and DOJ stats) facts don't care about your feelings.

ah yes, this is why our military only uses handguns.

lol KAGA wrote:

ah yes, this is why our military only uses handguns.

Our military primarily uses rifles because they need to be able to engage the enemy at hundreds of yards outdoors. Don’t be obtuse.

Goucher Needles wrote:

This has never happened in the history of our country, and no, those hand guns will not have any influence on a government trying to oppress its citizens. Beyond the AH-64 Apache gunship is making its way through your neighborhood, the primary weapons a government has against it citizenry are financial. This is a nonsense argument.

Have you been paying attention to the last 18 years in Afghanistan?

An individual with mental health issues killed one woman and injured another in the CBD of Sydney today. If he would have access to an AR 15 or an AK 47 the death toll would have been significant.

Members of the public chased him and stopped him.

When if ever has an individual stopped an individual with an AR 15? For 99.9% of the population when this weapon is being fired by someone who is intent to kill, will scamper to a safe position and will remain frozen for significant amounts of time.

Listen to the audio of the vegas shooting and tell me there is no difference. Well from 300m almost any individual can kill you with an AR 15 not so much with a 9mm.

Haven't read any post but this is the most ridiculous post on LR. AR 15's are used for what? The next mass killing which will occur if the country continues to do NOTHING!

You obviously only pay attention to the narrative. As what was the deadliest shooting in Texas that could have had a much higher death toll was stopped by an NRA certified instructor using his AR-15 to shoot and wound the Sutherland springs mass shooter. And to the guy saying if he had a rifle in Australia he could have killed more than one or two people compared to the pistol you sir have zero idea how guns work. If he didn't fire over 16 rounds and had zero reloads then sure he would have had an extra 14 shots but he fired very few rounds. Tell me how a rifle would kill more? And ah yes Australia the place of the gun ban that now has more guns on its island than before the ban.

And yes the one time a rifle was used in a mass shooting that occurred at a distance, Las Vegas. The only example you have of a rifle being the better suited weapon because it's ability to shoot longer distance. Tell me how many rifles did the Virginia tech shooter use to kill 32? Or how about how many mass shootings have used a rifle of any kind? Rifles of all kinds (not just the scary black ones) accounted for 416 deaths last year. Less than golf clubs and baseball bats. Please you're young and uninformed or older and ignorant either way you have no knowledge of guns and just continue to parrot the fear mongering in the media. 8,863 gun homicides a year most deal with gangs or drugs (per the FBI and DOJ stats) you want to stop people from killing people there were 11,000 drink driver fatalities. Oh and of that 8,863 gun homicides 416 were with the use of any rifle. Out of a population of 327,000,000 statistically .00000000172% so if you think that is such a problem that we violate the Constitution you are the reason we need better mental health treatment.

Fact: Eliminate AR15s and the total murder count will drop hardly anything. 50 a year? 100 a year? Drop in the bucket.

Fact: Handguns are the murder weapon of choice. If we really want to reduce murders, make it really really hard to own a handgun.

Fact: White people are only worried about mass murders. Which is why they care about AR 15s. White people don't really care about the African Americans getting killed by handguns.

Fact: Mass murderers choose AR15s because they are a badass weapon. Force all AR15s to be bright girly pink and there will be a lot fewer mass murders. Those mass murderers are going to war and they like how the AR makes them feel.

Nice try but you are wrong. Bigger gun, more rounds, more accuracy, larger bullet.

What a ludicrous statement. No, almost any individual cannot kill you with an AR-15 at 300m. They would have had to be well trained and practice on a regular basis, and the vast majority of people do not have access to a rifle range for that distance. The Vegas guy only succeeded because he could spray with the help of a bump stock into a densely packed concert crowd from a tower. He could have killed a lot of people (not as many) even with a bolt action hunting rifle, it is nearly impossible to miss when firing into a large crowd. A very unique set of circumstances, and one outlier does not prove anything. 99% of the casualties from the vast majority of shootings (schools, theaters, clubs, offices, etc) could have just as easily been caused by a semi-automatic pistol.

agip wrote:

Fact: White people are only worried about mass murders. Which is why they care about AR 15s. White people don't really care about the African Americans getting killed by handguns.

Fact: Mass murderers choose AR15s because they are a badass weapon.

I think this is fair..but isnt also fair to say that about 90-95% of mass shootings are committed by young white males?

Yeah, I'm interested in that startling trend and what is going on there. What's going on fellas? Why so disaffected you gotta shoot up a Wal mart full of olds and families shopping? Or a black church? Or a gay bar? Or an elementary school? Yes, I'm interested in my community and cleaning up this mess.

To your second point, and after reading this entire thread and as a person familiar with the M4, Ar-15 and M9, I always wondered if these mass shooters chose the AR because it's actually relatively easy to use and really anyone can use it with "good enough" accuracy especially at close range. Yes, it looks scary but as ArmyVet actually pointed out, it's the primary weapon system of the Army. A background reason is because you can teach ANYONE to use it.

Personally I think the handgun requires more practice to be accurate to handle recoil, where the AR absorbs a it better.

agip wrote:

Fact: Eliminate AR15s and the total murder count will drop hardly anything. 50 a year? 100 a year? Drop in the bucket.

Fact: Handguns are the murder weapon of choice. If we really want to reduce murders, make it really really hard to own a handgun.

Fact: White people are only worried about mass murders. Which is why they care about AR 15s. White people don't really care about the African Americans getting killed by handguns.

Fact: Mass murderers choose AR15s because they are a badass weapon. Force all AR15s to be bright girly pink and there will be a lot fewer mass murders. Those mass murderers are going to war and they like how the AR makes them feel.

Banning AR15s is just one small step in comprehensive gun control. The fact that it will not solve all the problems of gun violence does not mean that AR15s should be legal. Overwhelmingly, people who want to ban assault rifles also want comprehensive gun control. So, gun nuts claiming that people who want to ban assault rifles do not care about the more widespread gun violence are making a straw man argument. Ban assault rifles, ban gun show loopholes, require licensing and registration, ban high capacity clips, criminal penalties for failing to report lost or stolen firearms, criminal penalties for failing to properly store firearms

Mass shootings present a problem that is very separate and distinct from murder, suicide, domestic violence, etc. Mass shootings result in a society where we all live in fear. People can choose whether to have guns in their home and control whether they will have higher risk of suicide, domestic violence or accidents. But no one has a choice about going out in public.