Hanaguma

Sounds like you are talking about a fully automatic weapon. Those are basically banned already. Again the nomenclature is important. An "assault rifle" is usually defined as a rifle that fires an intermediate round, and can operate either semi auto or full auto mode. An "assault weapon" is more a political term to describe semi automatic rifles only, using certain cosmetic criteria- color, carrying handle, pistol grip, etc. I did some time in the military and at that time we used semi auto Fabrique Nationale rifles that shot full size 7.62mm. I could empty a 20 round mag pretty fast. Smaller rounds probably faster. But that is the same with a bog standard hunting rifle as well.

...and so..... what is your point? Handguns have been the weapon of choice for most murderers in the past century. Your argument is akin to saying that, in order to stop drunk driving, we should ban whisky.

So how does that stat break down? There are two variables- the weapon and the high capacity magazine. Weapons not considered "assault weapons" can use high capacity magazines. Also how would that differentiate from a standard semi auto hunting rifle (except for the potential high capacity magazine)?

How would you say that is different than a hunting rifle or sport rifle that uses the same ammunition?

Except that it isn't. Handguns are used twice as often as ALL rifles, including "assault weapons". https://www.statista.com/statistics/476409/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-weapon-types-used/

Statistic show that more people were beaten to death with bare hands in 2021 than were killed by rifles (including assault weapons). Twice as many were stabbed to death. Do we ban hands and knives too? https://www.statista.com/statistics/195325/murder-victims-in-the-us-by-weapon-used/

Yes, and.... they are used in 3% of firearms homicides. Of course they are more lethal than handguns when used. ALL rifles and shotguns display these characteristics. They are not exclusive to what people call "assault weapons". "Assault weapons" use the same ammunition as regular hunting rifles and semi auto rifles. Unless you want to ban EVERY firearm that shoots a .223 round or 5.56mm or higher, this is a pointless argument to make.

Because I honestly don't know. I can't find statistics one way or the other, can you? Of course ARs are more powerful than handguns, so it may be that each incident is worse, but why is that even relevant in the big picture? Honestly it seems like a very narrow thing to focus on. 'Handguns are used more often in mass shootings, but ARs do more damage when they ARE used'. Is that what you are getting at?

Yet strangely the homicide rate has been dropping since 1990. From 9.3/100,000 people to a low of 4.4 in 2014. Ticking up recently but still showing a decrease o f 30% over the period.

This is a strawman argument. Comparing rifles and handguns is ridiculous. How about comparing assault weapons to other long guns? Also the rate of fire is identical. One trigger pull, one bullet. There may be small variations between types of weapons due to trigger pull length or pressure needed, but they are very small. As for magazines, you can buy high capacity magazines for handguns as well as rifles.

AR 15s are NOT "the preferred weapon for mass shootings". According to Statista, handguns were used twice as often as ALL long guns; https://www.statista.com/statistics/476409/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-weapon-types-used/ Not to mention that the article you posted from NBC clearly shows that handguns were used in 6,400 murders, rifles of all types less than 400. According to your NPR article, only 1% of all gun deaths were caused by mass shootings. I didn't see any stats about the number of victims per attack with what particular weapon, and actually it doesn't really seem relevant. If you can find it, I would love to see it. You are exactly right that a lot of the outrage is the militaristic APPEARANCE of the guns. They do NOT fire more rapidly than others though. A semi-auto firearm needs you to pull the trigger once for each shot. That does not magically go away if the gun looks menacing. It is all in the appearance. Do they do more damage than handguns? Yeah, depending on the handgun though. Again I fail to see the relevance in terms of making policy. As for your Intercept article, it is more emotional nonsense. It starts with a basic faulty premise- that the AR-15 is a battlefield weapon. It is not. The M-16 is the miltary version. Does it fire a deadlier round than a 9mm pistol? Of course. It's a rifle, designed like all rifles to handle more recoil and kickback from more powerful bullets. But both will kill you easily so I am not sure why such an emotional story is relevant. The carnage would have been the same if the shooter had carried handguns. Perhaps worse, because it is easier to aim and fire a handgun in an enclosed space like a building.

Well, according to the data assault weapons are not used in the majority of mass shootings. Most are either handguns alone, or handgun plus shotgun/rifle (not assault rifle). A person with two handguns can easily do as much damage as a person with two long guns, if not more. The handguns are easier to conceal from people. Again, according to the FBI, long guns (including assault weapons) are only used in 3% of murders by firearm. Why be so focussed on them? There are upwards of 20 MILLION AR style weapons currently owned by Americans- how many are used in these atrocities? People like them because (in the mind of the buyer) they look cool. But they are basically the same as any other semi automatic rifle. Same round, same power. They just look "tough" to some people. Kind of like guys who buy Camaros or Mustangs with 4 cylinder engines.

I didn't see any evidence that said that the shooter's choice of weapon had any impact on the casualties. I admit I am a bit thick sometimes, but I could not see anything to that effect.

Butwhere is the evidence? Uvalde? Sandy Hook? How many lives would have been saved if the shooter had not used an "assault weapon"? Only 10 victims at Uvalde if he had used handguns?

Yes, mass shootings were down. Yet the murder rate was not. It was dropping since the 70s and continuted to do so up to the mid 2010s. The ban did nothing to counter the overall crime rate whatsoever.

COuld you point out in the article where it stated how many fewer victims there would have been at Uvalde, had the killer not used an AR 15? Because I couldnt find it. If you are worried about the severity of injuries then you should want to ban shotguns and bolt action rifles. A 30.06 round from a hunting rifle does things to the human body that a .223 from an AR style cannot match. Ditto a blast from a 12 gauge at close range. Gruesome.

I have. What did I miss? Long guns are only 3% of gun killings in the US. That includes what people term "assault weapons". Is that wrong? The number of strangers (as opposed to family/known people) killed in mass shootings is around 50 per year. is that wrong? The type of weapon used has no bearing on the lethality of a mass shooting event. Is that wrong?

Oh, I do. Very much so . But they generally don't contain any useful information. Mostly empty platitudes and irrelevant numbers. Nothing that would move the discussion anywhere but in an emotional circle.

Lone idiot again not statistically relevant. He could have walked through the crowd with handguns and had the same result. But again, policy and law cannot be made based on exceptions.

Nonsense. There is literally no way to prove that. He could have just as easily used a handgun or two. Like the killer at Virginia Tech 15 years ago- he killed 32 people with two handguns. Or a shotgun. Or a combination. Like most mass shooters do. There is nothing mystical or demonic about semi automatic rifles. Again you are letting feelings get in the way of facts.

No, they are not. Not when discussing effective policy solutions. Emotions need to be left out. The USA Today article stated 2,700 mass shooting fatalities since 2006. Or about 130 per year. Of course it is tragic. But compared to the 20,000 overall firearms homicides per year, a small number. How about concentrating energy and resources on getting the 20,000 down to 10,000 instead of the 130 down to zero?

Yes there is. Notwithstanding the basic constitutional argument. They simply are not a major factor in crime or murder when compared to other weapons. But they ARE a political football. I can tell by the hyperbolic language you use when describing them that this is an emotional issue for you, one in which facts and statistics do not have much meaning.

Not "no big deal", but when dealing with big picture issues not relevant. It is all about statistics, not individual cases. Plus, comparing handguns and rifles in general is nonsense. Compare like to like. Assault weapons vs "normal" rifles.

Except that they simply don't. The statistics are clear. "Crazies with assault weapons" are a vanishingly rare type of crime that gets too much publicity due to the potential to make political hay from them. See the link above for details.

What facts were those? Do you not like Pew Research or the FBI- are they gun freak lobbies? If you have any facts refuting what I cited, please present them. Here is USA Today, hardly gun freaks. They say that people killed in public mass shootings amount to around 50 per year. Tragic but a small fraction of crime in a country of 300 million plus people. And that most are committed with handguns. https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/graphics/2022/08/18/mass-killings-database-us-events-since-2006/9705311002/ So, very few people are killed in public shootings by long guns. Why obsess about it?