3 ms·

That's only a valid comparison to mass shootings, which are a tiny, tiny percentage of gun deaths. By comparison, referenced in my other comments, if someone r

by diek 10y ago

That's only a valid comparison to mass shootings, which are a tiny, tiny percentage of gun deaths. By comparison, referenced in my other comments, if someone really wanted to kill everyone in a theater they could do it with a container of gasoline, or a pressure cooker. Newtown could have been accomplished with a sword, given the size difference of the attacker to the victims. Anyone who wants to kill you can, with any number of objects readily accessible. This is only evident to some people when they think of an object like an AR-15 because they don't think about all the other ways they could be killed.

jpgvm 10y ago
Lethality of all of those other methods is significantly below that of a semi-automatic rifle. The fact more people are killed outside of mass shootings by guns is irrelevant. Mass shootings are a good enough reason to get rid of them, it's a risk people shouldn't have to live with.
- diek 10y ago
  > Lethality of all of those other methods is significantly below that of a semi-automatic rifle. That's just not true. In Somalia, U.S. Army soldiers actually complained about how the AR-15 round (5.56 NATO) wouldn't take down enemy combatants in a single shot. Compare that to, say, the bombs used in the Boston Marathon. It's a night and day difference. If you're trapped in a crowded nightclub that's on fire, your odds of survival are abysmal. People survive serious gunshots every day with proper medical attention. One of the big issues in the Orlando shooting was the 3 hour wait before any of the victims got medical attention.
  - mimo777 10y ago
    To be fair, that's either because the projectile wasn't capable of fragmentation--m193--due to velocity or other reasons and the lethality of the weapon depends on fragmentation.
    - tracker1 10y ago
      But you also need to be able to penetrate even light-armer/heavy clothing in actual combat situations, it's a matter of balancing the two.

by diek 10y ago

jpgvm 10y ago

Lethality of all of those other methods is significantly below that of a semi-automatic rifle. The fact more people are killed outside of mass shootings by guns is irrelevant. Mass shootings are a good enough reason to get rid of them, it's a risk people shouldn't have to live with.

diek 10y ago
> Lethality of all of those other methods is significantly below that of a semi-automatic rifle. That's just not true. In Somalia, U.S. Army soldiers actually complained about how the AR-15 round (5.56 NATO) wouldn't take down enemy combatants in a single shot. Compare that to, say, the bombs used in the Boston Marathon. It's a night and day difference. If you're trapped in a crowded nightclub that's on fire, your odds of survival are abysmal. People survive serious gunshots every day with proper medical attention. One of the big issues in the Orlando shooting was the 3 hour wait before any of the victims got medical attention.
- mimo777 10y ago
  To be fair, that's either because the projectile wasn't capable of fragmentation--m193--due to velocity or other reasons and the lethality of the weapon depends on fragmentation.
  - tracker1 10y ago
    But you also need to be able to penetrate even light-armer/heavy clothing in actual combat situations, it's a matter of balancing the two.