In response to FortySixAnd2's comment:
In response to DamainAllen's comment:
In response to FortySixAnd2's comment:
In response to DamainAllen's comment:
In response to FortySixAnd2's comment:
In response to DamainAllen's comment:
In response to FortySixAnd2's comment:
But wait...I thought assault weapons were intimidating and scary looking? I thought assault weapons did major damage? If the argument of a weapon is to be intimidating where no one would want to argue with it then doesn't an assault weapon fit that bill?
Shotguns are not assault weapons, and the current issue surrounding weapons like the AR 15 (traditionally considered an "assault weapon") are the large capacity magazines, rate of fire, and other aspects like the fact that it is engineered to be more lethal when used.
Any gun is intimidating, but the point home defense experts are making is even an armed intruder is going to think long and hard before confronting someone with a weapon like a shotgun that tends to have the last word in an argument.
Didn't say shotguns were assault weapons.
And an intruder is going to think long and hard before confronting someone with a weapon like an AR-15 that tends to have the last word in an argument, no?
Probably, but the thing is no one goes on shooting rampages with shotguns, hence why there is no push to ban shotguns.
Wrong. Here is a list a mass shootings where a 12 gauge was used
Northern Ill U
San Ysidro
Lockheed Martin
Wakefield
Amish School
Red Lake
Navistar
And if shooting rampages is the reason for banning assault weapons then 9 mm handguns should also be banned since those have been used in about 24 mass shootings.
While some could reasonable argue that handguns are the true menace, the fact is handgun capacity limits the lethality of the weapon. In addition shooters firing with one hand are going to be less accurate than they would with a AR15 type rifle which the shooter will have better control over and likely more firing discipline to keep the barrel of the weapon on target because they can manage recoil better.
San Ysidro shooting, the shooter had a shotgun in addition to an Uzi and a 9mm. The uzi and 9mm were the weapons used to kill most of the people in the restaurant, and he fired those weapons over 200 times.
Red Lake shooting, the primary weapon used was a glock, the killer committed suicide with the shotgun. Also the shooter tried to use an assault rifle, but jammed the weapon while loading it and he left it at home. The FBI commented that had he used the assault rifle the death toll would have been higher. Teh FBI counted 45 shots the shooter made with handguns, 8 with the shotgun.
Northern Ill, the shooter fired six times with his shotgun before switching to a handgun and firing 50 more times.
Lockheed Martin, though the shooter had several other weapons, his primary weapon was the shotgun which he used to wound and kill all of his victims.
Wakefield shooting, the perpetrator had several weapons, but he used a AK 47 to kill his victims.
The killer in the Amish shooting did have a shotgun among his weapons but used a pistol when he started shooting his hostages
The point of all of this should be apparent, shotguns are generally not the weapon of choice for mass shootings. While many killers may have one amond the weapons they utilize for their attacks, typically smaller more agile weapons end up being used and it is plainly obvious why: faster rate of fire, easier to wield, ability to dump ammo faster than with a shotgun.
The weapon of choice in majority of mass shootings (35) has been handguns. You say "handgun capacity limits the lethality of the weapon", tell that to the victims of the V Tech massacre. 33 people were killed, most in any of the mass shootings in US. All by 9mm and .22 handguns.
There have been six double digits killings from mass shootings involving non-assault weapons (handguns), versus four double digit killings where assault weapons were used. I don't know, seems to me based on the facts, handguns have done more damage than assault weapons.
In aggregate, yes. handguns are more widely available and thus would be used in more gun assaults yielding a higher total number of deaths than say assault rifles that are significantly more expensive than handguns and thus less common. An AR15 can set you back nearly 2 grand in some places versus a few hundred bucks for a handgun. I think the stats would back up that VTech was an outlier and I am sure there were particular circumstances that led to the shooter being able to kill so many people with a couple of handguns.
Personally, I think the assult weapons ban misses the mark a bit because the majority of gun violence isn't related to mass shootings or assault rifles, but result from generic criminal activity (drugs, gangs, etc) or domestic situations gone awry and most involve handguns. That said, I still think we should rethink allowing military style weapons to be sold to the general population, close gun show loopholes, and implement better strategies for dealing with straw purchases which lead directly to gun running and the transfer of legit legal firearms to criminals who would otherwise have a more difficult time getting their hands on the weapon to begin with.
