>I posted what my link said; mass shootings since 1982. Which as I proved, is not a complete data set.
>Data on your GVA site only goes back to 2013. And there are significantly more mass shootings recorded on the GVA site than on your Statista source. Note also that GVA tells you their methodology and provides a source for each recorded incident. As I showed you, Statista recorded more in 2022 than the Statista source did across 40 years. So... that would indicate that the Statista source is somewhat cherrypicked.
>Summary >Mass shooters like AR15s Correction: Certain mass shooters, with limited firearm experience, choose an AR-15 due to its media reputation.
Overall, they prefer handguns. You can check the data.
>Why would a "serious hunter" want a rapid rate of fire weapon ? I thought you knew about firearms? AR-15's are semi-automatic, not "rapid fire". A semi-automatic allows for a quick follow-up shot.
>Would that not decimate the target (unless they are a poor shot)? I thought you knew about firearms? A hit doesn't require a follow up shot. Regarding " poor shot" yeah, you've clearly little understanding of hunting or firearms. Mostly the range is 100+ metres depending on what you're hunting. There are other factors like wind, and the animal just sometimes randomly moves, even if you think it's still.
>Doesn't do much for meat quality, does it. My brother hunts, obviously has bolt-action rifles. It's hit or miss. You don't fire again unless the animal is injured and you can make a clean hit, which is often difficult. If you miss, the animal immediately moves and yeah, you should know "firearms experienced person" that hit rates on moving targets at 100+m is low.
As far as why hunters would choose an AR, it's easy. It's a very popular product, therefore well developed, modular, and cheap to maintain relatively speaking. It's easy to swap barrels etc or have multiple accessories that go on different guns chambered in different rounds, ie, you're not going to hunt small game with 5.56 NATO but then you're probably not going to take out a big pig with a .223 rem. AR is modular which makes it a good choice for hobbyists. You can customise it to an ergonomic fit much more cheaply, plus it's light.
On the other hand some people also think they're garbage because the gas system gunks up really quickly and if dirt or water gets into it (like it would if you were outside with it haha) it has to be stripped and cleaned.
(The original military versions, ie, the M16, were quite prone to jamming, in fact in combat use in Vietnam something like 80% of surveyed soldiers experienced a jam. So that's why it's kind of funny when you call AR's a military weapon, like, yeah they used something with a similar design in combat and it was known to be trash).
>The "NZ shooters AR jammed" - after killing 51 and injuring 40. >How many deaths likely if he just had a few handguns ? More. "Just had". This is your problem - your (complete) lack of firearm knowledge makes you assume that a handgun is less deadly.
If he had handguns he would have had more carried ammunition capacity and the ability to rapidly switch between loaded weapons. Handgun rounds are also generally speaking less likely to penetrate and more likely to fragment. Handguns are obviously much, much faster to point.
In my experience with firearms semiautomatic handguns are much easier to reload, with rifles I always have to look at the magazine well. I just don't have the feel or experience to do it quickly. It would be the same for anyone else with similar limited experience.
The virginia tech shooter managed to shoot and kill 17 people with handguns and very little firearm experience; how would Tarrant have gone if he trained with handguns instead of rifles? Who knows. Likely more. I've seen the video and he clearly struggled to handle the weapons due to their physical size.
>Isn't that an improvement ? 3.5 less shootings at how many deaths each time ? 3.5 less shootings out of 650 with a minimum of 4 injuries.
At the cost of limiting the freedoms of many law abiding citizens. Sorry, it isn't reasonable. You can't make it seem reasonable.
And, as is obvious, a ban will just mean that a potential rifle wielding mass shooter will instead use a handgun. How is this even a solution? The problem is the mass shooter getting to the point they think this is a possible course of action, not the weapon used.
I mean - the Waukesha christmas parade attack lead to 6 deaths, about 60 injuries. That's a much more effective incident than most mass shootings. With a totally normal, legal vehicle. Driven at regular speeds, too! Should we ban vehicles? How many lives could we save?
>What's your acceptable kill rate ? Clearly it's much lower than yours, since I think law should focus on criminal use of firearms, which caused 10,000+ wrongful deaths in 2022 alone, and you want to focus on disarming law abiding citizens to lower it by what, 150?
Doesn't seem logical.
Unless - and I'll give you this.
If you acknowledge that by your logical frame we should ban people from having vehicles over a certain tonnage due to people using them as weapons, and that we should also ban alcohol due to its general role in social violence, I will accept that your argument is in good faith. But I don't think it is.
I think you are just afraid of the physical appearance of AR pattern rifles. Which is funny.
