• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

If the Las Vegas shooter just had handguns

DebateChallenge said:
The 60% might be the percentage of the time that a mass shooter has handguns in their possession during the shooting but usually a long gun of some sort is their primary weapon, most of the killing is done with long guns, and often the only time a handgun is used is when the shooter commits suicide.
Click to expand...


You are wrong on that.Most mass shootings involve handguns.
Crime study: Handguns, not 'assault rifles,' used in most mass shootings
https://www.statista.com/statistics/476409/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-weapon-types-used/
 
Praxas said:
You make a false assumption that if the las Vegas shooter only had hanguns that he would have used the same plan/. The shooter plan was based on his available weapons. Had he just handguns he just would have changed his plan to some other way to inflict maximum damage with handguns instead.

Blaming objects is not the answer.
Click to expand...

I think motive has much to do with the choice of weapon, and Vegas falls into the blaze of glory category. If you want to maximize the damage, you fly airplanes into buildngs. Off your wife, whatever is handy. Make a statement with no intention of surviving, small arms.

The Vegas killer had handguns and long guns. He also had aircraft at his disposal.

We don't have a motive. For all I know the motive was to make a statement about bump stocks.
 
DebateChallenge said:
If he was using handguns to try and rack up a high body count he would have to get closer and he would be easier to stop. When it comes to mass killings, bombings and arson kills more people than handguns.
Click to expand...

Most high body count mass murders do not involve firearms. Most involve aircraft. The cause of many aircraft mass murders is never completely determined.
 
jimbo said:
I think motive has much to do with the choice of weapon, and Vegas falls into the blaze of glory category. If you want to maximize the damage, you fly airplanes into buildngs. Off your wife, whatever is handy. Make a statement with no intention of surviving, small arms.

The Vegas killer had handguns and long guns. He also had aircraft at his disposal.

We don't have a motive. For all I know the motive was to make a statement about bump stocks.
Click to expand...

A plane is indiscriminate on killing folks, so maybe he only wanted to target specific people. My point being if there were no rifles, chances are this person would have made another plan to use handguns instead. The OP is trying to make an argument for banning rifles as they would have no done as much damage from the height. And again I point out, it is a false assumption that he would have chosen the same spot if he only had hanguns and not rifles.
 
Rucker61 said:
Most mass shootings take place in a confined area. Handguns are still lethal at close range.
Click to expand...

Most people aren't going to be that accurate with handguns from a distance of ten yards. A well trained shooter can be accurate at ten yards but I would say perhaps even most police officers and soldiers are not going to be super accurate at ten yards. At twenty yards even a really good shooter could have trouble getting good hits with handguns. I believe the distance that mass shooters target their victims is usually more than twenty yards. The victims might be in confined areas but the shooter I believe is usually shooting from more than twenty yards away.
 
Lursa said:
The only reason lethality is less from distance is because they are misses, it's more difficult to aim a handgun for long distances and they dont have the range/velocity.
Click to expand...
Yes. And due to their low accuracy from longer ranges that means a shooter is much less likely to hit a vital area at such ranges.

Lursa said:
But hey, let's see that being shot with a handgun is less lethal than being shot with a carbine. Source?
Click to expand...

Experience. I've never shot a person and hopefully I will never have to but I've taken many firearm classes, both with handguns and with long guns. I've been taught time and time again that handguns are ballistically deficient and that rifles and shotguns are much higher up on the ballistics scale. I do know a case of a woman who was taking a handgun class who accidentally shot herself in the foot while holstering. They called in a helicopter, flew her to a hospital, patched her foot up, and she was back the next day and finished the class. Had it been a rifle shot that would mean no more foot and you would be fitted for a prosthetic. Rifles have much greater ballistic power and thus are much more likely to kill, and that's common sense since rifles are bigger and have much longer barrel lengths. I've also gone hunting and I've used both rifles and handguns. The rifle shots do much more damage on the game animals than the handgun shots.
 
beerftw said:
Handguns do more than usually injure, they are beyond effective at killing, any common round is effective at killing, even down to the lowly 22lr, If you mock the lethality of handguns, or any guns for that matter, you entered the debate firing blanks.
Click to expand...

Sure a 22 can kill if you hit the person just right. If you hit somebody in the eye with a 22lr and it goes into their brain that will kill anybody. But you have to get good shot placement. Shot placement and accuracy is much more important than ballistic power when it comes to killing, unless we're talking about rifles vs handguns in which case the ballistic power of a rifle will most likely either kill or permanently dismember no matter where you hit.
 
jamesrage said:
According to one site handguns effective range in which someone can accurately hit a target up to a hundred yards in the hands of skilled shooters which is three hundred feet and 50 yards in the hands of an average shooter which is hundred and fifty feet.
Click to expand...

That site is flawed. At a hundred yards we are definitely talking rifle range. For the average shooter, they might be with handguns from ten yards but that's about it for an average shooter. At ten yards an average shooter might be able to get some body shots but very rarely will they get good head shots. An exceptional shooter might be accurate at fifteen or twenty yards and might get good head shots at that distance but most people and even most police officers and soldiers are not exceptional shooters. My source? Experience. I've taken many handgun classes and I happen to be a DG (Distinguished Graduate) with the handgun which involves being able to make good body shots and good head shots from various distances while shooting from concealment under time pressure. Having taken many firearms classes I also see how other people shoot so I know a few things.

But aside from that I will post a link to a chart that shows the lethality of handguns vs long guns. As you can see with all handgun rounds, less than 30% of the shots were deadly. With rifles and shotguns over 60% of the shots were deadly and with rifles it was close to 70%

https://www.buckeyefirearms.org/alternate-look-handgun-stopping-power
 
jimbo said:
Most high body count mass murders do not involve firearms. Most involve aircraft. The cause of many aircraft mass murders is never completely determined.
Click to expand...

The only mass murder that I can think of that involved aircraft is 9/11. Aside from that I don't think aircraft murders are all that common.
 
Praxas said:
The OP is trying to make an argument for banning rifles as they would have no done as much damage from the height.
Click to expand...
No I like rifles and I certainly wouldn't want them banned. The argument Im making is for handguns to be less regulated. They should be at least as loose with handguns as they are with rifles.
 
DebateChallenge said:
Most people aren't going to be that accurate with handguns from a distance of ten yards. A well trained shooter can be accurate at ten yards but I would say perhaps even most police officers and soldiers are not going to be super accurate at ten yards. At twenty yards even a really good shooter could have trouble getting good hits with handguns. I believe the distance that mass shooters target their victims is usually more than twenty yards. The victims might be in confined areas but the shooter I believe is usually shooting from more than twenty yards away.
Click to expand...

School and mall shootings? Workplace shootings? Theatre shootings. Forget it, close up, less than 20 yds, less than 10 yds.

You are still just speculating to support your agenda.
 
DebateChallenge said:
Yes. And due to their low accuracy from longer ranges that means a shooter is much less likely to hit a vital area at such ranges.



Experience. I've never shot a person and hopefully I will never have to but I've taken many firearm classes, both with handguns and with long guns. I've been taught time and time again that handguns are ballistically deficient and that rifles and shotguns are much higher up on the ballistics scale. I do know a case of a woman who was taking a handgun class who accidentally shot herself in the foot while holstering. They called in a helicopter, flew her to a hospital, patched her foot up, and she was back the next day and finished the class. Had it been a rifle shot that would mean no more foot and you would be fitted for a prosthetic. Rifles have much greater ballistic power and thus are much more likely to kill, and that's common sense since rifles are bigger and have much longer barrel lengths. I've also gone hunting and I've used both rifles and handguns. The rifle shots do much more damage on the game animals than the handgun shots.
Click to expand...

NOpe, forget your experience. Most of the pro-gun people here, including myself, have plenty of training and experience with handguns. Not to mention are LE or ex-LE.
 
At the rate the Vegas shooter was fireing, in the footage I've seen, he isn't picking targets. He is spraying the concert goers with rounds. He had lots if targets confined in a small area with limited exits. Doesn't matter what you're using you will have a high kill rate.
 
Praxas said:
A plane is indiscriminate on killing folks, so maybe he only wanted to target specific people. My point being if there were no rifles, chances are this person would have made another plan to use handguns instead. The OP is trying to make an argument for banning rifles as they would have no done as much damage from the height. And again I point out, it is a false assumption that he would have chosen the same spot if he only had hanguns and not rifles.
Click to expand...

I don't think that a person targeting specific people would have selected a venue of 29000 people crowded in an acre 300 yards away. Like most mass murders, it seems the victims were targets of opportunity.
 
Lursa said:
NOpe, forget your experience. Most of the pro-gun people here, including myself, have plenty of training and experience with handguns. Not to mention are LE or ex-LE.
Click to expand...
And the mandatory firearms training that LE go through is very marginal. Sure, an officer might take up additional firearms training voluntarily but based just on what they teach you at the department, its very marginal.
 
DebateChallenge said:
And the mandatory firearms training that LE go through is very marginal. Sure, an officer might take up additional firearms training voluntarily but based just on what they teach you at the department, its very marginal.
Click to expand...

So then you left them out because you consider LE as a danger to the public (with their firearms?)

Also please clarify 'marginal.' I practice at a range where the community cops do their practice and qualification....
 
DebateChallenge said:
Well by the same token I believe most of the time when firearms are used in self defense they're handguns.
Click to expand...

People carry handguns because as of now no one has designed a concealed carry holster for a Garand. In addition, almost all fear for your life situations occur within 20 or so feet. In those situations handguns work best.
 
DebateChallenge said:
Most people aren't going to be that accurate with handguns from a distance of ten yards. A well trained shooter can be accurate at ten yards but I would say perhaps even most police officers and soldiers are not going to be super accurate at ten yards. At twenty yards even a really good shooter could have trouble getting good hits with handguns. I believe the distance that mass shooters target their victims is usually more than twenty yards. The victims might be in confined areas but the shooter I believe is usually shooting from more than twenty yards away.
Click to expand...

Yeah.. honestly you demonstrate very little knowledge of handguns. A well trained shooter can be accurate at 200 yards or more. When I was 12 years old, I was shooting metallic silhouette out to 200 yards and being competitive with a 44 magnum. Standing position no less.

And that's a target that's a third the size of a human beings chest/abdomen area.
 
DebateChallenge said:
Sure a 22 can kill if you hit the person just right. If you hit somebody in the eye with a 22lr and it goes into their brain that will kill anybody. But you have to get good shot placement. Shot placement and accuracy is much more important than ballistic power when it comes to killing, unless we're talking about rifles vs handguns in which case the ballistic power of a rifle will most likely either kill or permanently dismember no matter where you hit.
Click to expand...

yeah,.. again.. you demonstrate little knowledge of firearms. A 44 magnum from a pistol with a 6 inch barrell at 200 yards to the chest will kill you. While a .223 from a rifle to the ankle or knee will not.
 
Lursa said:
So then you left them out because you consider LE as a danger to the public (with their firearms?)
Click to expand...
Well there are some LE officers who surprisingly enough should not be trusted with firearms? There are also LE officers who shouldn't be trusted behind the wheel.

Lursa said:
Also please clarify 'marginal.' I practice at a range where the community cops do their practice and qualification....
Click to expand...

I've spoken to people who've been through the police academy and according to them, the entire time you're there only two weeks are spent on firearms training. There is so much you need to know if you're going into LE and firearms is just one small part. Aside from the training you get at the academy, there is a yearly qualification test you have to pass and that's it.
 
jaeger19 said:
Yeah.. honestly you demonstrate very little knowledge of handguns. A well trained shooter can be accurate at 200 yards or more. When I was 12 years old, I was shooting metallic silhouette out to 200 yards and being competitive with a 44 magnum. Standing position no less.

And that's a target that's a third the size of a human beings chest/abdomen area.
Click to expand...


I find that a bit hard to believe. I will have you know Im a DG (Distinguished Graduate) at Front Sight with handguns. Once you become a DG than I might take you seriously.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom