In your opinion, what is the most dangerous kind of firearm? Poll

[ChristianJapan]

My uneducated guess: handguns ...
Why ? Can be most easiest carried around and more successfully used to commit suicide. That would be more difficult with longer barrel.
But actually I don't care. I don't need/want any of those.

[PracticalMac]

Originally Posted by Ugg

Incomplete choices given in the poll. i suspect either out of naivete or an intention to misdirect the discussion. All guns are the most dangerous if a person is intent on doing harm

Thinking too much into poll.

Reputation, most often used in crime, most likely to be involved in accident, examples of what you can use to decide.

[Macky-Mac]

Originally Posted by PracticalMac

Thinking too much into poll.

Reputation, most often used in crime, most likely to be involved in accident, examples of what you can use to decide.

maybe it was just a poorly worded poll?

[jdechko]

I'd say handguns are the most dangerous due to accidental discharge and being played with by small children. I have heard of several instances in the past 12 months where children have gotten their parents' handgun and killed a sibling, friend or themselves. Not so with dads AR-15, mom's 12GA, or grandpa's 50 cal.

Now as far as which weapons should we evaluate the need for tighter controls (including, but not limited to, more thorough background checks, tighter regulation and possibly an all-out ban on) I'd say that handguns and semi-automatic rifles. These are the weapons that tend to be used in most mass shootings for the simple fact that they have higher rates of fire (except, perhaps, revolvers) and are easier to reload.

How I feel on potential gun control isn't something I'm going to discuss here, but I think that the increased bullet capacities, rates of fire and ease of reloading contribute to the number maimed, injured or killed during mass shootings. Unless I'm mistaken, if the suspects had only hunting rifles and revolvers, the number of victims would have been much lower.

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by jdechko

How I feel on potential gun control isn't something I'm going to discuss here, but I think that the increased bullet capacities, rates of fire and ease of reloading contribute to the number maimed, injured or killed during mass shootings. Unless I'm mistaken, if the suspects had only hunting rifles and revolvers, the number of victims would have been much lower.

The one feature you listed that I have the hardest time with is "rates of fire."

While I want to limit that capability, it's difficult for me to figure out how it can be done without compromising the gun too much. Semiautomatics fire as fast as one can pull the trigger—which in itself can be pretty fast—and I am by-and-large okay with that standard. It becomes problematic when options such as sliding stocks are involved because they facilitate shooting speeds that to my eye look close to automatic. So for me, one way of limiting the rate of fire means not allowing add-ons or capabilities that allow a person to fire faster than a finger can pull a trigger.

(And yes I've seen the technique of hooking one's thumb around a belt loop to facilitate bump-firing at rates near automatic. And no ... I'm not going to propose making belt loops or thumbs illegal.)

The real key IMO is less about firing rate than it is about magazine capacity and reloading speed. If we can restrict magazine capacity—I've heard 10 bullets kicked around a bit, but I prefer a maximum of 6—and remove button magazine releases, I think that would be a positive step towards limiting the capability of guns to take out large numbers of people in a few seconds.

[APlotdevice]

Originally Posted by rdowns

Guns aren't dangerous, people are.

Yes, but guns make people more dangerous.

[MrWillie]

None of the above. They are all inanimate objects. They are not capable of being dangerous without a living being's intervention.

Originally Posted by skunk

One which is wrongly thought to be unloaded.

Crap. We agree on something.

Originally Posted by PracticalMac

(just got home, dinner)

My same response, for the same reason.

I believe (without looking up the stats) as a ratio of all firearms it causes the most deaths, either intentionally or accidentally. The ease of concealment makes it more of a surprise.
I also believe it is because those with the least, or no, experiance with firearms own/use this. Especially the NO experiance, and the subsequent accidents.

Shotguns have a reputation for being more lethal when used, not sure if true, but its hard to miss with a shotgun. I saw video of someone with shotgun crammed down their pants pull it out rob a store.

Rifles, even semi auto, pretty obvious, and I am sure hard to cram down ones pants. Easier to see trouble, element of surprise greatly reduced. Least involved in accidental shootings, I think.


(FYI, while I can legally own a firearm, I do not have one)

Well, if we go by what tool is used in the most deaths, I would like to add automobile and booze to your survey.

[Technarchy]

Originally Posted by APlotdevice

Yes, but guns make people more dangerous.

So do lots of other things that kill people more often...you know, like cars for example...

[Heilage]

Originally Posted by Technarchy

So do lots of other things that kill people more often...you know, like cars for example...

But cars aren't primarily designed to rip through flesh and cause damage. How are you not seeing that distinction?

[Technarchy]

Originally Posted by Heilage

But cars aren't primarily designed to rip through flesh and cause damage. How are you not seeing that distinction?

There are few Jihadi that would disagree with you.

[eawmp1]

Originally Posted by Technarchy

There are few Jihadi that would disagree with you.

Use of an unmodified car (i.e. one not filled with explosives) would an ineffective Jihadist make.

Try again.

[Technarchy]

Originally Posted by eawmp1

Use of an unmodified car (i.e. one not filled with explosives) would an ineffective Jihadist make.

Try again.

Irrelevent.

[Mord]

A high powered semi-automatic short barrel shotgun.

Obviously.

[Happybunny]

Any gun held by one of my ex-wives.

[Lord Blackadder]

Originally Posted by Mr Willie

None of the above. They are all inanimate objects. They are not capable of being dangerous without a living being's intervention.

This is obfuscation. Once a living being intervenes (and I consider their manufacture a form of intervention by humans), different classes of weapons have different capabilities. I don't think the question has ever been whether an AR-15 is more or less dangerous than a Brown Bess at rest.

[jdechko]

Originally Posted by citizenzen

The one feature you listed that I have the hardest time with is "rates of fire."

While I want to limit that capability, it's difficult for me to figure out how it can be done without compromising the gun too much. Semiautomatics fire as fast as one can pull the trigger—which in itself can be pretty fast—and I am by-and-large okay with that standard. It becomes problematic when options such as sliding stocks are involved because they facilitate shooting speeds that to my eye look close to automatic. So for me, one way of limiting the rate of fire means not allowing add-ons or capabilities that allow a person to fire faster than a finger can pull a trigger.

Yes, I suppose you're right. I'm not much of a gun enthusiast, so I don't know a whole lot about them, but I'm finding myself getting more involved. My father in law has several hunting rifles (bolt-action) and a pair of shotguns.

While I know there are outliers, statistically, a bolt-action rifle is going to shoot much slower than just about anything else, and revolvers & hunting rifles will be slower on the reload. Given the limited capacities of hunting rifles, if there is a shooting where the suspect is armed with only a hunting rifle, the probability of a group of people to subdue him between shots and/or reloads is much higher.

[Huntn]

I believe statistically, handguns are used in most murders. By one measure, this makes them most dangerous.

[IBradMac]

308. It's what the US snipers use now.
The most devastating, dangerous firearms are the weapons our military uses- grenade launcher guns, sub machine guns etc. But you have to have a class 3 to own anything like that.