The debate must now drop any pretense to assault-weapons-only

(What? Nope, that argument won’t work, either. Both shotguns and revolvers are/were std-issue military weapons of war. When I first small-arms qualified in the AF back in ’70, it was with a S&W Combat Masterpiece .38-special revolver.)
Meme ref
Cultural ref


Oops, forgot to add my take:
Less-lethal is a stupid argument to have. It’s a semantics argument. Any weapon can be lethal.
• From the victim’s standpoint, lethal means 100% dead, whether it’s from a nicked artery or being blown apart.
• A predator might want you more than just dead, say as a meal or for terroristic effect; and he might want to kill more and/or faster, so he’ll have a different view of more/less-lethal.
• The media and anti-gun ghouls certainly react differently to different kinds of lethalities, especially with different categories of killers and the possibility of a political angle or viewership.

However, each individual fatality suffers the maximum lethality, 100% dead, no matter how many others are killed along with them, what weapon is used, or why.

The weapon isn’t the issue; unlawful killing is the issue.
Statistics aren’t the issue, either; one person killed is the issue.
One death is not less-lethal than ten deaths; ten is just more-alarming to those still alive.

Nah, it’s an ambiguously stated premise for an argument… and a stupid one to get into.
(Note: I totally avoided both utility and effectiveness as a part of lethality. See? Semantics and context.)

Are AR-15s more dangerous than shotguns and revolvers to more people beyond grappling distance?
Heck, yeah! The difference in massacred numbers could be horrendous (e.g. Las Vegas at that’s-what-rifles-are-for distance).

(What? Nah, I’d never do this to ya.)


  1. Posted May 19, 2018 at 6:10 pm |

    Yep, relative lethality ain’t the issue. Spears can be lethal. So can wine bottles, crossbows, etc. Even a car or truck can be used as a lethal weapon. It’s the killing that matters.

  2. DougM (μολὼν λαβέ)
    Posted May 19, 2018 at 7:27 pm |

    ^ …and that’s already against the law, right?

  3. Posted May 19, 2018 at 9:11 pm |

    In WWI the Germans tried to get trench shotguns banned under the Geneva Convention.
    So the folks who were trying to take over the world thought they were pretty lethal.
    Of course, those had a bayonet mount but I’m not sure if the chainsaw bayonet had been invented, so that’s a wash.

  4. dick, not quite dead white guy
    Posted May 19, 2018 at 9:12 pm |

    I could change his mind…from being inside his skull to splattered on the pavers..with a Louisville Slugger.
    Only problem is he wouldn’t know which was more lethal, the AR or the bat, now would he?

  5. Idahohunter
    Posted May 19, 2018 at 10:49 pm |

    Ok, shoot him in the right thigh with an AR and the left with a shotgun, you pick the load. His mind WILL be changed.

  6. Drew458
    Posted May 20, 2018 at 10:57 am |

    Agreed, at a fair distance, a .223 bullet from an AR-15 can be more lethal than a shotgun that shoots birdshot. Shotgun slugs though, are plenty lethal and accurate out to about 200 yards these days, and at distances beyond that there are many rifle rounds vastly more powerful than the little AR poodle shooter. If that Vegas shooter guy had used an M1a (semi-auto M-14) with .308 hunting ammo the body count would have been far higher.

    But all the “gunsplainin’ ” in the world won’t make a difference to these types. Facts are anathema to them. All they know about guns is what they’ve seen on movies and TV.