At least 16 people dead and suspect at large after multiple incidents in area of Lewiston, Maine

9mm handguns are slightly more common than ARs, shotguns are substantially less common.

If you look in terms of ammo sales in the US, 9mm and .223 are fairly close to one another (with 9mm in the lead) and they both far outpace everything else.

The reason for the death disparity isn’t numbers though, it’s what the leading causes of gun death are - street crime and suicide. Street crime is overwhelmingly committed with handguns (concealability likely being the big driving factors there), and rifles tend to be a rather uncommon choice for suicides for whatever reason.

 

Good point about suicides. Makes sense. A lot easier to shoot yourself in the head with a handgun than a shotgun or a rifle.

 

The US actually has far more restrictive laws on suppressor ownership than much of the developed world.

The argument for banning them is largely based on a misunderstanding of what they do and the thought that they are “silencers” as you see in the movies and actually make a gunshot silent. They don’t - the only thing that is anywhere close to being that quiet through a suppressor is subsonic .22, which doesn’t have much of a use other than shooting rats and squirrels and the like.

If you suppress a large caliber weapon, either handgun or rifle, it is still very noticeably loud, it just makes it somewhat more hearing safe so that you aren’t causing irreversible hearing loss by shooting without ear protection (of particular concern if you’re having to fire in a tightly enclosed space where the overpressure can cause significant hearing loss).

So the argument for suppressors isn’t so much what you would use them for to overthrow a tyrannical government, it’s just that using them is generally a good idea if you’re shooting and the push against them is based largely on a media portrayal of what they do which has no basis in reality.

 

So do you suspect this shooter was trying to purchase a suppressor because of his hearing? Or do you think he wanted to use it on his rampage?

 

My guess is it’s likely unrelated - if he’s a big gun guy he probably already owned one, but they’re not really of much use for going on a rampage.

Moreover, if he wanted it to use for the rampage for some reason, my guess is he probably wouldn’t have self-reported to the dealer that he had mental health issues and kept himself from being able to take possession of it.

(Also, as an FYI, suppressors are currently an NFA item that require a tax stamp and Form 4 to purchase, and Form 4s take months and months to be approved - if he was to the “picking it up” phase of that purchase process, it’s a suppressor he probably “bought” roughly a year ago and had been waiting on the Form 4 to get approved.)

 

Ben mostly covered it. Suppressors actually don't make your guns that quiet. The only guns that get really, really quiet with a suppressor are those that shoot subsonic ammo, like 147gr 9mm, 230gr .45ACP, .185gr+ 300AAC Blackout, or .22lr. Those frankly don't hit all that hard and are not going to put someone down like a rifle or a shotgun will absent great shot placement. The wounding mechanism is crush damage limited to about the width of the expanded bullet, not permanent tearing from the energy transfer of a rifle round that yaws and/or fragments in tissue that is much greater than the wound channel itself. They have some limited tactical uses but otherwise can be useful in something like a close quarters or home defense scenario and that is it. Basically, scenarios where it can be helpful to have all of your senses.

The fact is, though, that they haven't been used in crimes. The $200 tax stamp, fingerprinting, etc. and nearly year long wait per suppressor is a fairly large deterrent, plus the cost of the suppressor itself. Most rifle suppressors are going to be in the $700-$1700 range. Countries in the rest of the world largely either don't regulate them or they are licensed along with the guns with the expectation that you have one on every gun so as not to be impolite.

 

Or a Democratic syncophant unloads at a softball game? Or a democratic voter unloads at a birthday party, funeral, Halloween party?

Individuals being irrational is normal
and expected. Our elected officials forming laws around that emotional illogical thought process shouldn’t be normal or expected but because it makes a beautiful sound byte, further stirs the pot and strengthens their base..

 

Yeah that's human nature. Not sure what to tell you. People respond very emotionally and irrationally to terrorist attacks. And that's why an AR-15 is not the same as a shotgun or a handgun. The more people that get killed the more frightening it is. The manner in which they are killed also matters (just look what happened in Israel). We fought two wars for over a decade because 3,000 people got killed on 9/11. Was that a rational response?

 

Just because a certain gun is used does make it anymore or less a terrorist attack. The media and our elected officials want to desperately blame the black gun so that there is an easy answer.

 

Yes, it does. How are you not understanding this? AR15s maker it possible to kill very LARGE numbers of people which make the terrorist attack more effective.

 

this is peculiar. sounds like something to be thankful for but wonder how he died
'Heavily armed man' found dead at Colorado amusement park with multiple guns and explosives (msn.com)

According to a preliminary investigation, police wrote in a news release Monday, the man, from the Carbondale area, was found dead dressed in black tactical clothing "bearing patches and emblems that gave the appearance of being associated with law enforcement."

He was armed with a semi-automatic rifle, a semi-automatic handgun and multiple loaded magazines for both weapons, the release continues. He wore a body armor and what appeared to be a ballistic helmet Additional multiple improvised explosive devices (IEDS) were discovered with the suspect and a vehicle associated with the suspect, found at the park.
.......................................
Given the amount of weaponry, ammunition, and explosive devices found, police said, the suspect could have "implemented attack of devastating proportions upon our community, and first responders."

 

One of our resident gun aficionados even said they wouldn't want to face an AR with a pistol. Wonder why that is?

And just to play Devils advocate I believe the Virginia tech killer was pretty damn efficient while not using an AR however there is a reason that most of these attacks utilize an AR. I mean didn't mass shootings go way up after sunsetting the ban on ARs?

The point is that many people clamoring for change aren't proclaiming looking at restricting the AR will stop mass shootings. Most people just want to see some real attempts at looking for ways to reduce them. That includes looking at a number of things including mental health, enforcing current laws already in place more efficiently, databases and communication, etc etc. Seems like some people on both sides are interested in that but the loudest most powerful lobbies refuse to even consider the weapon of choice as PART of the equation.....

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...sQFnoECBIQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3CSix2f9xVMONr91ARNo3K

 

It’s nothing peculiar to an AR - under most circumstances I wouldn’t want to face anyone with any rifle with a pistol.

Why? Because their strengths are really different from one another. Unless I’ve magically safely gotten within 10 or so feet of the bad guy and we are in a very confined space where turning quickly with a long gun is difficult, the better accuracy and higher ballistic power of any rifle is going to outweigh the slightly better maneuverability I might have with a pistol.

 

Not what I said. Is it still a terrorist att k if the terrorist uses a bombs? If he uses a knife? If he uses a pistol or a shotgun? Of course it is. The type of gun used doesn’t dictate whether it is a terrorist attack or not. A hunting rifle could be used and it would still be a terrorist attack.

 

the article you post d states that there wasn’t a decrease in mass shootings but possibly a decrease in how many where killed. And also says the data is debatable.. probably not the best article to
Link.

 

I think a terrorist attack could be perpetrated using brass knuckles, a butter knife, or even one's bare hands I suppose. None of those seem to be the preferred method either for terrorism or mass murder, presumably because they'd be far less efficient and give the victims a better chance.

 

https://ohiocapitaljournal.com/2022...-mass-shootings-heres-what-the-data-tells-us/

Fact-check: Did mass shootings triple after assault weapon ban ended?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...ault-weapons-law-brought-down-mass-shootings/

Plenty of discussion about the results. Results can be skewed but conclusive results were made however not agreed upon due to things cited like time frame, pre existing ownership and loopholes among other things.

 

If a mass shooter was going into your kids school to start killing kids, what is the one legal, easily attainable on short notice weapon available to the general public that you would NOT want them to have? Assuming you had a choice. Is it not the AR-15?

 

Yep, pretty strange. Dude got all dressed up in his gear and had his weapons of choice by his side and then committed suicide.
Reminds me of a bumper sticker I have seen a few times showing the driver's family. Not the usual mom, dad, kids and dog, but an assortment of rifles and pistols.

 

There’s no one gun that would in and of itself concern me more than others. And part depends on the characteristics of the shooter. If it’s someone large or experienced enough to handle the recoil, probably a mag fed shotgun or 7.62 battle rifle is the near worst case. If it’s someone little or very inexperienced, a pistol caliber carbine like a Scorpion or MP5 might be the scariest.

But there are all sorts of guns, some of which would have been subject to the old AWB and some that would not have, that are essentially indistinguishable.