How do you measure firepower? How much is too much?

Well yeah, that's why I posted about the energy of the rounds. The higher the energy, the harder to control the gun!

 

assuming the firearms are of the same weight and action.

 

No one I know does this.

If you don't think you need a semi-automatic rifle to defend yourself, then you should start by taking them away from the military and police in this country.

If the police and military were willing to give up their semi-automatic and automatic rifles, I would consider giving up mine.

 

When I find myself on my butt wondering what just happened and have an impression of the barrel in my forehead.

 

Never hid behind one, wanted to get into a few of them though.

 

same with machine guns?

 

Automatic rifle = machine gun.

 

do you think machine guns should be as easy to get as a handgun?

 

Do you think the police need machine guns to defend themselves?

 

After Biden's last statement I'm thinking some tactical nukes would be in line with the intent of the 2nd Admen.

 

I do not think police do, no

do you want to see our police all carrying machine guns everywhere they go?

now answer my question...

 

Police actually do carry and use machine guns. Do you not live in the U.S.?

https://ktla.com/news/delivering-newspapers-then-caught-in-a-hail-of-lapd-bullets/

 

Do you have any facts to back up that specious claim with?

 

That would be Sheriff Grady Judd of Polk County Florida.

Sheriff Judd was variously reported as adding, “That’s all the bullets we had or we would have shot him more” and “I suspect the only reason 110 rounds was all that was fired was that’s all the ammunition they had.”

 

Not quite true, energy has to be delivered, a .223 traveling thru a body will do less damage then a round that stops in a body and delivers all of it's energy within that body.

 

Again untrue, higher energy and being able to control or not control a firearm is only a single factor of many.

 

Why not?

 

One on hand, that's hilarious- but no doubt true.
I'm at a loss to figure out how intelligent people can't understand that the common denominator is not the type of gun, or even guns of any kind- it's the person who wants to kill someone else. Regardless of the weapon chosen, that is the universal and only causal element in murders. Choice of weapon has no impact on the person's desire to kill, and never has.

 

Of course the danger isn't in the weapon used, but the person who uses it. Handguns are less conspicuous than rifles. As most murders are somewhat personal in motivation, being close serves that aspect of the killer's motives- thus handguns are by far and away the choice in murders. Hitting a target from a distance takes significantly more skill as well as a weapon capable of accuracy at range, thus the rifle is of choice for hunting, target shooting and as a basic military weapon, while pistols are the basic police weapon. .
.
The issue as seen by the gun-control addicts has nothing to do with the real use of a gun- but with the fear of it as a gun. They perceive a gun that is military in appearance is military in function and purpose, which is not true. The AR-15 has never been used or bought by the military, but it's appearance is near identical to the military M-16. That is because they both derive from a concept of a modular design by Eugene Stoner that lends versatility,. For example, just switching the barrel converts it from a 5.56 to a .30 caliber, and that can be done in the field, quickly. It can be converted to .22 long rifle with a field bolt swap. This is the real reason for the popularity of the AR-15; versatility and customization that the owner can do themselves. It IS NOT an automatic weapon, NOT a machine gun.

The anti gun people have a phobia, not a rational understanding of shooting or weapons. Often makes me think of the people who fear snakes, but couldn't tell the difference between a rattlesnake and a bull snake, and don't care. They seek to eliminate guns, and the arguments about fire power, magazine capacities and so on are just attempt to get a foot in the door; a first step to justify the second and third. It's a distraction from the real issues, primarily the malcontent and mentally disturbed people who blame others for their feelings to the point of seeking violent reprisal.

The problem is that gun control does nothing to reduce the desire to kill in the criminal, and of course such a person is going to ignore laws anyway. In that respect gun control is a distraction, a red herring focusing attention on an object rather than the cause.

 

Most mass shootings are committed with handguns; most people who die in mass shootings are killed with handguns.
Thus, you guess wrong.
So, the question remains:
Why focus on AR's when pistols are used more often?

 

Yet you did not address schizophrenic shooters, so my guess remains unchallenged by you.

 

You cannot demonstrate your claim to be true, so I don't have anything to challenge.

 

Sure I can. Do your own homework and stop making up things I never stated when you want to have a real conversation.

 

Ok. Do it. Demonstrate your claim to be true
Bet you can't.