Miguel posted the clip from CNN about the ballistics testing of rifle and pistol ammo from Wayne State University.
Yes, rifle ammunition generally has more terminal performance than handgun ammunition.
The thing I don’t get about this point is this:
Are they arguing that handgun rounds are more survivable than rifle rounds so handguns are less bad?
We in the shooting world know our gold rule is “Never point the gun at anything you don’t intend to destroy.”
We understand that the intent of shooting something alive is to kill it.
We don’t bet on survivability of a wound as a safety factor.
Nobody says “don’t point a rifle as something you don’t intend to kill but you can take that risk with a handgun because they’re not as dangerous.”
I fundamentally cannot wrap my mind around the implied argument that maybe if a school shooter used a handgun or a 22 those kids would have been wounded but alive, but because he used an AR they are all dead.
We understand guns and we understand that one should assume that anything hit with a bullet is going to die.
Of all the attacks on guns that the anti-gun world is making, this is one that really shorts out my logic circuits.