Especially if only 3% of deaths involved a rifle.

lol they never touched this one

Because rifles are increasingly used for mass attacks - 4 out of 5 of the worst mass shootings in the US involved rifles, including the worst (Las Vegas). Sandy Hook, Orlando. That kind of firepower is more difficult to counter - look at Uvalde. Or, again, Vegas -- not so easy to rack up huge casualty numbers with handguns (which are more common, so yeah - they're used more often).

https://www.statista.com/statistics/476409/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-weapon-types-used/

Massa Bezos is reading this AMA, they can't go against him

From Ashley Parker:

My sense is that media ownership has very little influence over why people choose to own or not own AR-15s. I’d specifically point you to our polling story that delves into, among other things, why people own guns — and the top reason is to “protect self, family and property.”

This story also features interviews with several gun owners, talking about why they ended up deciding to own AR-15s. I found them so fascinating that I watched them all, some several times, and I don’t think media ownership — or anything related — come up even obliquely.

Because like most of the media today they are at best hacks and at worst used as weoponized political tools for one side. Hell most people today cant remember when the media used to just report the news and not force their view or agenda on the masses.

>The only difference is the number of bullets each magazine can hold.

This seems pretty damn important...

As the owner of several ARs and several hunting rifles, I can tell you that the above comment is not quite accurate. The vast majority of semi-auto hunting rifles, like my Remington Woodsmaster, are in larger calibers than the 5.56, don't have pistol grips, don't allow for the C-Clamp grip, and don't accommodate muzzle brakes... all of which mean a slower rate of fire and reduced accuracy.

From Alex Horton:

You are correct that AR-15s are not machine guns. They shoot as fast as any other semiautomatic firearm, since firing speed is as fast as you can pull the trigger. But the comparison has only so much value. Typical hunting rifles are bolt-action and require you to recycle the round manually with each shot. They also often have limited ammunition capacities, typically around 5 with one in the chamber. What also makes them different from AR-15 is their size, weight and length. Most modern ARs have collapsable buttstocks and shorter barrels, making them more compact than your typical hunting rifle. I think in most situations when you want to cause maximum harm, like a mass shooting, those are some of the reasons AR-15s and not hunting rifles are used.

I think one reason AR-15s are so central to this discussion is market saturation. About 1 in 20 U.S. adults own one, according to our polling. Of course there are other types of rifles that are similar, like Mini-14s, and other foreign alternatives, like the Steyr AUG. But those are far less common. I think some reasons are AR-15s are available everywhere, easy to shoot, customizable and fairly cheap for entry level models. AR-15s also have a long and recognizable history from Vietnam all the way to Iraq and Afghanistan because of the use of the rifle’s military cousins, the M16 and M4.

Not to mention that AR-15s are symbolic on both ends on the spectrum. Gun advocates say AR-15s are the pinnacle of the 2nd Amendment, and critics point to it as emblematic of all that is wrong with guns and access to them.

Emergency room doctors with firsthand knowledge of treating gun victims have said that the damage 223 ammo causes is far, far less treatable than what are 9mm causes. It's not that the gun is black, it's the high velocity ammunition it fires, large clips, etc. It's almost like the military knew what they were doing when they designed it.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/02/what-i-saw-treating-the-victims-from-parkland-should-change-the-debate-on-guns/553937/

The vast majority of homicides are either situations where the victim and perpetrator know each other OR it's relatively small scale. Random murders are uncommon, and it's rare to see someone who commits a lot of random murders.

Mass shootings get attention because they are both seemingly random and they are often mass casualty events. The methods of many perpetrators of mass shootings often resemble terrorism more than what we would consider crime- lots of victims, no intent to escape, motives that are often irrational.

If the perperators of mass shootings were using pistols or other weapons- that would be the focus of legislation. When Columbine happened and other shootings of the 90s took place involving the TEC-9, the pistol was banned by several states (California banned it both by name, and by it's various features). Same deal with the Hi-Point Carbine, which was also used in Columbine- California, Connecticut and New York have all restricted the sale of the weapon at various times.

The AR-15 is what many high profile mass shooters are using, so it is the focus of the legislation. Unlike in the 90s where restrictive legislation passed in many states, it seems like the failure to pass legislation to restrict the AR-15 has caused a loop where more people buy them and then odds of a mass shooter using an AR-15 instead of something else are higher.

Why are we so focused on the guns that people use to kill each other, when the vast majority are used by people to kill themselves?

As a "leftist" most of us think guns are fine for home defense and hunting. Shotguns, actual hunting rifles, well regulated and licensed handguns are fine.

Unless you're a farmer beset by coyotes, you don't need anything that fires 223/556 ammo. The military designed that platform for a very specific reason, and it's not deer hunting.

What are your thoughts on the saying, "The more of a thing exists in a space, the more likely you'll interact with it"?

If you think that that is a good argument against gun control, do you similarly think that “Taking away nuclear weapons will only leave criminals with nuclear weapons” is a good argument against prohibiting individuals from owning nuclear weapons?

Edit: the amount of downvotes this has gotten compared to the complete lack of serious responses is quite telling.

From Ashley Parker:

I cover national politics, and from a political standpoint, one thing that could make a difference is what always makes a difference — voters actually voting on this issue. The reason why some Republicans are reluctant to support even slightly modest measures that would restrict gun rights are because they believe — often correctly — that the Republican base will punish theme in a Republican primary. But in my conversations with Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) — who obviously represents the state where Sandy Hook occurred — he has become increasingly bullish on the idea that Democrats can now run on the issue of gun restrictions… and win. He says in the wake of the Parkland shooting, he sees a real movement, led by young people, where politicians may now expect to pay a price for NOT supporting what he would term common sense gun reform. But of course, before it can become a real general election issue, it has to stop being a toxic Republican primary issue.

From Todd Frankel:

We wrote about one potential way to reduce gun violence: Banning large-capacity magazines.

It’s a pretty simple and very controversial idea – the more often a shooter needs to stop and reload, the fewer people that are killed. The standard magazine on AR-15s today holds 30 rounds. That’s usually considered a large-capacity magazine. A handful of states ban magazines that hold more than 10 rounds or 15 rounds or 17 rounds. The basic idea is the same. Cutting down on the number of bullets that can be fired quickly.

Some experts call the period when a shooter stops to reload “the critical pause.” The shooting has stopped, maybe it’s only for 10 to 15 seconds. But that’s enough time for people to escape or for people to rush the gunman.

For example, a gunman wielding an AR-15-style rifle burst into a synagogue in Poway, Calif., in 2019. He killed one person and injured three others while emptying a 10-round magazine. California bans magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. And while he tried to reload with another 10-round magazine, people confronted him and chased him away. The shooting stopped.

A magazine ban wouldn’t prevent mass shootings from occurring. But researchers and experts say that studies show the ban reduces the death toll. It gives victims a chance to survive.

From Todd Frankel:

We looked at the role the NRA played in promoting the AR-15. The NRA is far from alone in supporting the AR-15. The National Shooting Sports Foundation, Gun Owners of America and others do, too. Our reporting did find that while NRA membership has declined in recent years, members who are AR-15 owners and supporters became more important to the organization. And so the NRA has become one of the most ardent opponents of any laws that would restrict the AR-15.

But the rise of the AR-15 did not start with the NRA. As our “American Icon” story showed, the NRA did not openly welcome the AR-15 at its conventions in the 1990s or early 2000s.

From our story:“We’d have NRA members walk by our booth and give us the finger,” said Randy Luth, the founder of gunmaker DPMS, one of the earliest companies to market AR-15s.

That eventually changed. The AR-15 is today largely the star of gun conventions and trade shows.

From Ashley Parker:

It’s hard to imagine a credible push to overturn the 2nd Amendment. I always think back to when I covered Congress, in the wake of the Sandy Hook mass shooting. Then, it felt like the entire country was horrified and outraged by what happened, and there was real bipartisan political will on Capitol Hill to get something done. And even in that moment — when 20 six and seven-year-olds had been killed at school — Congress was unable to pass even a simple background checks bill.

And when a new assault weapons ban finally came up for a vote in a Democratic-led Senate, only 38 of the chamber’s 54 Democrats voted in favor of the bill — meaning that 16 Democrats did not vote for it.

In the aftermath, I remember talking to a bunch of Hill aides, both Democratic and Republican, who had worked on the issue, and their takeaway was basically: If we can’t do anything after nearly two dozen babies are slaughtered, we’ll never do anything.

Since then, we have seen modest fits and starts, both legislatively and through executive action. But overturning any amendment — let alone one so polarizing — is a huge lift, which makes your question feel like more of a fascinating hypothetical than anything else.