Type of Firearm - Does it make a difference?

Type of Firearm - Does it make a difference?
A lot of gun control debates revolve around the concept of regulating a certain type of firearm. It's not that all firearms are deadly, only a very select few. While I certainly enjoy the sentiment and taken to the most extreme assertion is true (a 155mm howitzer is deadlier than a .22 LR for instance), for the most part civilian weapons are not that much deadlier than each other, given what's already illegal. The question of banning certain firearms is in regards to those that are not already illegal so, a better question would be; among legal firearms, is there a significance difference that the type of firearm makes in regards to deadliness, the amount of deaths in mass shootings, or the ease of killing other people in general? The short answer is, there is very little difference.

In mass shootings in the U.S. for example, only approximately 9.7% of all the weapons used could be considered "assault weapons". Among these, the actual death rate was about the same as weapons that did not qualify as assault weapons, and as a result indicates that the death toll between weapon types is almost irrelevant when used in the context of, murder. It didn't seem to make the killer any more effective (when compared to other commonly available firearms) or make their job any easier in the majority of circumstances. The deadliest single person mass shooting in the world was committed with a handgun in norway and killed 67 people [1], worse than the deadliest mass shooting in America which killed 49 people. The second worse mass shooting in America used two pocket pistols which killed 32 people, the fourth deadliest used a pistol and killed 23 people, the fifth deadliest used a pistol and killed 21 people, and the sixth deadliest used a bolt action hunting rifle and a pump action shotgun which killed 16 people. [2] As these weapons wouldn't be banned in an assault weapon ban and most consider hunting weapons to be far less harmful than the proposed "military style" weapons, it might come as a surprise to learn that in fact, these weapons are just as deadly, if not somewhat more deadly than their assault weapon counterparts.

The most recent deadliest mass shooting in America, the Orlando shooting, did in fact involve a firearm that many would consider to be, an "assault weapon". However, he also used a handgun, and committed many of his acts of violence with that weapon. While much of the autopsy information is unclear, it is the case that he fired nearly 200 rounds with both the handgun and assault weapon. It's unlikely then that, if he only had a handgun, that he couldn't have killed as many people. In fact, he may have killed even more. As awful as it is to go in to the details of the debate, these are the details in question, and without the truth we cannot ascertain what the best course of action is. the Aurora shooting for example, out of the 12 murders he committed, 3 were with the explosive device, 3 where with the shotgun, and 3 were with the handgun, while an additional 3 were with the AR-15 "assault weapon". Firing 68 rounds, he managed to kill at least 3 people, where as the shotgun managed to kill 3 people with just 6 rounds, and the pistol managed to kill 3 people with just 5 rounds. This paints a worrisome picture, as if the murderer had only been allowed to use a shotgun or handgun, and fired 68 rounds of shotgun or handgun ammunition instead, this would have been 34 kills, instead of just 3. If he had only been allowed to own the assault weapon, he would have killed just 4 people total, instead of 12. While it certainly isn't good that anyone actually died, if the argument being presented is that less people will die if assault weapons are banned, there not only isn't evidence to back it up, but overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

As it turns out, in the hands of most mass murderers, handguns and shotguns are actually the deadliest weapons available, most of which would have few regulations after an assault weapons ban. A magazine capacity under 10 rounds made little to no difference, and other so called "assault features" seem to contribute little, if any to the deadliness of the firearm in question.