Note: this isn't meant to make anybody angry, simply to say that you need to know about guns to make effective gun laws

An AR-15 has more firepower — on an individual basis, it’s capable of causing more casualties in a mass shooting situation.

That said, a Glock 20 (handgun) can be concealed and pulled on anyone. It’s more likely to be used in “routine” gun crime. Therefore, it wouldn’t surprise me to learn that Glock 20’s are actually responsible for more gun deaths per year than AR-15s. I haven’t looked it up specifically but that’s my gut feeling.

AR-15: Concealment- - Firepower ++

Glock 20: Concealment++ Firepower- -

Just memeing by the way

The thing is, an AR-15 and a glock 20 against somebody without body armor (I don't think you'll be wearing body armor out on the street) are equally devastating. Plus the fact that a glock 20 has less recoil, and obviously easier to conceal

Any firearm is dangerous. However, handguns are used more often in suicide attempts, which account for six-in-ten U.S gun deaths annually (according to PewResearch). While that's not caused by guns, but by suicidal mentalities, it's important to note and take into account because guns DO make suicide attempts more successful, which is why we need to promote personal responsibility and encourage people to temporarily take possession of friends' guns if said friend is feeling suicidal. Handguns are also FAR more likely to cause a self-inflicted accident than any rifle. They're easier to handle and look less threatening, but the small rounds really don't cause massive trauma and are more likely to bounce around inside your body, causing serious internal damage that can be difficult, if not impossible, to repair.

That said, the Glock is also far more useful in that you can carry it concealed. Firearms are used to prevent thousands of potential crimes each year (Between 60,000 and 2.5 MILLION according to the CDC). You really shouldn't carry a rifle around in public, but I am a firm advocate of everyone capable of responsibly doing so taking a concealed carry class and carrying a handgun. They are the great equalizer. Most people don't know jiu-jitsu, and I for one would rather rapists and robbers be scared off or, if necessary, shot than get away with their thuggery.

The AR-15 is a sporting rifle that you can take hunting, defend your home with, use to enjoy a fun day at the range dumping $$ out of 20-round magazines, and always have to know you can be secure in your person, possession, and liberties. It's capable of inflicting great suffering, which is why we need thorough background checks before they're sold to anyone from any commercial source, but it is no more intrinsically dangerous than the person wielding it.

The Glock can't be used hunting (though you can take it anyways to scare off bears....better to do that then resort to pepper spray if charged rather than just trying to scare it off with your voice), but it ensures security of person and property anywhere you go if you carry concealed. When I can legally purchase a handgun I will have one in my car wherever legal and I intend to take a concealed carry class through the sheriff's dept. It too can be used to perpetrate a variety of crimes, and I would argue it's more dangerous overall because of aforementioned qualities intrinsic to handguns, but it's also arguably safer for society. :)

That's exactly what I mean, although in a shooter situation a glock is as dangerous as an ar15

Well, in a typical mass shooter situation, all things being equal, the rifle is generally a better weapon because it has huge range and accuracy advantages, letting you drop more targets at range and with fewer rounds per target.

In something like an airplane hijacking a handgun would be my choice because it is easier to wield in close confines.

(And to be clear: I'm never going to do either of those...just differentiating when each would typically be ideal/more dangerous.)

A pistol is accurate too, plus "fewer rounds per target" isn't that good of an argument, both a 9mm and a .556 are pieces of lead and copper flying at supersonic speeds.

An AR-15 is less deadly generally

Well for one a rifle is built for long range accuracy. By design, and because a larger round generally has more energy, this means it is better for making ranged shots. Doubly so for 5.56x45, which is famous for its flat ballistic trajectory and high energy retention at range. Now, an AR-15 chambered in 6.5 Creedmore (for example) isn't going to be quite like that, but you get my drift.

You're much more likely to be killed outright by a single 5.56x45 round than you are a 10mm one unless it's something special like a hollow point. The 10mm is still incredibly dangerous because of the internal damage it causes, and I'd argue more of a menace to society overall because of the intrinsic traits of a handgun vs that of a rifle, but if I had to choose I'd rather get hit with a lower caliber round.

Again though, you're right in that both weapons are highly effective in the situations for which they were designed (pistol for effective close range use and rifle for more general purpose use). I agree pistols are more dangerous overall than rifles, which is what crime data overwhelmingly confirms.

Ok

Also a hollow point isn't too special, its about the same price as a full metal jacket

All guns are dangerous in the hands of someone that is willing to use them against another, but the AR-15 sis more dangerous as it is a more accurate weapon over distance and packs a larger punch.

Pistols in the hands of someone not trained in there use are effective at a very short range (don't believe movies) and tend to hit random people when fired by morons, while long rifles allow a shooter greater distance to hit a target and often come with a much larger ammo capacity. The Las Vegas shooter would have not have killed the same number using a pistol.

That brings up modifications. Long rifles like the AR-15 can be modified to be even deadlier. You can modify a pistol, but again with out training, those modification actually can make the gun more dangerous to the user. (The number of self inflicted wounds from people that put hair triggers on their pistols is significant.)

The ease-of-use inherent to pistols makes them the weapon of choice for the average thug. Big consideration you have to make.

1.the ar-15's capacity to have modifications means nothing to deadliness, the glock 20 can have just as much

2. Pistols are just as accurate as rifles up to a point but in a city I don't think it would matter

3.extended glock magazines exist, a gun has nothing to do with capacity, only the magazine

My point being, is that some people advocate for gun laws without knowing a lot about guns

Glock comes with a 30 round magazine? First I’ve heard of it. Must be very unwieldy. And you claim mods have nothing to do with deadliness? Not sure how you think you know more than anyone else here about guns.

When I say modifications have nothing to deadliness, i mean if your shot your going to die regardless of wether or not the gun has modifications. Sorry for not clarifying.

A 30 round magazine on a glock isn't that unwieldy, believe it or not. 50-100 round magazines are very unwieldy though

Statistically handguns are responsible for the vast majority of crime in North America. So they're much more dangerous in practice.
But (theoretically) AR-15 style guns are available chambered in rounds that will shoot right through body armor. So in the hands of a terrorist, the more powerful ArmaLite style gun [again theoretically] would be more deadly.

Yes