If we are going to do down that road, then I will step up and say (type) out loud: the caliber used in the AR-15, 5.56 NATO, is a relatively low power rifle caliber and in fact, far less powerful than many, if not most, pistol calibers. Somehow or other, the standard cartridge used in that rifle has been 'tagged' as some type of 'very powerful' cartridge and it is not, not even close. Not legal to hunt deer with in many states in the US, and absolutely lacking stopping and 'lethality' as compared with other, commonly used pistol and rifle cartridges.
For example, the classic 30-06 Springfield that everybody, starting with great- granddad used and continues to use for hunting, target shooting and typical sporting uses is far, far larger and more powerful than the 5.56 NATO. So is the 7.62 NATO cartridge, which is the same diameter and only very slightly behind the 30-06 in power, still far more powerful than the AR-15 caliber.
5.56 NATO is the standard service rifle caliber currently in use by the US armed forces (standard issue, not sniper rifles, etc.). It is by far the smallest and least powerful service rifle caliber to have been used by the US in a century and most likely, ever in the country's history. In fact, part of the reason it was adopted was its low recoil, the by- product of a low powered cartridge. The standard service cartridge from 1906 through 1957 was the already mentioned 30-06 Springfield, used in several bolt action rifles as well as the M1 Garand, still in wide spread use and in fact a standard target rifle and caliber at many of the largest shooting events in the US. From ~1957 to the mid- 1960's the US armed service standard issue rifle caliber was the 7.62 NATO or .308 Winchester, and again it was virtually as powerful as the previous 30-06. Finally, when the AR-15 was adopted, it was adopted in caliber 5.56 NATO, or the equivalent .223 Remington (virtually interchangeable).
So the oft- stated 'legend' of this 'horribly powerful caliber' just is not correct.
The above is fact, but this is conjecture on my part: had the Las Vegas shooting been done with a similar but larger rifle chambered in 7.62 NATO, such as the FN-FAL that is the most widely used service arm in the 'free world' (often called 'the right hand of the Free World'), there would have been more fatalities due to both the increased lethality of the larger (and still standard sporting size) in initial wounds but almost certainly due to greatly increased power of the ricochets off the ground behind the initial victims (a human is almost NEVER NEARLY enough to stop a 7.62 NATO).
We can argue endlessly about many of these issues but the mechanical facts remain facts. The AR-15 is NOT chambered for a 'very powerful' or 'more powerful' caliber than is otherwise typically used in hunting, target shooting and general civilian use but in fact is LESS powerful than MOST calibers typically used by the civilian shooting public.
OK, end of rant.
Brian
<snip>
Yes, in fact, I do a lot of research and saw it before your posting. I don't think it is particularly enlightening or revealing at all. We all know that rifles are typically much more powerful and deadly than hand guns. But they are also extremely difficult to conceal and carry and are rarely used in bad-on-good attacks.
Your statement was that you could not defend effectively against an AR-15 with a low caliber gun. What I said was that was incorrect. I didn't say or imply a low-caliber handgun was as effective or as deadly as an AR-15. However, if a mad AR15 gunman burst into a building and started shooting people at close range (as was done in this school shooting), having even a few people shoot at him with ANY caliber weapon could end it quickly.
Would it surprise you to know I don't even own a rifle, and don't plan to?