Cady Goldfield wrote:
Would you ask what kind of gun kills better than another? Whether a Luger is deadlier than a Glock? Both fire bullets, and if you get hit with one in the right spot, you're dead. All makes of gun fire projectiles at a velocity that is lethal. Their individual details may include variations in repeat-action, laser aim, or other bells and whistles, and some kill "messier" while others kill "neat" because of the kinds of bullets they take, but essentially all guns are deadly. You as the individual just choose the one that best suits your needs and interests. If you want to kill a lot of people within split seconds of each other, then you choose an automatic repeating weapon. If you just need to kill one or a few people on any given occasion, then a .38 revolver is fine. For point-blank to dispatch a bad date without him/her catching on until it's too late, a deringer is nice.
Maybe, but ammunition does have different characteristics right? That is to say that a .357 is more "effective" (maybe I am defining effectiveness incorrectly but give me a break) because that specific round usually (and I cannot produce the evidence, I learned this while taking a conceal/carry class) only requieres one round to stop a human body. I think that it was somehere around the 92% of all incidents involving a .357 were "one shot stops". If one is willing to grant my definition of "effective" then there will be little argument what weapon is superior when we ask, should I carry a .22 or a .357 mag? But if you do not grant my definition of "effective" we will run into problems.
This question aobut what art is the "dangerous" has the same pitfall. First who gets to define deadly? Who is our 'authority'/where is our evidence? And, how can we possibly test what we decide on? If you really want to engage this then sort out what it is you are really trying to ask.