[donw]

You do know that one of the deadliest mass shootings in US history -- Virginia Tech -- was done entirely with handguns, right?

Against soft targets at close range (within about 25 meters), it doesn't matter if you have a rifle or a handgun.

Mass shooters tend go for the AR-15 because it's common, popular, and because it looks intimidating. It is no more deadly for their purposes than any other commonly available firearm.

[grolimpio]

My comment was misleading. I didn't know about the Virginia Tech mass shooting details, but I did know that the latest mass shooting in Brazil was done with a couple of handguns. And you've made a very good point actually, comments like the one I've made don't help and I apologize for that.

My concern was more about using countries like Brazil as an argument for discussing gun policies in a completely different country.

It isn't uncommon having NRA lobbyist going there for misleading the population and trying to convince people that relaxing the gun policies in Brazil will "solve most of their problems". This is totally irresponsible and given the number of uneducated people we have, which will basically believe whatever a lobbyist from a well-known developed country says, it can actually cause more damage than good. A policy that isn't a big deal in the USA, can be a disaster in Brazil.

By simply comparing crime rates between developed and undeveloped countries doesn't help anyone, anywhere.