Comparing the AR with other Legal Firearms

[Winston]

Yea, we know Moon Bat. You Leftest assholes think that the Bill of Rights is stupid.

The Founding Fathers didn't say that the right to keep and bear arms is for hunting, or recreation or even for self defense. It says specifically it is for the "security of a free state". It is right there in the Bill of Rights. I shit you not. Go look it up if you don't believe me.

You don't have a clue what that means, do you?

More likely you Leftest turds know what it means but do not like it because you don't want the US to be a free state. You want it to be the Socialist shithole that you have dreamed about your whole life.

Go fuck yourself Moon Bat. You are an embarrassment to this country.

Way to double down on stupid. Yes, "security of a free state", but that does not mean giving the population arms to overthrow the very government the Constitution created. If that is what they wanted why did that same Constitution go to the trouble of defining "treason"?

Pennsylvania

That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power

Massachusetts

The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it

Notice, both states specifically mentioned the dangers of a standing army, and both states specifically stated those armed should be under civil authority. Your argument is sheer ignorance.

 

[Winston]

While logical, I would really like to see some stats to prove that. Most mass shooters use the "fish in the barrel" method where they are in close and cannot miss.

Columbine verse Stoneman Douglas is an example I mentioned. I also linked to an ER doctor that mentioned the difference. I mean this is not that difficult to understand,

Bullets from weapons such as handguns typically pierce straight through a target, medical experts say. By comparison, weapons such as the AR-15s used in many mass shootings, can liquefy organs because of their much higher projectile speeds.

"Assault weapons ... cause a condition called cavitation, meaning that as the projectile passes through tissue, it creates a large cavity," said Dr. Ian Brown, a trauma surgeon at UC Davis Health in Sacramento, California. "And that does a ton of of tissue damage, both initially at the impact, and then even further as that tissue begins to necrose, or die off."

https://www.npr.org/2022/06/06/1103177032/gun-violence-mass-shootings-assault-weapons-victims

 

[Winston]

I tried to get that little turd to tell me what was banned in the 1994 AWB that would result in a reduction in crime and he chickenshitted out because he had nothing.

He ain't worth shit.

For the umpteenth time, this is not about reducing crime, it is about improving survivability.

 

[Winston]

Can you even define an "assault weapon?"

And yes, AR15's are great for home defense. They are very lethal at close ranges and follow up shots are immediate. Rifles are easier to aim than handguns and easier to keep on target. They also have less recoil than a 9mm handgun so follow up shots are more accurate.

AR's are a great platform for varmint hunting. They've sent many a feral pigs to their maker.

I was shot 6 times point blank with a 9mm and am not only still alive, but returned to work full time 8 months later. Think if that dude had an AR I would be alive today?

Thanks for making my argument. For home defense, a shotgun provides a suitable replacement, and if you are worried about recoil then use what I use, a .410 coach gun. For varmint hunting, an assault rifle, as defined by the government in the previous ban, provides no advantage to a normal rifle. Does a folding stock provide an advantage? A flash suppressor?

 

[Winston]

"All bearable arms". No.
What will your excuse be when the "weapon of choice" moves AKs or AR10s?
Or shotguns?

"All bearable arms".
Your question proceeds from a false premise, and is thus meaningless.

And you have still refused to address the question that I have put forward. Chickenshit.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Columbine verse Stoneman Douglas is an example I mentioned. I also linked to an ER doctor that mentioned the difference. I mean this is not that difficult to understand,

Still laughing at you in 7.62.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Thanks for making my argument. For home defense, a shotgun provides a suitable replacement...

In almost every situation, an AR carbine or pistol in a major pistol caliber is a better choice than a shotgun or handgun for home defense.

You're very clearly out of your depth here.

 

[M14 Shooter]

And you have still refused to address the question that I have put forward. Chickenshit.

Because...
Your question proceeds from a false premise, and is thus meaningless.

This means there's no reason to address it - dipshit.

 

[airplanemechanic]

Thanks for making my argument. For home defense, a shotgun provides a suitable replacement, and if you are worried about recoil then use what I use, a .410 coach gun. For varmint hunting, an assault rifle, as defined by the government in the previous ban, provides no advantage to a normal rifle. Does a folding stock provide an advantage? A flash suppressor?

So does a folding stock or flash suppressor make a normal rifle an "assault rifle?"

Shotguns are not suitable replacements. They have too much recoil and the pellets scatter too quickly and can hit innocent people. Not to mention shotguns are way too long to use in confined areas. And unless it's a semi-auto shotgun, follow up shots can take longer than you want.

But the sound of the ratcheting action of loading a shell into a shotgun is a great deterrent that doesn't come with an AR or AK.

 

[Winston]

Just another useful idiot, doing what his masters tell him to do, repeating what his masters tell him to say.

the (D)ishonest prey upon the emotions of the ignorant - because they know it works.

You guys are the useful idiots. You are carrying the burden of the gun lobby, like the NRA. Once a formidable resource for gun safety and gun education now has one purpose and one purpose alone, to protect the highly profitable assault rifle. Enough is enough. One billion dollars, that is how much the gun manufacturers have made in the last decade, mostly from MORONS like you, and at the cost of countless deaths that could have been avoided.

Have you been certified by the Appleseed Project? Do you even know what a "rifleman" really is? Do you know who Daniel Morgan was? I am betting "no" to all three. I have my Appleseed qualification, and that is not that impressive. But I have six children and all of them have their qualification as well, and not a damn one of us owns an assault rifle. If the shit ever really does hit the fan, you guys will be beating a path to my door.

 

[Winston]

Because...
Your question proceeds from a false premise, and is thus meaningless.

This means there's no reason to address it - dipshit.

Like I said, chickenshit.

 

[Winston]

So does a folding stock or flash suppressor make a normal rifle an "assault rifle?"

Shotguns are not suitable replacements. They have too much recoil and the pellets scatter too quickly and can hit innocent people. Not to mention shotguns are way too long to use in confined areas. And unless it's a semi-auto shotgun, follow up shots can take longer than you want.

But the sound of the ratcheting action of loading a shell into a shotgun is a great deterrent that doesn't come with an AR or AK.

A .410 coach?

 

[M14 Shooter]

You guys are the useful idiots.

Says he whose entire argument consist of talking points, mindlelly repeated, with no understanding of the subject.

STILL laughing at you in 7.62.

 

[airplanemechanic]

You guys are the useful idiots. You are carrying the burden of the gun lobby, like the NRA. Once a formidable resource for gun safety and gun education now has one purpose and one purpose alone, to protect the highly profitable assault rifle. Enough is enough. One billion dollars, that is how much the gun manufacturers have made in the last decade, mostly from MORONS like you, and at the cost of countless deaths that could have been avoided.

Have you been certified by the Appleseed Project? Do you even know what a "rifleman" really is? Do you know who Daniel Morgan was? I am betting "no" to all three. I have my Appleseed qualification, and that is not that impressive. But I have six children and all of them have their qualification as well, and not a damn one of us owns an assault rifle. If the shit ever really does hit the fan, you guys will be beating a path to my door.

It's a basic shooter qualification class. Its nothing special. Who cares?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Like I said, chickenshit.

Like I said - dipshit.

 

[airplanemechanic]

A .410 coach?

Who owns one of those? Like NOBODY I know. And same problem with them as other shotguns, its a scattergun. Pellets go everywhere when you shoot one of those things. Not good for home defense in tight quarters where loved ones may be in close proximity to the bad guy when you need to shoot him.

 

[Winston]

Who owns one of those? Like NOBODY I know.

That is unfortunate, and goes to show how powerful the gun lobby is. I own one. And the .410 is also my choice for bird hunting, although I often have to pinch the heads off the birds to kill them after I have knocked them down, after the dog brings him to me. There is an old saying, the .410 is the first gun a bird hunter uses, and it is the last gun a bird hunter uses. But I want to eat what I kill, a bird full of pellets is a bitch to clean.

 

[airplanemechanic]

That is unfortunate, and goes to show how powerful the gun lobby is. I own one. And the .410 is also my choice for bird hunting, although I often have to pinch the heads off the birds to kill them after I have knocked them down, after the dog brings him to me. There is an old saying, the .410 is the first gun a bird hunter uses, and it is the last gun a bird hunter uses. But I want to eat what I kill, a bird full of pellets is a bitch to clean.

So you want to try to stop a bad guy with the same gun that you just admitted can't even kill a fucking bird?

Thanks for making my point for me. Ar's and AK's have the knockdown power and accuracy to stop a bad guy in his tracks.

 

[Winston]

Says he whose entire argument consist of talking points, mindlelly repeated, with no understanding of the subject.

STILL laughing at you in 7.62.

You are the one using talking points. Honestly, I don't see the survivability argument posted that often when it comes to an assault rifle ban, and that is unfortunate. It is a winning argument that has been demonstrated here.

Look, I know you picture me as some Prius driving liberal that has never shot a gun in his life, but that is, by far, not the case. Marksmen are born, not taught, and that runs deep in my family tree. The shot that took Fergunson off his horse at Kings Mountain, that was my ancestor, using a borrowed Kentucky long rifle that now sits in a museum. Borrowed from another ancestor. Dad went to get his CWP, had to shoot at the range, and his score was higher than any law enforcement officer in the county, and he is the worst shot in the family. Me, well I am pretty good. At 14 the NRA recruited, and then sponsored me, for their rifle team. I taught gun safety for them back when they were a legitimate organization, and I was captain of a rifle team that took numerous awards. I made it to the regionals for the Olympics back in the day. But, to be honest, my middle son, and my middle daughter, are better shots.

Again, this argument is not that hard. Assault weapons, as defined by the previous assault weapons ban, are not worth two shits. Anything they can do, another gun can do better. But they seem to be the choice of mass shooters, and due to the velocity of the bullet, they render excessive damage, especially, and let me repeat that, ESPECIALLY to children. Furthermore, they are the driver of profits for the gun industry. And look, I have no doubts that all the assault weapons you have will never be used in a mass shooting. Nor will any owned by legal citizens throughout this country. But I am sick and tired of some mentally ill dipshit being able to waltz into a gun store to buy an assault weapon and then turn around and use it on children. Enough already. I don't own any stock from a gun manufacturer, and I doubt I ever will. Fawk their one billion dollars. Ban their profit generator and make America great again.

 

[2aguy]

Columbine verse Stoneman Douglas is an example I mentioned. I also linked to an ER doctor that mentioned the difference. I mean this is not that difficult to understand,

Bullets from weapons such as handguns typically pierce straight through a target, medical experts say. By comparison, weapons such as the AR-15s used in many mass shootings, can liquefy organs because of their much higher projectile speeds.

"Assault weapons ... cause a condition called cavitation, meaning that as the projectile passes through tissue, it creates a large cavity," said Dr. Ian Brown, a trauma surgeon at UC Davis Health in Sacramento, California. "And that does a ton of of tissue damage, both initially at the impact, and then even further as that tissue begins to necrose, or die off."

https://www.npr.org/2022/06/06/1103177032/gun-violence-mass-shootings-assault-weapons-victims

Wow....that is bullshit.....

Liquefy organs?

That is some deep bullshit....

There have been numerous reports that the military's 5.56 FMJ round has insufficient terminal effectiveness in combat. Combat veteran and military small arms expert Jim Schatz explains, "The disturbing failure of the 5.56x45mm caliber to consistently offer adequate incapacitation has been known for nearly 20 years." He describes one Special Forces (SF) mission in Afghanistan when an insurgent was shot seven or eight times in the torso with the 5.56 round, got back up, climbed over a wall, and reengaged other SF soldiers, killing a SF medic. The insurgent then was shot another six-to-eight times from about 20-30 yards before finally being killed by a SF soldier with a handgun.

Similarly, Rob Maylor, a former Australian SAS sniper, has "on several occasions witnessed bad guys being hit multiple times by 5.56mm . . . at varying ranges and then continue[] to fight." He explains that while the 5.56 round is designed to yaw and fragment, "[t]his isn't happening all the time and as a result projectiles are passing through the body with minimal damage."

Mark Bowden's bestselling book Black Hawk Down gives vivid accounts of less-than-lethal performance of the Army's green-tip 5.56mm bullet (M855) in the Battle of Mogadishu in 1993. He describes one Delta operator's rounds as

passing right through his targets. When the Sammies were close enough he could see when he hit them. . . . t was like sticking somebody with an ice pick. The bullet made a small, clean hole, and unless hit happened to hit the heart or spine, it wasn't enough to stop a man in his tracks. [The operator] felt like he had to hit a guy five or six times just to get his attention.

These instances are consistent with Dr. Fackler's own findings. He recounts that

n 1980, I treated a soldier shot accidentally with an M16 M193 bullet from a distance of about ten feet. The bullet entered his left thigh and traveled obliquely upward. It exited after passing through about 11 inches of muscle. The man walked into my clinic with no limp whatsoever: the entrance and exit holes were about 4mm across, and punctate. X-ray films showed intact bones, no bullet fragments, and no evidence of significant tissue disruption caused by the bullet's temporary cavity. The bullet path passed well lateral to the femoral vessels. He was back on duty in a few days. Devastating? Hardly.

Dr. Fackler further notes that "n my experience and research, at least as many M16 users in Vietnam concluded that [the 5.56mm] produced unacceptably minimal, rather than 'massive,' wounds."

Like any firearm, the AR rifle in typical calibers such as .223/5.56mm, can cause serious or lethal wounds, and so can other rifles, shotguns, and handguns. Wound profiles from the Army's Wound Ballistics Laboratory illustrate the permanent and temporary cavities, penetration depth, deformation, and fragmentation of both the deforming (soft-point) .223 caliber bullet, the non-deforming 5.56mm FMJ bullet, and other larger caliber bullets typically used in hunting rifles (e.g., .30-30, .308). A comparison of those profiles shows that the wounding effects of the larger caliber bullets are at least as extensive as the .223/5.56, and typically more so.

According to Dr. Fackler, the .223 Remington is "a 'varmint' cartridge, used effectively for shooting woodchucks, crows, and coyotes." Because of its smaller size, there is an ongoing debate among hunters over whether the .223 round has adequate terminal performance for taking deer or larger game. Some states ban the use of .223 caliber rifles when hunting deer and other animals larger than varmints because their rounds lack sufficient power. The ethos of hunting is to take an animal with a single fatal shot. In the views of some state game commissions, the usual AR calibers of .223 and 5.56mm are too weak; at least a .270 is required for hunting deer, antelope, or anything larger.
------

The Wound Ballistic Laboratory's lethality study was kept secret for more than four decades, Chivers explains, with the result that "at the most important time, during the early and mid-1960s, the Project AGILE report, with its suspicious observations and false conclusions, remained uncontested." The M16 "continued to rise, boosted by a reputation for lethality and reliability that it did not deserve."

In other words, the military wanted to switch to the M16, notwithstanding complaints from many soldiers that it is underpowered. The military used the sensational Project Agile claims, including two purported instances of limb amputations and one of a decapitation, to counter the complaints about the M16's weak firepower. The military in fact knew that the claims from Project AGILE could not be true, because extensive testing by the Army's Wound Ballistic Laboratory had proven that the Project AGILE claims were not true. Nevertheless, the military insisted on adopting the M16 and suppressed the true facts reported by the Wound Ballistic Laboratory.

Dr. Fackler recounts that there were other claims in the 1960s and 70s that the M16's high velocity bullets caused "massive" and "devastating" injuries, but these claims were disproven or contradicted by other reports. Delegates to war surgery conferences in the early 1970s "reported no unusual problems associated with 'high-velocity' bullet wounds in Vietnam. There were no reports of rifle bullet wounds causing traumatic amputations of an extremity."

How powerful are AR rifles?

Several federal and state courts are relitigating the constitutionality of "assault weapon" bans after the Supreme Court's decision in New…

reason.com