Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
"ban 30 round magazines"
Yes, because it would have taken the Orlando maniac about 30 seconds longer to kill 50 people with 10 round magazines rather than 30 round ones.
Morons, I have a 100 round magazine for an AR15 , magically it has never attached itself to any of my weapons and then proceeded to kill anyone.
This will (no doubt) cause a great deal of consternation to the liberal left, but consider this: rather than cower on their knees, or running like sheep, had these "men" merely rushed the shooter, there would have been far less death. Sure, he would have gotten a few, but 300 people could have EASILY rushed him and taken him down. All it takes is the will to live and the guts to stand.
I've ran towards gun fire. I was trained to do so, the government spent a LOT of money training me to fight that very basic instinct to run FROM gunfire.
IT's completely unrealistic to have expected these people to have done so , especially considering many of them were probably intoxicated AND their sexuality had no bearing on that fact. There was literally no reason for you to put "men" in quotes. I've known quite a few gay men over the years who were some of the braver men I've ever known. Who cares who they have sex with.
I was trained extensively as well. Training and "fight or flight" have nothing to do with each other. There were an estimated 300 people in this club. This seize lasted hours. Plenty of time to decide whether you are going to stand by and watch your friends, and yourself murdered, while you do nothing, or to decide that the time to stand is now.
"men" was in quotes to differentiate them from "sheep".
there are some things in this world that we cannot control. For example, people on the Titanic knew they would most likely perish and, for the most part, accepted their fates.
300 people in a nightclub, against one man with a gun is a no brainer. That is, unless you have lived your life as a sheep.
I'm not blaming those who died. I'm saying that it was a situation where grown men COULD have tried to end the situation, unlike Sandy Hook where the shooter was murdering babies.
Get rid of all assault style weapons. Pretty simple concept really.
Australia confiscated 650,000 guns. Murders and suicides plummeted.
You still don't get it. A fucking AR 15 is NOT a fucking assault rifle. That clear enough?
What does the "AR" stand for?
"AR" stands for the company that first built them in the 50s - the ARMALITE RIFLE.
Timothy thought it stood for "Assault Rifle" I guarantee it LOL
Typical libtard false bravado. You fear every man. Hell...you fear women. That's why you fear liberty.Why are you so scared? Do you prefer beheading?Moron journalist Tom Brokaw called for a ban on the "AR-14" today. MSNBC morons said 2nd amendment covers guns...not "weapons of war". I can't take it anymore. My final attempt to educate them.
Guns: An AR-15 shoots a TINY bullet...a .223. That bullet is HALF THE size of a standard cops pistol bullet...a .45. Plus....pistols have big hollow point bullets...far deadlier. In fact...so deadly...they aren't allowed in war. That's right....the hollow point pistol bullet is banned from wars by the 1899 Hague Convention treaty. The .223 bullet an AR shoots? Army and Marine troops complain that they aren't deadly enough in war. They created the 6.8 round to try to fix it....which the standard AR-15 doesn't shoot.
Guns: 30 round magazines for a .223 AR??? GUESS WHAT??? They make 30 round mags for Glocks...that shoot the far larger and far deadlier hollow point bullets. AR15s are almost all semi auto...not full auto. Almost none are full auto.
**A side note: A gunman with a rifle is also FAR EASIER to disarm than one with a pistol. Imagine trying to pry away a broom from a guy vs prying away a fork. The larger gun is by far easier to grab...control...and wrestle away.
2nd Amendment: Libs are now saying the Founders meant muskets....not "Weapons of War". Hey idiots....in 1776....muskets WERE WEAPONS OF WAR
View attachment 78100
I'll add more later. Can't overwhelm the ignorant brains reading this.
this is your head ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ....................... this is your head after a .223 hits it ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
any questions from IDIOTS?
I fear no man.
A 223 bullet for an M-16 or AR-15 are smaller for two reasons.
1. The ability to carry more ammo into combat.
2. Long range hiking means less weight..
The bullet when fired, hits the target and rolls through the body, causing more damage..
An average .45 caliber round has a muzzle velocity around 900ft/sec.
An average .223 caliber round used in an AR-15 has a muzzle velocity of 3200ft/sec.
The energy contained in a .223 round is far greater than that of a .45. Ask any doctor and they'll tell you it is the energy in the projectile that greatly ups the damage done to human tissue. Add to this the rounds for the AR-15 and M-16 are designed to tumble on impact, causing far greater tissue damage as well.
This weapon and this round were not designed for hunting deer. What deer hunter uses a weapon that causes maximum tissue damage. They were designed specifically for warfare. Any claim to the contrary is ignorant nonsense.
Well, not to be disagreeable here, but last November, I took a deer with a 5.56 and have done it at least twice before then. I happened to have the AR with me in the mountains (rather than my 30.06). It's not always the round. It's the placement of that round in the necessary spot.
I've taught my wife and daughter's something even better than that. A shooting is nothing more than a game of projectiles. Had every person in there thrown their glasses, chairs, ash trays, etc. at the shooter it would've been in over in minutes. Possibly without a single death. Anything (with some weight to it) can become a projectile."ban 30 round magazines"
Yes, because it would have taken the Orlando maniac about 30 seconds longer to kill 50 people with 10 round magazines rather than 30 round ones.
Morons, I have a 100 round magazine for an AR15 , magically it has never attached itself to any of my weapons and then proceeded to kill anyone.
This will (no doubt) cause a great deal of consternation to the liberal left, but consider this: rather than cower on their knees, or running like sheep, had these "men" merely rushed the shooter, there would have been far less death. Sure, he would have gotten a few, but 300 people could have EASILY rushed him and taken him down. All it takes is the will to live and the guts to stand.
A 223 bullet for an M-16 or AR-15 are smaller for two reasons.
1. The ability to carry more ammo into combat.
2. Long range hiking means less weight..
The bullet when fired, hits the target and rolls through the body, causing more damage..
An average .45 caliber round has a muzzle velocity around 900ft/sec.
An average .223 caliber round used in an AR-15 has a muzzle velocity of 3200ft/sec.
The energy contained in a .223 round is far greater than that of a .45. Ask any doctor and they'll tell you it is the energy in the projectile that greatly ups the damage done to human tissue. Add to this the rounds for the AR-15 and M-16 are designed to tumble on impact, causing far greater tissue damage as well.
This weapon and this round were not designed for hunting deer. What deer hunter uses a weapon that causes maximum tissue damage. They were designed specifically for warfare. Any claim to the contrary is ignorant nonsense.
Well, not to be disagreeable here, but last November, I took a deer with a 5.56 and have done it at least twice before then. I happened to have the AR with me in the mountains (rather than my 30.06). It's not always the round. It's the placement of that round in the necessary spot.
Ponderous.
Just for future reference. The experience YOU have in the woods near YOU doesn't then translate to everyone else. Even if it feels like it does, it doesn't. "No one would use a spatula to kill a rat". "Oh I beg to differ, I was cooking the other night and a rat ran past me and I instinctively used the spatula to kill the rat". PONDEROUS and has no value in the conversation.
"There are no parachuting cats". "Oh I beg to differ..."
Ponderous. One or two anecdotes are meaningless.
I've taught my wife and daughter's something even better than that. A shooting is nothing more than a game of projectiles. Had every person in there thrown their glasses, chairs, ash trays, etc. at the shooter it would've been in over in minutes. Possibly without a single death. Anything (with some weight to it) can become a projectile."ban 30 round magazines"
Yes, because it would have taken the Orlando maniac about 30 seconds longer to kill 50 people with 10 round magazines rather than 30 round ones.
Morons, I have a 100 round magazine for an AR15 , magically it has never attached itself to any of my weapons and then proceeded to kill anyone.
This will (no doubt) cause a great deal of consternation to the liberal left, but consider this: rather than cower on their knees, or running like sheep, had these "men" merely rushed the shooter, there would have been far less death. Sure, he would have gotten a few, but 300 people could have EASILY rushed him and taken him down. All it takes is the will to live and the guts to stand.
I've taught my wife and daughter's something even better than that. A shooting is nothing more than a game of projectiles. Had every person in there thrown their glasses, chairs, ash trays, etc. at the shooter it would've been in over in minutes. Possibly without a single death. Anything (with some weight to it) can become a projectile."ban 30 round magazines"
Yes, because it would have taken the Orlando maniac about 30 seconds longer to kill 50 people with 10 round magazines rather than 30 round ones.
Morons, I have a 100 round magazine for an AR15 , magically it has never attached itself to any of my weapons and then proceeded to kill anyone.
This will (no doubt) cause a great deal of consternation to the liberal left, but consider this: rather than cower on their knees, or running like sheep, had these "men" merely rushed the shooter, there would have been far less death. Sure, he would have gotten a few, but 300 people could have EASILY rushed him and taken him down. All it takes is the will to live and the guts to stand.
A 223 bullet for an M-16 or AR-15 are smaller for two reasons.
1. The ability to carry more ammo into combat.
2. Long range hiking means less weight..
The bullet when fired, hits the target and rolls through the body, causing more damage..
An average .45 caliber round has a muzzle velocity around 900ft/sec.
An average .223 caliber round used in an AR-15 has a muzzle velocity of 3200ft/sec.
The energy contained in a .223 round is far greater than that of a .45. Ask any doctor and they'll tell you it is the energy in the projectile that greatly ups the damage done to human tissue. Add to this the rounds for the AR-15 and M-16 are designed to tumble on impact, causing far greater tissue damage as well.
This weapon and this round were not designed for hunting deer. What deer hunter uses a weapon that causes maximum tissue damage. They were designed specifically for warfare. Any claim to the contrary is ignorant nonsense.
Well, not to be disagreeable here, but last November, I took a deer with a 5.56 and have done it at least twice before then. I happened to have the AR with me in the mountains (rather than my 30.06). It's not always the round. It's the placement of that round in the necessary spot.
Ponderous.
Just for future reference. The experience YOU have in the woods near YOU doesn't then translate to everyone else. Even if it feels like it does, it doesn't. "No one would use a spatula to kill a rat". "Oh I beg to differ, I was cooking the other night and a rat ran past me and I instinctively used the spatula to kill the rat". PONDEROUS and has no value in the conversation.
"There are no parachuting cats". "Oh I beg to differ..."
Ponderous. One or two anecdotes are meaningless.
Well, sir, you made the claim that "any claim to the contrary is ignorant nonsense".
I would suggest that it is you being "ponderous".
I don't give a fuck if you label an AR-15 your personal dildo.....it is STILL a very, very lethal weapon that should not be in the hands of everybody....including the terrorists that YOU ARE AIDING in getting those guns readily
Makes you wonder why millions of AR15s have been sold? Not very lethal, aren't for assault purposes, much better guns out there to kill with.
So why do the gun nutters buy so many of them a person might ask.
Must be millions of varmit hunters out there. I am surprised there are any varmints left.
So it must be that the gun nutters love the AR cause it's scary looking. You can dress it up in all the finery a real assault rifle would have and prance around in the woods and play army with a scary looking weapon.
Is that the reason nutters love the AR15?
Though that little .223 round killed effectively in the night club.
All of the above. It's the "cool" gun. Like a Corvette. It's the video game gun. It is the most despised gun of liberals. All sorts of reasons it's so popular.
It's use by special forces make it popular. But one must know WHY they adapted to it instead of the MP5. And that was the 9mm MP5 was not as effective at taking down airfields....due to huge long runways and open space.
Inside a building at closer ranges??? MANY guns are better than an AR15. The MP5. A .45 cal pistol. My personal favorite is the .40 cal UMP sub gun. I won't go into all of them. But an AR15 inside a building isn't close to the best choice but many fall for the "cool gun" nonsense and want one. Many SWAT teams are guilty of this too.
I get it. But that's not the real problem. The real problem is that they lived their lives as dumb, deaf, and blind liberals. Never once giving thought to their responsibility to personal security. My daughters get significant training on their personal security weekly and they are really young. There is no excuse for not having basic life skills. Reading. Writing. Math. Defense.I've taught my wife and daughter's something even better than that. A shooting is nothing more than a game of projectiles. Had every person in there thrown their glasses, chairs, ash trays, etc. at the shooter it would've been in over in minutes. Possibly without a single death. Anything (with some weight to it) can become a projectile."ban 30 round magazines"
Yes, because it would have taken the Orlando maniac about 30 seconds longer to kill 50 people with 10 round magazines rather than 30 round ones.
Morons, I have a 100 round magazine for an AR15 , magically it has never attached itself to any of my weapons and then proceeded to kill anyone.
This will (no doubt) cause a great deal of consternation to the liberal left, but consider this: rather than cower on their knees, or running like sheep, had these "men" merely rushed the shooter, there would have been far less death. Sure, he would have gotten a few, but 300 people could have EASILY rushed him and taken him down. All it takes is the will to live and the guts to stand.
They could have used some of the booze and made a flame thrower.
LOL They were half drunk civilians. Come on.
A 223 bullet for an M-16 or AR-15 are smaller for two reasons.
1. The ability to carry more ammo into combat.
2. Long range hiking means less weight..
The bullet when fired, hits the target and rolls through the body, causing more damage..
An average .45 caliber round has a muzzle velocity around 900ft/sec.
An average .223 caliber round used in an AR-15 has a muzzle velocity of 3200ft/sec.
The energy contained in a .223 round is far greater than that of a .45. Ask any doctor and they'll tell you it is the energy in the projectile that greatly ups the damage done to human tissue. Add to this the rounds for the AR-15 and M-16 are designed to tumble on impact, causing far greater tissue damage as well.
This weapon and this round were not designed for hunting deer. What deer hunter uses a weapon that causes maximum tissue damage. They were designed specifically for warfare. Any claim to the contrary is ignorant nonsense.
Well, not to be disagreeable here, but last November, I took a deer with a 5.56 and have done it at least twice before then. I happened to have the AR with me in the mountains (rather than my 30.06). It's not always the round. It's the placement of that round in the necessary spot.
Ponderous.
Just for future reference. The experience YOU have in the woods near YOU doesn't then translate to everyone else. Even if it feels like it does, it doesn't. "No one would use a spatula to kill a rat". "Oh I beg to differ, I was cooking the other night and a rat ran past me and I instinctively used the spatula to kill the rat". PONDEROUS and has no value in the conversation.
"There are no parachuting cats". "Oh I beg to differ..."
Ponderous. One or two anecdotes are meaningless.
Well, sir, you made the claim that "any claim to the contrary is ignorant nonsense".
I would suggest that it is you being "ponderous".
So when you read you selectively leave out anything that doesn't fit your view.
The weapon was specifically designed for warfare. Any claim to the contrary is ignorant nonsense.
See.
A 223 bullet for an M-16 or AR-15 are smaller for two reasons.
1. The ability to carry more ammo into combat.
2. Long range hiking means less weight..
The bullet when fired, hits the target and rolls through the body, causing more damage..
An average .45 caliber round has a muzzle velocity around 900ft/sec.
An average .223 caliber round used in an AR-15 has a muzzle velocity of 3200ft/sec.
The energy contained in a .223 round is far greater than that of a .45. Ask any doctor and they'll tell you it is the energy in the projectile that greatly ups the damage done to human tissue. Add to this the rounds for the AR-15 and M-16 are designed to tumble on impact, causing far greater tissue damage as well.
This weapon and this round were not designed for hunting deer. What deer hunter uses a weapon that causes maximum tissue damage. They were designed specifically for warfare. Any claim to the contrary is ignorant nonsense.
Well, not to be disagreeable here, but last November, I took a deer with a 5.56 and have done it at least twice before then. I happened to have the AR with me in the mountains (rather than my 30.06). It's not always the round. It's the placement of that round in the necessary spot.
Ponderous.
Just for future reference. The experience YOU have in the woods near YOU doesn't then translate to everyone else. Even if it feels like it does, it doesn't. "No one would use a spatula to kill a rat". "Oh I beg to differ, I was cooking the other night and a rat ran past me and I instinctively used the spatula to kill the rat". PONDEROUS and has no value in the conversation.
"There are no parachuting cats". "Oh I beg to differ..."
Ponderous. One or two anecdotes are meaningless.
Well, sir, you made the claim that "any claim to the contrary is ignorant nonsense".
I would suggest that it is you being "ponderous".
So when you read you selectively leave out anything that doesn't fit your view.
The weapon was specifically designed for warfare. Any claim to the contrary is ignorant nonsense.
See.
Isaac Newton must be rolling in his grave from embarrassment for several reasons.A 223 bullet for an M-16 or AR-15 are smaller for two reasons.
1. The ability to carry more ammo into combat.
2. Long range hiking means less weight..
The bullet when fired, hits the target and rolls through the body, causing more damage..
An average .45 caliber round has a muzzle velocity around 900ft/sec.
An average .223 caliber round used in an AR-15 has a muzzle velocity of 3200ft/sec.
The energy contained in a .223 round is far greater than that of a .45. Ask any doctor and they'll tell you it is the energy in the projectile that greatly ups the damage done to human tissue. Add to this the rounds for the AR-15 and M-16 are designed to tumble on impact, causing far greater tissue damage as well.
This weapon and this round were not designed for hunting deer. What deer hunter uses a weapon that causes maximum tissue damage. They were designed specifically for warfare. Any claim to the contrary is ignorant nonsense.
I don't give a fuck if you label an AR-15 your personal dildo.....it is STILL a very, very lethal weapon that should not be in the hands of everybody....including the terrorists that YOU ARE AIDING in getting those guns readily
Makes you wonder why millions of AR15s have been sold? Not very lethal, aren't for assault purposes, much better guns out there to kill with.
So why do the gun nutters buy so many of them a person might ask.
Must be millions of varmit hunters out there. I am surprised there are any varmints left.
So it must be that the gun nutters love the AR cause it's scary looking. You can dress it up in all the finery a real assault rifle would have and prance around in the woods and play army with a scary looking weapon.
Is that the reason nutters love the AR15?
Though that little .223 round killed effectively in the night club.
All of the above. It's the "cool" gun. Like a Corvette. It's the video game gun. It is the most despised gun of liberals. All sorts of reasons it's so popular.
It's use by special forces make it popular. But one must know WHY they adapted to it instead of the MP5. And that was the 9mm MP5 was not as effective at taking down airfields....due to huge long runways and open space.
Inside a building at closer ranges??? MANY guns are better than an AR15. The MP5. A .45 cal pistol. My personal favorite is the .40 cal UMP sub gun. I won't go into all of them. But an AR15 inside a building isn't close to the best choice but many fall for the "cool gun" nonsense and want one. Many SWAT teams are guilty of this too.
Another reason for why the AR-15 is so popular is it is the civilian version of the weapon that virtually every military member carried for their entire time in service (M-16.) As a result, Military vets especially are infinitely more familiar with the functions, capabilities and limitations of the AR-15 than they are with any other weapon of choice.
As a Marine Corps Veteran myself, I can attest that a military soldier's interest in defending our country and our Constitutional principles does not end when we receive our discharge papers.
Beyond that, the AR-15 is one of the most fun guns on the range of all. I have found that women especially love the AR's. That's largely because there is virtually no recoil. Aiming is pretty simple (especially at 100 yds.) and the AR's are very lightweight and easy to put on target compared to most other long guns (especially shotguns.)
As far as the AR-15 being deadly? I can name a shit ton of other guns and other things that would have killed far more than the ISIS wannabe with his AR-15 did in Orlando. However, I see no value in educating the masses on how to achieve an even higher dead count than what he did.
An average .45 caliber round has a muzzle velocity around 900ft/sec.
An average .223 caliber round used in an AR-15 has a muzzle velocity of 3200ft/sec.
The energy contained in a .223 round is far greater than that of a .45. Ask any doctor and they'll tell you it is the energy in the projectile that greatly ups the damage done to human tissue. Add to this the rounds for the AR-15 and M-16 are designed to tumble on impact, causing far greater tissue damage as well.
This weapon and this round were not designed for hunting deer. What deer hunter uses a weapon that causes maximum tissue damage. They were designed specifically for warfare. Any claim to the contrary is ignorant nonsense.
Well, not to be disagreeable here, but last November, I took a deer with a 5.56 and have done it at least twice before then. I happened to have the AR with me in the mountains (rather than my 30.06). It's not always the round. It's the placement of that round in the necessary spot.
Ponderous.
Just for future reference. The experience YOU have in the woods near YOU doesn't then translate to everyone else. Even if it feels like it does, it doesn't. "No one would use a spatula to kill a rat". "Oh I beg to differ, I was cooking the other night and a rat ran past me and I instinctively used the spatula to kill the rat". PONDEROUS and has no value in the conversation.
"There are no parachuting cats". "Oh I beg to differ..."
Ponderous. One or two anecdotes are meaningless.
Well, sir, you made the claim that "any claim to the contrary is ignorant nonsense".
I would suggest that it is you being "ponderous".
So when you read you selectively leave out anything that doesn't fit your view.
The weapon was specifically designed for warfare. Any claim to the contrary is ignorant nonsense.
See.
So, your assertion that it "was designed for warfare". Would seem to indicate that you are using this as justification for banning it for civilian use ( as I suspected). I told you that I have used mine for hunting (on several occasions) and that I used it extensively to kill humans in South East Asia.
So then, using you logic, nearly ALL caliber of weapons should be banned, because most, including black powder, have been used as "weapons of war". So, I shouldn't be allowed to use my 5.56, .223, .45, 9mm, 7mm, 30-06, .30, for anything other than "death and destruction", right? And, most certainly, my .50 caliber black powder rifle must be taken as well. If I recall, that particular long rifle actually won this country from the tyrannical King George.
Would it be also necessary for me to turn in my axe, also? The Indians used them extensively against the early settlers....
Isaac Newton must be rolling in his grave from embarrassment for several reasons.A 223 bullet for an M-16 or AR-15 are smaller for two reasons.
1. The ability to carry more ammo into combat.
2. Long range hiking means less weight..
The bullet when fired, hits the target and rolls through the body, causing more damage..
An average .45 caliber round has a muzzle velocity around 900ft/sec.
An average .223 caliber round used in an AR-15 has a muzzle velocity of 3200ft/sec.
The energy contained in a .223 round is far greater than that of a .45. Ask any doctor and they'll tell you it is the energy in the projectile that greatly ups the damage done to human tissue. Add to this the rounds for the AR-15 and M-16 are designed to tumble on impact, causing far greater tissue damage as well.
This weapon and this round were not designed for hunting deer. What deer hunter uses a weapon that causes maximum tissue damage. They were designed specifically for warfare. Any claim to the contrary is ignorant nonsense.
Velocity is only part of the equation. The main factor is transfer of energy. Here, the .45 transfers more energy to a target than .223:
Stopping Power - One Doctor's Point of View - The Truth About Guns
Well, not to be disagreeable here, but last November, I took a deer with a 5.56 and have done it at least twice before then. I happened to have the AR with me in the mountains (rather than my 30.06). It's not always the round. It's the placement of that round in the necessary spot.
Ponderous.
Just for future reference. The experience YOU have in the woods near YOU doesn't then translate to everyone else. Even if it feels like it does, it doesn't. "No one would use a spatula to kill a rat". "Oh I beg to differ, I was cooking the other night and a rat ran past me and I instinctively used the spatula to kill the rat". PONDEROUS and has no value in the conversation.
"There are no parachuting cats". "Oh I beg to differ..."
Ponderous. One or two anecdotes are meaningless.
Well, sir, you made the claim that "any claim to the contrary is ignorant nonsense".
I would suggest that it is you being "ponderous".
So when you read you selectively leave out anything that doesn't fit your view.
The weapon was specifically designed for warfare. Any claim to the contrary is ignorant nonsense.
See.
So, your assertion that it "was designed for warfare". Would seem to indicate that you are using this as justification for banning it for civilian use ( as I suspected). I told you that I have used mine for hunting (on several occasions) and that I used it extensively to kill humans in South East Asia.
So then, using you logic, nearly ALL caliber of weapons should be banned, because most, including black powder, have been used as "weapons of war". So, I shouldn't be allowed to use my 5.56, .223, .45, 9mm, 7mm, 30-06, .30, for anything other than "death and destruction", right? And, most certainly, my .50 caliber black powder rifle must be taken as well. If I recall, that particular long rifle actually won this country from the tyrannical King George.
Would it be also necessary for me to turn in my axe, also? The Indians used them extensively against the early settlers....
You have a weird love of metal and gun powder. Go french kiss your lover.
I own guns as well. But to be intentionally ignorant of or obtuse of the facts regarding various weapons is outright lying. Own the shit. Just own it. Stop the fake posturing. And anyone who claims to be Christian and supports owning these weapons is a kristian. A fake Christian.
Just own it.
Isaac Newton must be rolling in his grave from embarrassment for several reasons.A 223 bullet for an M-16 or AR-15 are smaller for two reasons.
1. The ability to carry more ammo into combat.
2. Long range hiking means less weight..
The bullet when fired, hits the target and rolls through the body, causing more damage..
An average .45 caliber round has a muzzle velocity around 900ft/sec.
An average .223 caliber round used in an AR-15 has a muzzle velocity of 3200ft/sec.
The energy contained in a .223 round is far greater than that of a .45. Ask any doctor and they'll tell you it is the energy in the projectile that greatly ups the damage done to human tissue. Add to this the rounds for the AR-15 and M-16 are designed to tumble on impact, causing far greater tissue damage as well.
This weapon and this round were not designed for hunting deer. What deer hunter uses a weapon that causes maximum tissue damage. They were designed specifically for warfare. Any claim to the contrary is ignorant nonsense.
Velocity is only part of the equation. The main factor is transfer of energy. Here, the .45 transfers more energy to a target than .223:
Stopping Power - One Doctor's Point of View - The Truth About Guns
