Take the guns first, due process second.

[playtime]

Family of AR-15 Inventor Eugene Stoner: He Didn't Intend It for Civilians
[...]
"Our father, Eugene Stoner, designed the AR-15 and subsequent M-16 as a military weapon to give our soldiers an advantage over the AK-47,” the Stoner family told NBC News late Wednesday. "He died long before any mass shootings occurred. But, we do think he would have been horrified and sickened as anyone, if not more by these events."
[...]
The ex-Marine and "avid sportsman, hunter and skeet shooter" never used his invention for sport. He also never kept it around the house for personal defense. In fact, he never even owned one.

And though he made millions from the design, his family said it was all from military sales.

"After many conversations with him, we feel his intent was that he designed it as a military rifle," his family said, explaining that Stoner was "focused on making the most efficient and superior rifle possible for the military."
[...]
He designed the original AR-15 in the late 1950s, working on it in his own garage and later as the chief designer for ArmaLite, a then small company in southern California. He made it light and powerful and he fashioned a new bullet for it — a .223 caliber round capable of piercing a metal helmet at 500 yards.

The Army loved it and renamed it the M16
[...]
Family of AR-15 Inventor: He Didn’t Intend It for Civilians

Anyone who would bring an AR15 into a combat situation is an idiot. It was NOT designed to be a military weapon. Just to look scary.

Political agenda's, you have to just shake your head.

tell that to the victims.

 

[playtime]

Family of AR-15 Inventor Eugene Stoner: He Didn't Intend It for Civilians
[...]
"Our father, Eugene Stoner, designed the AR-15 and subsequent M-16 as a military weapon to give our soldiers an advantage over the AK-47,” the Stoner family told NBC News late Wednesday. "He died long before any mass shootings occurred. But, we do think he would have been horrified and sickened as anyone, if not more by these events."
[...]
The ex-Marine and "avid sportsman, hunter and skeet shooter" never used his invention for sport. He also never kept it around the house for personal defense. In fact, he never even owned one.

And though he made millions from the design, his family said it was all from military sales.

"After many conversations with him, we feel his intent was that he designed it as a military rifle," his family said, explaining that Stoner was "focused on making the most efficient and superior rifle possible for the military."
[...]
He designed the original AR-15 in the late 1950s, working on it in his own garage and later as the chief designer for ArmaLite, a then small company in southern California. He made it light and powerful and he fashioned a new bullet for it — a .223 caliber round capable of piercing a metal helmet at 500 yards.

The Army loved it and renamed it the M16
[...]
Family of AR-15 Inventor: He Didn’t Intend It for Civilians

The guy must have been very naive. To think one could control his invention. Funny how after all these years his family is only now claiming why Mr. Stoner invented the Armorite Lite Rifle 15.

he never even owned his own invention.

 

[Papageorgio]

Family of AR-15 Inventor Eugene Stoner: He Didn't Intend It for Civilians
[...]
"Our father, Eugene Stoner, designed the AR-15 and subsequent M-16 as a military weapon to give our soldiers an advantage over the AK-47,” the Stoner family told NBC News late Wednesday. "He died long before any mass shootings occurred. But, we do think he would have been horrified and sickened as anyone, if not more by these events."
[...]
The ex-Marine and "avid sportsman, hunter and skeet shooter" never used his invention for sport. He also never kept it around the house for personal defense. In fact, he never even owned one.

And though he made millions from the design, his family said it was all from military sales.

"After many conversations with him, we feel his intent was that he designed it as a military rifle," his family said, explaining that Stoner was "focused on making the most efficient and superior rifle possible for the military."
[...]
He designed the original AR-15 in the late 1950s, working on it in his own garage and later as the chief designer for ArmaLite, a then small company in southern California. He made it light and powerful and he fashioned a new bullet for it — a .223 caliber round capable of piercing a metal helmet at 500 yards.

The Army loved it and renamed it the M16
[...]
Family of AR-15 Inventor: He Didn’t Intend It for Civilians

The guy must have been very naive. To think one could control his invention. Funny how after all these years his family is only now claiming why Mr. Stoner invented the Armorite Lite Rifle 15.

he never even owned his own invention.

And?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Family of AR-15 Inventor Eugene Stoner: He Didn't Intend It for Civilians
[...]
"Our father, Eugene Stoner, designed the AR-15 and subsequent M-16 as a military weapon to give our soldiers an advantage over the AK-47,” the Stoner family told NBC News late Wednesday. "He died long before any mass shootings occurred. But, we do think he would have been horrified and sickened as anyone, if not more by these events."
[...]
The ex-Marine and "avid sportsman, hunter and skeet shooter" never used his invention for sport. He also never kept it around the house for personal defense. In fact, he never even owned one.

And though he made millions from the design, his family said it was all from military sales.

"After many conversations with him, we feel his intent was that he designed it as a military rifle," his family said, explaining that Stoner was "focused on making the most efficient and superior rifle possible for the military."
[...]
He designed the original AR-15 in the late 1950s, working on it in his own garage and later as the chief designer for ArmaLite, a then small company in southern California. He made it light and powerful and he fashioned a new bullet for it — a .223 caliber round capable of piercing a metal helmet at 500 yards.

The Army loved it and renamed it the M16
[...]
Family of AR-15 Inventor: He Didn’t Intend It for Civilians

Anyone who would bring an AR15 into a combat situation is an idiot. It was NOT designed to be a military weapon. Just to look scary.

Political agenda's, you have to just shake your head.

tell that to the victims.

Tell the victims to place the blame where it belongs -- on the shooter -- not the MILLIONS of the rest of us who DID NOT do the shooting.

.

 

[playtime]

Family of AR-15 Inventor Eugene Stoner: He Didn't Intend It for Civilians
[...]
"Our father, Eugene Stoner, designed the AR-15 and subsequent M-16 as a military weapon to give our soldiers an advantage over the AK-47,” the Stoner family told NBC News late Wednesday. "He died long before any mass shootings occurred. But, we do think he would have been horrified and sickened as anyone, if not more by these events."
[...]
The ex-Marine and "avid sportsman, hunter and skeet shooter" never used his invention for sport. He also never kept it around the house for personal defense. In fact, he never even owned one.

And though he made millions from the design, his family said it was all from military sales.

"After many conversations with him, we feel his intent was that he designed it as a military rifle," his family said, explaining that Stoner was "focused on making the most efficient and superior rifle possible for the military."
[...]
He designed the original AR-15 in the late 1950s, working on it in his own garage and later as the chief designer for ArmaLite, a then small company in southern California. He made it light and powerful and he fashioned a new bullet for it — a .223 caliber round capable of piercing a metal helmet at 500 yards.

The Army loved it and renamed it the M16
[...]
Family of AR-15 Inventor: He Didn’t Intend It for Civilians

Anyone who would bring an AR15 into a combat situation is an idiot. It was NOT designed to be a military weapon. Just to look scary.

Political agenda's, you have to just shake your head.

Right. What does the man who designed it know?

Except it is his family that is making the claim, not him. Why only now and not when he invented it?

Why now? Because there are people like you arguing that it was designed as a sport rifle.

His family is making the claim because he is dead.

So, the guy who designed it has not said that he designed it as a military weapon.

/discussion.

why not have one then? oh & his family would know best.... me thinx they wouldn't
' sully ' his rep with them thar glorify-ers of those kinda weapons, intentionally bringing nasty & ignorant comments from the likes of y'all.

 

[playtime]

Family of AR-15 Inventor Eugene Stoner: He Didn't Intend It for Civilians
[...]
"Our father, Eugene Stoner, designed the AR-15 and subsequent M-16 as a military weapon to give our soldiers an advantage over the AK-47,” the Stoner family told NBC News late Wednesday. "He died long before any mass shootings occurred. But, we do think he would have been horrified and sickened as anyone, if not more by these events."
[...]
The ex-Marine and "avid sportsman, hunter and skeet shooter" never used his invention for sport. He also never kept it around the house for personal defense. In fact, he never even owned one.

And though he made millions from the design, his family said it was all from military sales.

"After many conversations with him, we feel his intent was that he designed it as a military rifle," his family said, explaining that Stoner was "focused on making the most efficient and superior rifle possible for the military."
[...]
He designed the original AR-15 in the late 1950s, working on it in his own garage and later as the chief designer for ArmaLite, a then small company in southern California. He made it light and powerful and he fashioned a new bullet for it — a .223 caliber round capable of piercing a metal helmet at 500 yards.

The Army loved it and renamed it the M16
[...]
Family of AR-15 Inventor: He Didn’t Intend It for Civilians

The guy must have been very naive. To think one could control his invention. Funny how after all these years his family is only now claiming why Mr. Stoner invented the Armorite Lite Rifle 15.

he never even owned his own invention.

And?

if he thought it okey dokey to have it on the market for public consumption, then why didn't he? that alone makes no sense...

 

[playtime]

Family of AR-15 Inventor Eugene Stoner: He Didn't Intend It for Civilians
[...]
"Our father, Eugene Stoner, designed the AR-15 and subsequent M-16 as a military weapon to give our soldiers an advantage over the AK-47,” the Stoner family told NBC News late Wednesday. "He died long before any mass shootings occurred. But, we do think he would have been horrified and sickened as anyone, if not more by these events."
[...]
The ex-Marine and "avid sportsman, hunter and skeet shooter" never used his invention for sport. He also never kept it around the house for personal defense. In fact, he never even owned one.

And though he made millions from the design, his family said it was all from military sales.

"After many conversations with him, we feel his intent was that he designed it as a military rifle," his family said, explaining that Stoner was "focused on making the most efficient and superior rifle possible for the military."
[...]
He designed the original AR-15 in the late 1950s, working on it in his own garage and later as the chief designer for ArmaLite, a then small company in southern California. He made it light and powerful and he fashioned a new bullet for it — a .223 caliber round capable of piercing a metal helmet at 500 yards.

The Army loved it and renamed it the M16
[...]
Family of AR-15 Inventor: He Didn’t Intend It for Civilians

Anyone who would bring an AR15 into a combat situation is an idiot. It was NOT designed to be a military weapon. Just to look scary.

Political agenda's, you have to just shake your head.

tell that to the victims.

Tell the victims to place the blame where it belongs -- on the shooter -- not the MILLIONS of the rest of us who DID NOT do the shooting.

.

that kind of fire power capable of doing mass carnage isn't what the 2nd amendment is all about. every right deservingly has & needs limits.

the right to free speech has limits.
the right for a speedy & public trial has limits.
the 9th amendment has limits.

why not the 2nd amendment? oh wait it does! why can't you own a fully automatic machine gun? because it's too deadly? lol,

that THAT to the victims.

 

[playtime]

m'k... those that take high velocity ammo that can take multi round mags & drums.

You mean, like these:

Could you clear it up further please. The high vel ammo part. Playtime don't understand how all that works. I don't see threads on those barrels so would you high velocity ammo with those or subsonic?

Playtime has demonstrated that she should not be part of the process of defining which weapons should be banned. She is clueless.

But, to clear it up, every one of those would be considered "high-velocity" whether chambered in .223 or something else, unless they are specifically NOT high-velocity or maybe "subsonic" cartridges. "High-velocity" can range from 1,900 feet per second to over 4,000 feet per second.

Pretty much every single rifle caliber could be considered "high-velocity".

The question I have is, why does velocity matter? .300 Blackout is deadly as FUCK in the AR system and it is subsonic.

uh-huh. .223 ammo was used to kill them thar 'varmints' at sandy hook.... & parkland... & the orlando nightclub.................. it's not just the bullets - like i said it's the multi round mags & drums as well. they were all turned into swiss cheese in mere seconds & those bullets don't enter & exit in a relative 'straight line'... the dude that invented the AR-15 didn't want it for public consumption.

Learn when to shut the fuck up. You are clueless.

.

THEY DO.

Wounds From Military-Style Rifles? ‘A Ghastly Thing to See’
Trauma surgeons tell what it is really like to try to repair such devastating injuries. “Bones are exploded, soft tissue is absolutely destroyed,” one said.

Image

Left, an X-ray of a leg showing a bullet wound delivered by an assault rifle used in combat. Right, an X-ray of a leg that sustained a bullet wound from a low-energy bullet, inflicted by a weapon like a handgun in Philadelphia.Creditvia Dr. Jeremy W. Cannon
Perhaps no one knows the devastating wounds inflicted by assault-style rifles better than the trauma surgeons who struggle to repair them. The doctors say they are haunted by their experiences confronting injuries so dire they struggle to find words to describe them.

At a high school in Parkland, Fla., 17 people were recently killed with just such a weapon — a semiautomatic AR-15. It was legal there for Nikolas Cruz, 19, the suspect in the shooting, to buy a civilian version of the military’s standard rifle, while he would have had to be 21 to buy a less powerful and accurate handgun.

Many factors determine the severity of a wound, including a bullet’s mass, velocity and composition, and where it strikes. The AR-15, like the M4 and M16 rifles issued to American soldiers, shoots lightweight, high-speed bullets that can cause grievous bone and soft tissue wounds, in part by turning sideways, or “yawing,” when they hit a person. Surgeons say the weapons produce the same sort of horrific injuries seen on battlefields.

Civilian owners of military-style weapons can also buy soft-nosed or hollow-point ammunition, often used for hunting, that lacks a full metal jacket and can expand and fragment on impact. Such bullets, which can cause wider wound channels, are proscribed in most military use.
[...]
Wounds From Military-Style Rifles? ‘A Ghastly Thing to See’

What happens when AR-15 rifle bullets tear through the human body
Chris Smith @chris_writes
June 21st, 2016 at 10:00 PM
[...]
“One looks like a grenade went off in there,” University of Arizona trauma surgeon Peter Rhee told Wired when comparing the damage done by AR-15 bullets and 9mm handgun bullets. “The other looks like a bad knife cut.”

The reason that happens is pretty simple, and it’s explained by physics. The bullet from an AR-15 rifle leaves the muzzle at three times the speed of a handgun bullet. That means it has plenty of energy to “distribute” inside the body upon collision.

It can disintegrate three inches of leg bone, turning it to “dust” according to Donald Jenkins, a trauma surgeon at the University of Texas Health Science Center. “The liver looks like a jello mold that’s been dropped on the floor,” if hit by the same bullet, Jenkins says. The exit would can be the size of an orange.

Comparatively, handgun bullets can be stopped by flesh and bone, and can pass through the body only to remain stuck in the skin.

Furthermore, AR-15 bullets don’t just affect the skin and the tissue immediately under it. In addition to turning a bone to dust or liver into jello, the high energy would also cause damage around the entry and exit wounds.

When a high-velocity bullet pierces the body, human tissue can ripple just like water does when you throw an object in it. But it all happens at increased velocity. The bullet and its ensuing fragments might miss a critical artery, but the cavitation effect could tear through blood vessels.

Rhee also said that a handgun would require only one surgery, but an AR-15 bullet wound needs three to ten.

Because it’s designed so well, the AR-15 fires almost without recoil, meaning that a shooter can inflict more damage with multiple bullets accurately hitting the same target. “The gun barely moves. You can sit there boom boom boom and reel off shots as fast as you can move your finger,” Denver Health trauma surgeon and Journal of Trauma and Acute Surgery editor Ernest Moore told Wired.

A video from the Smithsonian Channel shows the devastating effects of assault rifle fire on the human body: [on website]
What happens when AR-15 rifle bullets tear through the human body

 

[Papageorgio]

Family of AR-15 Inventor Eugene Stoner: He Didn't Intend It for Civilians
[...]
"Our father, Eugene Stoner, designed the AR-15 and subsequent M-16 as a military weapon to give our soldiers an advantage over the AK-47,” the Stoner family told NBC News late Wednesday. "He died long before any mass shootings occurred. But, we do think he would have been horrified and sickened as anyone, if not more by these events."
[...]
The ex-Marine and "avid sportsman, hunter and skeet shooter" never used his invention for sport. He also never kept it around the house for personal defense. In fact, he never even owned one.

And though he made millions from the design, his family said it was all from military sales.

"After many conversations with him, we feel his intent was that he designed it as a military rifle," his family said, explaining that Stoner was "focused on making the most efficient and superior rifle possible for the military."
[...]
He designed the original AR-15 in the late 1950s, working on it in his own garage and later as the chief designer for ArmaLite, a then small company in southern California. He made it light and powerful and he fashioned a new bullet for it — a .223 caliber round capable of piercing a metal helmet at 500 yards.

The Army loved it and renamed it the M16
[...]
Family of AR-15 Inventor: He Didn’t Intend It for Civilians

The guy must have been very naive. To think one could control his invention. Funny how after all these years his family is only now claiming why Mr. Stoner invented the Armorite Lite Rifle 15.

he never even owned his own invention.

And?

if he thought it okey dokey to have it on the market for public consumption, then why didn't he? that alone makes no sense...

It makes no sense that people go back 50 plus years to ascertain what a person's motives were at the time of his invention. How do you know for sure he did not own one? Oh, his family said so, you know the ones trying to control the narrative on the family name. Find the quote where Stoner ever denied owning one. He went on to invent other guns and rifles later in his life.

 

[Crixus]

You've lost me. ERPO is about individuals exhibiting homicidal/suicidal behavior. One person at a time. I'm not sure how statistical rarity of mass shootings factors into that at all.

Really? You couldn't follow what he was saying?

Still waiting for you to explain how one in two million people having an adverse reaction to a psychotropic drug somehow becomes an argument against a Red Flag law.

It's not an argument against red flag laws - its merely pointing out that we find it perfectly okay to cause manic/violent behavior because the side effect is RARE.

And manic/violent behavior causes mass shootings...but mass shootings are even more rare than the side effects we're fine with gambling on.

Its evident... that in some cases we are okay with risking violence. And that deserves to be a part of the discussion ~ meaning, are we placing restrictions on free citizens using arbitrary/inconsistent reasoning, basing it on something thats really quite rare, using the emotions that seeing these things on TV brings us...or are we being rational and consistent.

Of the 10, 000 yearly deaths, the majority are not due to the mentally ill mass shooters, either. Theyre due to punk kids, and red flag laws dont resolve the largest issue regarding gun deaths...only seeks to mitigate the more irrational/emotional one.

Which it won't do because if one wants to kill allot of people, or even just try they have many options to do just that. They can do like the Boston bombers did and use fireworks and pressure cookers, they can take over an aircraft, they can grab the keys and go for a drive, they can grab a knife from the kitchen, and axe from the shed or a spork from Taco Bell.

Duh. So what is your solution?

Consider this:

Common sense gun regulations may not prevent a monster from getting a gun, but no regulations assure a monster will get a gun and kill innocent people.

As for driving a car, using pressure cookers, taking over an aircraft or any other means to take a human life, guns seem to be the tool of choice.

So? We can save live by making alchohol illegal, oh, wait..

 

[Papageorgio]

Not sure why this thread is now so far off topic.

 

[playtime]

What is a Red Flag Law? Does one exist, promulgated by the Congress or any State Legislature and signed by the Executive?

we have them in ct.

Domestic Violence & Firearms in Connecticut | Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence

& we banned assault rifles.

 

[playtime]

You've lost me. ERPO is about individuals exhibiting homicidal/suicidal behavior. One person at a time. I'm not sure how statistical rarity of mass shootings factors into that at all.

Really? You couldn't follow what he was saying?

Still waiting for you to explain how one in two million people having an adverse reaction to a psychotropic drug somehow becomes an argument against a Red Flag law.

It's not an argument against red flag laws - its merely pointing out that we find it perfectly okay to cause manic/violent behavior because the side effect is RARE.

And manic/violent behavior causes mass shootings...but mass shootings are even more rare than the side effects we're fine with gambling on.

Its evident... that in some cases we are okay with risking violence. And that deserves to be a part of the discussion ~ meaning, are we placing restrictions on free citizens using arbitrary/inconsistent reasoning, basing it on something thats really quite rare, using the emotions that seeing these things on TV brings us...or are we being rational and consistent.

Of the 10, 000 yearly deaths, the majority are not due to the mentally ill mass shooters, either. Theyre due to punk kids, and red flag laws dont resolve the largest issue regarding gun deaths...only seeks to mitigate the more irrational/emotional one.

Which it won't do because if one wants to kill allot of people, or even just try they have many options to do just that. They can do like the Boston bombers did and use fireworks and pressure cookers, they can take over an aircraft, they can grab the keys and go for a drive, they can grab a knife from the kitchen, and axe from the shed or a spork from Taco Bell.

Duh. So what is your solution?

Consider this:

Common sense gun regulations may not prevent a monster from getting a gun, but no regulations assure a monster will get a gun and kill innocent people.

As for driving a car, using pressure cookers, taking over an aircraft or any other means to take a human life, guns seem to be the tool of choice.

not to mention the sole purpose of a gun is to maim at best & kill at worst at a distance that protects the person holding it.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

that kind of fire power capable of doing mass carnage isn't what the 2nd amendment is all about.

Wrong. That is EXACTLY what it's about. Have you not read the words of the guys who drafted the 2nd Amendment?

.

 

[OldLady]

Family of AR-15 Inventor Eugene Stoner: He Didn't Intend It for Civilians
[...]
"Our father, Eugene Stoner, designed the AR-15 and subsequent M-16 as a military weapon to give our soldiers an advantage over the AK-47,” the Stoner family told NBC News late Wednesday. "He died long before any mass shootings occurred. But, we do think he would have been horrified and sickened as anyone, if not more by these events."
[...]
The ex-Marine and "avid sportsman, hunter and skeet shooter" never used his invention for sport. He also never kept it around the house for personal defense. In fact, he never even owned one.

And though he made millions from the design, his family said it was all from military sales.

"After many conversations with him, we feel his intent was that he designed it as a military rifle," his family said, explaining that Stoner was "focused on making the most efficient and superior rifle possible for the military."
[...]
He designed the original AR-15 in the late 1950s, working on it in his own garage and later as the chief designer for ArmaLite, a then small company in southern California. He made it light and powerful and he fashioned a new bullet for it — a .223 caliber round capable of piercing a metal helmet at 500 yards.

The Army loved it and renamed it the M16
[...]
Family of AR-15 Inventor: He Didn’t Intend It for Civilians

The guy must have been very naive. To think one could control his invention. Funny how after all these years his family is only now claiming why Mr. Stoner invented the Armorite Lite Rifle 15.

he never even owned his own invention.

And?

if he thought it okey dokey to have it on the market for public consumption, then why didn't he? that alone makes no sense...

It makes no sense that people go back 50 plus years to ascertain what a person's motives were at the time of his invention. How do you know for sure he did not own one? Oh, his family said so, you know the ones trying to control the narrative on the family name. Find the quote where Stoner ever denied owning one. He went on to invent other guns and rifles later in his life.

I didn't realize you were one of those people who says the information must be a lie if you don't like it. He didn't own one. His FAMILY said so. Call them liars again; maybe they'll sue you. They should.

 

[playtime]

Family of AR-15 Inventor Eugene Stoner: He Didn't Intend It for Civilians
[...]
"Our father, Eugene Stoner, designed the AR-15 and subsequent M-16 as a military weapon to give our soldiers an advantage over the AK-47,” the Stoner family told NBC News late Wednesday. "He died long before any mass shootings occurred. But, we do think he would have been horrified and sickened as anyone, if not more by these events."
[...]
The ex-Marine and "avid sportsman, hunter and skeet shooter" never used his invention for sport. He also never kept it around the house for personal defense. In fact, he never even owned one.

And though he made millions from the design, his family said it was all from military sales.

"After many conversations with him, we feel his intent was that he designed it as a military rifle," his family said, explaining that Stoner was "focused on making the most efficient and superior rifle possible for the military."
[...]
He designed the original AR-15 in the late 1950s, working on it in his own garage and later as the chief designer for ArmaLite, a then small company in southern California. He made it light and powerful and he fashioned a new bullet for it — a .223 caliber round capable of piercing a metal helmet at 500 yards.

The Army loved it and renamed it the M16
[...]
Family of AR-15 Inventor: He Didn’t Intend It for Civilians

The guy must have been very naive. To think one could control his invention. Funny how after all these years his family is only now claiming why Mr. Stoner invented the Armorite Lite Rifle 15.

he never even owned his own invention.

And?

if he thought it okey dokey to have it on the market for public consumption, then why didn't he? that alone makes no sense...

It makes no sense that people go back 50 plus years to ascertain what a person's motives were at the time of his invention. How do you know for sure he did not own one? Oh, his family said so, you know the ones trying to control the narrative on the family name. Find the quote where Stoner ever denied owning one. He went on to invent other guns and rifles later in his life.

i have no problems believing his family. why would you?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

You mean, like these:

Could you clear it up further please. The high vel ammo part. Playtime don't understand how all that works. I don't see threads on those barrels so would you high velocity ammo with those or subsonic?

Playtime has demonstrated that she should not be part of the process of defining which weapons should be banned. She is clueless.

But, to clear it up, every one of those would be considered "high-velocity" whether chambered in .223 or something else, unless they are specifically NOT high-velocity or maybe "subsonic" cartridges. "High-velocity" can range from 1,900 feet per second to over 4,000 feet per second.

Pretty much every single rifle caliber could be considered "high-velocity".

The question I have is, why does velocity matter? .300 Blackout is deadly as FUCK in the AR system and it is subsonic.

uh-huh. .223 ammo was used to kill them thar 'varmints' at sandy hook.... & parkland... & the orlando nightclub.................. it's not just the bullets - like i said it's the multi round mags & drums as well. they were all turned into swiss cheese in mere seconds & those bullets don't enter & exit in a relative 'straight line'... the dude that invented the AR-15 didn't want it for public consumption.

Learn when to shut the fuck up. You are clueless.

.

THEY DO.

Wounds From Military-Style Rifles? ‘A Ghastly Thing to See’
Trauma surgeons tell what it is really like to try to repair such devastating injuries. “Bones are exploded, soft tissue is absolutely destroyed,” one said.

Image

Left, an X-ray of a leg showing a bullet wound delivered by an assault rifle used in combat. Right, an X-ray of a leg that sustained a bullet wound from a low-energy bullet, inflicted by a weapon like a handgun in Philadelphia.Creditvia Dr. Jeremy W. Cannon
Perhaps no one knows the devastating wounds inflicted by assault-style rifles better than the trauma surgeons who struggle to repair them. The doctors say they are haunted by their experiences confronting injuries so dire they struggle to find words to describe them.

At a high school in Parkland, Fla., 17 people were recently killed with just such a weapon — a semiautomatic AR-15. It was legal there for Nikolas Cruz, 19, the suspect in the shooting, to buy a civilian version of the military’s standard rifle, while he would have had to be 21 to buy a less powerful and accurate handgun.

Many factors determine the severity of a wound, including a bullet’s mass, velocity and composition, and where it strikes. The AR-15, like the M4 and M16 rifles issued to American soldiers, shoots lightweight, high-speed bullets that can cause grievous bone and soft tissue wounds, in part by turning sideways, or “yawing,” when they hit a person. Surgeons say the weapons produce the same sort of horrific injuries seen on battlefields.

Civilian owners of military-style weapons can also buy soft-nosed or hollow-point ammunition, often used for hunting, that lacks a full metal jacket and can expand and fragment on impact. Such bullets, which can cause wider wound channels, are proscribed in most military use.
[...]
Wounds From Military-Style Rifles? ‘A Ghastly Thing to See’

What happens when AR-15 rifle bullets tear through the human body
Chris Smith @chris_writes
June 21st, 2016 at 10:00 PM
[...]
“One looks like a grenade went off in there,” University of Arizona trauma surgeon Peter Rhee told Wired when comparing the damage done by AR-15 bullets and 9mm handgun bullets. “The other looks like a bad knife cut.”

The reason that happens is pretty simple, and it’s explained by physics. The bullet from an AR-15 rifle leaves the muzzle at three times the speed of a handgun bullet. That means it has plenty of energy to “distribute” inside the body upon collision.

It can disintegrate three inches of leg bone, turning it to “dust” according to Donald Jenkins, a trauma surgeon at the University of Texas Health Science Center. “The liver looks like a jello mold that’s been dropped on the floor,” if hit by the same bullet, Jenkins says. The exit would can be the size of an orange.

Comparatively, handgun bullets can be stopped by flesh and bone, and can pass through the body only to remain stuck in the skin.

Furthermore, AR-15 bullets don’t just affect the skin and the tissue immediately under it. In addition to turning a bone to dust or liver into jello, the high energy would also cause damage around the entry and exit wounds.

When a high-velocity bullet pierces the body, human tissue can ripple just like water does when you throw an object in it. But it all happens at increased velocity. The bullet and its ensuing fragments might miss a critical artery, but the cavitation effect could tear through blood vessels.

Rhee also said that a handgun would require only one surgery, but an AR-15 bullet wound needs three to ten.

Because it’s designed so well, the AR-15 fires almost without recoil, meaning that a shooter can inflict more damage with multiple bullets accurately hitting the same target. “The gun barely moves. You can sit there boom boom boom and reel off shots as fast as you can move your finger,” Denver Health trauma surgeon and Journal of Trauma and Acute Surgery editor Ernest Moore told Wired.

A video from the Smithsonian Channel shows the devastating effects of assault rifle fire on the human body: [on website]
What happens when AR-15 rifle bullets tear through the human body

You seem to be under the mistaken belief that other bullets are not lethal.

Let me demonstrate why you are not making a good argument:

Fine. You can ban the .223 cartridge ONLY, and I want a constitutional amendment stating that no other cartridge will be banned EVER.

The AR system can be used with MANY different calibers and cartridges, including all common pistol calibers and subsonic rounds, as well as .308, 7mm08, .243, .270 etc.

There. Problem solved.

We get to keep the AR system.

 

[playtime]

that kind of fire power capable of doing mass carnage isn't what the 2nd amendment is all about.

Wrong. That is EXACTLY what it's about. Have you not read the words of the guys who drafted the 2nd Amendment?

.

& they used muskets.... were cannons allowed to be in the possession of colonists?

 

[playtime]

Could you clear it up further please. The high vel ammo part. Playtime don't understand how all that works. I don't see threads on those barrels so would you high velocity ammo with those or subsonic?

Playtime has demonstrated that she should not be part of the process of defining which weapons should be banned. She is clueless.

But, to clear it up, every one of those would be considered "high-velocity" whether chambered in .223 or something else, unless they are specifically NOT high-velocity or maybe "subsonic" cartridges. "High-velocity" can range from 1,900 feet per second to over 4,000 feet per second.

Pretty much every single rifle caliber could be considered "high-velocity".

The question I have is, why does velocity matter? .300 Blackout is deadly as FUCK in the AR system and it is subsonic.

uh-huh. .223 ammo was used to kill them thar 'varmints' at sandy hook.... & parkland... & the orlando nightclub.................. it's not just the bullets - like i said it's the multi round mags & drums as well. they were all turned into swiss cheese in mere seconds & those bullets don't enter & exit in a relative 'straight line'... the dude that invented the AR-15 didn't want it for public consumption.

Learn when to shut the fuck up. You are clueless.

.

THEY DO.

Wounds From Military-Style Rifles? ‘A Ghastly Thing to See’
Trauma surgeons tell what it is really like to try to repair such devastating injuries. “Bones are exploded, soft tissue is absolutely destroyed,” one said.

Image

Left, an X-ray of a leg showing a bullet wound delivered by an assault rifle used in combat. Right, an X-ray of a leg that sustained a bullet wound from a low-energy bullet, inflicted by a weapon like a handgun in Philadelphia.Creditvia Dr. Jeremy W. Cannon
Perhaps no one knows the devastating wounds inflicted by assault-style rifles better than the trauma surgeons who struggle to repair them. The doctors say they are haunted by their experiences confronting injuries so dire they struggle to find words to describe them.

At a high school in Parkland, Fla., 17 people were recently killed with just such a weapon — a semiautomatic AR-15. It was legal there for Nikolas Cruz, 19, the suspect in the shooting, to buy a civilian version of the military’s standard rifle, while he would have had to be 21 to buy a less powerful and accurate handgun.

Many factors determine the severity of a wound, including a bullet’s mass, velocity and composition, and where it strikes. The AR-15, like the M4 and M16 rifles issued to American soldiers, shoots lightweight, high-speed bullets that can cause grievous bone and soft tissue wounds, in part by turning sideways, or “yawing,” when they hit a person. Surgeons say the weapons produce the same sort of horrific injuries seen on battlefields.

Civilian owners of military-style weapons can also buy soft-nosed or hollow-point ammunition, often used for hunting, that lacks a full metal jacket and can expand and fragment on impact. Such bullets, which can cause wider wound channels, are proscribed in most military use.
[...]
Wounds From Military-Style Rifles? ‘A Ghastly Thing to See’

What happens when AR-15 rifle bullets tear through the human body
Chris Smith @chris_writes
June 21st, 2016 at 10:00 PM
[...]
“One looks like a grenade went off in there,” University of Arizona trauma surgeon Peter Rhee told Wired when comparing the damage done by AR-15 bullets and 9mm handgun bullets. “The other looks like a bad knife cut.”

The reason that happens is pretty simple, and it’s explained by physics. The bullet from an AR-15 rifle leaves the muzzle at three times the speed of a handgun bullet. That means it has plenty of energy to “distribute” inside the body upon collision.

It can disintegrate three inches of leg bone, turning it to “dust” according to Donald Jenkins, a trauma surgeon at the University of Texas Health Science Center. “The liver looks like a jello mold that’s been dropped on the floor,” if hit by the same bullet, Jenkins says. The exit would can be the size of an orange.

Comparatively, handgun bullets can be stopped by flesh and bone, and can pass through the body only to remain stuck in the skin.

Furthermore, AR-15 bullets don’t just affect the skin and the tissue immediately under it. In addition to turning a bone to dust or liver into jello, the high energy would also cause damage around the entry and exit wounds.

When a high-velocity bullet pierces the body, human tissue can ripple just like water does when you throw an object in it. But it all happens at increased velocity. The bullet and its ensuing fragments might miss a critical artery, but the cavitation effect could tear through blood vessels.

Rhee also said that a handgun would require only one surgery, but an AR-15 bullet wound needs three to ten.

Because it’s designed so well, the AR-15 fires almost without recoil, meaning that a shooter can inflict more damage with multiple bullets accurately hitting the same target. “The gun barely moves. You can sit there boom boom boom and reel off shots as fast as you can move your finger,” Denver Health trauma surgeon and Journal of Trauma and Acute Surgery editor Ernest Moore told Wired.

A video from the Smithsonian Channel shows the devastating effects of assault rifle fire on the human body: [on website]
What happens when AR-15 rifle bullets tear through the human body

You seem to be under the mistaken belief that other bullets are not lethal.

Let me demonstrate why you are not making a good argument:

Fine. You can ban the .223 cartridge ONLY, and I want a constitutional amendment stating that no other cartridge will be banned EVER.

The AR system can be used with MANY different calibers and cartridges, including all common pistol calibers and subsonic rounds, as well as .308, 7mm08, .243, .270 etc.

There. Problem solved.

We get to keep the AR system.

if you can't hit your target or kill a varmint with a 10 round clip, then you have no biz'nez owning a deadly rapid fire weapon.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

that kind of fire power capable of doing mass carnage isn't what the 2nd amendment is all about.

Wrong. That is EXACTLY what it's about. Have you not read the words of the guys who drafted the 2nd Amendment?

.

& they used muskets.... were cannons allowed to be in possesion of colonists?

Yes they were.

And Jefferson was interested in purchasing the Puckle Gun before the 2A was drafted, so they contemplated advancements in weapons technology, Your musket point is fucking stupid.

Puckle gun - Wikipedia