Zone1 There's no rational, reasoned argument for a ban on AR15s (2)

[ThunderKiss1965]

Come on Man, read the story.. M-16... you know darn well the AR-15 is an Assault Rifle and has no business in the hands of civilians.
Turn your weapons of war in.

I've fired everything form the lowest caliber revolver up to and including heavy machine guns. You do not know what the fuck your talking about. At this point I have to wonder if you are really that ignorant of firearms or your just trolling.

You morons calling for bans should be the ones stacking up to take them, because I guarantee the Law Enforcement from where I live would tell the Feds to go fuck themselves.

The Constitution and the 2nd Amendment means something to the people in my area. You loons my be willing to give up your rights but I took an oath that I still live by and cherish even though I have been out of the Army for 17 years.

 

[LibertyKid]

OK.
Rifles are more powerful than pistols.
Water: wet.
So?

And the vast majority of mass shootings, the criminal uses a hand gun.
You ban ARs, you're not getting rid of mass shootings.
You ban ARs the mentally ill will go buy a shot gun with 12-15 round capacities.
Then what, you will want to ban those high capacity shotguns.
Once those are banned, you'll go after handgun magazines with capacities greater than 8 rounds
As mass shootings continue, you'll band handguns all together.
All the while, the streets are being littered with the bodies of victims from criminals and thugs who illegally own handguns.
Mass shootings will never stop, until the gov't comes in and now we have a fascist and tyrannical gov't where the people couldn't stop the gov't because the left took them away from the law abiding citizens.

 

[2aguy]

And the internet answers......

Good look at the AR-15 rifle....
These instances are consistent with Dr. Fackler's own findings. He recounts that

In 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."
----
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."

=====================
Thus, the prohibition argument is based on 1. Rate of fire, and 2. The power of the weapons' bullets.

The rate of fire claim is preposterous. Semiautomatic rifles as a class (including those that are supposedly "assault weapons") fire at essentially the same rate as semiautomatic handguns. These handguns, from companies such as Ruger, Smith & Wesson, Springfield, or Glock, are the most common defensive firearms in the United States; under the Supreme Court's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, they may not be prohibited. As then-Judge Kavanaugh argued in his dissent in Heller II, it is irrational to single out semiautomatic rifles for prohibition based on rate of fire, given that semiautomatic handguns are plainly constitutionally protected. Heller v. District of Columbia, 670 F.3d 1244 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (Kavanaugh, J., dissenting).
----
Colt's then produced two firearms lines from the patents.

The semiautomatic AR-15 rifle was introduced to the civilian market in 1964.


The M16 was an automatic (machine gun) version for military use; it was sold in large quantities to the U.S. military and became a standard infantry weapon during the Vietnam War. The M16 and AR-15 look the same, except that the M16 has a selector switch that allows the user to choose automatic fire. Internally, the M16 has components for automatic fire and the AR-15 does not. Today, the military has adopted an improved version of the M16, namely the M4 carbine. (A carbine is a relatively short rifle.)
-----
The California AG has served the Rupp plaintiffs with an expert report and declarationfrom retired Colonel Craig Tucker, U.S. Marine Corps, who served as an infantry officer for 25 years and commanded combat units in Iraq. The curriculum vitae attached to his report is impressive and his service appreciated.

Colonel (Ret.) Tucker did not disclose in either his report or CV that he is a founding member of the Veterans Advisory Council to Michael Bloomberg's gun-control advocacy group Everytown for Gun Safety.

---
II.A. "The AR-15 and M4 are both designed to fire a .223 round . . ."

The Tucker declaration asserts that the M4 is "designed to fire a .223 round." In fact, the the military's M4 carbine is designed to fire the 5.56mm NATO round, not the civilian .223 Remington round. It is difficult to understand how a Marine colonel with combat infantry experience would think the M4 is designed for the .223 round.

The numbers .223 and 5.56 designate the caliber of the round based on a rough approximation of bullet diameter, which is expressed in thousandths of an inch (.223 caliber) or millimeters (5.56 caliber). The U.S. military uses the NATO designation, measured in millimeters.

While the .223 and 5.56 rounds have the same bullet diameter, there is a difference. The case for the 5.56mm has a .125-inch longer throat and thus can be loaded with additional gun powder, resulting in slightly higher performance. The military M16 and M4 are 5.56mm. Civilian guns on the AR platform are sometimes .223, but the majority are 5.56mm (still able to use .223), or other calibers. Because of the higher pressure created when fired, the 5.56 round should not be used in an AR rifle chambered only for the .223 round. The .223 round can be used in a 5.56 chamber, but may cause improper cycling (e.g., jams) with shorter barrels.

II.B. "that tumbles upon hitting flesh and rips thru the human body."

To understand why this statement is false requires an explanation of wound ballistics, the study of the effects of a penetrating projectile on living tissue. Dr. Martin Fackler, military trauma surgeon, former director of the Army's Wound Ballistics Laboratory, and the most widely-recognized modern expert on the subject, observed that "[p]robably no scientific field contains more misinformation than wound ballistics."

A firearm bullet is propelled by the expanding gas from a gunpowder explosion. Other things being equal, a bullet fired from a longer barrel will have higher velocity than a bullet fired from a shorter barrel. For example, a bullet that travels through a 16 inch rifle barrel will spend about four times longer being propelled by the expanding gas than will a bullet that travels through a 4 inch handgun barrel.

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

 

[2aguy]

And the internet answers......

Good look at the AR-15 rifle....

Thus, the prohibition argument is based on 1. Rate of fire, and 2. The power of the weapons' bullets.

The rate of fire claim is preposterous. Semiautomatic rifles as a class (including those that are supposedly "assault weapons") fire at essentially the same rate as semiautomatic handguns. These handguns, from companies such as Ruger, Smith & Wesson, Springfield, or Glock, are the most common defensive firearms in the United States; under the Supreme Court's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, they may not be prohibited. As then-Judge Kavanaugh argued in his dissent in Heller II, it is irrational to single out semiautomatic rifles for prohibition based on rate of fire, given that semiautomatic handguns are plainly constitutionally protected. Heller v. District of Columbia, 670 F.3d 1244 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (Kavanaugh, J., dissenting).
----
Colt's then produced two firearms lines from the patents.

The semiautomatic AR-15 rifle was introduced to the civilian market in 1964.


The M16 was an automatic (machine gun) version for military use; it was sold in large quantities to the U.S. military and became a standard infantry weapon during the Vietnam War. The M16 and AR-15 look the same, except that the M16 has a selector switch that allows the user to choose automatic fire. Internally, the M16 has components for automatic fire and the AR-15 does not. Today, the military has adopted an improved version of the M16, namely the M4 carbine. (A carbine is a relatively short rifle.)
-----
The California AG has served the Rupp plaintiffs with an expert report and declarationfrom retired Colonel Craig Tucker, U.S. Marine Corps, who served as an infantry officer for 25 years and commanded combat units in Iraq. The curriculum vitae attached to his report is impressive and his service appreciated.

Colonel (Ret.) Tucker did not disclose in either his report or CV that he is a founding member of the Veterans Advisory Council to Michael Bloomberg's gun-control advocacy group Everytown for Gun Safety.

---
II.A. "The AR-15 and M4 are both designed to fire a .223 round . . ."

The Tucker declaration asserts that the M4 is "designed to fire a .223 round." In fact, the the military's M4 carbine is designed to fire the 5.56mm NATO round, not the civilian .223 Remington round. It is difficult to understand how a Marine colonel with combat infantry experience would think the M4 is designed for the .223 round.

The numbers .223 and 5.56 designate the caliber of the round based on a rough approximation of bullet diameter, which is expressed in thousandths of an inch (.223 caliber) or millimeters (5.56 caliber). The U.S. military uses the NATO designation, measured in millimeters.

While the .223 and 5.56 rounds have the same bullet diameter, there is a difference. The case for the 5.56mm has a .125-inch longer throat and thus can be loaded with additional gun powder, resulting in slightly higher performance. The military M16 and M4 are 5.56mm. Civilian guns on the AR platform are sometimes .223, but the majority are 5.56mm (still able to use .223), or other calibers. Because of the higher pressure created when fired, the 5.56 round should not be used in an AR rifle chambered only for the .223 round. The .223 round can be used in a 5.56 chamber, but may cause improper cycling (e.g., jams) with shorter barrels.

II.B. "that tumbles upon hitting flesh and rips thru the human body."

To understand why this statement is false requires an explanation of wound ballistics, the study of the effects of a penetrating projectile on living tissue. Dr. Martin Fackler, military trauma surgeon, former director of the Army's Wound Ballistics Laboratory, and the most widely-recognized modern expert on the subject, observed that "[p]robably no scientific field contains more misinformation than wound ballistics."

A firearm bullet is propelled by the expanding gas from a gunpowder explosion. Other things being equal, a bullet fired from a longer barrel will have higher velocity than a bullet fired from a shorter barrel. For example, a bullet that travels through a 16 inch rifle barrel will spend about four times longer being propelled by the expanding gas than will a bullet that travels through a 4 inch handgun barrel.

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

More on this great article on the AR-15 lies.....

But the bullets for the most common AR calibers (.223, followed by 5.56mm) are much smaller than the bullets from many other rifles. Thus, they strike with only about a half to a third of the kinetic energy of larger caliber rifle bullets, such as .270, .30-'06, .308, .338, .444, and so on. The larger bullets not only have a greater width (i.e. caliber), they also typically are longer.
--------

Col. Tucker's declaration provides no indication that he has any familiarity with the above: namely that civilian AR users can and often do choose AR ammunition that is specifically designed not to tumble.

Instead, Col. Tucker seems to mistakenly believe that all civilians users of AR rifles use the same ammunition as does the military for the M16 and M4. That ammunition is 5.56mm FMJ (full metal jacket). In a full metal jacket, the lead bullet core is surrounded by a jacket of metal. Lead is a very soft material. On the Moh's Hardness scale of 1-10, lead is 1.5—below a fingernail (2.5), penny (3.5), or diamond (10).
-----
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."

 

[Calypso Jones]

 

[ralfy]

The issue of belonging to an organized militia to have the right to keep and bear arms was put to bed by the Heller case and reaffirmed with McDonald and Bruen. The right to keep and bear arms is an individual right the same as the right to free speech or the right of religion and is not dependent upon belonging to any organization. To have the right all you have to be is a US citizen. That is settled law.

The right to bear arms is based on self-defense, which is a natural right, and takes place even without laws.

 

[ralfy]

No…….we told you the AR-15 is no different from any other semi-automatic rifle and that all semi-automatic guns operate the same way……one bullet fired for each pull of the trigger…..

Get that right first…..

Then….

We told you that at the ranges of mass public shootings the gun does not matter……the advantages of a rifle only mattered in Las Vegas where the distance was 400 yards………

When inside a building, any gun will kill…….rifle, pistol or shotgun……

The most important point that you just will not understand is that the only thing that determines how many die is how much free time the killer has in the gun free zone before someone with another gun forces the killer to stop killing unarmed victims…

As to ballistic gel tests…..?

Try loading up the ballistic gel test of 12 gauge shotgun shells and shotgun slugs……….then get back to us about the AR-15 vs a shotgun in a mass public shooting……

You know so little about so little, and you know it with such passion….it makes you dangerous to our freedom in this country.

No, you referred to any firearm. Get that right.

You're a board anon pretending that you're an expert in anything.

 

[ralfy]

Here.....try this....





Now......

.223 one typical round used in the AR-15 vs. 30.06




Against a mock up of the human head......

Notice again the shotgun and what it does.......

Notice what the 30.06 does as well.....

The video I shared was referring to handguns.

Meanwhile, you argued that the rifle is no diffent from any firearm.

 

[ralfy]

Now........

What you don', and won't and refuse to understand, is that again, it isn't the gun that matters in a mass public shooting.....

What matters is how much free time the killer has in the gun free zone they attack....before someone with a gun makes them stop shooting unarmed victims........

Nashville

AR-15 rifle 6 killed


Cumbria shooting in Britain...

...no semi-auto rifle...... Double barrel shotgun, bolt action rifle

13 killed, 11 injured....


Kerch, Russia

5 shot, pump action shotgun, not a rifle, no magazine

20 killed

Navy Yard shooting

5 shot, pump action shotgun,not a rifle, no magazine

12 killed


Santa Fe, High school shooting

No rifle, pump action shotgun, .38 caliber revolver

10 killed

Luby's Cafe

24 killed, 2 pistols

Virgina Tech

32 people killed, 2 pistols.

The gun does not determine how many are killed and you have been explained this over and over

The amount of time the killer has in a gun free zone before someone shoota and stops them determines how many get killed as the two example above show.


==========
From 1982....various attacks.....most done without rifles, you twit.


Gilroy, semi-auto rifle with large magazine....3 killed

Dayton, democrat, socialist, antifa member, elizabeth warren supporter, semi-auto rifle with regular magazine....9 killed.

Umpquaa Community college shooting....5 pistols, 9 killed

Charleston Church shooting, 9 dead, 1 pistol.

Atlanta spree shooting.... 9 dead 3 pistols

Red Lake shooting 10 dead 2 pistols.

Santa Fe High school shooting...no rifle, no magazine.....shot gun and .38 revolver... 10 killed

Russian Polytechnic school shooting.... no rifle, no magazine.....tube fed, 5 shot, pump action shotgun....20 killed, 40 injured.

Navy Yard shooting.... no rifle, no magazine, tube fed pump action shotgun, 5,6 or 7 shot pump action shotgun....12 killed

Virginia Tech.... 32 people killed, 2 pistols.

Luby's cafe.... 24 killed, 2 pistols

British, Cumbria shooting....no semi-auto rifle...... Double barrel shotgun, bolt action rifle 13 killed, 11 injured....

Fort Hood....1 pistol....13 killed

Virginia beach...2 pistols .... 12 killed

The video wasn't referring to the type of firearms used in mass shootings but why the AR-15 style's different from a handgun.

You, OTOH, claim that the former's no different from any other firearm.

 

[ralfy]

And you ignore the actual points made.........

I showed a video explaining that the damage done to the human body is greater for an AR-15 style rifle than for a handgun. The points were raised given a study in a USC lab, a trauma surgeon, a hospital head, and others.

Your response is that the AR-15 style rifle is no different from any other firearm.

You're obviously wrong.

 

[ralfy]

Anti-gunners who want the rifle banned........yeah, let's take their word for it.......

And again, the qanon thing is done...the democrat party changed the smear for republicans because qanon didn't work...no one knows what you are talking about other than the democrats who made up the smear....the smear now is "Christian Nationalist."

Please pay attention to democrat party talking points....

Several of those interviewed were former military and police officials who specialize in firearms use.

Your response is that anyone who disagrees with you is part of Qanon, etc.

You need help.

 

[ralfy]

OK.
Rifles are more powerful than pistols.
Water: wet.
So?

Several messages, and you just got the point now. Maybe we should wait a few more days before you notice the thread title.

 

[ralfy]

Correct.

Not sure what you mean by this.

So long as those restrictions are consistent with the constitution.

Likewise.

Two contrasting points can't both make sense, genius. Only one of us is right, and that's obviously not you.

 

[ralfy]

If past events are an indication, I'd say it is clear. The AR-15 has NOT been the choice of mass shooters in the US. This is well documented. Try again.

The title of the video is wrong. The point is given in the contents.

 

[ralfy]

And the internet answers......

Good look at the AR-15 rifle....
These instances are consistent with Dr. Fackler's own findings. He recounts that



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."
----
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."

=====================
Thus, the prohibition argument is based on 1. Rate of fire, and 2. The power of the weapons' bullets.

The rate of fire claim is preposterous. Semiautomatic rifles as a class (including those that are supposedly "assault weapons") fire at essentially the same rate as semiautomatic handguns. These handguns, from companies such as Ruger, Smith & Wesson, Springfield, or Glock, are the most common defensive firearms in the United States; under the Supreme Court's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, they may not be prohibited. As then-Judge Kavanaugh argued in his dissent in Heller II, it is irrational to single out semiautomatic rifles for prohibition based on rate of fire, given that semiautomatic handguns are plainly constitutionally protected. Heller v. District of Columbia, 670 F.3d 1244 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (Kavanaugh, J., dissenting).
----
Colt's then produced two firearms lines from the patents.

The semiautomatic AR-15 rifle was introduced to the civilian market in 1964.


The M16 was an automatic (machine gun) version for military use; it was sold in large quantities to the U.S. military and became a standard infantry weapon during the Vietnam War. The M16 and AR-15 look the same, except that the M16 has a selector switch that allows the user to choose automatic fire. Internally, the M16 has components for automatic fire and the AR-15 does not. Today, the military has adopted an improved version of the M16, namely the M4 carbine. (A carbine is a relatively short rifle.)
-----
The California AG has served the Rupp plaintiffs with an expert report and declarationfrom retired Colonel Craig Tucker, U.S. Marine Corps, who served as an infantry officer for 25 years and commanded combat units in Iraq. The curriculum vitae attached to his report is impressive and his service appreciated.

Colonel (Ret.) Tucker did not disclose in either his report or CV that he is a founding member of the Veterans Advisory Council to Michael Bloomberg's gun-control advocacy group Everytown for Gun Safety.

---
II.A. "The AR-15 and M4 are both designed to fire a .223 round . . ."

The Tucker declaration asserts that the M4 is "designed to fire a .223 round." In fact, the the military's M4 carbine is designed to fire the 5.56mm NATO round, not the civilian .223 Remington round. It is difficult to understand how a Marine colonel with combat infantry experience would think the M4 is designed for the .223 round.

The numbers .223 and 5.56 designate the caliber of the round based on a rough approximation of bullet diameter, which is expressed in thousandths of an inch (.223 caliber) or millimeters (5.56 caliber). The U.S. military uses the NATO designation, measured in millimeters.

While the .223 and 5.56 rounds have the same bullet diameter, there is a difference. The case for the 5.56mm has a .125-inch longer throat and thus can be loaded with additional gun powder, resulting in slightly higher performance. The military M16 and M4 are 5.56mm. Civilian guns on the AR platform are sometimes .223, but the majority are 5.56mm (still able to use .223), or other calibers. Because of the higher pressure created when fired, the 5.56 round should not be used in an AR rifle chambered only for the .223 round. The .223 round can be used in a 5.56 chamber, but may cause improper cycling (e.g., jams) with shorter barrels.

II.B. "that tumbles upon hitting flesh and rips thru the human body."

To understand why this statement is false requires an explanation of wound ballistics, the study of the effects of a penetrating projectile on living tissue. Dr. Martin Fackler, military trauma surgeon, former director of the Army's Wound Ballistics Laboratory, and the most widely-recognized modern expert on the subject, observed that "[p]robably no scientific field contains more misinformation than wound ballistics."

A firearm bullet is propelled by the expanding gas from a gunpowder explosion. Other things being equal, a bullet fired from a longer barrel will have higher velocity than a bullet fired from a shorter barrel. For example, a bullet that travels through a 16 inch rifle barrel will spend about four times longer being propelled by the expanding gas than will a bullet that travels through a 4 inch handgun barrel.

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

He advocated the use of ballistic gelatin for evaluating projectiles, which is precisely what was shown in the video I presented.

 

[ralfy]

The framers were referring to the equivalent of battle rifles.

Also, 2A doesn't imply that service in militias gives one the right to acquire battle rifles. Rather, the natural right to self-defense was used to justify state militias and regulated militias, with the latter leading to mandatory service, as seen in the Militia Acts.

 

[Concerned American]

He advocated the use of ballistic gelatin for evaluating projectiles, which is precisely what was shown in the video I presented.

So your contention is that the AR15 and the Mini 14 Ranch rifle projectiles react differently when they hit a body? Do I have that clear? Ummmmm OK, whatever you say.

 

[Concerned American]

The framers were referring to the equivalent of battle rifles.

Also, 2A doesn't imply that service in militias gives one the right to acquire battle rifles. Rather, the natural right to self-defense was used to justify state militias and regulated militias, with the latter leading to mandatory service, as seen in the Militia Acts.

Sorry, SCOTUS disagrees with you and they have the say. Sucks to be you.

 

[Calypso Jones]

The framers were referring to the equivalent of battle rifles.

Also, 2A doesn't imply that service in militias gives one the right to acquire battle rifles. Rather, the natural right to self-defense was used to justify state militias and regulated militias, with the latter leading to mandatory service, as seen in the Militia Acts.

well the supreme court does not agree with you. What part of ..... will not be infringed do you not get.

 

[Kilroy2]

Ok.
So?

Ok.
So?

Ok.
So?

OK.
So?

Still waiting for your sound argument.

Ok.
So?

Ok.
So?

Ok.
So?

OK.
So?

Still waiting for your sound argument.

Yes and your sound argument is so?

So what more people can be shot by a weapon that can hold significant number of bullets that can be fired rapidly in a short span of time and reload is slapping another magazine into place

So what if you never plan to join a militia but you can pretend to be in a militia and justify why you need an AR-15