I’m not following this. Handguns aren’t smaller caliber. The most popular AR-15 is chambered in .223.
I never post about Issues…this has me pissed off
- Thread starter woodlandpoke
- Start date
I doubt anyone in this thread wants to see what a .223 round does to a school kid’s body. Hell, even an adult.
I’m in favor of stopping sales of AR-15 style rifles. Removing them from current ownership isn’t a real goal and it’s a straw man argument propped up by those quick to holler “gun grab.”
Egads man! It’s an assault rifle!
Pressurization and velocity are vastly different.
9x19mm Parabellum = 35K psi… velocity up to 2,010 ft/s… energy up to 538 ft-lbf (729 J)
.223 Remington = 52K - 55K psi… velocity up to 3,750 ft/s… energy up to 959 ft-lbf (1,300 J)
(*based on SAAMI standards)
JD, your reference to Scalia statement to me, refers to easy access to automatic weapons, thus his reference to M16’s. Those type of weapons are not legal for the average person to own. JMO
Also, the reference to AR’s as assault rifles is crazy. As stated many many times, that platform had been around for at least 80 years. I have a mini 14 with a production date of 1956. I have the same bullets and magazines for it as I do all my AR platforms.
We need to focus on the people and figure out why they continue to do this and think it’s OK.
I’m fully behind doing something, just don’t know what it is. Banning a platform that’s been around 80 years is not an option nor would it fix the problem.
Sorry, just rambling. I do like this discussion. I wish our leaders would sit down and have a civil discussion like we are having here.
Also, the reference to AR’s as assault rifles is crazy. As stated many many times, that platform had been around for at least 80 years. I have a mini 14 with a production date of 1956. I have the same bullets and magazines for it as I do all my AR platforms.
We need to focus on the people and figure out why they continue to do this and think it’s OK.
I’m fully behind doing something, just don’t know what it is. Banning a platform that’s been around 80 years is not an option nor would it fix the problem.
Sorry, just rambling. I do like this discussion. I wish our leaders would sit down and have a civil discussion like we are having here.
Last edited:
Tell us you don’t know anything about firearms without saying you don’t know anything about firearms.
What’s that got to do with his statement about caliber? Obviously rifles are capable of higher velocities. Is the velocity and energy of a pistol not sufficient to penetrate a human body?
My gosh, the lack of understanding.
From the training I had last week and also reading thru the years, most active shooters are shooting at close range to kill as many as possible.
A "kill shot", either accurately or accidentally placed on a victim by either round, equally kills. A wound? Again at close range both rounds are devastating. +P jacketed hollow point rounds are deadly at close range. These bullets expand and cause great damage. They fragment and those fragments cause great damage and can cut arteries. I want no part these 9MM rounds....
From the training I had last week we were told if you are not hit by an instant kill shot, if you have a significant wound or artery hit, you will bleed out in 4 to 6 mins. EXCELLENT response time to the scene is 3 mins, and they will not be in the building to get you OUT at minute 6, they will be after the shooter. No one going in until the shooter is down and apprehended and the building cleared. Again, with both rounds at close range, both bullets equally kill. And these shooters go in knowing they are going after people that are mostly not armed.
You do know the 9MM is not the only load used in for handguns?
Both rounds at close range can cause enough damage to cause a wound that you will bleed out and die in short order.
A rifle does have better accuracy, especially at long range. But most of these shootings are at very close range.
The DOJ concluded in 1989 that .22 rimfire has killed more people in this country than any other caliber.
"Probably more people in this country have been killed by .22 rimfires than all other calibers combined, which, based on body count, would compel the use of .22’s for self-defense. The more important question, which is sadly seldom asked, is what did the individual do when hit?"
ALL bullets are lethal, especially at close range. Most assassins use a .22 to kill, they don't make as much noise and a silencer works well with them.
A high performance hollow point .22LR? It hits ANY bone and fragments like a SOB and pinballs all around the insides of you.
This concentration on "big" or "smaller" rounds, or the "type" of gun, really exposes the lack of knowledge.
My personal opinion is most of these active shooters in school select an AR type gun because that is what they grew up shooting on video games. They think it is the "cool" the gun. I also think they do it to create fear. Had we not had all these video games and all we had was movies showing people shooting hand guns holding the grip sideways with guns in both hands with AMAZING accuracy? That might be what some of these shooters might do. A handgun is a ALOT easier to conceal and can kill efficiently at close range, so I believe the rifle is selected to inflict fear.
They don't tell us after these shootings how many died from initial kill shots or survived the initial shot and bled out. They don't tell us how many get double or triple tapped. Maybe because it does not matter, you either die instantly, or if you take a significant wound you bleed out and die in 4 to 6 mins.
It takes very little time to exchange out a clip in a handgun, most can do it in 2 seconds if they practice a little.
None of these laws would stop anything. You literally need to get ALL the guns to stop close range active shooter murder.
I would not want to be shot at close range by a high performance hollow point .22LR. Or a 9MM. Or a .223. Chances are a central mass hit and you die from all 3, given medical help from time of the start of the shooting and medical help being able to get you could be at least 20 mins or longer.
Last edited:
I dont know why you need to be ass, but that's fine. I suppose it is easier than addressing the point I am trying to make. As I mentioned in an earlier post, I own a 9mm handgun, a 12gauge shotgun, and a .22 that was my granfathers. I dont hate guns, and I am not opposed to them.
My question remains, and hasnt been answered by anyone yet. Do you stand a better chance of surviving an assault rifle, or a 9mm? I have a hard time reading these articles and seeing any reason why we shouldn't put restrictions on AR's.
But hey, you keep doing you and acting holier than though while not addressing the issue.
Surgeon who treated kids shot in Uvalde describes assault weapons' extreme trauma to victims' bodies
"There were not only a small hole in the body part, but large areas of tissue missing in various body parts that sustained injuries from the firearm."
What I Saw Treating the Victims From Parkland Should Change the Debate on Guns
They weren’t the first mass-shooting victims the Florida radiologist saw—but their wounds were radically different.
Loading…
www.npr.org
"My question remains, and has not been answered by anyone yet. Do you stand a better chance of surviving an assault rifle, or a 9mm?"I dont know why you need to be ass, but that's fine. I suppose it is easier than addressing the point I am trying to make. As I mentioned in an earlier post, I own a 9mm handgun, a 12gauge shotgun, and a .22 that was my granfathers. I dont hate guns, and I am not opposed to them.
My question remains, and hasnt been answered by anyone yet. Do you stand a better chance of surviving an assault rifle, or a 9mm? I have a hard time reading these articles and seeing any reason why we shouldn't put restrictions on AR's.
But hey, you keep doing you and acting holier than though while not addressing the issue.
Surgeon who treated kids shot in Uvalde describes assault weapons' extreme trauma to victims' bodies
"There were not only a small hole in the body part, but large areas of tissue missing in various body parts that sustained injuries from the firearm."abc11.com
What I Saw Treating the Victims From Parkland Should Change the Debate on Guns
They weren’t the first mass-shooting victims the Florida radiologist saw—but their wounds were radically different.www.theatlantic.com
Loading…
www.npr.org
At close range and bearing no firearm for self defense which most of these shootings are? No, you are equally phucked IMO if they have an clear line of sight.
I am also willing to bet the 9MM round has killed more civilians than the .223. Dead is dead, no matter what it looks like after the fact.
Anyone would be nuts to take on an individual with a rifle at long range with a handgun. But that is a combat situation. This is close quarter shootings that is ducks in the barrel. Nothing about it is combat. Many of these shooters could close their eyes and rack up a kill count in a class room full of people with either gun.
Like someone else eloquently said, I think everyone would give up these "AR" guns and want them outlawed if it would solve the problem, but it will not.
Last edited:
What's the 'assault rifle' chambered in and what ammunition is it using? You do realize that rifles are also chambered in 9mm, right? I'd rather take a bullet from a rifle chambered as a 22 than a pistol chambered in a 9mm. But I'd take a 9mm from a pistol as opposed to a rifle in 300 blackout. And I damn sure don't want to get hit from a 50 cal hand gun.I dont know why you need to be ass, but that's fine. I suppose it is easier than addressing the point I am trying to make. As I mentioned in an earlier post, I own a 9mm handgun, a 12gauge shotgun, and a .22 that was my granfathers. I dont hate guns, and I am not opposed to them.
My question remains, and hasnt been answered by anyone yet. Do you stand a better chance of surviving an assault rifle, or a 9mm? I have a hard time reading these articles and seeing any reason why we shouldn't put restrictions on AR's.
But hey, you keep doing you and acting holier than though while not addressing the issue.
Surgeon who treated kids shot in Uvalde describes assault weapons' extreme trauma to victims' bodies
"There were not only a small hole in the body part, but large areas of tissue missing in various body parts that sustained injuries from the firearm."
What I Saw Treating the Victims From Parkland Should Change the Debate on Guns
They weren’t the first mass-shooting victims the Florida radiologist saw—but their wounds were radically different.
Loading…
www.npr.org
Is the ammo hollow point or FMJ? Makes a huge difference as well.
I'm being an ass because you still don't seem to grasp the basics of firearms. My point being it isn't the platform (for the most part, unless you are talking at longer distances due to the accuracy), it's the caliber and type of ammo being used.
I'd also add that in close, confined spaces a hand gun would be the more deadly weapon as it is quicker to aim for target acquisition.I dont know why you need to be ass, but that's fine. I suppose it is easier than addressing the point I am trying to make. As I mentioned in an earlier post, I own a 9mm handgun, a 12gauge shotgun, and a .22 that was my granfathers. I dont hate guns, and I am not opposed to them.
My question remains, and hasnt been answered by anyone yet. Do you stand a better chance of surviving an assault rifle, or a 9mm? I have a hard time reading these articles and seeing any reason why we shouldn't put restrictions on AR's.
But hey, you keep doing you and acting holier than though while not addressing the issue.
Surgeon who treated kids shot in Uvalde describes assault weapons' extreme trauma to victims' bodies
"There were not only a small hole in the body part, but large areas of tissue missing in various body parts that sustained injuries from the firearm."
What I Saw Treating the Victims From Parkland Should Change the Debate on Guns
They weren’t the first mass-shooting victims the Florida radiologist saw—but their wounds were radically different.
Loading…
www.npr.org
So again... it all depends.
As usual, from zero to infinity in a flash! Nobody is advocating taking away second amendment rights but guns and their ownership shouldn’t be more important than human life imo. Schools, churches, libraries, shopping malls, music festivals etc. aren’t safe in the U.S. and that’s a problem.
We have to try and reduce mass shootings in this country. That’s a laudable goal for a somewhat civilized society if we call ourselves that, and other nations have figured it out by banning certain types of weapons from easy acquisition! If the weapons aren’t being manufactured, and amo isn’t available for them, they can’t be as easily used to murder people. Imagine that!
The United States knows what will work but doesn’t have the will to do it. It’s an embarrassment and character flaw that we don’t value human life other than fetuses enough to enact laws to try and protect our citizens from gun violence.
And since there have been more mass shootings in the U.S. than days lived in 2023 so far, you might say we have a serious problem that shouldn’t be ignored!
Unless ALL guns are outlawed and confiscated? Not happening with current cultural and societal rot.
It absolutely isn't a reference to just automatic weapons. The decision in D.C. v. Heller didn't involve automatic weapons at all.
And to be clear, I'm not a guy that is advocating in any way for a ban of any type of particular weapon. To me, an AR is just a "scary looking" semi-automatic hunting rifle. Functionally nearly identical.
I am also not particularly advocating for any particular policy....except maybe constitutionally adequate emergency mental health seizure proceedings.
I'm just pointing out that "shall not be infringed" is not and never has been an absolute statement. In fact, none of our constitutional rights are absolute and without conditions or limiting definition.
Finally, as I've said before as long as the discussion surrounds "no infringement is constitutional" vs. "no infringement is unconstitutional if it saves lives", we're never going to get to a rational, reasonable discussion about what constitutional efforts are available to us and might work.
Last edited:
The answer to that was abortion. Biggest deterrent to violent crime in history was Row v Wade.
No it would not. The people carrying out these mass shootings are planning on dying.
We can take the approach used in many other countries that restricts easy access to guns. Background checks, red flag laws, waiting periods, bump stock bans, high capacity mags banned and any weapons defined as weapons of war by law enforcement banned. We need to enact some of the actions used in other countries that really reduced gun violence and mass shootings substantially. The examples of success are there we just have to have the will to implement them.
These actions don’t infringe on the right to bare arms in the second amendment since handguns, hunting guns both shotguns and rifles, can be owned for sport and home protection.
Background checks - as long as they are instantaneous, fine.
red flag laws - as long as they allow for due process, fine.
waiting periods - ineffectual and bad policy.
bump stock bans - okay fine. But it's ineffective as you can replicate the same affect with out a bump stock.
high capacity mags banned - also ineffective and bad policy.
any weapons defined as weapons of war by law enforcement banned - nonstarter.
The 2nd amendment wasn't limited to just firearms used for hunting. So, even if your above list isn't a 2nd amendment violation (debatable); then, hunting has no valid place in this conversation.
Here's the problem with focusing on firearms in this conversation. It addresses the last step in a long chain of causes and doesn't address the root of the issue. Fix the causes of the problem and the subsequent links in the chain fix themselves.
A fellow "Freakonomics" reader, I see.
The case they put forward for this being true was very compelling.
Well, you were responding to a comment about a study about gun violence in general. And, not to put too fine a point on it, but your comment is absurd in relation to recent mass killings since Roe v Wade was the law of the land when all these killers were born.
One might debate guns used for protection and hunting is all a private citizen needs and the law should allow to meet “the right to bare arms shall not be infringed.” You would have to extrapolate or infer quite a lot to suggest it allows for more in order to meet the amendment as written.
Mental health services must be improved but the fact remains where various countries’ efforts have been put in place to make it more cumbersome to attain gun ownership and to limit the types of guns for legitimate sale mass shootings have been drastically reduced.
I don’t think you need to extrapolate anything since you can read the federalist papers and other documents that would belie your post.
“Make it more cumbersome to attain” does sound a lot like infringing to me.
Of course a pistol round can penetrate a human body. We’re not debating that. I’ve seen it up close.
I took his point to mean a less powerful round. “Caliber” wasn’t the correct term in that case, but I understood where he was coming from.
Self-awareness isn’t your thing. I know plenty about firearms. Fired many. I’ve also filmed many training exercises on military installations while working a previous job. They were about as realistic as you could get to a mass casualty active shooter event, short of the real thing. Spurting fake blood, gory makeup effects, simulated GSWs, screaming simulated victims, spent shell casings scattered about the floor, a simulated active shooter walking through an office building firing blanks from his M4 (funny he didn’t use a .22 huh?), simulated LEO response and medical triage setups, etc.
I hope to never be on the receiving end of any munition. But there’s zero question most of the worst active shooter events have involved AR-15 style weapons for a reason, and it’s not because the shooters thought they “looked cool.”
I would like to point out that fully automatic weapons are perfectly legal, if not cheap. If you are legal to own a firearm, you are legal to own a machine gun.
You can also purchase “silencers”, grenade launchers, and other explosive devices. They ain’t cheap and the ammunition for the explosive devices is very difficult to buy and cost prohibitive. But if you want one and have the finances to afford one, you can own one.
I happen to have 2 suppressors.
Ok, how about some common sense? If someone walks in to a classroom full of students of average class room size with 20 - 30 students:
Classrooms are typically 800 to 1,100 square feet, sized to accommodate 20 to 30 students, and are square to slightly rectangular. Common classroom sizes include 28 by 30 feet, 30 by 30 feet, and 32 by 32 feet, while corridors tend to be 6 to 18 feet wide.
What is the average length of each shot? That length does not require a rifle to be accurate. Especially after the shooter walks to the middle of the classroom? Handgun and the Rifle are both deadly as hell, both the 9MM or the Rifle. And like @Ostatedchi said, a handgun in close quarters can be more easily maneuvered for target acquisition.
If you don't think our culture has not turned the AR-15 in to some super special deadly rifle you are kidding yourself. Some adults on this board think it was recently made as a weapon of mass destruction. Instilling fear is also a way of instilling paralysis and for the targets to freeze. I did not say it was all about being cool, read my comments in context of our culture, socialization, and the fear aspect of that gun. Why not get an old semi-auto rifle with a wooden stock and a 30 round clip? Probably can get cheaper.
A shooter with a 9MM +P hollow point rounds, 15 rounds per mag, and 2 mags for 30 rounds is as deadly in that class room situation as one with an AR-15 and 30 round mag.
Go in to the class room blind folded with this gun and over 20 rounds and you probably have a tremendously high hit rate, might as well ban this as well, they will just go on to the next thing, even though a handgun in a class room is deadly as hell:
"Shotguns used for hunting or sport rarely suffer from the magazine capacity issue, but when it comes to defensive purposes more ammunition is always better. The KSG-25 can store an enormous amount of firepower for a single shotgun: up to twenty three-inch shells, 24 2.75 inch shells, or forty 1.62 inch mini-shells. The shotgun can also store one shell in the chamber, for a total of twenty-one, twenty-five, and forty-one shells, respectively."
It will start at the AR and then it will be all the guns. Nothing new about the AR rifle, technology been around forever. Take that gun away and you have other options just as lethal in a classroom and I am sure someone can figure out on Google what guns those are.
Last edited:
The tax stamp is a $200 tax to that is paid to the ATF when you want to make or purchase an already manufactured silencer or NFA firearm. You will use the ATF Form 1, ATF eForm 1, or ATF Form 4 to apply for your tax stamp.
The suppressor is affordable.
The NRA has spent a lot of money to convince you this is true. It is fiction. Fear is a powerful tool, as you’ve said. I think what scares gun manufacturers (and the politicians they back) the most is the thought of the “liberal gun grab” boogey man myth dying out.
You don't think that shotgun is next if shooters start using that?
You forget COVID and how the largest lobbying group in the country (Big Pharma), and the feds forced shots on some to keep their jobs and told us if you get the vax you will not get COVID and and you can’t give it to Grandma so she will not die. Billions made by Big Pharma.
Did you buy that as well?
You don’t have a vote in Congress, what you think means nothing.
Trusting a politician on either side of the aisle on issues like this?
NFW.
Is that why the Obama administration strong-armed money center banks into not doing business with gun and ammunition manufacturers?
