How to Defend the Wounds Caused by Guns Like AR-15s

[Spats McGee]

Originally Posted by LogicMan

So one of the factors of late that is a point of discussion regarding AR-15s and their legality is the massive horrible wounds they apparently create (or more specifically, the .223 and 5.56 rounds). Medical personnel have noted that unlike say a 9mm which punches a clean hole in a person, with an AR-15, the person has a baseball or grapefruit sized hole and the internal organs are completely destroyed. Lungs gone, bones made into powder, etc...so some naturally are using this as a way to demand that these weapons be banned, that they are extra-super-lethal. . . . .

Was wondering your thoughts? This is IMO an important part of this subject that we need to be able to explain to people, to everyone from regular folk to government representatives at hearings on legislation.

First of all, I call BS on "grapefruit sized hole and internal organs completely destroyed" by AR rounds. It could be done with many AR rounds, I guess, but I'd need to see some hard evidence that an AR round did that.

Second, I'm with Glenn: We're not going to win anything by arguing that "there are worse rounds out there." I don't own my guns because they're a lot like giant Q-tips. My defensive guns are just that, defensive. If they didn't inflict wounds on an attacker, I would find something that did.

[thallub]

IMO: There's no need to defend the choice of your preferred self defense firearm. Use your preferred firearm for self defense when absolutely no other option is available: In the "gravest extreme".

Defending/debating/arguing such with anti-gunners is a waste of time.

[Aguila Blanca]

Personally, I justify owning an AR-15 (I only have one) by reference to the Second Amendment. At this point, I'm older than the age range specified in the current version of the Militia Act, but I wasn't when I bought the rifle. I am an Army veteran, and if the country (or my state, or my town) were to wake up to a Red Dawn type situation I would still consider myself to be available for whatever sort of duty my physical condition would allow me to perform. We're extremely unlikely to experience catastrophic flooding in my town, and earthquake and hurricane damage is unlikely to be cataclysmic, but you never know. In other parts of the country, any or all of these may be higher probability. It makes perfect sense to me that the people who comprise the unorganized militia (most of us) should be armed with a rifle that's pretty much the same as what the Army and the National Guard have. That's in keeping with the intent of the original Militia Acts of 1792, in which the caliber of each militiaman's musket and the amount of ammunition he was supposed to have was specified. That was done for operational uniformity (dare I say "regulation"?). Certainly, in an emergency citizens called up to provide security against ____ could be armed with deer rifles, lever action cowboy carbines, and even high-pressure pellet rifles -- but compatibility with what the government forces are carrying would greatly simplify logistics.

[Evan Thomas]

I've edited or deleted some posts. The general ills of society are off-topic here.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

All good points. A question: is the .223 and 5.56 unique in that they fragment, which from my understanding is what causes the massive damage, or do other rounds such as .308 and 7.62x51 do the same? Or 30.06?

As someone pointed out earlier, bullet selection plays a more important role in whether something fragments than caliber. The specific phenomenon you are referring to is with military ball ammo (FMJ) and not even all ball ammo but very specific types.

All spitzer shaped bullets will tumble eventually. Most of the mass is at the rear of the bullet and as the front decelerates on hitting the target, the back end wants to swap places with it. The question is WHERE this happens? In a bullet travelling 2,500fps, a slight delay in when it tumbles can mean the where is outside the target entirely (or past the vitals). Lighter rounds have less momentum and upset faster. Bullets with thin jackets and soft lead cores may break apart completely when they tumble and spray the wound channel with fragments. If they are too light, they may do it so fast nothing vital is hit.

The thing is, not all 5.56 FMJ does this - for example, the old Wolf FMJ has a thick copper washed steel jacket and a lower velocity. The lead just squeezes out of the exposed base like toothpaste. Swiss or British 5.56 is also designed with a thicker jacket and rarely breaks apart.

Likewise, even bigger FMJ bullets like 7.62 will tumble and fragment if the velocity is high enough and the jacket thin enough (and some military 7.62x51 does do this).

The people who think the AR15 is special in this regard don’t understand how bullets do their work. Which is a common problem in debating gun control... someone will say 20 things demonstrating complete ignorance of firearms and it is easy to get lost in the weeds trying to educate them on what they don’t know instead of just going to the meat of the argument.

In this case, the answer is what several have already said. The Second Amendment isn’t about hunting deer. The whole point of a firearm is to cause serious injury to living creatures. That’s its raison d’etre.

[jimbob86]

I think the "general ills of society" are fair game: Those are the root problem. Violence is but a symptom. Guns/bullets/wounds/whatever are just red herrings thrown up by those that would disarm us. But go ahead and play their game if you wish. I won't.

[Evan Thomas]

Originally Posted by jimbob86

I think the "general ills of society" are fair game: Those are the root problem. Violence is but a symptom.

Actually, I agree with you. The Firing Line, however, is not the place to have this conversation. We don't do general politics here, or sociology, so they're fair game elsewhere, but not here.

[Lohman446]

Originally Posted by carguychris

The argument we need to win is whether armed self-defense by private citizens is justifiable. If so, then EFFECTIVE armed self defense is in turn justifiable. All else flows from that.

I think this is a very effective articulation of the argument. In religions that encourage proselytizing they have the term "elevator chats." For the vast majority of people long drawn out debates and discussions are boring. If you cannot summarize a strong and understandable position in a typical short elevator ride you are likely not gaining with the majority of the population. While I am familiar with the concept putting it into use is obviously not my strong point.

[Lohman446]

The ill's of society are not the only answer in regard to answering questions on gun control.

Anti-premise "the AR-15 is simply too devastating to be allowed in the hands of private citizens"

Argument you seem upset to not be allowed to make "the ills of society are the problem"

Its kind of a red herring argument that doesn't even address the premise that AR-15s are too deadly for an individual to possess. Some on here are articulating an argument that the deadliness of the AR-15 is precisely why individuals should be allowed to possess them.

[jimbob86]

the premise that AR-15s are too deadly for an individual to possess.

That premise is ridiculous on it's face: there are other guns that are more powerful and are accepted as fine by those that would ban the AR-15. This gun, or that gun, are not the problem. The other side wants to make this the debate so that they can take all the guns, one type at a time, when each successive ban does not solve the symptom, ignoring the fact that doing the same thing over and over again, only harder, and expecting a different result is insane ...... they don't care, because solving the actual problem was not their intent in the first place. Disarmament IS.

[jimbob86]

If you allow the enemy to choose the ground you fight on, and the conditions you will fight in, you have given him half his victory before the battle begins.

[zukiphile]

Noting the original issue:

Originally Posted by Logicman

So one of the factors of late that is a point of discussion regarding AR-15s and their legality is the massive horrible wounds they apparently create (or more specifically, the .223 and 5.56 rounds). Medical personnel have noted that unlike say a 9mm which punches a clean hole in a person, with an AR-15, the person has a baseball or grapefruit sized hole and the internal organs are completely destroyed. Lungs gone, bones made into powder, etc...so some naturally are using this as a way to demand that these weapons be banned, that they are extra-super-lethal.

I agree that the grizzly description of the wound is intended to be a persuasive element of the argument. Is it pertinent?

If when threatened with grave harm, you could snap your fingers and the aggressor would simply vanish without pain or any mess, but no chance of survival, would your self-defense be any less just for the absence of a gorey wound?

If you were to snap those same finger to have someone vanish without any justification, would the lack of pain, blood or wound reduce the severity of your wrong?

If the answer to the last two questions is "no", then it is also "no" to the first question.

[Lohman446]

I'm suspicious of the "medical professionals have noted" statement. Without graphic evidence I'm simply not buying it. Too politicized of an issue and too simple of evidence to produce to take some vague "medical professionals" word for it

[Lohman446]

That premise is ridiculous on it's face: there are other guns that are more powerful and are accepted as fine by those that would ban the AR-15. This gun, or that gun, are not the problem.

Have you read through the thread a second time because that is effectively the discussion we have been having.

[jimbob86]

I'm suspicious of the "medical professionals have noted" statement.

As a former EMT, I can tell you that all wounds, GSW or otherwise, are "nasty, dirty things ".......

Have you read through the thread a second time because that is effectively the discussion we have been having.

.... and it's a losing argument: The other side is making an emotional plea ...... you can't win with logic. "Guns cause wounds, therefore are bad." I'm saying the only way to win is not to debate that point. Don't go down that road.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Lohman446

Its kind of a red herring argument that doesn't even address the premise that AR-15s are too deadly for an individual to possess. Some on here are articulating an argument that the deadliness of the AR-15 is precisely why individuals should be allowed to possess them.

Perhaps not exactly that argument, as I read the posts in this discussion. As long we allow the discussion to focus on the AR-15, we are allowing the anti-gun side to again control the narrative. Today they have fixated on the AR-15, and their argument is that it's unreasonably lethal. The counter-argument (IMHO) isn't that ARs aren't unreasonably deadly, or that most rifles are deadly, or that there are rifles that are MORE deadly -- the counter-argument is that firearms, in law, are classified as "lethal force" for the reason that they can kill. That's why we have them. Not that we want to kill anyone, but that we want effective defense against violent attacks. Under carefully prescribed conditions, the laws of every state allow us to employ lethal (or "deadly") force for self defense. If we're allowed to use deadly force, then we should be allowed to use the most effective iteration of deadly force we can get -- when necessary, and under the conditions prescribed by law. Anything beyond or outside that is already illegal multiple times over.

The anti-gun people are again seeking to punish the innocent for the transgressions of one individual. They complain about the wounds an AR-15 produces. We shouldn't argue that -- wounds are wounds. The point is, how many laws were broken in order for that individual to have wounded (or killed) his victims? There are already systems in place that are supposed to prevent such incidents. In how many ways did those systems fail to accomplish their goal? Why aren't we trying to fix what is obviously broken, rather than punishing the innocent?

[doofus47]

I'm of the opinion that this discussion is a no-win topic.
I say that b/c I believe that the vast majority of society (even though they may watch shoot-em-ups on TV or in the movies or even if they might play first person shooter games) are really not willing to look at a hurt person or physically hurt another person (at least in this society at this time). Restated: deep down, the vast majority of people (including your fellow citizens) do not want to hurt another human being. Such damage is "aberrant." And I'd agree.

To accept that firearms, especially rifles can do that type of "horrific" damage quickly and without much skill and that those types of weapons should be allowed to all private citizens (with criminal and mental exceptions, of course) requires several stops on a not-very-difficult train of thought:

1. Existential threats to our entire country have not been met by our professional armed services before they get to the private citizen's door. We have the world's best army (etc) : not gonna happen.
2. Within our safe/defended society, this rifle would have to be used against someone (probably just another citizen) who "needed" to be stopped by a private citizen. (Ninjas don't drop from the ceiling except in crappy B movies; you're paranoid).

3. The private citizen who needed the rifle was somehow so far outside the normal zone of "order" provided by police other law enforcement agencies and he/she had to depend upon himself or herself against a threat so massive that it called for a terrible black rifle. (Where do you live? Alaska? No one lives in Alaska, you should move if you're so far away from safety.)

or

4. The threat would have to be of an institutional variety that was so vastly unjust (racism, etc) that the threat would be recognized for what it was and confronted and stopped by the due process long before society reached the point of individuals having to defend themselves from an institutional threat.
(#resist, aided by a powerful and free media will expose evil and keep us free. Our society is becoming more free and tolerant all the time all demographics say the trend will continue).

There are two types of people in the world "better to have it and not need it" and "why do you need it?"

If you're in one camp, it's really hard to justify your mindset to the other camp. The 2nd amendment is very obviously written by someone of the "better to have it and not need it" camp, but to someone who's lost family or seen a wound that shakes them to the bone, it's hard to justify the need based on maybe.

There are a lot of losing topics out there that also fall under the header of "why do you need that?"

I think that the best answer _might_ be:
I agree that the power of a rifle is a fearsome thing. I think that people in society should have access to this type of hardware b/c the Founders of this nation recognized through historical events related to the founding of this nation that that the general population of this nation not an institutional government should have the first and last say regarding their freedom.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

That premise is ridiculous on it's face: there are other guns that are more powerful and are accepted as fine

Accepted for now maybe... before there was an assault weapon ban, there was "Handgun Control, Inc.". When banning handguns couldn't get traction, it was "ban Saturday Night Specials." It is really about setting the precedent that some type of firearm can't be used by the bourgeoise.

Once you've got that foot in the door, it is easy... that one carries too many rounds in its magazine, that one that has fewer rounds is too powerful. Etc. Goldilocks gun control, except there isn't any "just right."

[jimbob86]

Well stated, doofus. You aught to change your screen name.

[jimbob86]

Bartholemew, correct! We know where that road leads. Don’t go down it!

[Kevin Rohrer]

Ummm, the 5.56 round is not magical and is no worse than any similar round. There is a reason it is called a "mouse gun", as most other center-fire calibers are worse.

[LogicMan]

Originally Posted by HiBC

None of those,nor the AR-15,are the root cause ,and no action on any of those will remedy killing.

And I'm recognizing a trend.

Fairly new members with low post counts starting discussions such as this.

With a little orchestration,the discussion will polarize.

And then the posts take on the tone" The status quo you know is untenable.Compromisei is unavoidable. You must concede common sense gun safety measures. Resistance is futile.You must assimilate"

Sorry ,but my robot is saying "Danger Will Robinson"

I'm feeling like I am being mined for ore for the opposition. Trojan.

How am I a fairly new member when I joined in January of 2013 and have as of now 253 posts? That said, even if I was a brand-new member, so what? It is a topic I wanted to see people's thoughts on. Thus far I have been seeing what I think are a lot of good points, including one of yours:

To discuss the AR-15 bullet" is something like labeling and boxing "Native Americans" or "Women" or "White Males" into one monolithic group.
I can assure you within that box will be subsets and individuals who will invalidate any conclusion you may come to...but that does not deter media or politicians.

[LogicMan]

Originally Posted by turkeestalker

The problem is that you've already lost the argument because that is not how it should be but how it actually is.
That is the reality of it all and you've given your opposition the upper hand by not demanding that fact be acknowledged to begin with.
If that "just smacks of evasiveness in the debate", then it was never an actual debate.
Allowing our opposition to control the narrative in such a way simply means that we've already lost by choice.

added:
Including the word 'mostly' in what I copied and pasted above is proof of that, but I've done the same sort of thing.
Not one more inch.

I agree, what I meant when I said, "That is how it SHOULD be" is "That is how it should be understood widely," but unfortunately it isn't.

[LogicMan]

Originally Posted by thallub"

IMO: There's no need to defend the choice of your preferred self defense firearm. Use your preferred firearm for self defense when absolutely no other option is available: In the "gravest extreme".

Defending/debating/arguing such with anti-gunners is a waste of time.

Some anti-gunners can be converted, but the main concern for me are the fence sitters.

[LogicMan]

Originally Posted by Bartholomew Roberts

The people who think the AR15 is special in this regard don’t understand how bullets do their work. Which is a common problem in debating gun control... someone will say 20 things demonstrating complete ignorance of firearms and it is easy to get lost in the weeds trying to educate them on what they don’t know instead of just going to the meat of the argument.

While this is true in general, and I agree with it, when you get into the legal issues, such as arguing before a court with justices who may not know a thing about firearms, such things are important I think. Sometimes it is important to know how to go into the weeds so as to properly defend the right.

Like with "assault weapon," the NY judge who upheld NY's ban said that since the "military-style features" make the weapon easier-to-use, then they thus make it more lethal. Arguing how that is not the case can require going into some weeds, but they are nonetheless necessary.

Originally Posted by Bartholomew Roberts

Accepted for now maybe... before there was an assault weapon ban, there was "Handgun Control, Inc.". When banning handguns couldn't get traction, it was "ban Saturday Night Specials." It is really about setting the precedent that some type of firearm can't be used by the bourgeoise.

Once you've got that foot in the door, it is easy... that one carries too many rounds in its magazine, that one that has fewer rounds is too powerful. Etc. Goldilocks gun control, except there isn't any "just right."

Oh definitely. You could come up with a justification to ban every gun:

AR-15s and similar guns: "These guns are easy-to-use and thus too deadly!"

Bolt-action rifles: "These guns are high-powered sniper rifles!"

12 gauge shotgun: "These were nicknamed "trench brooms" in WWI, they are far too powerful and deadly for a person to use. They also are too difficult for the average citizen to use without training, therefore they should be banned!"

Handguns: "These are easily concealed and constitute the weapon used in the majority of gun murders, therefore they should be banned!"