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

[44 AMP]

look past the smoke and mirrors, and see what they are really saying. Forget about how much harm this or that does, that is part of their misdirection.

False is the idea to take fire from man, because it burns....

yet, they would do so, gladly, if they could.

Its a waste of time to argue with these people, but if you're so inclined, consider that when they bring up how horrible the wounds from an AR 15 are, ask them, WHY DO THE POLICE HAVE THEM????

Is it so they can murder us easier???

(of course, its not, but see how they respond to that one...)

[Lohman446]

Those wounds, often several recountings removed and with no graphic evidence, are precisely the reason we should be allowed AR-15 rifles. As others have noted the individual right to self defense begets the right to effective self defense. Those descriptions sound like the hallmarks of a tool of effective self defense.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

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!"

You don't even need a law to ban these since the NFA gives the Attorney General to ban anything with a bore greater than 0.50" if he deems it lacks a "sporting purpose."

[Sure Shot Mc Gee]

The intention of any military small arms cartridge is to wound not kill. What changes that military intended purpose? > bullet change out.

[jimbob86]

The intention of any military small arms cartridge is to wound not kill.

Maybe the diplomats think so ....... and maybe weapons designers bought that line of PC
BS from them ...... but the guys with their feet inside the "boots on the ground" don't shoot someone to wound him. They intend to "Kill that (Expletive)!", before he can do that to them.

[44 AMP]

the NFA gives the Attorney General to ban anything with a bore greater than 0.50" if he deems it lacks a "sporting purpose."

Right idea, wrong law. The 'sporting purpose" language doesn't show up in Federal law until the 1968 Gun Control Act. And, in that law, the authority is to ban imports, not US manufactured guns. Also, I believe that "anything with a bore over .50" applies to rifled bores.

Smooth bores (shotguns) are not in the same category. (example: a "sawed off" 12ga is not an NFA item because of its bore size (.72") but because of its barrel and/or over all length being below (shorter than) the minimum length listed in the law.)

Its easy to get confused.

The intention of any military small arms cartridge is to wound not kill.

Horsehocky!

That myth was advanced by the MacNamara defense dept. "whiz kids" as the justification for adopting the small bore 5.56mm round, along with the second part of the myth, that wounding an enemy takes 3 guys out of the fight, whereas killing him only removed one.

That is a "beancounter" analysis, makes for wonderful statistics, charts & graphs, but doesn't work evenly, or sometimes, even at all in the real world.

If you go back and read ALL that has been written about cartridge firearms since their invention, you will not find anything praising the wounding power of rounds, until you get to the 1960s. Just the opposite, in fact, one can find many examples of complaints about various rounds ONLY wounding and not killing, or not killing fast enough.

wounding one enemy doesn't automatically take 3 guys out of the fight. It may not even take the wounded guy out of the fight. It MIGHT, but accepting that it always does, as a given, is a foolish mistake.

[T. O'Heir]

A baseball or grapefruit sized hole is caused by the shooter using varmint bullets out of a rifle. Has nothing whatever to do with the cartridge.
A 9mm, which punches a clean hole in a person, is an FMJ ball round. It's what they're designed to do. Oddly, so is a 5.56NATO ball round.
However, as soon as the phrase "Medical personnel have noted" is used you lose the argument. Those who think you should not be allowed to own a firearm at all will stop listening. Assuming they were in the first place.
A subsonic solid point 22 LR instantly breaks up into wee tiny fragments upon impact.
"...Whitetail deer are smaller and lighter than average adults..." Not here, they ain't. 125 pounds is a Texas deer. Average weight here is 140 to 250 lbs. Record is close to 300 pounds dressed. However, there are lots of suitable .223 deer bullet these days. Deer bullets are not varmint bullets. Varmint bullets are designed to expand rapidly upon impact. A deer bullet penetrates as it expands. Ain't the same. Neither is a military ball bullet.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

Horsehocky!

That myth was advanced by the MacNamara defense dept. "whiz kids" as the justification for adopting the small bore 5.56mm round, along with the second part of the myth, that wounding an enemy takes 3 guys out of the fight, whereas killing him only removed one.

What was it General Patton said? Oh, yes:

"The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his."

It doesn't sound like Patton had wounding in mind as a prime objective.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

As pointed out the wound story is another gun world 'urban' myth. Certainly, thinking it would defend the right to have a specific gun is rather twisted logic.

I'm not even sure McNamara thought of that. It is hard to source with any verifiable documentation.

The 'nice' defense, the "MSR" defense, it's not an 'assault boom-boom' because it's not full auto are all useless in the current debate. The latter can be pointed out but it doesn't make the gun nice and sabotages a position that wants the full auto guns to be freed up.

The defense that Cowboy Tex Horsepooper can shoot a lever action just as fast is a reason to ban them. The defense that you can do that much damage with a pump shotgun is a reason to ban shotguns. The idea that Jerry can hose you with a revolver and speed loaders. Let's ban them. 5 is enough.

Throw in mythology about wounding, Switzerland and Japan and you just useless defenses for the RKBA. Add rants attacking kids who survived a shooting, even if you think they are obnoxious and incorrect, useless along with conspiracy theories.


PS - interesting about Patton. He said the 8 shot semi auto Garanda was : “In my opinion, the M1 rifle is the greatest battle implement ever devised.”

So saying a 30 round carrying AR is not a 'battle' rifle because it is not 308 or 30.06 - useless. It's just a 'toy' for sports and competition. I guess WWII was a sporting event.

Stick to the fundamental purposes of the 2nd Amend. in a rational fashion.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Originally Posted by 18 USC 921(4)(B)

(4) The term “destructive device” means—
(A) any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas—
(i) bomb,
(ii) grenade,
(iii) rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces,
(iv) missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce,
(v) mine, or
(vi) device similar to any of the devices described in the preceding clauses;

(B) any type of weapon (other than a shotgun or a shotgun shell which the Attorney General finds is generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes) by whatever name known which will, or which may be readily converted to, expel a projectile by the action of an explosive or other propellant, and which has any barrel with a bore of more than one-half inch in diameter; and
(C) any combination of parts either designed or intended for use in converting any device into any destructive device described in subparagraph (A) or (B) and from which a destructive device may be readily assembled.

So, if the bore is over a half inch in diameter and it expels a projectile by the action of an explosive or other propellant, it is a destructive device UNLESS it is a shotgun or shotgun shell AND the Attorney General finds it has a suitable sporting purpose. Effectively, that means the Attorney General (and previously the Secretary of the Treasury) has the power to relegate shotguns to the NFA (domestic or imported). A power that has been occasionally used (see Street Sweeper, USAS-12).

[armoredman]

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

Strawman - the misuse of a lawful tool is the problem.

It's just not the wounds, the shredding caused by
the .223.

It's the delivery method, a weapon designed to fire
very rapidly and have a large capacity of ammunition.
And it's the ability for someone to carry large amounts
of such lightweight ammunition with nearly instant
reloads.

This ability to deliver in a very, very, very short period
of time great lethality would not be duplicated with
a typical four to seven shot hunting rifle such as a
bolt action or lever action firearm.

[Anti-gun] argument, verbatim - again, it's not the tool, it's the misuse of the tool, like the truck driver in Nice and New York. Period. I refuse to argue with anyone on that basis because it is irrational. When murders by HANDS AND FEET are more numerous than murders by any type of rifle, any argument containing the previous to me is inane and bent towards banning a tool based on scariness, not logic. Ask them if they were marching to ban box cutters after 9/11.