Posted on 02/15/2018 10:37:13 AM PST by Oldeconomybuyer
I am a trauma surgeon, and I've seen what AR-15s can do. There's no reason for civilians to own them.
An assault rifle is designed to deliver fatal wounds to multiple individuals within a short time period; it has no other purpose. The AR-15, the civilian version of the military assault rifle (M16 or M4), has become the most commonly used rifle in US mass shootings; the recent shootings in Parkland and Las Vegas, for instance, testify to the effectiveness of this weapons design. It was made for the military, to allow members of the armed forces to better dispatch multiple enemies in short order; in the hands of civilians, it not only clearly serves the same purpose for some individuals, but its unclear what other purpose it could serve, given how and why it was made.
Given that, there is no reason that these weapons should be broadly available to the civilian population. But, given that they are, lets all understand how they are designed to kill people, not simply to shoot targets for fun.
As a trauma surgeon for 40 years (and avid hunter for much longer), I am dismayed that we remain paralyzed over preventive measures. There have already been 18 school shootings in 2018, when one would be too many: This cannot remain a political issue when it is clearly an issue of common sense.
(Excerpt) Read more at nbcnews.com ...
Hey, doc, that means it is a good gun. Good guns are designed to do that. Are you a fool?
63 times .30 from buckshot....
Ruby Ridge, Waco, Fast & Furious just to name a few.
Follow Eric Holders career and youll know why the public should have the right to anything the police state has.
When I hear the “no sporting use” argument, I instantly explain that the 2A isn’t about hunting or sporting. It’s about killing people. In particular, politicians that become tyrants and their standing armies and supporters. That shuts them up every time.
Any nation thinking about taking the U. S. down, is going to have to accept that they'll have to fight every citizen to do it.
We're not doing that with a Daisy BB Gun.
This doctor is a card carrying fool.
We had plenty of guns in the old days. Kids weren't taking them to school and killing others with them.
This numbskull completely missed that point.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/school-shootings-year-article-1.3821162
Jan. 3, St. Johns, Mich. The first school shooting took place just three days into the new year, at East Olive Elementary School in St. Johns, Mich.The first one on the list was a closed school with no students there for over six months.A 31-year-old man died from a self-inflicted gunshot wound in the former schools parking lot.
The man is a military veteran who suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder, a traumatic brain injury and depression, according to police.
East Olive Elementary has been closed since June and no children or staff were on scene at the time of the incident.
Actually, doctor, the .222 Remington round, the basis for the 5.56 NATO/.223 Remington round used in the AR was designed from beginning as a varmint hunting round.
It is effective shooting varmints of many different species.
If you know a way to design a rifle round and a rifle that's effective at shooting a herd of feral hogs, but is human-safe, please tell.
Also, medical errors kill about 1000 times as many Americans as rifles every year. Perhaps you should get your own house in order first?
Your facetious question must’ve been rhetorical as well, as you’ve yet to respond to the several who’ve offered explanations.
I'll butt in. The AR-15 is based on the M-16, and it was *NOT* designed specifically to kill. It was designed specifically to wound, and that's the reason it uses a small slug instead of a much larger one like the AK-47 uses.
The whole theory was that if you could wound the enemy, it would tie up other enemy soldiers taking care of them, and so they wanted a projectile that could kill, but preferably one that would wound without killing.
Here's the difference between the US AR-15 (based on the M-16) and the Russian AK-47 rounds.
The AR-15 round was designed to wound as much as possible without killing, but of course if it hits a vital area, it will kill you.
Given that governments are never tyrannical this is true. But if you can find an example of a tyrannical government anywhere it is false.
Hmmm. Where can I find a tyrannical government in history? Looking,... looking,... looking.
Nope, I guess they are always good and kind.
Fake news libtard talking point.
If you REALLY want to see carnage from AR 15s, try taking them away.
“””””I am a trauma surgeon, and I’ve seen what AR-15s can do. There’s no reason for civilians to own them.”””””””
I have numerous single shot rifles in various calibers. Well, I did have them until the boating accident.
But, I have seen what they do to rabbits, gophers and deer.
It ain’t pretty. I shudder to think how dangerous they would be if they were painted black and had a pistol grip.
Just when it is revealed President Obama fraudulently authorized the state security apparatus to sabotage the administration of his duly elected political opponent, Doc suggests we disarm the American people? Not going to happen.
How about some real security in the schools?
Let's try this on for size:
"You know, the internet was designed to spread information at the fastest rate possible. In the wrong hands, lies, libel and misinformation can travel around the world faster than our founders could ever have dreamed.
This causes major problems in our society and it even puts human lives at risk. Now, I'm as big a fan of the 1st Amendment as anyone, but we have simply got to enact some restrictions on free speech and regulate how fast those electrons can travel" ...
NBC: the Killer Nick was a DACA baby!
That is not an AK47 round. It is a 7.62 X 54R which is nearly the same as the .308 Win ballistically.
Haven’t read many articles considering why public schooling gives cause to unstable persons to become so vengeful.
Tide pods weren’t designed “to kill as efficiently as possible”. But people still go the the hospital and die because of them. Does the doctor want them banned?
If not, where does he draw the line on the number of deaths that can result from use of an item by people with mental problems before it is outlawed. The Constitution is obviously not his line.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.