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.”
I’m a retired combat vet. I’ve seen what all kinds of weapons are designed to do. They all are designed to dispatch their target quickly and easily. So, if you are going to remove rifles, then remove grenades, rockets, explosives, and anything used in war that is designed to kill and is already in the hands of the public.
Oh, and how many auto accidents have you treated in the hospital and seen what a thousand pound car or a twenty thousand pound truck can do to the human body. And even with the war zones in Chicago or Detroit, more people die on the freeways every day. Time to ban cars?
And by doing that, you can’t say that AR-15’s are the problem as they don’t kill people. So let me correct your statement, please, “I am a trauma surgeon, and I’ve seen what people can do.” And that’s a correct statement.
rwood
Actually, the idiot doctor should study history. The small-caliber, high-velocity rounds of 0.223 ammo are intended NOT to kill, but to wound and incapacitate. Tending wounded uses far more resources and ties up far more troops (logistics) than dumping a dead body in a trench.
Indeed. Then it gets even better when he talks about how no one needs an AR-15 for hunting, and in the same breath talks about how hunting is horrible.
I am quite frankly shocked that Nicholas Cruz used a gun. After what we have seen in NYC and in France, I would think that he would have rented a u-haul and mowed down students as they exited the school.
Though, if that had happened, it would not have gotten much media coverage as it did not fit the agenda. Just as it isn’t getting much attention that they are killing themselves in Chicago using firearms. Evidently, poor blacks in the neighborhoods killing each other with illegally obtained weapons doesn’t sell well either.
I found that image searching with the term's 5.56 and 7.62. Haven't seen any in a while and I didn't realize they weren't picturing an AK-47 round. I just remembered the AK-47 round was substantially bigger than the AR-15 round.
Everything, starting with Assault Rifle and 18 school shootings. Both are liberal obfuscations.
Point still remains. The AK-47 round will put more of a hurt on you than would an AR-15 round. Our strategy was to make the gun and ammo light so a lot of it could be carried, as well as to be strong enough to put an enemy soldier out of commission, wounding him preferred to killing him.
Actually that is not true. The M-16/M-4 was designed to fire a small projectile at a high rate of speed so it bounces around and does sever damage, i.e wound/injure. In that way it removes more soldiers from the battle field. The wounded and those removing him from the battlefield. Obviously a well placed round kills, but with an M-16, hit a guy in the shoulder and it may exit out his ass. Just saying. But in general, all firearms can kill. Had a girl I knew in H.S. that went to Spring Break with a bunch of friends. Guy breaks into room and kidnaps her in front of her friends. They found her body on the side of a road with a 22 round in her skull.
But, sadly, I agree with many here that fear the government as much or more than anything else.
I wonder how many of these incidents took place while school was in session. Many, if not most could have been at night, during parking lot gang fights or drug deals.
If only that horrid WWI french rifle was used.
Am I wrong but didn’t opioids kill more people in the last year than mass shooters?
And who prescribes opioids.
Doctors that look like Cap’n Crunch that’s who.
the one on the left is 5.56x 45
the one on the right is 7.62x54
one on right is not used in AK 47s.
It was made for the military, to allow members of the armed forces to better dispatch multiple enemies in short order... >
Not true. The AR-15/M-16 design was a compromise. A higher caliber round would have been preferable from the standpoint of lethality, but it was decided that a smaller caliber round would be used so that infantrymen could carry more ammunition in to battle. Given the same number of rounds, a .30 caliber rifle would be much more effective at "better dispatch[ing] multiple enemies in short order" than an AR-15.
in the hands of civilians, it not only clearly serves the same purpose for some individuals, but it’s unclear what other purpose it could serve, given how and why it was made.
How about hunting, target shooting and self -defense, the same purposes to which other semi-automatic rifles are put?
…the standard AR-15 bullet travels at 3,251 feet per second and delivers 1300 foot pounds.
Tissue destruction of the AR-15 is further enhanced by cavitation, which is the destruction of tissue beyond the direct pathway of the bullet; this occurs with high velocity bullets because their kinetic energies are over 2,500 foot pounds.
1,300 ft-lbs is NOT more than 2,500 ft-lbs
a typical hunting rifle bullet has between 2600 and 4000 foot pounds, meaning it has greater recoil. The excessive recoil of a hunting rifle precludes rapid firing on target, because of the obligatory motion of the gun and its impact on the shooter.
First, he previously claimed that the AR-15 round delivers “more than 2,500 ft-lbs”, which makes it pretty darned close to “between 2,600 and 4,000". Second, "excessive" is a matter of opinion. Any reasonably capable shooter can fire a .30 caliber semi-automatic rifle almost as quickly as a .223 caliber rifle. I know I can. You learn to deal with the recoil so you can stay on target. Yes, the .223 has less recoil than most .30 caliber weapons, but that does not make them more deadly.
Do I need to go on?
Blah, blah, blah. I've seen, heard, and (God forgive me) participated in that pointless argument since decades ago.
At this point, I just plain DON'T CARE. It's irrelevant. Regardless of what the 5.56 NATO round was designed for, the Second Amendment has nothing to do with killing animals. It's about fighting (and killing or wounding) tyrants. YES, it's a "weapon of war". YES, it's designed for doing damage to people. THAT'S THE POINT.
All those avids must be in some exotic place or another. We certainly don’t have them here in Virginia. We’ve got aphids, but no avids.
Although, I would agree that the AR-15 is not effective against aphids...
;-)
Killing as efficiently as possible is exactly what a good firearm should do. Where’s the beef? We need to get firearms safety and defense classes and competitive shooting sports back into the schools!
more gun control retards that know nothing about caliber of riffles. These murders are perpetrated by democrat liberal blue counties and large leftist cities.
,,, more inefficient guns ??
The wounded in Chicago always far outnumber the dead .
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.