[ilovesarah2012]

What did he say that you disagree with?

[Zarro]

Perhaps this: “There’s no reason for civilians to own them.”

We do have a pesky constitutional right. And a God-given right to defend ourselves.

[ilgipper]

Everything. Just propaganda. Lies about the gun. Lies about 18 school shootings. He’s no more than a hack.

[Sopater]

Mostly “There’s no reason for civilians to own them.”

[smokingfrog]

it’s unclear what other purpose it could serve, given how and why it was made

It's the most popular rifle in America & no surprise that some (very few) end up being wrongly used. Estimates are there may be 4 to 5 million or more in use. Who is going to go around and confiscate all of them??

[DoughtyOne]

There's no reason for civilians to own them.

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.

[tomkat]

Your facetious question must’ve been rhetorical as well, as you’ve yet to respond to the several who’ve offered explanations.

[DiogenesLamp]

What did he say that you disagree with?

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.

[Buckeye McFrog]

What did he say that you disagree with?

That there is no justification for me to own an AR-15. Accomplished surgeon or not, he has no business making that call.

[cyclotic]

Everything, starting with Assault Rifle and 18 school shootings. Both are liberal obfuscations.

[WayneS]

I can answer that:

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?

[ModelBreaker]

“What did he say that you disagree with?”

The essence of the article is “shall be infringed.” I would go with “shall not be infringed.”