Longwood50

The wound effect is not soley caused by muzzle velocity. It is largely the type of bullet that is loaded into the cartridge. If you use a full metal jacket it does not expand and it will penetrate but not shatter causing what you term "wound effect" If you use a hollow point expanding bullet it will mushroom making its diameter larger than its caliber and causing much more tissue damage. However that is true whether you are talking about a .22 rimfire, a .223 AR-15, a 30-06 or a .44 magnum. Again to beat a dead horse, can you kill with an AR-15 of course. However its reputation as a machine gun and a devastating caliber is just nonsense. It is a glorified .22 almost the smallest caliber made. It was used because it was cheap, and the soldiers could carry more ammo because the cartridges were small. Talk to anyone who hunts and ask if they would take on a bear with a AR-15 or whether they would prefer a .308 Winchester.

No you compared it to a Glock which is a handgun. Muzzle velocity is only one characteristic of firepower. 17 Remington as part of their Varmageddon line that push a 20 grain Varmageddon bullet at 4,200 feet per second. Handloaders can improve upon that performance to a certain degree and the cartridge is capable of velocities in excess of 4,300 feet per second with a 20 grain You can kill a crow with a 17 Remington but not much else. The smaller the caliber the less lethal it is. The AR-15 is a .223 caliber cartridge. Among the smallest. The larger the projectile the more devastanging its killing power is. That is why many states do not allow even hunting for medium size animals such as deer with the cartridges used in the AR-15. Muzzle velocity gives you a flat trajectory. However mass murderers don't kill at 200 to 300 yards. A 12 guage shotgun loaded with 00 buckshot wont travel much more than 100 yard but at close range it is a far far far more devastating weapon that the AR-15. People use shotguns as backup to kill Tigers, and Bears. They don't use AR-15.

Those are what is known as Mutally Exclusive Terms

That is not true. I don't dispute the fact that you can kill people with an AR-15. You can kill people with a .22 handgun. Robert Kennedy being one of them. However this notion that the AR-15 is some sort of devastating firearm is just not true. The AR-15 which stands for ARmalite company is a civilian version of the M-16 which the U.S. army hated. It was picked because it was cheap and the ammunition cheap to manufacture. Also since the cartridges are SMALL a soldier could carry more rounds. As I stated, be careful what you ask for, it might come true. If they potentially ban AR-15 or similar firearms and those who wish to do harm upscale to a .25, 27, or .30 caliber firearm versus the .223 caliber in the AR-15 you will find you just pushed them into a much more lethal firearm.

For the surgery yes, however you might consider this.

How long ago was that? Before I discovered Jomtien Hospital I went to Queen Sirikit. They were excellent in terms of the completeness of the examination. However I was there for the entire day only to be told that my eyes were not that severe. That is true. However, I had problems at night with glare. They indicated because of Covid now that they were scheduling surgeries they were doing only with severe eye problems and they could not do mine. Just as well, I don't think I would have cared to do all the follow up driving from Pattaya to Queen Sirikit.

Yes that is correct.

I went to Doctor Santa Methasari at Jomtien hospital. He has outstanding credentials and speaks fluent English. Cost right now is 39,000 baht for the single vision lens. I had both eyes done and could not be happier. Jomtien Hospital is part of the Bangkok Hospital group. Dr. Methasari also practices out of Bangkok Hospital but the cost is higher. I have no idea. The facilities at Jomtien are brand new and first class. You do have to make one trip to Bangkok hospital for a special machine that calculates the lens power. 1,000 baht for them to scan your eyes with the Zeiss machine and give the doctor the expected outcome with several different lens choices. Mine were a Johnson & Johnson lens so nothing off brand. The initial appointment to discuss is free. After you go to Bangkok Hospital you then meet with the doctor who will confirm the lens choice and set the date. After surgery you go the following day to have the eye examined. Then again one week later and again 1 month later. Finally a follow up 1 year later. All the appointments, meds, and the surgery is included at 39,000 baht.

Can you kill a person with an AR-15 of course. However it is not really a very effective firearm for that. It is woefully underpowered. Fine for coyotes, wild pigs, prarie dogs etc. The M16 is the fully automatic (machine gun) type. It will continue to fire so long as the trigger is held back or it is set to fire in 3 round bursts. The AR-15 is a semi-automatic version of the M16. It uses the same ammo but you must pull the trigger each time to fire. It is not a Rambo type firearm. It looks like the military version but it is not. Also even the military version M16 was not a particularly good firearm. Its lack of cartridge size made it just as likely to wound rather than stop an enemy. The .223 and 5.56 (used in the M16 and AR-15 rifles) have for a long time been near optimal small game and varmint cartridges owing to their supremely destructive effects upon these animals even when using traditional bullets along with the typical pinpoint accuracy achievable with many AR family rifles. Vietnam War troops hated the M16 and dubbed it the “Mattel 16” because it felt more like a toy than a battle rifle. “We called it the Mattel 16 because it was made of plastic,” said Marine veteran Jim Wodecki in the video below. “At that time it was a piece of garbage.” It weighed about half as much as the AK-47 Kalashnikov and fired a smaller bullet – the 5.56 mm round. In short, the troops didn’t have faith in the rifle’s stopping power. https://www.wearethemighty.com/popular/vietnam-war-troops-hated-the-m16-and-called-it-a-piece-of-garbage/ The military chose the weapon because it was light, and the ammo was cheap. There was also some notion that having a small .556 firearm caliber that wounded rather than killed the enemy was preferable because it would then take two enemy soldiers to transport each wounded person in effect taking 3 people off the battlefield.

Well this should sure coincide with the governments stated objective of attracting the "wealthy tourist" I am sure there will be charter flights from Monaco to handle the expected surge.

LOL heck the illegal ones probably give better odds than the government. I know that is true in the USA. This reminds me of a joke where a man who was a billionaire saw a gorgeous woman and he approached her saying she was beautiful and he wanted to have sex with her. She said, I am no prostitute who do you think you are. He replied I am a billionaire and would be willing to pay you $1 million dollars to have sex with she. She thought for a moment and said, well ok once and it is $1 million correct and she agreed. He said, ok how about for $50 dollars. She replied disgustingly, $50 what kind of a woman to you think I am. He said, we have already determined that, we are only hagggling over price now. Obviously the lure of tax revenue overides anyones distates for gambling.

No the AR15 is a lousy hunting rifle. It is a puny caliber only .223 and its killing power is so lousy that it would be illegal to hunt large game animals with it. The caliber is fine for small game such as coyotes or prarie dogs but the caliber is by comparison to the typical big game caliber woefully small. Now, is your goal to ban the AR-15 so that mass shooters have to "bulk up" and go to lets say a .308 that has some really devastating killing force. The AR-15 ARmalite -15. is called an assault rifle strictly because it "looks scary" Ruger makes an equivalent to the AR-15 called the Mini-14. They make it in several versions such as a carbine (short barrel) called a "ranch rifle" popular for ranchers because of its short barrel it fits into a truck easier. They also make the exact same gun in a model called the "mini-tactical" The only thing different between the two are the cosmetics. The tactical model has a plastic stock and forearm, its barrel has a "flash supressor" the grip is changed to a pistol grip. In terms of firepower they are absolutely identical. It is like taking a Toyota Camry jacking it up, putting oversize tires on it, quad exhaust pipes a rear spoiler and an air scoop on the hood. It may look like a race car but it is still a Camry. AR-15 and the far more powerful AK-47 are available worldwide. Now they don't have a problem in Japan, or a problem in Swiztzerland, or Canada. There is not a problem in Kennesaw Georgia that mandates everyone own a gun. Only 1 homicide in over a decade. There is a problem in places like Chicago. If the firearms are the same throughout different countries but the use of those weapons differs. IT IS THE PEOPLE USING THEM not the firearm. Any effort to ban "assault rifles" would only cause those who wish to do harm to change to potentially a far more devastang caliber. I challenge anyone to come up with a definition of an assault rifle other than "it looks scary"

That article says "the best" not what are the most popular. Oh and PS the Browning BAR which is in the list you provided is a semi-automatic. The reason these are "best" is that bolt action rifles are still the "best" for accuracy. They produce the fastest bullet speeds with the same caliber of bullet. Now that is like saying a manual transmission car produces the "best" performance It also depends on what type of hunting you do. If it is for long range shooting then yes a bolt action will produce the "best" performance and will be the preferred action. If you hunt in a wooded area where you are likely to have to fire multiple rounds then a semi-automatic would be preferable. The Browning BAR mentioned in the article and the Remington 742 are two of the most popular.

You seem to be of the opinion that it is a machine gun. No it fires no differently than a pump, lever action, or bolt action rifle. It merely means that the firearm loads the next shell into the chamber rather than the person having to do so. many pump action models will not only load but fire the load each time the action on the firearm is pumped. Do you eat chicken, pork, or beef. Is it really material if the animal is harvested with a firearm versus having a hammer smashed against their skull as they do with cows. Or perhaps you think that slicing their throats with a knife is a far more humane way to end the animals life. The majority of the firearms in the USA that are semi-automatic are sold with a 5 round clip. They are used for hunting. Now can someone purchase a higher capacity clip to hold more cartridges. Yes. However as mentioned someone can if they are so inclined, fill up cylinders of propane, place them in a school and set the school on fire. A person can, and some have taken a vehicle and deliberately run into a crowd of people. Consider in Mexico there is only 1 gun store and it is housed in a military base in Mexico City. To "legally" possess a gun you must be a member of a sporting club, submit background checks and the process takes months. Is there any shortage of guns or violence in Mexico. Oh and PS the guns they have are fully automatic and they don't come from the USA since they are illegal to sell to anyone other than law enforcement and the ATF checks how many guns they received and where they were distributed to with a very close eye.

How about telling the Indian tourists that perhaps it is not a good idea to be "socializing" with transgenders. If you play with matches sometimes you get your fingers burned.

I "think" you are confusing automatic weapons - Machine Gun. versus semi-automatic where the person does not need to pump or move a bolt in order to feed another shell into the chamber. Semi-Automatic guns are the most popular hunting rifle. They are also used in target competitions. I both hunted with a semi automatic and did target shooting with one. A person may not have need of a car with 600 hp capable of traveling 200 MPH but should you ban them because of no need.You are injecting your mindset of "need" versus theirs. The biggest fallacy with your thinking is that somehow they can be banned. Yes for "legal" gun ownership they can be. It would be possible to prevent the law abiding citizen from going to a legal store to acquire a specific type of firearm. You can not prevent the criminal from obtaining whatever type of firearm they want to by purchasing it illegally. If you think you can. Why don't you start with banning Fentanyl from entering the USA and tell me how effective that has been in preventing far far far more deaths than those caused by firearms So let me ask you when the shooter hypothetically can not purchse a semi-automatic rifle but obtains a pump shotgun and loads it with 00 buckshot that disperses up to fifteen 32 caliber projectiles into a crowd and empties the 10 round magazine making a total of 320 bullets, do you then ban shotguns? The shotgun is a far far deadlier weapon. The AR_15 uses a 22 caliber projectile. The Buckshot is 32 caliber much bigger and the shotgun fires 15 of those projectiles with each pull of the trigger. That is why you see police carrying shotguns in their cars.

No and the first amendment did not intend for the internet either but it still applies. Free Speech. The 4th amendment never considered wiretapping but it is still illegal to wiretap without probable cause. The people who wrote the constitution fought the British and they did so with private guns. Automatic weapons are already illegal. Only special federal firearms license dealers can purchase them and only to sell to law enforcement. Semi Automatic guns are legal. You can have an arsonist but don't ban matches. You can have a drunk driver kill many people with a car but you punish the driver not ban the cars. The boston bomber used pressure cookers rather than a gun and Timoty McVeigh used fertilzer and diesel fuel.

Yes, I understood. Obviously you have some experience with the border and how contraband freely flows. Make firearms less available in the USA and the flow will come from other countries who will see the opportunity to price the guns high and sell them because of the scarcity.

If they were not reported how can that possibly be factual.

I am not sure what is so difficult to understand that contraband goods flow from one country to another. All you have to do is look at the huge problem the USA has with illegal drugs and for that matter illegals entering the USA to see that borders are porous. The issue of whether Mexican gangs do or not get their guns from the USA is irrelevant. The point is that it is the people who use the guns that are violent not the firearm. If firearms were the problem then areas with the highest concentration of guns would have the highest crime rates. They don't One only has to look at Mexico where "legal" possession of a firearm takes months, and there is only 1 store on a military base in Mexico City. Yet there is no shortage of guns and violence. So who has been disenfranchised out of a firearm. The Legal Purchaser who you were not worrried about. Who still has all the firepower the criminal. This idea that someone you can ban firearms can only lead to one conclusion. Being illegal, the law abiding citizen will be prevented from owning a gun. The criminal will find either domestic sources or imported sources to acquire a firearm. China sends us Fentanyl they also send guns. You don't think that they also send them to Mexico. The idea that somehow you can legislate out of existence the bad deeds of people is pure folly. https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1993/03/04/chinese-army-now-major-us-arms-merchant/2f3221b3-3dbd-4239-ae70-291e66d973a8/

By definition a law abiding citizen obeys the laws and a criminal breaks the law. So passing laws only stops those who are concerned about breaking them. PS it is already a law you can't use a firearm to assault another person. Pretty effective HUH. You can see how much gun laws have in terms of reducting violence by just looking at Mexico. Before you say oh well they get those guns from the USA well then why don't those areas with lax gun laws in the USA like Kennesaw Gergia outside of Atlanta that make it mandatory for all citizens to own a gun have the problem. Further even if you stop the importation of guns from the USA Mexico gets it's Fetanyl from China proving illegal products flow thousands of miles. Vietnam is a big exporter of guns.

This was not an expansion in any sense of the word. The second amendment specifically says A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. New Yorks law said that in order to get a permit you had to show a legitimate purpose to have the gun permit. That is an infringement since it puts New York in the position of arbitrarily determining what is a legitimate purpose.

Maybe they can get Christopher Steele to write a dossier with all of the pertinent details and have Fusion GPS and the Perkins Coi law firm spearhead the dossier. They did such a great job with the one on Russia.

Yes, you have mentioned hurdles and the insurance is just piling on one more. This entire idea of mandatory insurance is just a handshake between the government and the insurance companies allowing them to reap billions. The idea that 448 million baht in lost revenue from unpaid medical bills is a huge deal is a red herring to give some credence to their propsal. As mentioned Thailand gets in a normal year 38 million tourists. Do the math. As little as 15 baht per tourist covers those losses. But no, the government wants to hit the fly of a problem with a cannon mandating insurance. Charge each tourist the 300 baht entry fee covering the hospitals and doctors for any unpaid medical expenses and let the bureaucrats figure out how to spend the remaining 10 billion baht that is left over. Stop making it a hassle to travel to Thailand

You are correct "collectibles" fall right in with Crypto in terms of relying on the next greater fool to purchase them. At least they have utilititarian value in that the owner can look at them while they own them versus Crypto that exists only in someones minds. Perhaps I am wrong but history shows when people invest strictly because something is "going up" and the underlying investment does not generate a profit, eventually when the last fool is in, the bottom drops out.