U.S. Supreme Court expands public gun carry rights, striking down New York state law

[heybruce]

41 minutes ago, radiochaser said:

I posted the following as a response to someone else's post.  But I think it may be a good response here, in some ways.  As to your claim that all men had to own a firearm, to be part of the militia, I will disagree.  Not all people in that time period would have had or needed a firearm.  There were many trades in which a firearm would have been a useless tool.   Not all people hunted, just as not all people farmed, nor did all people make cloth, or eating utensils, etc.  

But when necessary, those with out firearms could be called upon to join the active militia and they would be provided firearms by the government.  As not all firearms at the time were privately owned, even though there were plenty that was.   Did you know that many of the cannon that was used in the revolutionary war were also privately owned cannon and provided to the government to use in the war against the British Governments military?  

The following is the posted response to another:

Yes, I do think that he had very good  understanding into the Constitution.  He was a delegate to the U.S. Constitution Convention!  He was also influential in the writing of the Bill of Rights. 

Who are the militia, they are the whole of the people.  And the people are the citizens of the United States.   

 "well regulated" refer to proficiency and top-notch training. "This was written at a time when there was relatively little in the way of formal training in marksmanship ...

But even the people who are not well regulated (i.e. trained) are still part of the militia, the untrained militia still being part of the whole of the people. 

Well regulated was also once (and may still be) used to refer to a two barrel firearm, such as a double barrel .500 Nitro Express, in which the barrels were regulated to have both barrels shoot a bullet to the same point of aim. 

"he" who has no name.

[placeholder]

10 hours ago, radiochaser said:

I disagree that the incidents are as few and far between as you imply.   

If you have an agenda, to remove firearms from the general public, excluding law enforcement and military, would you broadcast the number of times that one person has saved multiple lives, or would you publish stories, ad nauseum, about incidents where multiple people are killed?

Because the only media out there are run by liberals? You really want to run with that? Does the name Fox News ring any bells for you?

[placeholder]

On 6/28/2022 at 12:41 PM, radiochaser said:

I posted the following as a response to someone else's post.  But I think it may be a good response here, in some ways.  As to your claim that all men had to own a firearm, to be part of the militia, I will disagree.  Not all people in that time period would have had or needed a firearm.  There were many trades in which a firearm would have been a useless tool.   Not all people hunted, just as not all people farmed, nor did all people make cloth, or eating utensils, etc.  

But when necessary, those with out firearms could be called upon to join the active militia and they would be provided firearms by the government.  As not all firearms at the time were privately owned, even though there were plenty that was.   Did you know that many of the cannon that was used in the revolutionary war were also privately owned cannon and provided to the government to use in the war against the British Governments military?  

 

Your assertion that the militia is the whole of the people is obviously, even blatantly, false. The United States still has militias. They're called the National Guard.  Is every adult citizen a member of the National Guard? Have they taken the oath to serve? Are they getting stipends and enjoying the other remunerations and privileges enjoyed by those who actually serve?

How do you come up with this stuff? 

[billd766]

On 6/24/2022 at 8:52 AM, ThailandRyan said:

Unfortunately unless they rewrite the constitution your views are leftist.

But AFAIK it is NOT in the constitution, it is the second amendment,

 

Therefore it should be fairly simple (to me at least) to strike that amendment down and write another, saying that if you wish to bear arms, they must be black powder and you must enlist in a militia regiment which only uses black powder weapons.

[ozimoron]

11 hours ago, radiochaser said:

Criminals are less likely to commit crimes in areas where it is unknown who is or is not carrying a firearm.  

By the way, what is your area of expertise in law enforcement that gives you inside knowledge?  I am curious about that!

In my case, I was a Federal Agent that provided assistance to small city police all the way up to working with the Secret Service when they were guarding politicians, including Presidents!  As I replied to another post, I also worked with law enforcement agencies that provided border protection for land, sea, and air.  
 

You didn't provide a link to your claim. Is that because you can't substantiate it?

 

Start here.

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/06/right-to-carry-gun-violence/531297/

[radiochaser]

18 hours ago, heybruce said:

Why isn't there a thriving firearms smuggling business in Canada?  Europe?  Japan?

I can't speak to today, but years (many years) ago, I had found an online English language translation of Japanese news.  There were a couple of stories written about how Japanese police officers were murdered for their guns, which were revolvers at the time.  When the criminals were caught, they admitted that was the reason they killed the police officer. 

There was also stories about firearms being smuggled into Japan.  One story that I recall was how several .22LR pistols were found inside plaster figurines.  These were cheap handguns called Saturday Night Specials (which is a racist term) that I think cost less than $100.00 each, at the time I read the story.   Firearms such as this were selling for $5000.00 U.S. in Japan.  A friking incredible markup!

I did find this news story from 1995 about smuggling firearms into Japan.   Makes me wonder about the intelligence gathering that allows law enforcement Japan, to find this information.  I do know that when I was assisting other U.S. agencies working to fight smuggling into the U.S. that there were people who told authorities about smuggling attempts.   Other times the intelligence was gathered from the smugglers themselves in a manner that I am unable to report  (because that type of intelligence gathering is, if not classified, is at the very least restricted information).   

https://www.upi.com/Archives/1995/07/18/Japan-police-arrest-three-in-gun-smuggling/4029806040000/

[Scott]

Posts from unapproved sources have been reported and removed.

 

[heybruce]

2 hours ago, radiochaser said:

I can't speak to today, but years (many years) ago, I had found an online English language translation of Japanese news.  There were a couple of stories written about how Japanese police officers were murdered for their guns, which were revolvers at the time.  When the criminals were caught, they admitted that was the reason they killed the police officer. 

There was also stories about firearms being smuggled into Japan.  One story that I recall was how several .22LR pistols were found inside plaster figurines.  These were cheap handguns called Saturday Night Specials (which is a racist term) that I think cost less than $100.00 each, at the time I read the story.   Firearms such as this were selling for $5000.00 U.S. in Japan.  A friking incredible markup!

I did find this news story from 1995 about smuggling firearms into Japan.   Makes me wonder about the intelligence gathering that allows law enforcement Japan, to find this information.  I do know that when I was assisting other U.S. agencies working to fight smuggling into the U.S. that there were people who told authorities about smuggling attempts.   Other times the intelligence was gathered from the smugglers themselves in a manner that I am unable to report  (because that type of intelligence gathering is, if not classified, is at the very least restricted information).   

https://www.upi.com/Archives/1995/07/18/Japan-police-arrest-three-in-gun-smuggling/4029806040000/

I posted "thriving firearms smuggling business".  Single digit smuggling operations, or even numbers in the dozens or hundreds, will not lead to the situation of more guns than citizens.  That is where the US is now.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_civilian_guns_per_capita_by_country

[Denim]

On 6/24/2022 at 10:34 AM, Longwood50 said:

A well regulated Militia

When that was written I don't think they had a lot of automatic weapon armed whack jobs in mind.

[Longwood50]

6 hours ago, Denim said:

When that was written I don't think they had a lot of automatic weapon armed whack jobs in mind.

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. 



 

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

9 minutes ago, Longwood50 said:

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. 
 

 

People have legitimate needs and uses for cars, matches, pressure cookers, fertilizer and diesel fuel. That's why they're not banned.

 

People (the average citizen) have NO legitimate need for semi-automatic firearms...  That's why they SHOULD be banned.

 

Lawful self-protection and defense does not require semi-auto weapons. Neither does recreational hunting, nor any other reasonable, legal use.

 

On the other hand. attempted insurrection and mass murder is where those semi-autos really come in handy!

 

[Longwood50]

2 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

People (the average citizen) have NO legitimate need for semi-automatic firearms...  That's why they SHOULD be banned.

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. 

 

[placeholder]

2 hours ago, Longwood50 said:

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. 

Do you understand that you are supporting the argument that progressives support concerning the "living constitution"?

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

3 hours ago, Longwood50 said:

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.  

 

You need a semi-auto rifle to kill those BIG bad deer and bunny rabbits???

 

 

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

This seems to pretty well tell the story:

"Gun Deaths per Capita by State

The following ten states have the highest gun deaths per capita (per 100,000): Alaska (24.4), Mississippi (24.2), Wyoming (22.3), New Mexico (22.3), Alabama (22.2), Louisiana (22.1), Missouri (20.6), South Carolina (19.9), Arkansas (19.3), and Montana (19.3). The states with the highest gun deaths per capita have some of the country's highest gun ownership rates...

 

Conversely, the states with the lowest gun deaths per capita are Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, Hawaii, and Rhode Island, all of which have fewer than five gun deaths per 100,000 people. These states also have the lowest gun ownership in the United States."

 

https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/gun-deaths-per-capita-by-state

 

 

Below for 2020 per capita statistics:

 

 

 

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/firearm_mortality/firearm.htm

 

Edited June 29, 2022 by TallGuyJohninBKK

[Longwood50]

On 6/29/2022 at 9:18 PM, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

You need a semi-auto rifle to kill those BIG bad deer and bunny rabbits??

 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.

 

[ozimoron]

4 hours ago, Longwood50 said:

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. 

No they are not.

 

https://www.19fortyfive.com/2022/03/best-hunting-rifles-meet-the-top-5-on-the-planet-today/

 

4 hours ago, Longwood50 said:

 

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. 

 

 

[Longwood50]

12 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

No they are not

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.  

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, Longwood50 said:

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.  

So the AR-15 isn't a particularly good hunting rifle otherwise it would have got a mention. The AR-15 is nothing other than a weekend warrior icon. It is particularly good for killing lots of people quickly and in a most vicious manner.

[Bkk Brian]

4 hours ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

People have legitimate needs and uses for cars, matches, pressure cookers, fertilizer and diesel fuel. That's why they're not banned.

 

People (the average citizen) have NO legitimate need for semi-automatic firearms...  That's why they SHOULD be banned.

 

Lawful self-protection and defense does not require semi-auto weapons. Neither does recreational hunting, nor any other reasonable, legal use.

 

On the other hand. attempted insurrection and mass murder is where those semi-autos really come in handy!

 

Absolutely but those people will defend their rights to possessing semi's regardless of simple logic and evidence to hand. Look at this nutter, he's got dozens of them and the only reason he's not got more is because of his college budget............

 

 

[Longwood50]

10 hours ago, ozimoron said:

So the AR-15 isn't a particularly good hunting rifle otherwise it would have got a mention. The AR-15 is nothing other than a weekend warrior icon. It is particularly good for killing lots of people quickly and in a most vicious manner.

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" 

 

[Longwood50]

16 hours ago, ozimoron said:

It is particularly good for killing lots of people quickly and in a most vicious manner.

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. 

 

 

[ozimoron]

4 minutes ago, Longwood50 said:

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.

The AR-15 round is so fast that it explodes body organs like a watermelon. Compare the hitting power with a Glock or other pistol.

[Bkk Brian]

The AR-15 is a deadly weapon and indeed as the poster said mutilated the bodies of the children beyond recognition. 

[Longwood50]

5 hours ago, Bkk Brian said:

The AR-15 is a deadly weapon and indeed as the poster said mutilated the bodies of the children beyond recognition. 

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. 

[ozimoron]

On 7/1/2022 at 2:43 PM, Longwood50 said:

 

I never suggested the AR-15 was a handgun. It's easy to compare the muzzle velocities of an AR-15 and any gun using simple math.

[ozimoron]

3 minutes ago, Longwood50 said:

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. 

The AR-15 assault rifle was engineered to create what one of its designers called “maximum wound effect.” Its tiny bullets – needle-nosed and weighing less than four grams – travel nearly three times the speed of sound. As the bullet strikes the body, the payload of kinetic energy rips open a cavity inside the flesh – essentially inert space – which collapses back on itself, destroying inelastic tissue, including nerves, blood vessels and vital organs. “It’s a perfect killing machine,” says Dr. Peter Rhee, a leading trauma surgeon and retired captain with 24 years of active-duty service in the Navy.

 

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/all-american-killer-how-the-ar-15-became-mass-shooters-weapon-of-choice-107819/

[Longwood50]

On 7/1/2022 at 10:56 PM, ozimoron said:

I never suggested the AR-15 was a handgun.

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.  
 

[Longwood50]

19 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

The AR-15 assault rifle was engineered to create what one of its designers called “maximum wound effect

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.   

[ozimoron]

On 7/1/2022 at 11:16 PM, Longwood50 said:

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.  
 

Again, I said that an AR-15 round has a greater hitting power than a glock. At no stage did I state or imply that an AR-15 was a handgun. The kinetic energy of a bullet determines its hitting power, not just its size.

 

The amount of energy a bullet radiates into a target is determined by a simple formula taught in high school: It’s the product of one half the projectile’s mass times the square of the velocity.

 

https://www.thetrace.org/2017/06/physics-deadly-bullets-assault-rifles/