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

[ozimoron]

2 minutes ago, Longwood50 said:

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.   

stop- misquoting me.

[jimmybcool]

5 minutes ago, Longwood50 said:

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.   

Military doctrine since the 60s the Army changed over to the smaller round as most shooting today is suppressive in nature.  Meaning very few rounds actually hit an enemy combatant.  And of course you can carry a lot more small 223 ammo than the previous generation 308 caliber of the M14.  Makes sense since doctrine is to pin down and destroy enemies with air power.  A quick search indicates:

 

M14 magazine with 20 rounds of 308 = 1.63 pounds

M16/AR15 magazine 30 rounds 223 = 1 pound

 

Carrying 120 rounds:

 

M14 - 9.78 pounds

M16/AR15 - 4 pounds

 

No brainer.  Of course the lighter caliber of the 223 makes it less effective if you are hitting a target and many old guard soldiers despised the change.  223 bullet is deflected in heavy brush where the 308 would punch through.

 

 

Interesting part is the few soldiers actually aiming specifically at a target on a regular basis are the snipers and they still use the 308 round.  The 223 being too under-powered to do the job.

[Bkk Brian]

On 7/1/2022 at 10:54 PM, 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. 

Whats not true? Just because your gun manuals don't tell you what the AR-15 does to a humans body? You claim to have extensive knowledge in guns yet having no idea what they do in real life is astounding.

 

Why would I lie about the mutilated bodies at Uvalde, so horrific that they needed identification through DNA or through the shoes they were wearing, heads blown off, the survivors who covered themselves in the blood of their friends hoping to play dead.

 

AR-15s Were Made to Explode Human Bodies. In Uvalde, the Bodies Belonged to Children.

As prior reports have stated, the AR-15 rifle was a weapon designed for war and to inflict maximum damage.

It cannot be emphasized enough, however, exactly what the AR-15 is: It is a weapon of war. It was made to blow humans apart. It is successful in doing just that. The requests for DNA tests in Uvalde stand as a testament to the gun’s success, but the conclusion that the weapon excelled at blowing people apart was well documented by the U.S. military itself during early field tests.

 

https://theintercept.com/2022/05/26/ar-15-uvalde-school-shooting-vietnam-war/

 

The story of a Uvalde victim's green shoes captures the White House's attention

The fact that Maite was identified mainly by her sneakers and other students by DNA tests is because of the sheer violence inflicted by the AR-15-style rifle used in the mass shooting. McConaughey said, "They needed extensive restoration due to the exceptionally large exit wounds of an AR-15 rifle. Most of the bodies so mutilated that only DNA test[s] and green Converse could identify 'em."

 

https://www.npr.org/2022/06/07/1103577387/matthew-mcconaughey-green-converse-shoes-sneakers-uvalde-maite-rodriguez

 

A Uvalde coroner is haunted by identifying the bodies of children and an old friend

"It's something you never want to see and it's something you don't, you cannot, prepare for. It's a picture that's going to stay in my head forever, and that's where I'd like for it to stay."

"when fired into a human adult body, its bullets travel with such fierce velocity that they can decapitate a person, or leave a body looking "like a grenade went off in there," as Peter Rhee, a trauma surgeon at the University of Arizona, told Wired. The carnage the weapon leaves behind has become a signature of school shootings and other mass shootings across the country."

 

https://www.npr.org/2022/05/31/1102097583/a-uvalde-coroner-is-haunted-by-identifying-the-bodies-of-children-and-an-old-fri

 

 

Yes its true..............................

 

 

[heybruce]

12 hours ago, jimmybcool said:

Military doctrine since the 60s the Army changed over to the smaller round as most shooting today is suppressive in nature.  Meaning very few rounds actually hit an enemy combatant.  And of course you can carry a lot more small 223 ammo than the previous generation 308 caliber of the M14.  Makes sense since doctrine is to pin down and destroy enemies with air power.  A quick search indicates:

 

M14 magazine with 20 rounds of 308 = 1.63 pounds

M16/AR15 magazine 30 rounds 223 = 1 pound

 

Carrying 120 rounds:

 

M14 - 9.78 pounds

M16/AR15 - 4 pounds

 

No brainer.  Of course the lighter caliber of the 223 makes it less effective if you are hitting a target and many old guard soldiers despised the change.  223 bullet is deflected in heavy brush where the 308 would punch through.

 

 

Interesting part is the few soldiers actually aiming specifically at a target on a regular basis are the snipers and they still use the 308 round.  The 223 being too under-powered to do the job.

"Military doctrine since the 60s the Army changed over to the smaller round as most shooting today is suppressive in nature.  Meaning very few rounds actually hit an enemy combatant.  And of course you can carry a lot more small 223 ammo than the previous generation 308 caliber of the M14.  Makes sense since doctrine is to pin down and destroy enemies with air power."

 

Suppressing fire!  Perfect for home defense in an urban setting.  Just spray a bunch of bullets in the general direction of where you think the bad guys are.  To heck with anyone else in that direction, I never did like that neighbor anyway.

 

Of course that means that while I trust myself with an AR-15, but I don't want anyone living in my vicinity to own one.

[Longwood50]

On 7/2/2022 at 7:49 AM, Bkk Brian said:

Whats not true? Just because your gun manuals don't tell you what the AR-15 does to a humans body? You claim to have extensive knowledge in guns yet having no idea what they do in real life is astounding

I have owned numerous firearms, competed in national target competitions.  I have reloaded tens of thousands of rounds of ammunition. 

Can an AR-15 inflict damage.  Yes so can a .22 rimfire the smallest caliber.  However what I am saying is that the AR-15 is a puny caliber rifle.  It was marketed by Reminton as a "varmit" caliber.  Why? Because it was fast, cheap, and had excellent speed even out to 300 yards.  That said, it is a small caliber so small that numerous states require that hunters use a larger caliber even to hunt medium size animals weighing less than a human (deer). 

 

 You can purchase the following semi-automatic rifles that chamber the same exact ammunition as an AR-15

 

• Colt - AR-15
• Smith and Wesson
• Heckler and Koch
• Sig Sauer
• Daniel Defense
• LaRue Tactical
• BCM
• Geissele
• Noveske
  
  You can purchase the following rifles in bolt action that also use the exact same ammunition.
• Savage
• Remington
• Ruger
• Mossberg
  
  You can purchase the following lever action rifles using the exact same ammunition. 

 

• Henry
• Mossberg
• Marlin
• Browning
  
  
  The same is true of the AR-15.  It is fast, but light.  At its muzzle the .223 has only 1,261 foot pounds of force.  By contrast the 150 grain .308 winchester travels slower but has 2,648 foot pounds of energy.  It is more than twice as powerful and this is a deer hunting caliber. 
   

So in conclusion can you kill people with the AR-15 yes.  If you ban the AR-15 you still have a huge number of firearms that are absolutely identical to it in terms of the ammuntion they use and 8 of those are semi-automatics making their capabilities absolutely identical to the AR-15.  Now if you ban the AR-15 or any other firearm like it, and in doing so push the shooter to buy the larger .308 caliber one of the most popular hunting calibers in the USA, you have now pushed them into a much more deadly weapon 

 

[ozimoron]

On 7/2/2022 at 4:14 PM, Longwood50 said:

 I have owned numerous firearms, competed in national target competitions.  I have reloaded tens of thousands of rounds of ammunition. 

Can an AR-15 inflict damage.  Yes so can a .22 rimfire the smallest caliber.

 

Attempting to make any kind of equivalence there makes your argument a joke if the damage done to these kids wasn't so sad.

[Bkk Brian]

On 7/2/2022 at 4:14 PM, Longwood50 said:

 I have owned numerous firearms, competed in national target competitions.  I have reloaded tens of thousands of rounds of ammunition. 

Can an AR-15 inflict damage.  Yes so can a .22 rimfire the smallest caliber.  However what I am saying is that the AR-15 is a puny caliber rifle.

 

Couldn't care less what your so called expertise in firearms, you ignored the evidence I provided and that says it all. You called me a liar and fail to acknowledge it and you fail to acknowledge what it did to the children.

 

"blowing people apart was well documented by the U.S. military itself during early field tests."

[Longwood50]

On 7/2/2022 at 4:20 PM, ozimoron said:

Attempting to make any kind of equivalence there makes your argument a joke if the damage done to these kids wasn't so sad.

Is it sad what has happened to those children.  Absolutely.  However this knee jerk reaction is akin to banning cars because of drunk drivers, or reckless drivers.  

If you truly wanted to "save lives" then push for tighter border control 

The number of deaths particularly amoung "young people" is over 100,000 per year. Far far far more than from firearms.  But they occur one at a time rather than in a mass shooting. 

That is not to say that we should not be concerned about the mass shooters but use a "reasoned" approach.  The banning of a single caliber or a single type of firearm only pushes the person bent on killing people to select a different firearm or worse yet, one with far more firepower. 

You mistakently believe that the AR-15 is some sort of Rambo type machine gun.  No it is nothing more than a semi-automatic in a very puny caliber.  

I can tell you this, and I have shot and reloaded tens of thousands of rounds of ammunition used in target shooting.  I would much rather face a person with an AR-15 than with a Remington 742 chambered in .308, .270, .280, or 30:06.  The bullets are upwards of 50% larger and pack more than twice the destructive power.  

So if you could waive your magic wand and ban the AR-15 tht is like trying to combat drunken drivers by banning beer.  You picked on the beverage with the lowest amount of alcohol just like picking on the AR-15 is picking on the firearm that is among the least powerful. 
 

Edited July 4, 2022 by onthedarkside
unsourced image removed

[Longwood50]

On 7/2/2022 at 4:20 PM, Bkk Brian said:

Couldn't care less what your so called expertise in firearms, you ignored the evidence I provided and that says it all

No I said you were misinformed.  And selectively used "evidence" that supported your pre-conceived notion.  

Do this for yourself.  Look up online the foot pounds of energy of a 55 grain .223 round that is used in the AR-!5 and then do the same for a 150 grain .308 caliber. 

The .308 has more than twice the power.  

Look up what the .223 is reccomended for in terms of what type of game.  You will see it is listed as a "varmit" cartridge to be used for animals the size of coyotes.  

Is it lethal.  Absolutely but it is like taking a step to ban drunk driving by banning beer.  You picked on the one with the least not the most alcohol content. 

The same is true of picking on the AR-15.  It uses one of the smallest cartridges with the least power not the most. The AR-15 is the civilian semi-automatic version of the M-16 fully automatic rifle.  As you can see, Vietnam era people who actually used the gun called it a piece of garbage and doubted its stopping power.  Which is true.  a .22 caliber cartridge is the second smallest caliber made. 
 

 

Edited July 4, 2022 by onthedarkside
link to commercial merchandise website removed

[Bkk Brian]

On 7/2/2022 at 6:36 PM, Longwood50 said:

No I said you were misinformed.  And selectively used "evidence" that supported your pre-conceived notion.  

Excuse me? This is what you 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."

 

 

My links disprove your assertions that its not a devastating firearm whether you like it or not. 

 

[Longwood50]

On 7/2/2022 at 7:08 PM, Bkk Brian said:

 

If you want proof. 

Talk to someone familiar with firearms.  Ask how the destructive capability of a .223 Remington/5.56 Nato round compares to a larger .270 Winchester, .280 Remington, or .308 Winchester cartridge.

 

These states think that the AR-15 with its miniscule .223 caliber is too small to even hunt deer with. 

 

[Bkk Brian]

On 7/2/2022 at 8:37 PM, Longwood50 said:

 I don't need to fire a gun when there are first hand reports and evidence of the mutilation to the bodies of the children.

[jimmybcool]

17 hours ago, heybruce said:

"Military doctrine since the 60s the Army changed over to the smaller round as most shooting today is suppressive in nature.  Meaning very few rounds actually hit an enemy combatant.  And of course you can carry a lot more small 223 ammo than the previous generation 308 caliber of the M14.  Makes sense since doctrine is to pin down and destroy enemies with air power."

 

Suppressing fire!  Perfect for home defense in an urban setting.  Just spray a bunch of bullets in the general direction of where you think the bad guys are.  To heck with anyone else in that direction, I never did like that neighbor anyway.

 

Of course that means that while I trust myself with an AR-15, but I don't want anyone living in my vicinity to own one.

Why would you feel comfortable owning one but not trusting anyone else with one? 

[heybruce]

2 hours ago, jimmybcool said:

Why would you feel comfortable owning one but not trusting anyone else with one? 

I thought the satire in my post was obvious.

[Bkk Brian]

On 7/3/2022 at 12:32 PM, Longwood50 said:

 

Here's some more facts for you.

 

The requests for DNA tests in Uvalde stand as a testament to the gun’s success, but the conclusion that the weapon excelled at blowing people apart was well documented by the U.S. military itself during early field tests.

[Bkk Brian]

On 7/3/2022 at 1:33 PM, Longwood50 said:

 

 

some more facts for you

 

"The fact that Maite was identified mainly by her sneakers and other students by DNA tests is because of the sheer violence inflicted by the AR-15-style rifle used in the mass shooting. McConaughey said, "They needed extensive restoration due to the exceptionally large exit wounds of an AR-15 rifle. Most of the bodies so mutilated that only DNA test[s] and green Converse could identify 'em."

[jimmybcool]

14 hours ago, Bkk Brian said:

Here's some more facts for you.

 

The requests for DNA tests in Uvalde stand as a testament to the gun’s success, but the conclusion that the weapon excelled at blowing people apart was well documented by the U.S. military itself during early field tests.

Would love the source for this.

 

 

[Bkk Brian]

12 hours ago, jimmybcool said:

Would love the source for this.

You missed didn't read the thread?

 

 

[Bluespunk]

Illinois shooting: Five dead in 4 July parade shooting near Chicago https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-62042636
 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jul/04/chicago-shooting-fourth-of-july-parade-police?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

[Scott]

6 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

Illinois shooting: Five dead in 4 July parade shooting near Chicago https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-62042636
 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jul/04/chicago-shooting-fourth-of-july-parade-police?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Story running here:https://aseannow.com/topic/1264905-shooting-reported-at-4th-of-july-parade-in-chicago-suburb-of-highland-park/

 

[jimmybcool]

19 hours ago, Bkk Brian said:

You missed didn't read the thread?

 

 

Don't think I missed anything.  Where was the part """weapon excelled at blowing people apart was well documented by the U.S. military itself"""

 

[Bkk Brian]

2 hours ago, jimmybcool said:

Don't think I missed anything.  Where was the part """weapon excelled at blowing people apart was well documented by the U.S. military itself"""

 

The requests for DNA tests in Uvalde stand as a testament to the gun’s success, but the conclusion that the weapon excelled at blowing people apart was well documented by the U.S. military itself during early field tests.

 

https://theintercept.com/2022/05/26/ar-15-uvalde-school-shooting-vietnam-war/

 

[ozimoron]

CNN Cable TV just featured a doctor saying that many of the [Huntington Park] wounds were "unspeakably" horrific due to the speed and power of the AR-15 bullets. At short to medium range these are some of the deadliest rounds there is. The body organs literally explode out the exit cavity. He used the word unspeakable about half a dozen times. He said most normal people would never want to see that.

Edited July 5, 2022 by ozimoron

[KhunLA]

The 2nd Amendment works ...

 

2 thoughts go with the link below about Mass Shootings:

If more people legally carried guns, less people would be killed in MS.

If nobody legally carried guns, more people would have been killed in MS.

 

https://www.newsweek.com/indianapolis-just-latest-time-good-guy-gun-stopped-mass-shooting-opinion-1725737

[ozimoron]

2 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

The 2nd Amendment works ...

 

2 thoughts go with the link below about Mass Shootings:

If more people legally carried guns, less people would be killed in MS.

If nobody legally carried guns, more people would have been killed in MS.

 

https://www.newsweek.com/indianapolis-just-latest-time-good-guy-gun-stopped-mass-shooting-opinion-1725737

If nobody carried guns how would more people have been killed?

 

Statistics very clearly show that countries with strong gun control laws have a lower incidence mass shootings, it's that simple.