We Can’t Even Have A Quiet 4th In The USA

[Didba 5,256]

2 hours ago, GoAU said:

There are plenty of venues for suicide just as, or more appealing to firearms - car exhaust, running a car into an object, jumping, etc.  

 

As for guns ending more innocent lives than they save - there is data (CDC for example) that estimates defensive gun uses far exceed accidental or self inflicted fatalities.  But, more importantly, it is not the role of the government to become a “nanny state” and deem a Constitutional Right is “too dangerous”.   Individual accountability comes into play.  I do, however, support and encourage as much training as possible for legal gun owners.   I find it odd there are more state funded / subsidized programs for both adults and children regarding firearm safety.  This is an area the NRA excels in, in spite of its bad press.  

The right to bear arms is not a fundamental constiutional right as such gun restriction statutes are subjected to rational basis scrutiny which is very easy to satisfy by the government. The plaintiff has to prove that the statue isnt rationally related to an important government interest. 

[AU80cruiser 1,102]

13 minutes ago, Didba said:

I know, sorry, it's just I've had that told to me many times just becuase people assume liberals/dems don't know anything about guns. I love guns. Own a couple. No ARs but plenty of hunting equipment.

Then you know there are many more menacing rounds that a rifle can fire than a .223/5.56. Even some handgun rounds will do more damage albeit at a closer range. A 9mm will blow your lungs out you know. 😝

[autigeremt 6,589]

On 7/5/2022 at 11:49 AM, icanthearyou said:

Don't blame the media.  Critical thinking is allowed.

Go read a book 

[autigeremt 6,589]

14 hours ago, icanthearyou said:

Lie to someone else.  You are nothing but a liar.  I have no tolerance.

Take your tolerances somewhere else. This isn’t a liberals only site. 

[icanthearyou 4,462]

10 hours ago, autigeremt said:

Take your tolerances somewhere else. This isn’t a liberals only site. 

Sorry.  I wasn't aware that lying was something you stand for.  My apologies.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

11 hours ago, autigeremt said:

Go read a book 

Reading and thinking are bad?  Is that really what you are suggesting?

[autigeremt 6,589]

On 7/7/2022 at 11:03 AM, icanthearyou said:

Reading and thinking are bad?  Is that really what you are suggesting?

I’m suggesting you need to read a book. You need it. 

[Didba 5,256]

On 7/6/2022 at 9:23 PM, AU80cruiser said:

Then you know there are many more menacing rounds that a rifle can fire than a .223/5.56. Even some handgun rounds will do more damage albeit at a closer range. A 9mm will blow your lungs out you know. 😝

You ever see what a .223/.556 does to a person's body when it enters and instead of pushing through and through it tumbles up and down? The tumbling of those rounds when impacting soft flesh makes the lethatlity of the round much higher than a .308/7.62x39/7.62x59/9mm designed to punch through armor. Of course hollow points negate all pf this no matter the caliber but if you take two standard non-soft target rounds and hit someone in a non vital location, the .223/.556 will do more damage every time

Apparently you know less than I do about guns. Good thing I know a hell of a lot. 

Edited July 12, 2022 by Didba

[AU80cruiser 1,102]

7 hours ago, Didba said:

You ever see what a .223/.556 does to a person's body when it enters and instead of pushing through and through it tumbles up and down? The tumbling of those rounds when impacting soft flesh makes the lethatlity of the round much higher than a .308/7.62x39/7.62x59/9mm designed to punch through armor. Of course hollow points negate all pf this no matter the caliber but if you take two standard non-soft target rounds and hit someone in a non vital location, the .223/.556 will do more damage every time

Apparently you know less than I do about guns. Good thing I know a hell of a lot. 

Are you arguing that a tumbling .223/556 is more dangerous than a tumbling handgun round? With todays wide range of ammo that would be highly debatable. To count on that to be the difference is like counting on Bo Nix throwing a 30 yard go route on target. 

You may know more about weaponry than me and thats fine. What I do have the sense to know is that there are tons of exceptions to the rule and one can always find a way to break that rule.

 

[homersapien 11,357]

9 hours ago, Didba said:

You ever see what a .223/.556 does to a person's body when it enters and instead of pushing through and through it tumbles up and down? The tumbling of those rounds when impacting soft flesh makes the lethatlity of the round much higher than a .308/7.62x39/7.62x59/9mm designed to punch through armor. Of course hollow points negate all pf this no matter the caliber but if you take two standard non-soft target rounds and hit someone in a non vital location, the .223/.556 will do more damage every time

Apparently you know less than I do about guns. Good thing I know a hell of a lot. 

And it's not only just the tumbling/fragmentation of the relatively low mass bullet, it's also the shock wave produced from it's high velocity. 

(Kinetic energy is a function of velocity to the second power,  K.E. = MV² )

Some of the children shot with these weapons were literally decapitated. Many other wounds are fatal or result in loss of limbs simply because of the amount of tissue destroyed by the shock wave + bullet tumbling.  (One of the reasons they don't make good hunting weapons is the amount of meat they destroy.)

There is an interesting debate ongoing regarding showing graphic images of such wounds:

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/calls-to-release-more-graphic-images-of-deadly-attacks-meet-opposition

I personally think media should do this, but only on an anonymous basis. 

Edited July 12, 2022 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,357]

1 hour ago, AU80cruiser said:

Are you arguing that a tumbling .223/556 is more dangerous than a tumbling handgun round? With todays wide range of ammo that would be highly debatable. To count on that to be the difference is like counting on Bo Nix throwing a 30 yard go route on target. 

You may know more about weaponry than me and thats fine. What I do have the sense to know is that there are tons of exceptions to the rule and one can always find a way to break that rule.

 

Didba is correct.

A .223 causes much more grievous wounds than any handgun round, and many - if not most - rifle rounds at close range.

That is one of the reasons the military adapted it, they figured out most firefights occurred at much shorter range that previously assumed, especially in jungle settings.

 

[AU80cruiser 1,102]

14 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Didba is correct.

A .223 causes much more grievous wounds than any handgun round, and many - if not most - rifle rounds at close range.

That is one of the reasons the military adapted it, they figured out most firefights occurred at much shorter range that previously assumed, especially in jungle settings.

 

So .223 vs 460 rowland fired from a similar length barrel, the 223 is more deadly?

[wdefromtx 3,159]

It’s all about maximum energy getting absorbed into the body and not allowed to escape. 
 

That’s why there are hollow points. I think people are comparing range rounds here. A 9mm range round will just blow right through you and do less damage than a 0.223, but a hollow point 9mm is a different conversation. 

Edited July 12, 2022 by wdefromtx

[AU80cruiser 1,102]

54 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

It’s all about maximum energy getting absorbed into the body and not allowed to escape. 
 

That’s why there are hollow points. I think people are comparing range rounds here. A 9mm range round will just blow right through you and do less damage than a 0.223, but a hollow point 9mm is a different conversation. 

Exactly. And a 460 rowland vs 223 at close range is no contest especially in a similar length barrel. The velocities of pistol rounds are getting comparable to rifles and the bullet is much heavier.

There's a reason ppl will carry a 10mm for self defense against bear and not a 223.