• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Another inaccurate article on assault weapons.

Adding more laws, such as universal background checks and registration, can reduce fraudulent purchases and dissuade straw purchases. It can start to reduce the supply feeding into the black market.

The great majority of black market guns were legally manufactured, the great majority of imported guns were imported legally.

The fact that guns are widely a easily available on the black market demonstrates that many, many gun owners have been careless with who they sell to or how they secure their weapons from theft. The black market for guns is incredibly damning of the current state of gun ownership, which seems to feed an unending supply of guns into criminal hands. Every year vast amounts of guns move from legal ownership into the hands of those who no longer have the legal right to own them. Not all of that is theft. Not by a wide margin. Even then, there are proposals for laws that would address safe storage, both to reduce accidental/unintentional shootings as well to reduce theft, thereby further reducing the black market supply.

That does not get into laws that can be passed which would create temporary holds on the possession of firearms - so called "Red Flag" holds. The NRA has fought tooth and nail against those sorts of holds, yet it is just about the only thing that could have prevented the recent shooting in Florida.

There is quite a lot that new laws can do to reduce gun violence or keep guns out of the hands of the wrong people.


ETA: Even that does not even get into laws that could be passed to end the non-sensible prohibition on electronic records within the ATF's gun trace program. That and a few other laws seem to be based on the "They're coming for your guns" myth.

Did you even need to write that as a reply?

My comment was on the statement of less guns making places safer.

But you do you, you had that post on deck and we're going to use it some where.
 
Why can't I hear gun-proponents talk about gun responsibility?

Like having proved proficiency in shooting and caring for a weapon and how to handle it safely? Having a gun safe at home?
 
Only the ones that are too big, the ones that shoot too fast, the ones easy to conceal, the ones that "aren't safe" ( another great contribution to safety from the folks in Sacramento) and the ones somebody doesn't understand why anybody needs.
You forgot too small, too loud, too quiet and too heavy. I learned too heavy was an issue in 1990 when Hawaii included it in their criteria for assault pistols.
 
Why can't I hear gun-proponents talk about gun responsibility?

Like having proved proficiency in shooting and caring for a weapon and how to handle it safely? Having a gun safe at home?
I'm a shooting coach. I like to talk about gun safety here on the forum. Doesn't stop the dipsticks from mocking me for my efforts though.
 

Captain Swoop is dismissing such definitions as technical pedantry, and appealing to "machine gun" as a "generic term" that means... Well, something. I'm not asking him what the current BATF definition is. I'm asking him to sketch out a gun control policy based on his advocacy of "machine gun" as a "generic term" free of technical pedantry.
 
Just don't go "full semi-automatic" with your AR-15...

https://twitchy.com/bethb-313034/20...15-exists-and-the-gun-industry-is-astonished/

And this is a former General...
....

It's pretty clear from the context that what the general means by "full semi-automatic" is firing as fast as you can, pulling the trigger as quickly as possible, vs. firing one aimed shot at a time. He demonstrated both. What's more significant is what he says about the severe battlefield injuries he observed in soldiers on both sides who had been shot with .223 rounds.
 
Last edited:
What's more significant is what he says about the severe battlefield injuries he observed in soldiers on both sides who had been shot with .223 rounds.

Which is neither more nor less than that inflicted by any other high-velocity round, which includes just about all center-fire rifle cartridges.

This myth that the 5.56 or .223 is exceptionally deadly, or was chosen for it's exceptional lethality, is just that, a myth. The AR-15/M-16 isn't some perfectly designed killing machine...it's a compromise, as is any rifle. For an infantry rifle, lethality is not the only concern, and I'd argue not even the primary concern.

An infantry rifle is always going to be weighing factors against one another, most of which are reciprocal to a high degree: reliability versus accuracy, for example. Weight versus power. Hardening versus ease of maintenance.

The 5.56 round was chosen, primarily, because it was accurate enough, lethal enough, and much lighter than the 7.62 rounds that were used previously...meaning a soldier could carry more ammo for the same weight.

Almost any rifle will make severe wounds, due to the cavitation caused by supersonic rounds; the 5.56/.223 are no real exception in that regard.
 
It's pretty clear from the context that what the general means by "full semi-automatic" is firing as fast as you can, pulling the trigger as quickly as possible, vs. firing one aimed shot at a time. He demonstrated both. What's more significant is what he says about the severe battlefield injuries he observed in soldiers on both sides who had been shot with .223 rounds.

I'm sure the other military battle rifle rounds, .308 and .30-06, were not any less severe.

Where did this idea that 5.56/.223 was especially deadly come from, anyway? It has less power than common deer rifles.
 
I'm sure the other military battle rifle rounds, .308 and .30-06, were not any less severe.

Where did this idea that 5.56/.223 was especially deadly come from, anyway? It has less power than common deer rifles.

Its been around for a long time. Even the reasons why its super deadly change. Sometimes its because its super high velocity (not really), other times, its because the bullet is tumbling (before it hits its target or after depends on who you ask). I can even remember discussions about it on certain firearm forums years ago that turned into out and out flame wars.
 
I'm sure the other military battle rifle rounds, .308 and .30-06, were not any less severe.

Where did this idea that 5.56/.223 was especially deadly come from, anyway? It has less power than common deer rifles.

I remember one report from the Vietnam War that went into it - but I gather that has been discredited. It might just have been propaganda for a weapon that was pretty unpopular when first introduced.

More recently the article from the radiologist who treated victims of the recent Florida shooting. I wonder if that radiologist was just unused to seeing the impact of supersonic rounds. She had seen a lot of gunshot wounds, but most of those were probably lower velocity handgun rounds.
 
I remember one report from the Vietnam War that went into it - but I gather that has been discredited. It might just have been propaganda for a weapon that was pretty unpopular when first introduced.

More recently the article from the radiologist who treated victims of the recent Florida shooting. I wonder if that radiologist was just unused to seeing the impact of supersonic rounds. She had seen a lot of gunshot wounds, but most of those were probably lower velocity handgun rounds.

Yes, rifles are hardly ever used to kill people compared to handguns, so medical examiners don't see the rifle wounds much.

Imagine the wound from a 55 grain .243 Winchester round. Same basic bullet, but traveling a lot faster.
 
Which is neither more nor less than that inflicted by any other high-velocity round, which includes just about all center-fire rifle cartridges.

This myth that the 5.56 or .223 is exceptionally deadly, or was chosen for it's exceptional lethality, is just that, a myth. The AR-15/M-16 isn't some perfectly designed killing machine...it's a compromise, as is any rifle. For an infantry rifle, lethality is not the only concern, and I'd argue not even the primary concern.

I'm sure the other military battle rifle rounds, .308 and .30-06, were not any less severe.

Where did this idea that 5.56/.223 was especially deadly come from, anyway? It has less power than common deer rifles.


Yeah, we get it: More powerful cartridges can do more damage. To restate, the .223 AR15 is a package that combines high-velocity rounds, high-capacity magazines and rapid rate of fire. A mass shooter with a bolt action deer rifle that holds three rounds can't do so much damage so fast.

And some argue that the small .223 bullet is more likely to tumble inside the target, causing more extensive damage in soft tissue, where a higher-powered rifle bullet might pass through.

Here are two comparisons of a .223 vs. a .30-06. A .30-06 does more damage. But it sure looks like the .223 is plenty mean enough.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owe-8xm6CSQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kfwZ7VWC8Kg
 
I'm sure the other military battle rifle rounds, .308 and .30-06, were not any less severe.

Where did this idea that 5.56/.223 was especially deadly come from, anyway? It has less power than common deer rifles.

Is it the one most commonly available/used in 'nutter goes mental' situations? If so, would that make it more 'deadly' in that it's accounted for more civilian casualties than the others?
 
Yes, rifles are hardly ever used to kill people compared to handguns, so medical examiners don't see the rifle wounds much.

Imagine the wound from a 55 grain .243 Winchester round. Same basic bullet, but traveling a lot faster.


As this seems a technical thread...

Why is it that the same round fired from a different weapon produces a different result? (less energy being used to drive the mechanism?)
 
As this seems a technical thread...

Why is it that the same round fired from a different weapon produces a different result? (less energy being used to drive the mechanism?)

Bullets themselves vary: Full metal jacket, hollow point, etc. Barrel length has a lot to do with it too. And by "different result," do you mean different injury? That depends on where it hits.
 

Back
Top Bottom