LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
I would imagine the AR-15 round is not especially used by mass shooters.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_shootings_in_the_United_States#Deadliest_shootings
Another inaccurate article on assault weapons.
- Thread starter Ranb
- Start date
I would imagine the AR-15 round is not especially used by mass shooters.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_shootings_in_the_United_States#Deadliest_shootings
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
So limit it to 5 or 10 round magazines then, like most other semi-auto rifles? If it's the package that's the problem...
How many people would Cruz have killed with one of the most popular rifles ever, the Ruger 10/22? .22 long rifle rimfire, probably the weakest readily available rifle/pistol round. I would guess just as many people. Even without using the available 25 round magazines. It's also available in a take-down version for easy transport.
.25ACP is probably weaker, but commonly only used in very small pistols.
Last edited:
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2006
- Messages
- 54,545
It was used in most of the top scoring ones on that list.
It depends on the timeframe. Eight of the ten most recent mass shootings in that article used AR-15 or clones of it.
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
If you say so.
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
Most likely because of the AR-15's recent popularity, not the deadliness of it's normal ammunition. Also some copycat use, I would think.
The AR-15 went on civilian sale in the mid-60's.
It's been around for a very long time.
The patent expired on it in 1977 I think, and the clones appeared on the market.
Limiting magazine size is a great idea, widely supported, and was part of the now-repealed assault weapons ban -- but vigorously opposed by the NRA. A .22 can certainly be lethal, but it's a much more survivable wound, and much less likely to penetrate doors, walls, desktops, even thick books. Some kids at the high school demonstrated how they held dictionaries in front of their heads. It wouldn't save them from a .223, but it might stop a .22. And a magazine limit could apply to .22s too.
lobosrul5
Philosopher
And I would guess far fewer. I'm surprised your not at all familiar with any stats on the rather low lethality of 22 LR.
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
A .22 LR round will pass through a surprising amount of material. Especially at across the room distances, and when fired from a rifle instead of a pistol. Also, a mass shooter using a .22 LR would likely use it accordingly. IOW, head shots.
At the VT incident, Cho used pistols, 9mm and .22LR, and made a point to shoot his victims several times, often in the head. He killed several by shooting through doors. 9mm pistol rounds are not especially powerful.
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
Been shooting .22LR for decades...
The round is involved in a lot of homicides every year.
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DzLQGv-w5M
11" of ballistic gel at 300 yards.
So it would still kill you at that range if the shooter can hit you.
11" of ballistic gel at 300 yards.
So it would still kill you at that range if the shooter can hit you.
Great. You're making the case for tougher restrictions across the board. I would have been willing to cut .22s a break. Now, not so much.
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
Yep.
Generally, a longer barrel produces higher velocity (more time for the gas to "push" the bullet before it's free). Changes in the rifling (the amount of "spin" the barrel adds to the bullet) affects trajectory. There's more, but as far as identical rounds, that's most of it.
As to the rounds, besides the variations in bullet construction, there are also different sized bullets: some rounds will use lighter bullets that will be fired at higher velocity, and some larger and slower.
No one has said the .223 isn't lethal, but it's not exceptional compared to any other rifle round. And the tumbling myth is something else that's been said a lot, but has little actual evidence for it.
You are correct, it's a package. And that package is the same for ANY semi-auto, magazine-fed rifle. The focus on the AR-15 as if it's unique, and the focus on the 5.56 cartridge as if it's unique, are what makes no sense.
If you want to argue against the package, quit arguing about the .223 and the AR-15, and start arguing about high-capacity magazines and semi-auto rifles.
The focus on the AR-15 or the .223 as if they're somehow more deadly than any other is just part of the myth, and inaccurate.
ETA: That came off sounding harsher than I intended. Let me give an analogy to see if I can explain what I'm saying better.
Arguing against the AR-15 is sort of like someone arguing about all the deaths caused by drunk driving, then claiming we need to ban Bicardi 151 because it has such a high alcohol content. It's an argument that ignores that there are many, many other products out that have just as high (or even higher) alcohol content...that particular brand isn't special in that regard.
Last edited:
Many are making exactly those arguments. Part of the problem is that the gunmakers have marketed the AR15 as some kind of super self-defense weapon to save America when "they" come over the hill. LaPierre's speech last week borders on -- if not actually is -- deranged. As I understand it, some states consider the .223 too small to hunt deer with. The rifle and the round are sold -- and bought -- as man-killers. That's the root of the problem. No hunter, no target shooter, nobody protecting his home needs an AR15.
The people who buy all this are the target market for AR15s.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...s-of-socialist-agenda-after-florida-shooting/
lobosrul5
Philosopher
Yeah he had to stop and shoot people multiple times, or go for a head shot. Had he not needed to do that, its pretty likely that Cho would've killed more people.
There is a small possibility it would at that range (given prompt medical attention). 22 LR is hitting with about 30 foot pounds of energy at that range.
Last edited:
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
It's part of California law.
https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/firearms/pdf/cfl2016.pdf
In California, only licensed California firearms dealers who possess a valid
Certificate of Eligibility (COE) are authorized to engage in retail sales of firearms .
These retail sales require the purchaser to provide personal identifier information for the Dealer Record of Sale (DROS) document that the firearms dealer must submit to the DOJ . There is a mandatory 10-day waiting period before the firearms dealer can deliver the firearm to the purchaser . During this 10-day waiting period, the DOJ conducts a firearms eligibility background check to ensure the purchaser is not prohibited from lawfully possessing firearms . Although there are exceptions, generally all firearms purchasers must be at least 18 years of age to purchase a long gun (rifle or shotgun) and 21 years of age to purchase a handgun (pistol or revolver) . Additionally, purchasers must be California residents with a valid driver’s license or identification card issued by the California Department of Motor Vehicles.
Generally, it is illegal for any person who is not a California licensed firearms dealer (private party) to sell or transfer a firearm to another non-licensed person (private party) unless the sale or transfer is completed through a licensed California firearms dealer . A “Private Party Transfer” (PPT) can be conducted at any licensed California firearms dealership . The buyer and seller must complete the required DROS document in person at the licensed firearms dealership and deliver the firearm to the dealer who will retain possession of the firearm during the mandatory 10-day waiting period . In addition to the applicable state fees, the firearms dealer may charge a fee not to exceed $10 per firearm for conducting the PPT
The other basic requirements:
Proof-of-Residency Requirement
Firearm Safety Certificate Requirement
Safe Handling Demonstration Requirement
Firearms Safety Device Requirement
Roster of Handguns Certified for Sale in California
One-Handgun-per-30-Days Limit Extended to cover all types of firearms in 2017.
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
The advertising is why they tend to be the weapon of choice for mass shootings, I'll agree with that. But I can't see where the correct response to that is "ban AR-15s".
I can see where correct responses are to hold advertisers accountable for bull, and to look for regulation or restriction on weapons packages, whatever they are, that contain certain functional elements.
Instead we get people continuing mis-information about the AR-15, and we get bans like the new one being proposed, that look at cosmetic instead of functional elements (with the exception of the grenade launcher on their list...that seemed self-evident to me...though
).Instead of doubling-down on hype, which seems to be where gun control discussions end up from both sides, I'd like to see people discuss the actual issues and realistic solutions. Whether we agree on the right next steps or not, buying into the AR-15 hype, no matter what side someone is arguing, shows a lack of knowledge. Whatever our goals are, we should argue from knowledge, not ignorance.
My main point: If you think a ban is needed, arguing for a ban on AR-15s, or on "assault weapons", or any other classification that makes no sense to someone knowledgeable on guns, you'll either:
1. Get drawn into these side debates
2. Simply be dismissed due to ignorance
3. Get the legislation passed, and watch it NOT have the effect you desired at all, because it's ineffectually written.
Instead, argue on actual elements and functional definitions...the things that actually make the weapons more effective.
Don't argue to ban red paint because commercials say red cars go faster
3point14
Pi
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2005
- Messages
- 23,085
Which would be preferable:
Banning 'Assault weapons', if and when a universal definition can be agreed and accepted - assuming it were successful this would prevent anyone from committing acts of nuttery using an assault weapon but allow them to have a go with less powerful automatic weaponry.
or:
Not actually banning any firearm but preventing access to any weapon by those that have a high probability of becoming a nutter.
The latter option would seem to violate the second amendment more fully than the first.
Banning 'Assault weapons', if and when a universal definition can be agreed and accepted - assuming it were successful this would prevent anyone from committing acts of nuttery using an assault weapon but allow them to have a go with less powerful automatic weaponry.
or:
Not actually banning any firearm but preventing access to any weapon by those that have a high probability of becoming a nutter.
The latter option would seem to violate the second amendment more fully than the first.
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
His explanation made even less sense:
Now I want a continuous trigger full semi auto rifle...
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
Depends on how you read the 2A, I guess. The military has a definition of "assault rifle" that is based on practicalities of small-unit combat. If we used that definition as the universal one, we could ban self-loading rifles that use intermediate cartridges and have selective fire.
But for the "well regulated militia" fetishists on the gun control side, banning the canonical firearm of the regular infantry would clearly violate *both* clauses of the amendment.
As for sanctioning people based on their "probability of becoming a nutter", that would likely violate other articles of the Constitution as well. Right to privacy. Right to freedom from unreasonable search and seizure. Right to freedom from prior restraint. Etc. Such a solution may be less problematic for some readings of the second amendment, but more problematic for other parts of the Constitution.