Shockingly graphic photo essay on the destruction caused by AR-15's in today's WP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I literally don’t feel well enough today to go look but I’m glad they’re showing some of the carnage.

Too many gun nuts get to play pretend that AR15 guns don’t do anything special. Literally on this site in the last three months or so, one of those ignoramuses was arguing that there’s nothing especially bad about the wounds from these weapons, even though the doctors who have had to treat these wounds talk about the massive damage they do, in part from “cavitation.”

The GOP wants us all scared and cowering.

Show me a modern centerfire rifle round that doesn’t produce cavitation. Every comparison I’ve seen by the anti gun crowd has shown the effects of 5.56mm AR15 ammunition vs PISTOL ammunition which isn’t apples to apples. A bullet from a 30-06 hunting rifle from 100 years ago will produce more devastating wounds, not to say the 5.56mm wounds aren’t already devastating.

Why not just say you want to ban or heavily restrict all semi automatic rifles? That would actually be an effective policy. It doesn’t make sense to try to ban AR15’s while leaving other models still legal.

Those of us who don’t have a gun fetish don’t need or care to learn what all the killing machines are called and their specs. I know gun nuts like use our ignorance against us to say we don’t know what we’re talking about so we shouldn’t have an opinion. F*** that, the less I know about it the better.

So we use AR-15 as a catchall term (I don’t know how it came to be that AR-15 is the most recognizable, maybe you can tell me) for semiautomatic rifles. Any kind that allow someone to mow down a classroom of 6 year olds in 30 seconds flat or spray hordes of people with bullets from THIRTY-TWO GD FLOORS UP, making light work of the slaughter of 60 people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I literally don’t feel well enough today to go look but I’m glad they’re showing some of the carnage.

Too many gun nuts get to play pretend that AR15 guns don’t do anything special. Literally on this site in the last three months or so, one of those ignoramuses was arguing that there’s nothing especially bad about the wounds from these weapons, even though the doctors who have had to treat these wounds talk about the massive damage they do, in part from “cavitation.”

The GOP wants us all scared and cowering.

Show me a modern centerfire rifle round that doesn’t produce cavitation. Every comparison I’ve seen by the anti gun crowd has shown the effects of 5.56mm AR15 ammunition vs PISTOL ammunition which isn’t apples to apples. A bullet from a 30-06 hunting rifle from 100 years ago will produce more devastating wounds, not to say the 5.56mm wounds aren’t already devastating.

Why not just say you want to ban or heavily restrict all semi automatic rifles? That would actually be an effective policy. It doesn’t make sense to try to ban AR15’s while leaving other models still legal.

DP happy to ban any weapon and ammunition that can pulverize the bodies of dozens of children in less than 30 secs. What need is there for such a weapon?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I literally don’t feel well enough today to go look but I’m glad they’re showing some of the carnage.

Too many gun nuts get to play pretend that AR15 guns don’t do anything special. Literally on this site in the last three months or so, one of those ignoramuses was arguing that there’s nothing especially bad about the wounds from these weapons, even though the doctors who have had to treat these wounds talk about the massive damage they do, in part from “cavitation.”

The GOP wants us all scared and cowering.

Show me a modern centerfire rifle round that doesn’t produce cavitation. Every comparison I’ve seen by the anti gun crowd has shown the effects of 5.56mm AR15 ammunition vs PISTOL ammunition which isn’t apples to apples. A bullet from a 30-06 hunting rifle from 100 years ago will produce more devastating wounds, not to say the 5.56mm wounds aren’t already devastating.

Why not just say you want to ban or heavily restrict all semi automatic rifles? That would actually be an effective policy. It doesn’t make sense to try to ban AR15’s while leaving other models still legal.

DP happy to ban any weapon and ammunition that can pulverize the bodies of dozens of children in less than 30 secs. [b]What need is there for such a weapon?

Ironically, because it satiates gun lovers’ irrational and emotional feels. That’s the long and short of it: “F#ck your kids, it makes me happy”

Pretty funny that this dude posted a novel about “logic” in this thread when the only reason they want an AR-15 is for emotional reasons. There’s plenty of other “tools” that do the job of hunting and home defense, with lower risk to the public.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I literally don’t feel well enough today to go look but I’m glad they’re showing some of the carnage.

Too many gun nuts get to play pretend that AR15 guns don’t do anything special. Literally on this site in the last three months or so, one of those ignoramuses was arguing that there’s nothing especially bad about the wounds from these weapons, even though the doctors who have had to treat these wounds talk about the massive damage they do, in part from “cavitation.”

The GOP wants us all scared and cowering.

Show me a modern centerfire rifle round that doesn’t produce cavitation. Every comparison I’ve seen by the anti gun crowd has shown the effects of 5.56mm AR15 ammunition vs PISTOL ammunition which isn’t apples to apples. A bullet from a 30-06 hunting rifle from 100 years ago will produce more devastating wounds, not to say the 5.56mm wounds aren’t already devastating.

Why not just say you want to ban or heavily restrict all semi automatic rifles? That would actually be an effective policy. It doesn’t make sense to try to ban AR15’s while leaving other models still legal.

DP happy to ban any weapon and ammunition that can pulverize the bodies of dozens of children in less than 30 secs. [b]What need is there for such a weapon?

Ironically, because it satiates gun lovers’ irrational and emotional feels. That’s the long and short of it: “F#ck your kids, it makes me happy”

Pretty funny that this dude posted a novel about “logic” in this thread when the only reason they want an AR-15 is for emotional reasons. There’s plenty of other “tools” that do the job of hunting and home defense, with lower risk to the public.

Is is the same guy that is romantically sodomizing his Colt 6920 or is it somebody else?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Pretty funny that this dude posted a novel about “logic” in this thread when the only reason they want an AR-15 is for emotional reasons. There’s plenty of other “tools” that do the job of hunting and home defense, with lower risk to the public.

Some respondents here are mixing together various previous posters. I’m the PP who was talking about the political numbers game and cost/benefit analysis from a policy perspective.

Others were talking about “cavitation” etc. and approaching a conversation from a “pro gun” point of view.

I don’t own or want an Armalite pattern rifle. If I thought I wanted a rifle I wouldn’t get one of those, but just because I don’t care for the gauche plastic and aluminum. I’d opt for something older from the early 1900s with a wood stock.

A ton of people in the US did buy millions of the ARs in 2020 when they thought the political winds were shifting on the matter and they might become restricted, but that’s the point of what I’m saying here. From a political numbers game, it’s never going to happen. And the data I’ve looked at seems to indicate the vast majority of buyers were new, first-time buyers. It’s a loser topic from a poli sci perspective.

From more of an economist’s cost/benefit view, I was simply saying that 25m rifles times $1000 buy-back money divided by perhaps 200 deaths/year caused by Armalite design guns equals $125,000,000 per life saved.

And that’s if it played out that way, which of course it wouldn’t. The compliance rate would be low, the law enforcement injury rate would be high, the opportunity cost of diverting officers to taking back or seizing relatively low-death rate instruments would be highly unfavorable, and the effectiveness would be pretty much non-existent for what is becoming an increasingly homemade weapon. And then there’s the opportunity cost of thinking you’re going to save the lives of maybe 200 AR homicide victims per year at such public expense. It would possibly be one of the most bone-headed moves mathematically ever made by government, from the perspective of someone who loves people, and wants people to live long and happy lives. And I say that because of the lost opportunity cost of not targeting those societal resources toward much more significant and *solvable* problems.

So I apologize if that sounds like I’m thinking about the topic illogically or emotionally, because it’s the emotionality I’m trying to lobby against. There are people here saying they don’t want to understand the gun-specific technicalities of the conversation about firearms but then they still expect their POV to be valid, and in my book it just doesn’t work that way. That’s like being concerned about climate change but then turning around and referring to the puffy white things floating through the sky as icebergs.

Maybe that’s what separates me as a classic 1900s-style Liberal from the new Progressives, but if Progressive means illogical and illiterate on a weighty topic, I’ll stick with liberalism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Pretty funny that this dude posted a novel about “logic” in this thread when the only reason they want an AR-15 is for emotional reasons. There’s plenty of other “tools” that do the job of hunting and home defense, with lower risk to the public.

Some respondents here are mixing together various previous posters. I’m the PP who was talking about the political numbers game and cost/benefit analysis from a policy perspective.

Others were talking about “cavitation” etc. and approaching a conversation from a “pro gun” point of view.

I don’t own or want an Armalite pattern rifle. If I thought I wanted a rifle I wouldn’t get one of those, but just because I don’t care for the gauche plastic and aluminum. I’d opt for something older from the early 1900s with a wood stock.

A ton of people in the US did buy millions of the ARs in 2020 when they thought the political winds were shifting on the matter and they might become restricted, but that’s the point of what I’m saying here. From a political numbers game, it’s never going to happen. And the data I’ve looked at seems to indicate the vast majority of buyers were new, first-time buyers. It’s a loser topic from a poli sci perspective.

From more of an economist’s cost/benefit view, I was simply saying that 25m rifles times $1000 buy-back money divided by perhaps 200 deaths/year caused by Armalite design guns equals $125,000,000 per life saved.

And that’s if it played out that way, which of course it wouldn’t. The compliance rate would be low, the law enforcement injury rate would be high, the opportunity cost of diverting officers to taking back or seizing relatively low-death rate instruments would be highly unfavorable, and the effectiveness would be pretty much non-existent for what is becoming an increasingly homemade weapon. And then there’s the opportunity cost of thinking you’re going to save the lives of maybe 200 AR homicide victims per year at such public expense. It would possibly be one of the most bone-headed moves mathematically ever made by government, from the perspective of someone who loves people, and wants people to live long and happy lives. And I say that because of the lost opportunity cost of not targeting those societal resources toward much more significant and *solvable* problems.

So I apologize if that sounds like I’m thinking about the topic illogically or emotionally, because it’s the emotionality I’m trying to lobby against. There are people here saying they don’t want to understand the gun-specific technicalities of the conversation about firearms but then they still expect their POV to be valid, and in my book it just doesn’t work that way. That’s like being concerned about climate change but then turning around and referring to the puffy white things floating through the sky as icebergs.

Maybe that’s what separates me as a classic 1900s-style Liberal from the new Progressives, but if Progressive means illogical and illiterate on a weighty topic, I’ll stick with liberalism.

Your scare tactic scenario about armed confiscations of these weapons is nonsense. The weapons are bought so the problem is solved with money as much as possible. Maybe some of those huge police budgets could fund part of it since the police won't go up against those guns in person.. let them use some of those giant budgets to solve that problem and they don't even need to lift a finger and it will help keep the citizens and school children safe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Your scare tactic scenario …

Why does everyone keep gong the route of feelings here?? I’m seriously not trying to “scare” anyone. And, as for myself, I’m not personally “scared”, “thrilled”, “worried”, “happy”, “angered”, or any other such adjectives when it comes to this topic. I’m just looking at the pieces on the political and cultural chess board, and predicting how the moves and counter-moves would play out.

I have no experience as a law enforcement officer, but I do have friends who are LEOs and others who are involved in their own towns’ city council politics, and municipal budgeting. Based on my conversations with them, I think your idea of large police budgets which can be slashed to fund gun control policies (to try and prevent a couple hundred deaths per year out of 350m people) is one of the least serious things I’ve read here. That is not descriptive of reality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Pretty funny that this dude posted a novel about “logic” in this thread when the only reason they want an AR-15 is for emotional reasons. There’s plenty of other “tools” that do the job of hunting and home defense, with lower risk to the public.

Some respondents here are mixing together various previous posters. I’m the PP who was talking about the political numbers game and cost/benefit analysis from a policy perspective.

Others were talking about “cavitation” etc. and approaching a conversation from a “pro gun” point of view.

I don’t own or want an Armalite pattern rifle. If I thought I wanted a rifle I wouldn’t get one of those, but just because I don’t care for the gauche plastic and aluminum. I’d opt for something older from the early 1900s with a wood stock.

A ton of people in the US did buy millions of the ARs in 2020 when they thought the political winds were shifting on the matter and they might become restricted, but that’s the point of what I’m saying here. From a political numbers game, it’s never going to happen. And the data I’ve looked at seems to indicate the vast majority of buyers were new, first-time buyers. It’s a loser topic from a poli sci perspective.

From more of an economist’s cost/benefit view, I was simply saying that 25m rifles times $1000 buy-back money divided by perhaps 200 deaths/year caused by Armalite design guns equals $125,000,000 per life saved.

And that’s if it played out that way, which of course it wouldn’t. The compliance rate would be low, the law enforcement injury rate would be high, the opportunity cost of diverting officers to taking back or seizing relatively low-death rate instruments would be highly unfavorable, and the effectiveness would be pretty much non-existent for what is becoming an increasingly homemade weapon. And then there’s the opportunity cost of thinking you’re going to save the lives of maybe 200 AR homicide victims per year at such public expense. It would possibly be one of the most bone-headed moves mathematically ever made by government, from the perspective of someone who loves people, and wants people to live long and happy lives. And I say that because of the lost opportunity cost of not targeting those societal resources toward much more significant and *solvable* problems.

So I apologize if that sounds like I’m thinking about the topic illogically or emotionally, because it’s the emotionality I’m trying to lobby against. There are people here saying they don’t want to understand the gun-specific technicalities of the conversation about firearms but then they still expect their POV to be valid, and in my book it just doesn’t work that way. That’s like being concerned about climate change but then turning around and referring to the puffy white things floating through the sky as icebergs.

Maybe that’s what separates me as a classic 1900s-style Liberal from the new Progressives, but if Progressive means illogical and illiterate on a weighty topic, I’ll stick with liberalism.

In order to use the weapons you need ammunition.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Your scare tactic scenario …

Why does everyone keep gong the route of feelings here?? I’m seriously not trying to “scare” anyone. And, as for myself, I’m not personally “scared”, “thrilled”, “worried”, “happy”, “angered”, or any other such adjectives when it comes to this topic. I’m just looking at the pieces on the political and cultural chess board, and predicting how the moves and counter-moves would play out.

I have no experience as a law enforcement officer, but I do have friends who are LEOs and others who are involved in their own towns’ city council politics, and municipal budgeting. Based on my conversations with them, I think your idea of large police budgets which can be slashed to fund gun control policies (to try and prevent a couple hundred deaths per year out of 350m people) is one of the least serious things I’ve read here. That is not descriptive of reality.

Millions of people though overturning roe was pie in the sky nonsense and yet here we are. With enough determination, money, time and political will, reality can change pretty drastically. This is our country and not the gun manufacturers' country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Your scare tactic scenario …

Why does everyone keep gong the route of feelings here?? I’m seriously not trying to “scare” anyone. And, as for myself, I’m not personally “scared”, “thrilled”, “worried”, “happy”, “angered”, or any other such adjectives when it comes to this topic. I’m just looking at the pieces on the political and cultural chess board, and predicting how the moves and counter-moves would play out.

I have no experience as a law enforcement officer, but I do have friends who are LEOs and others who are involved in their own towns’ city council politics, and municipal budgeting. Based on my conversations with them, I think your idea of large police budgets which can be slashed to fund gun control policies (to try and prevent a couple hundred deaths per year out of 350m people) is one of the least serious things I’ve read here. That is not descriptive of reality.

Millions of people though overturning roe was pie in the sky nonsense and yet here we are. With enough determination, money, time and political will, reality can change pretty drastically. This is our country and not the gun manufacturers' country.

And take a look at my tax bill and how much goes to the police. A giant share and people are pissed and it is unsustainable. You want all that money, take on these weapons or we will find a better solution.

[Anonymous]

Millions of people though overturning roe was pie in the sky nonsense and yet here we are.

There is still abortion in many states. Just as there will be still be guns in many states, no matter what happens.

Guns travel across state lines pretty easily.

I'm not saying that legislation can't improve things, but mass shootings in the US are sadly here to stay.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Millions of people though overturning roe was pie in the sky nonsense and yet here we are.

There is still abortion in many states. Just as there will be still be guns in many states, no matter what happens.

Guns travel across state lines pretty easily.

I'm not saying that legislation can't improve things, but mass shootings in the US are sadly here to stay.

Improving things is good.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Millions of people though overturning roe was pie in the sky nonsense and yet here we are.

There is still abortion in many states. Just as there will be still be guns in many states, no matter what happens.

Guns travel across state lines pretty easily.

I'm not saying that legislation can't improve things, but mass shootings in the US are sadly here to stay.

Improving things is good.

+1

I don’t agree that mass shootings are here to stay. Twenty five years ago, the broad cultural message on gay and lesbian people was that they were rare and if they weren’t they should probably just be quiet about it. “Not that there’s anything wrong with that” was actually a joke told on network TV (and repeated for years after in a kind of nod to people’s basic discomfort with gay people). There are still people who hate gay and lesbian (and trans people, oh do they hate the trans people), but overall - consenting adults? Who cares! Love is love!

If people vote for Democrats up and down ticket, we can change this. We don’t have to live like this. But we will if people don’t curb stomp the GOP into history.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Guns travel across state lines pretty easily.

Gun Math PP here. Yes and so does ammunition, of which the US buys ~10 billion rounds per year.

I’ve got a friend in western NY who shoots trap and skeet competitively to the tune of about 10,000 clay targets a year. He just gets around NY ammo taxes by buying cases of shotgun shells when he drives to regional collections elsewhere.

Incidentally those clay target (shotgun) sports are some of the fastest growing sports in the US amongst Gen Z. PBS did a story about a year ago saying 35,000 to 40,000 high school competitors a year.

Anyone who doesn’t understand that growing demand curve for firearms and ammo in the US, or doesn’t care to understand the technicalities of the conversation, is just going to double down on loser policy proposals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Guns travel across state lines pretty easily.

Gun Math PP here. Yes and so does ammunition, of which the US buys ~10 billion rounds per year.

I’ve got a friend in western NY who shoots trap and skeet competitively to the tune of about 10,000 clay targets a year. He just gets around NY ammo taxes by buying cases of shotgun shells when he drives to regional collections elsewhere.

Incidentally those clay target (shotgun) sports are some of the fastest growing sports in the US amongst Gen Z. PBS did a story about a year ago saying 35,000 to 40,000 high school competitors a year.

Anyone who doesn’t understand that growing demand curve for firearms and ammo in the US, or doesn’t care to understand the technicalities of the conversation, is just going to double down on loser policy proposals.

You hear that, Sandy Hook moms and dads? Siblings left desolate without their younger sisters? Young adults who survived Parkland? People wounded in the Las Vegas mass shooting? Trap shooting is fun and the GOP gun nut PP doesn’t want any of your “loser policy proposals.”

Gee, the gun nuts are really outdoing themselves here.