Why are AR15s legal?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone who says the AR-15 isn't more dangerous is lying to you. The high muzzle velocity means that a small round causes lots of damage including cavitation damage, which makes less accurate shots more likely to sever an artery or turn a vital organ to mush. Also the 223 tends to tumble a lot inside.

A hunting rifle packs a bigger hit, but the recoil is so strong that you can't stay on the same target and put round after round into them. The AR-15 has low kick because the recoil is absorbed and turned into the energy to eject the casing and chamber the next round. This allows you to stay on the target and put multiple rounds into it. And the ability to fire lots of round means that an ordinary person can kill a lot of people.

And obviously the large capacity magazine gives you more shots between changing magazines.

So in short, a non-expert with an AR-15 can kill more people because the round causes lots of damage, but the recoil is light enough and the capacity high enough that you can get off a lot of shots.

Mandate that all guns have huge recoil!!

It’s called banning semiautomatic rifles.

This is just never going to happen, no matter how much you stomp your feet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone who says the AR-15 isn't more dangerous is lying to you. The high muzzle velocity means that a small round causes lots of damage including cavitation damage, which makes less accurate shots more likely to sever an artery or turn a vital organ to mush. Also the 223 tends to tumble a lot inside.

A hunting rifle packs a bigger hit, but the recoil is so strong that you can't stay on the same target and put round after round into them. The AR-15 has low kick because the recoil is absorbed and turned into the energy to eject the casing and chamber the next round. This allows you to stay on the target and put multiple rounds into it. And the ability to fire lots of round means that an ordinary person can kill a lot of people.

And obviously the large capacity magazine gives you more shots between changing magazines.

So in short, a non-expert with an AR-15 can kill more people because the round causes lots of damage, but the recoil is light enough and the capacity high enough that you can get off a lot of shots.

Mandate that all guns have huge recoil!!

It’s called banning semiautomatic rifles.

This is just never going to happen, no matter how much you stomp your feet.

We did it before, and we can do it again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would an AR 15 not be legal? Because they scare liberals? That doesn’t seem like a very good reason to make something illegal. Whether it be guns, free speech, or anything else for that matter.

There's nothing that specifically says it should be. The 2nd Amendment doesn't specify what kind of arms one can keep and bear.

At one point SCOTUS in the Miller decision upheld a ban on short barreled shotguns as they weren't considered to be appropriate for militia use ( despite being used in World war 1 a decade and a half before).

Arguably AR platform rifles have a closer link to military service than most other firearms, if you're a person who stresses the militia part of the second amendment.

You are rewriting the standard. Scalia did not say "link to military service". He said "in common use at the time". In fact, in the Heller decision he said that changing weapons among the military does not change the limits of the 2nd amendment. It's all right there in his opinion.

I'm not talking about Heller. I am talking about Miller. Miller had to do with the 1934 NFA short barreled shotguns provisions.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller

The decision is somewhat contraversy in that neither Miller nor his attorney argued in front of the SCOTUS leaving arguments only from one side.

Well you need to read Heller, because it is now the defining case for the 2nd Amendment. He specifically addressed the issue of whether changing military weapons affects what is or is not protected.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would an AR 15 not be legal? Because they scare liberals? That doesn’t seem like a very good reason to make something illegal. Whether it be guns, free speech, or anything else for that matter.

There's nothing that specifically says it should be. The 2nd Amendment doesn't specify what kind of arms one can keep and bear.

At one point SCOTUS in the Miller decision upheld a ban on short barreled shotguns as they weren't considered to be appropriate for militia use ( despite being used in World war 1 a decade and a half before).

Arguably AR platform rifles have a closer link to military service than most other firearms, if you're a person who stresses the militia part of the second amendment.

You are rewriting the standard. Scalia did not say "link to military service". He said "in common use at the time". In fact, in the Heller decision he said that changing weapons among the military does not change the limits of the 2nd amendment. It's all right there in his opinion.

I'm not talking about Heller. I am talking about Miller. Miller had to do with the 1934 NFA short barreled shotguns provisions.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller

The decision is somewhat contraversy in that neither Miller nor his attorney argued in front of the SCOTUS leaving arguments only from one side.

Well you need to read Heller, because it is now the defining case for the 2nd Amendment. He specifically addressed the issue of whether changing military weapons affects what is or is not protected.

I have read Heller, but you occasionally see the argument about the milita connection from people who hold anti-firearms viewpoints. Heller made it more explicit that there is no inherent connection.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Anyone who says the AR-15 isn't more dangerous is lying to you. The high muzzle velocity means that a small round causes lots of damage including cavitation damage, which makes less accurate shots more likely to sever an artery or turn a vital organ to mush. Also the 223 tends to tumble a lot inside.

A hunting rifle packs a bigger hit, but the recoil is so strong that you can't stay on the same target and put round after round into them. The AR-15 has low kick because the recoil is absorbed and turned into the energy to eject the casing and chamber the next round. This allows you to stay on the target and put multiple rounds into it. And the ability to fire lots of round means that an ordinary person can kill a lot of people.

And obviously the large capacity magazine gives you more shots between changing magazines.

So in short, a non-expert with an AR-15 can kill more people because the round causes lots of damage, but the recoil is light enough and the capacity high enough that you can get off a lot of shots.

I don't think I would go as far as saying that the AR platform is more dangerous than other rifles designed to kill people because there are so many variables to consider. Arguing that one weapon system is more dangerous than another just doesn't make much sense. If you want to address the weapon that causes 90% of gun homicides, focus on handguns. If you are concerned about mass murders, the most effective weapon is semi auto, high magazine capacity, and preferably is a decent size caliber/velocity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone who says the AR-15 isn't more dangerous is lying to you. The high muzzle velocity means that a small round causes lots of damage including cavitation damage, which makes less accurate shots more likely to sever an artery or turn a vital organ to mush. Also the 223 tends to tumble a lot inside.

A hunting rifle packs a bigger hit, but the recoil is so strong that you can't stay on the same target and put round after round into them. The AR-15 has low kick because the recoil is absorbed and turned into the energy to eject the casing and chamber the next round. This allows you to stay on the target and put multiple rounds into it. And the ability to fire lots of round means that an ordinary person can kill a lot of people.

And obviously the large capacity magazine gives you more shots between changing magazines.

So in short, a non-expert with an AR-15 can kill more people because the round causes lots of damage, but the recoil is light enough and the capacity high enough that you can get off a lot of shots.

I don't think I would go as far as saying that the AR platform is more dangerous than other rifles designed to kill people because there are so many variables to consider. Arguing that one weapon system is more dangerous than another just doesn't make much sense. If you want to address the weapon that causes 90% of gun homicides, focus on handguns. If you are concerned about mass murders, the most effective weapon is semi auto, high magazine capacity, and preferably is a decent size caliber/velocity.

The US Army set out the following specs when it commissioned what became the AR-15 and the .223 round:

"a 6 pound, select-fire .22" rifle with a conventional stock and a 20 round magazine. The proposed chambering has to penetrate the issue steel helmet, body armor, and a .135" steel plate at 500 yards, while maintaining the trajectory and accuracy of M2 ball from a M1 Garand, and equaling or exceeding the "wounding" ability of the .30 Carbine."

I think those are pretty good specs for a gun made to kill lots of people. The posters who are saying the .223 round is not deadly are lying. This was a round designed for killing people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can anyone tell me what it is that makes AR15's so dangerous? What specific feature(s) does it have that sets it apart from other rifles?

The low recoil means you can fire multiple rounds into a target easily.

Kinetic energy= 1/2mv^2 muzzle velocity = 3300 feet/sec. compare that to a 9mm at 1100 FPS. Means it can liquefy organs and explode bone.

Cavitation damage means it destroys tissue far beyond its path through the body.

I asked what set it apart from other rifles, the .223 Remington cartridge is mild at best, and significantly less powerful than traditional hunting cartridges

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would an AR 15 not be legal? Because they scare liberals? That doesn’t seem like a very good reason to make something illegal. Whether it be guns, free speech, or anything else for that matter.

There's nothing that specifically says it should be. The 2nd Amendment doesn't specify what kind of arms one can keep and bear.

To believe in banning the AR15 is to believe that if farmers had shown up at Lexington and Concord with AR15s, they would have been turned away because their guns would have repelled the British too effectively.

Scalia does not agree with you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone who says the AR-15 isn't more dangerous is lying to you. The high muzzle velocity means that a small round causes lots of damage including cavitation damage, which makes less accurate shots more likely to sever an artery or turn a vital organ to mush. Also the 223 tends to tumble a lot inside.

A hunting rifle packs a bigger hit, but the recoil is so strong that you can't stay on the same target and put round after round into them. The AR-15 has low kick because the recoil is absorbed and turned into the energy to eject the casing and chamber the next round. This allows you to stay on the target and put multiple rounds into it. And the ability to fire lots of round means that an ordinary person can kill a lot of people.

And obviously the large capacity magazine gives you more shots between changing magazines.

So in short, a non-expert with an AR-15 can kill more people because the round causes lots of damage, but the recoil is light enough and the capacity high enough that you can get off a lot of shots.

Mandate that all guns have huge recoil!!

It’s called banning semiautomatic rifles.

This is just never going to happen, no matter how much you stomp your feet.

We did it before, and we can do it again.

When was that?

[Anonymous]

LOL@ The people who think a .223 is especially deadly, it is on the low end of the spectrum for rifle cartridges. To the point where many states will not let you hunt deer with rifles chambered in .223, because it isn't considered powerful enough to reliably and humanely take down deer. Its considered a varmint round...... ground hogs and coyotes are more in line with what it is normally used to hunt

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Anyone who says the AR-15 isn't more dangerous is lying to you. The high muzzle velocity means that a small round causes lots of damage including cavitation damage, which makes less accurate shots more likely to sever an artery or turn a vital organ to mush. Also the 223 tends to tumble a lot inside.

A hunting rifle packs a bigger hit, but the recoil is so strong that you can't stay on the same target and put round after round into them. The AR-15 has low kick because the recoil is absorbed and turned into the energy to eject the casing and chamber the next round. This allows you to stay on the target and put multiple rounds into it. And the ability to fire lots of round means that an ordinary person can kill a lot of people.

And obviously the large capacity magazine gives you more shots between changing magazines.

So in short, a non-expert with an AR-15 can kill more people because the round causes lots of damage, but the recoil is light enough and the capacity high enough that you can get off a lot of shots.

Is that what happened to the first graders? "Cavitation"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone who says the AR-15 isn't more dangerous is lying to you. The high muzzle velocity means that a small round causes lots of damage including cavitation damage, which makes less accurate shots more likely to sever an artery or turn a vital organ to mush. Also the 223 tends to tumble a lot inside.

A hunting rifle packs a bigger hit, but the recoil is so strong that you can't stay on the same target and put round after round into them. The AR-15 has low kick because the recoil is absorbed and turned into the energy to eject the casing and chamber the next round. This allows you to stay on the target and put multiple rounds into it. And the ability to fire lots of round means that an ordinary person can kill a lot of people.

And obviously the large capacity magazine gives you more shots between changing magazines.

So in short, a non-expert with an AR-15 can kill more people because the round causes lots of damage, but the recoil is light enough and the capacity high enough that you can get off a lot of shots.

Mandate that all guns have huge recoil!!

It’s called banning semiautomatic rifles.

This is just never going to happen, no matter how much you stomp your feet.

We did it before, and we can do it again.

No, we did not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone who says the AR-15 isn't more dangerous is lying to you. The high muzzle velocity means that a small round causes lots of damage including cavitation damage, which makes less accurate shots more likely to sever an artery or turn a vital organ to mush. Also the 223 tends to tumble a lot inside.

A hunting rifle packs a bigger hit, but the recoil is so strong that you can't stay on the same target and put round after round into them. The AR-15 has low kick because the recoil is absorbed and turned into the energy to eject the casing and chamber the next round. This allows you to stay on the target and put multiple rounds into it. And the ability to fire lots of round means that an ordinary person can kill a lot of people.

And obviously the large capacity magazine gives you more shots between changing magazines.

So in short, a non-expert with an AR-15 can kill more people because the round causes lots of damage, but the recoil is light enough and the capacity high enough that you can get off a lot of shots.

Is that what happened to the first graders? "Cavitation"?

Cavitation is the hole created in the body a few inches inside.

To get an idea of what it looks like watch episodes of myth busters where they use ballistics gel.

I couldn't find a great one for rifles but here is a comparison for pistols.

[Anonymous]

The breakdown of the family can have horrific consequences.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It’s called banning semiautomatic rifles.

This is just never going to happen, no matter how much you stomp your feet.

We did it before, and we can do it again.

When was that?

1995-2004