20 victims reported at Annunciation Catholic School in Minneapolis

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What is this?

What do you think it is?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What is this?

Transtifa

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
This particular deranged murderer made a lot of noise and managed to kill (I think) just two people. The very list of knife events you reject demonstrates how quickly the body count can rise with a committed knife attacker. Bladed weapons were responsible for industrial-strength slaughter for millennia.

Besides the two dead, there were 17 injured including 14 children. Many of these (especially among those classified as being in critical condition) will likely be crippled for life.

Also note that the murderer shot at the children through the Church windows. This is something that could not be done with a knife. Yes, a committed knife attacker can kill multiple people, but it is much, much easier done with a gun.

+1

Also BFR. If you were shopping at Target with your kids and a crazy violent person came into the store, would you rather they have an AR-15 or a knife? … there is only one sane answer here

An ER doctor wrote an oped about the damage that an AR15 does to the body compared to a single shot pistol. He stated that most victims of one shot gun shot wounds can be saved, but the damage to a victim from an AR15 was basically like a blender came through the insides of the person.

There is no reason for an AR15, that's for sure.

The terminal ballistics of a 5.56 rifle bullet are relatively unpredictable and depend on, among other things, the weight and jacket material of the bullet, its design, the propellant used, and the length and twist rate of the barrel, as well as the range from which the wound is inflicted, and the build and clothing of the individual struck. Even when all else is equal, two different 5.56 wounds can vary from a small through and through wound to one with greater tissue destruction. The AR15 is popular but it is not the only firearm that uses 5.56 ammunition. And not all AR15’s use that round. The idea that a bullet wound is ever “like a blender came through a person” is simply ridiculous hyperbole.

Not hyperbole when it hits a child.

-RN

From your alleged sample size of?

I trust the experts more than some ammosexual anonymous poster.

"Instead of just being sort of point on straight through, there's more erratic passage of the bullet through the victim so the extent of tissue damage is greater," Shapiro explained.

What's more, assault weapons can cause a process called cavitation to occur, meaning it creates a large cavity in the body, destroying tissues and organs.

"The difference with high velocity bullets and military-grade weapons...is the damage they inflict on the human body and our internal organs are much more gruesome and tend to have what is known as a blast effect, because that bullet is carrying so much energy with it as it enters the human body," Griggs said. "Instead of, for example, if the bullet traveled through the lung, instead of a hole in the lung, we're looking at an exploded lung."

Griggs explained that the same holds true if a bullet hits a human bone. A bullet from a handgun that hits a bone might fracture the bone, but a bullet from a semi-automatic rifle might shatter the bone due to the high velocity.

"Children, their organs are a lot more compact, and they have a lot less fat surrounding their vital organs," Griggs said. "And so, you can imagine that a bullet that is causing a blast effect inside their body, inside their abdomen or their torso or their chest, it's not just going to explode, or tear apart, their lung, but also their heart. Not just going to completely shatter their liver, but also their spleen, causing catastrophic fatal bleeding."

"When we see a child who has been shot with an AR-15-style rifle, there is often very little hope -- depending on where the bullet has hit them in their body -- that we can save their life even if they make it to the hospital," she said. "And devastatingly, the children who were shot in Nashville were dead on arrival to the hospital. There's nothing that trauma surgery team could do and that is very classic of what we have come to see as the norm."

https://abc7.com/post/why-ar15-semi-automatic-weapons-dangerous/13051721/

You ammosexuals have a mental illness.

Name calling is so puerile, and the sure sign of insecure belief in a weak argument.

“Military grade” is another rhetorical buzzword without meaning.

The 5.56 cartridge was developed to hunt “varmints” like prairie dogs and only later adopted by the military.

Grandpa’s old hunting rifle very likely was chambered in a military cartridge and may even have been a “sporterixed” ex-military “weapon of war.”

Focuding on inanimate objects is a waste of time driven by magical thinking.

Typical response, touting technical gun details. Not that PP, but you absolutely know more than me about technical gun specifics. Gold star for that.

Now stop with the distraction and deflection and focus on the actual issues at hand. Research shows that restrictive gun law states have lower pediatric gun deaths. There is plenty of published research on this or that impact of gun control laws within 2a. But I may surmise that you only cherry pick the highly disputed good guy with a gun research of Locke and ignore anything that contradicts it?

Can we prevent every child from being murdered or accidentally shooting themself or committing suicide? No. Can we reduce it statistically? Yes. Is that worth it to me, a mother? YES. Is it worth it to you? Apparently not.

Do not tell me about mental illness or video games or whatever that many other countries in the world have, because that argument is BS.

Ever comforted someone who attended a funeral of a child who died in a school shooting and talked about how tiny the casket was? I have.

Stop with the technical detail to brag about your gun knowledge. It does not matter.

You have posted the same mantra about “strict” states with miraculously lower death rates multiple times, but have tellingly failed, refused or been unable to provide any underlying information that might undercut the post hoc reasoning that attributes the alleged better crime statistics solely to the difference in firearm laws.

That underlying information matters. A jurisdiction with extremely severe drunk driving laws might have less drunk driving because of those laws. Or it may be overpopulated with Mormons, Southern Baptists and other teetotalers; or the police may not like enforcing what they perceive to be unfair laws.

Your arguments mix accidental shooting deaths into the present discussion of willful, malicious, hateful murderers by a despicable and clearly floridly mentally ill person. Well, there are already laws against criminal negligence, and every shot the shooter in this case fired violated multiple laws.

You wish to foreclose discussion of the various social forces that contribute to criminal violence in the United States, arguing that other countries have crazy people too so it must be the evil scary looking guns. No country in the world is as mixed or media driven as the US and unfortunately there may be no country with an equal level of social isolation for people who need help.

Technical issues matter a great deal when discussing whether, how and to what extent to attempt to abridge the rights of decent people in a doomed effort to stop crime by focusing on one type or model of firearm as a magical totem, the eradication of which will somehow miraculously bring peace and tranquility everywhere. You may not know, and many people on your side of the fence may not know, and you may not care — you may even be in favor — but trying to “ban” firearms based on cosmetic appearances, action type or caliber will impact far beyond the specific “totem” models you have in mind.

What this means in real terms is that attempted “bans” will either be eyewash or ineffective. They will face enormous levels of noncompliance. They will open the door to actual “military grade weapons of war” brought in by profiteering black marketeers.

Don’t believe me? Before 1968, most criminals (and a lot of decent people) were armed with inexpensive, soft metal, low power, unreliable firearms imported and sold at rock bottom prices — so called “Saturday Night Specials.” After the Gun Control Act of 1968 stopped those from coming in, domestic manufacturers filled the void and criminals now routinely are at least as well armed as the police.

The percentage of firearms ever misused is infinitesimal in comparison to the millions of lawfully owned guns in the country. Solving behavioral problems by magical thinking and impossible measures never works.

What works is taking criminals out of circulation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
This particular deranged murderer made a lot of noise and managed to kill (I think) just two people. The very list of knife events you reject demonstrates how quickly the body count can rise with a committed knife attacker. Bladed weapons were responsible for industrial-strength slaughter for millennia.

Besides the two dead, there were 17 injured including 14 children. Many of these (especially among those classified as being in critical condition) will likely be crippled for life.

Also note that the murderer shot at the children through the Church windows. This is something that could not be done with a knife. Yes, a committed knife attacker can kill multiple people, but it is much, much easier done with a gun.

+1

Also BFR. If you were shopping at Target with your kids and a crazy violent person came into the store, would you rather they have an AR-15 or a knife? … there is only one sane answer here

An ER doctor wrote an oped about the damage that an AR15 does to the body compared to a single shot pistol. He stated that most victims of one shot gun shot wounds can be saved, but the damage to a victim from an AR15 was basically like a blender came through the insides of the person.

There is no reason for an AR15, that's for sure.

The terminal ballistics of a 5.56 rifle bullet are relatively unpredictable and depend on, among other things, the weight and jacket material of the bullet, its design, the propellant used, and the length and twist rate of the barrel, as well as the range from which the wound is inflicted, and the build and clothing of the individual struck. Even when all else is equal, two different 5.56 wounds can vary from a small through and through wound to one with greater tissue destruction. The AR15 is popular but it is not the only firearm that uses 5.56 ammunition. And not all AR15’s use that round. The idea that a bullet wound is ever “like a blender came through a person” is simply ridiculous hyperbole.

Not hyperbole when it hits a child.

-RN

From your alleged sample size of?

I trust the experts more than some ammosexual anonymous poster.

"Instead of just being sort of point on straight through, there's more erratic passage of the bullet through the victim so the extent of tissue damage is greater," Shapiro explained.

What's more, assault weapons can cause a process called cavitation to occur, meaning it creates a large cavity in the body, destroying tissues and organs.

"The difference with high velocity bullets and military-grade weapons...is the damage they inflict on the human body and our internal organs are much more gruesome and tend to have what is known as a blast effect, because that bullet is carrying so much energy with it as it enters the human body," Griggs said. "Instead of, for example, if the bullet traveled through the lung, instead of a hole in the lung, we're looking at an exploded lung."

Griggs explained that the same holds true if a bullet hits a human bone. A bullet from a handgun that hits a bone might fracture the bone, but a bullet from a semi-automatic rifle might shatter the bone due to the high velocity.

"Children, their organs are a lot more compact, and they have a lot less fat surrounding their vital organs," Griggs said. "And so, you can imagine that a bullet that is causing a blast effect inside their body, inside their abdomen or their torso or their chest, it's not just going to explode, or tear apart, their lung, but also their heart. Not just going to completely shatter their liver, but also their spleen, causing catastrophic fatal bleeding."

"When we see a child who has been shot with an AR-15-style rifle, there is often very little hope -- depending on where the bullet has hit them in their body -- that we can save their life even if they make it to the hospital," she said. "And devastatingly, the children who were shot in Nashville were dead on arrival to the hospital. There's nothing that trauma surgery team could do and that is very classic of what we have come to see as the norm."

https://abc7.com/post/why-ar15-semi-automatic-weapons-dangerous/13051721/

You ammosexuals have a mental illness.

Name calling is so puerile, and the sure sign of insecure belief in a weak argument.

“Military grade” is another rhetorical buzzword without meaning.

The 5.56 cartridge was developed to hunt “varmints” like prairie dogs and only later adopted by the military.

Grandpa’s old hunting rifle very likely was chambered in a military cartridge and may even have been a “sporterixed” ex-military “weapon of war.”

Focuding on inanimate objects is a waste of time driven by magical thinking.

Yawn. Sorry but we still want a weapons ban.

Yawn. To quote Mick Jagger “you can’t always get what you want.”

Do you realize how absolutely despicable you sound on this thread? Are dead kids just collateral to you?

k

Do you realize how shrill and deranged you sound on this thread? Are the rights of millions of decent people just collateral to you as you leverage innocent murder victims to push magical “solutions” that have no possible chance of actually accomplishing anything?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
This particular deranged murderer made a lot of noise and managed to kill (I think) just two people. The very list of knife events you reject demonstrates how quickly the body count can rise with a committed knife attacker. Bladed weapons were responsible for industrial-strength slaughter for millennia.

Besides the two dead, there were 17 injured including 14 children. Many of these (especially among those classified as being in critical condition) will likely be crippled for life.

Also note that the murderer shot at the children through the Church windows. This is something that could not be done with a knife. Yes, a committed knife attacker can kill multiple people, but it is much, much easier done with a gun.

+1

Also BFR. If you were shopping at Target with your kids and a crazy violent person came into the store, would you rather they have an AR-15 or a knife? … there is only one sane answer here

An ER doctor wrote an oped about the damage that an AR15 does to the body compared to a single shot pistol. He stated that most victims of one shot gun shot wounds can be saved, but the damage to a victim from an AR15 was basically like a blender came through the insides of the person.

There is no reason for an AR15, that's for sure.

The terminal ballistics of a 5.56 rifle bullet are relatively unpredictable and depend on, among other things, the weight and jacket material of the bullet, its design, the propellant used, and the length and twist rate of the barrel, as well as the range from which the wound is inflicted, and the build and clothing of the individual struck. Even when all else is equal, two different 5.56 wounds can vary from a small through and through wound to one with greater tissue destruction. The AR15 is popular but it is not the only firearm that uses 5.56 ammunition. And not all AR15’s use that round. The idea that a bullet wound is ever “like a blender came through a person” is simply ridiculous hyperbole.

Not hyperbole when it hits a child.

-RN

From your alleged sample size of?

I trust the experts more than some ammosexual anonymous poster.

"Instead of just being sort of point on straight through, there's more erratic passage of the bullet through the victim so the extent of tissue damage is greater," Shapiro explained.

What's more, assault weapons can cause a process called cavitation to occur, meaning it creates a large cavity in the body, destroying tissues and organs.

"The difference with high velocity bullets and military-grade weapons...is the damage they inflict on the human body and our internal organs are much more gruesome and tend to have what is known as a blast effect, because that bullet is carrying so much energy with it as it enters the human body," Griggs said. "Instead of, for example, if the bullet traveled through the lung, instead of a hole in the lung, we're looking at an exploded lung."

Griggs explained that the same holds true if a bullet hits a human bone. A bullet from a handgun that hits a bone might fracture the bone, but a bullet from a semi-automatic rifle might shatter the bone due to the high velocity.

"Children, their organs are a lot more compact, and they have a lot less fat surrounding their vital organs," Griggs said. "And so, you can imagine that a bullet that is causing a blast effect inside their body, inside their abdomen or their torso or their chest, it's not just going to explode, or tear apart, their lung, but also their heart. Not just going to completely shatter their liver, but also their spleen, causing catastrophic fatal bleeding."

"When we see a child who has been shot with an AR-15-style rifle, there is often very little hope -- depending on where the bullet has hit them in their body -- that we can save their life even if they make it to the hospital," she said. "And devastatingly, the children who were shot in Nashville were dead on arrival to the hospital. There's nothing that trauma surgery team could do and that is very classic of what we have come to see as the norm."

https://abc7.com/post/why-ar15-semi-automatic-weapons-dangerous/13051721/

You ammosexuals have a mental illness.

Name calling is so puerile, and the sure sign of insecure belief in a weak argument.

“Military grade” is another rhetorical buzzword without meaning.

The 5.56 cartridge was developed to hunt “varmints” like prairie dogs and only later adopted by the military.

Grandpa’s old hunting rifle very likely was chambered in a military cartridge and may even have been a “sporterixed” ex-military “weapon of war.”

Focuding on inanimate objects is a waste of time driven by magical thinking.

Typical response, touting technical gun details. Not that PP, but you absolutely know more than me about technical gun specifics. Gold star for that.

Now stop with the distraction and deflection and focus on the actual issues at hand. Research shows that restrictive gun law states have lower pediatric gun deaths. There is plenty of published research on this or that impact of gun control laws within 2a. But I may surmise that you only cherry pick the highly disputed good guy with a gun research of Locke and ignore anything that contradicts it?

Can we prevent every child from being murdered or accidentally shooting themself or committing suicide? No. Can we reduce it statistically? Yes. Is that worth it to me, a mother? YES. Is it worth it to you? Apparently not.

Do not tell me about mental illness or video games or whatever that many other countries in the world have, because that argument is BS.

Ever comforted someone who attended a funeral of a child who died in a school shooting and talked about how tiny the casket was? I have.

Stop with the technical detail to brag about your gun knowledge. It does not matter.

You have posted the same mantra about “strict” states with miraculously lower death rates multiple times, but have tellingly failed, refused or been unable to provide any underlying information that might undercut the post hoc reasoning that attributes the alleged better crime statistics solely to the difference in firearm laws.

That underlying information matters. A jurisdiction with extremely severe drunk driving laws might have less drunk driving because of those laws. Or it may be overpopulated with Mormons, Southern Baptists and other teetotalers; or the police may not like enforcing what they perceive to be unfair laws.

Your arguments mix accidental shooting deaths into the present discussion of willful, malicious, hateful murderers by a despicable and clearly floridly mentally ill person. Well, there are already laws against criminal negligence, and every shot the shooter in this case fired violated multiple laws.

You wish to foreclose discussion of the various social forces that contribute to criminal violence in the United States, arguing that other countries have crazy people too so it must be the evil scary looking guns. No country in the world is as mixed or media driven as the US and unfortunately there may be no country with an equal level of social isolation for people who need help.

Technical issues matter a great deal when discussing whether, how and to what extent to attempt to abridge the rights of decent people in a doomed effort to stop crime by focusing on one type or model of firearm as a magical totem, the eradication of which will somehow miraculously bring peace and tranquility everywhere. You may not know, and many people on your side of the fence may not know, and you may not care — you may even be in favor — but trying to “ban” firearms based on cosmetic appearances, action type or caliber will impact far beyond the specific “totem” models you have in mind.

What this means in real terms is that attempted “bans” will either be eyewash or ineffective. They will face enormous levels of noncompliance. They will open the door to actual “military grade weapons of war” brought in by profiteering black marketeers.

Don’t believe me? Before 1968, most criminals (and a lot of decent people) were armed with inexpensive, soft metal, low power, unreliable firearms imported and sold at rock bottom prices — so called “Saturday Night Specials.” After the Gun Control Act of 1968 stopped those from coming in, domestic manufacturers filled the void and criminals now routinely are at least as well armed as the police.

The percentage of firearms ever misused is infinitesimal in comparison to the millions of lawfully owned guns in the country. Solving behavioral problems by magical thinking and impossible measures never works.

What works is taking criminals out of circulation.

Lets get their weapons out of circulation as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
This particular deranged murderer made a lot of noise and managed to kill (I think) just two people. The very list of knife events you reject demonstrates how quickly the body count can rise with a committed knife attacker. Bladed weapons were responsible for industrial-strength slaughter for millennia.

Besides the two dead, there were 17 injured including 14 children. Many of these (especially among those classified as being in critical condition) will likely be crippled for life.

Also note that the murderer shot at the children through the Church windows. This is something that could not be done with a knife. Yes, a committed knife attacker can kill multiple people, but it is much, much easier done with a gun.

+1

Also BFR. If you were shopping at Target with your kids and a crazy violent person came into the store, would you rather they have an AR-15 or a knife? … there is only one sane answer here

An ER doctor wrote an oped about the damage that an AR15 does to the body compared to a single shot pistol. He stated that most victims of one shot gun shot wounds can be saved, but the damage to a victim from an AR15 was basically like a blender came through the insides of the person.

There is no reason for an AR15, that's for sure.

The terminal ballistics of a 5.56 rifle bullet are relatively unpredictable and depend on, among other things, the weight and jacket material of the bullet, its design, the propellant used, and the length and twist rate of the barrel, as well as the range from which the wound is inflicted, and the build and clothing of the individual struck. Even when all else is equal, two different 5.56 wounds can vary from a small through and through wound to one with greater tissue destruction. The AR15 is popular but it is not the only firearm that uses 5.56 ammunition. And not all AR15’s use that round. The idea that a bullet wound is ever “like a blender came through a person” is simply ridiculous hyperbole.

Not hyperbole when it hits a child.

-RN

From your alleged sample size of?

I trust the experts more than some ammosexual anonymous poster.

"Instead of just being sort of point on straight through, there's more erratic passage of the bullet through the victim so the extent of tissue damage is greater," Shapiro explained.

What's more, assault weapons can cause a process called cavitation to occur, meaning it creates a large cavity in the body, destroying tissues and organs.

"The difference with high velocity bullets and military-grade weapons...is the damage they inflict on the human body and our internal organs are much more gruesome and tend to have what is known as a blast effect, because that bullet is carrying so much energy with it as it enters the human body," Griggs said. "Instead of, for example, if the bullet traveled through the lung, instead of a hole in the lung, we're looking at an exploded lung."

Griggs explained that the same holds true if a bullet hits a human bone. A bullet from a handgun that hits a bone might fracture the bone, but a bullet from a semi-automatic rifle might shatter the bone due to the high velocity.

"Children, their organs are a lot more compact, and they have a lot less fat surrounding their vital organs," Griggs said. "And so, you can imagine that a bullet that is causing a blast effect inside their body, inside their abdomen or their torso or their chest, it's not just going to explode, or tear apart, their lung, but also their heart. Not just going to completely shatter their liver, but also their spleen, causing catastrophic fatal bleeding."

"When we see a child who has been shot with an AR-15-style rifle, there is often very little hope -- depending on where the bullet has hit them in their body -- that we can save their life even if they make it to the hospital," she said. "And devastatingly, the children who were shot in Nashville were dead on arrival to the hospital. There's nothing that trauma surgery team could do and that is very classic of what we have come to see as the norm."

https://abc7.com/post/why-ar15-semi-automatic-weapons-dangerous/13051721/

You ammosexuals have a mental illness.

Name calling is so puerile, and the sure sign of insecure belief in a weak argument.

“Military grade” is another rhetorical buzzword without meaning.

The 5.56 cartridge was developed to hunt “varmints” like prairie dogs and only later adopted by the military.

Grandpa’s old hunting rifle very likely was chambered in a military cartridge and may even have been a “sporterixed” ex-military “weapon of war.”

Focuding on inanimate objects is a waste of time driven by magical thinking.

Typical response, touting technical gun details. Not that PP, but you absolutely know more than me about technical gun specifics. Gold star for that.

Now stop with the distraction and deflection and focus on the actual issues at hand. Research shows that restrictive gun law states have lower pediatric gun deaths. There is plenty of published research on this or that impact of gun control laws within 2a. But I may surmise that you only cherry pick the highly disputed good guy with a gun research of Locke and ignore anything that contradicts it?

Can we prevent every child from being murdered or accidentally shooting themself or committing suicide? No. Can we reduce it statistically? Yes. Is that worth it to me, a mother? YES. Is it worth it to you? Apparently not.

Do not tell me about mental illness or video games or whatever that many other countries in the world have, because that argument is BS.

Ever comforted someone who attended a funeral of a child who died in a school shooting and talked about how tiny the casket was? I have.

Stop with the technical detail to brag about your gun knowledge. It does not matter.

You have posted the same mantra about “strict” states with miraculously lower death rates multiple times, but have tellingly failed, refused or been unable to provide any underlying information that might undercut the post hoc reasoning that attributes the alleged better crime statistics solely to the difference in firearm laws.

That underlying information matters. A jurisdiction with extremely severe drunk driving laws might have less drunk driving because of those laws. Or it may be overpopulated with Mormons, Southern Baptists and other teetotalers; or the police may not like enforcing what they perceive to be unfair laws.

Your arguments mix accidental shooting deaths into the present discussion of willful, malicious, hateful murderers by a despicable and clearly floridly mentally ill person. Well, there are already laws against criminal negligence, and every shot the shooter in this case fired violated multiple laws.

You wish to foreclose discussion of the various social forces that contribute to criminal violence in the United States, arguing that other countries have crazy people too so it must be the evil scary looking guns. No country in the world is as mixed or media driven as the US and unfortunately there may be no country with an equal level of social isolation for people who need help.

Technical issues matter a great deal when discussing whether, how and to what extent to attempt to abridge the rights of decent people in a doomed effort to stop crime by focusing on one type or model of firearm as a magical totem, the eradication of which will somehow miraculously bring peace and tranquility everywhere. You may not know, and many people on your side of the fence may not know, and you may not care — you may even be in favor — but trying to “ban” firearms based on cosmetic appearances, action type or caliber will impact far beyond the specific “totem” models you have in mind.

What this means in real terms is that attempted “bans” will either be eyewash or ineffective. They will face enormous levels of noncompliance. They will open the door to actual “military grade weapons of war” brought in by profiteering black marketeers.

Don’t believe me? Before 1968, most criminals (and a lot of decent people) were armed with inexpensive, soft metal, low power, unreliable firearms imported and sold at rock bottom prices — so called “Saturday Night Specials.” After the Gun Control Act of 1968 stopped those from coming in, domestic manufacturers filled the void and criminals now routinely are at least as well armed as the police.

The percentage of firearms ever misused is infinitesimal in comparison to the millions of lawfully owned guns in the country. Solving behavioral problems by magical thinking and impossible measures never works.

What works is taking criminals out of circulation.

Lets get their weapons out of circulation as well.

Why don’t you get back to us on that the day after all of the illicit drugs and alcohol, the bootlegged cigarettes, the hideous pornography and other contraband dry up?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
This particular deranged murderer made a lot of noise and managed to kill (I think) just two people. The very list of knife events you reject demonstrates how quickly the body count can rise with a committed knife attacker. Bladed weapons were responsible for industrial-strength slaughter for millennia.

Besides the two dead, there were 17 injured including 14 children. Many of these (especially among those classified as being in critical condition) will likely be crippled for life.

Also note that the murderer shot at the children through the Church windows. This is something that could not be done with a knife. Yes, a committed knife attacker can kill multiple people, but it is much, much easier done with a gun.

+1

Also BFR. If you were shopping at Target with your kids and a crazy violent person came into the store, would you rather they have an AR-15 or a knife? … there is only one sane answer here

An ER doctor wrote an oped about the damage that an AR15 does to the body compared to a single shot pistol. He stated that most victims of one shot gun shot wounds can be saved, but the damage to a victim from an AR15 was basically like a blender came through the insides of the person.

There is no reason for an AR15, that's for sure.

The terminal ballistics of a 5.56 rifle bullet are relatively unpredictable and depend on, among other things, the weight and jacket material of the bullet, its design, the propellant used, and the length and twist rate of the barrel, as well as the range from which the wound is inflicted, and the build and clothing of the individual struck. Even when all else is equal, two different 5.56 wounds can vary from a small through and through wound to one with greater tissue destruction. The AR15 is popular but it is not the only firearm that uses 5.56 ammunition. And not all AR15’s use that round. The idea that a bullet wound is ever “like a blender came through a person” is simply ridiculous hyperbole.

Not hyperbole when it hits a child.

-RN

From your alleged sample size of?

I trust the experts more than some ammosexual anonymous poster.

"Instead of just being sort of point on straight through, there's more erratic passage of the bullet through the victim so the extent of tissue damage is greater," Shapiro explained.

What's more, assault weapons can cause a process called cavitation to occur, meaning it creates a large cavity in the body, destroying tissues and organs.

"The difference with high velocity bullets and military-grade weapons...is the damage they inflict on the human body and our internal organs are much more gruesome and tend to have what is known as a blast effect, because that bullet is carrying so much energy with it as it enters the human body," Griggs said. "Instead of, for example, if the bullet traveled through the lung, instead of a hole in the lung, we're looking at an exploded lung."

Griggs explained that the same holds true if a bullet hits a human bone. A bullet from a handgun that hits a bone might fracture the bone, but a bullet from a semi-automatic rifle might shatter the bone due to the high velocity.

"Children, their organs are a lot more compact, and they have a lot less fat surrounding their vital organs," Griggs said. "And so, you can imagine that a bullet that is causing a blast effect inside their body, inside their abdomen or their torso or their chest, it's not just going to explode, or tear apart, their lung, but also their heart. Not just going to completely shatter their liver, but also their spleen, causing catastrophic fatal bleeding."

"When we see a child who has been shot with an AR-15-style rifle, there is often very little hope -- depending on where the bullet has hit them in their body -- that we can save their life even if they make it to the hospital," she said. "And devastatingly, the children who were shot in Nashville were dead on arrival to the hospital. There's nothing that trauma surgery team could do and that is very classic of what we have come to see as the norm."

https://abc7.com/post/why-ar15-semi-automatic-weapons-dangerous/13051721/

You ammosexuals have a mental illness.

Name calling is so puerile, and the sure sign of insecure belief in a weak argument.

“Military grade” is another rhetorical buzzword without meaning.

The 5.56 cartridge was developed to hunt “varmints” like prairie dogs and only later adopted by the military.

Grandpa’s old hunting rifle very likely was chambered in a military cartridge and may even have been a “sporterixed” ex-military “weapon of war.”

Focuding on inanimate objects is a waste of time driven by magical thinking.

Typical response, touting technical gun details. Not that PP, but you absolutely know more than me about technical gun specifics. Gold star for that.

Now stop with the distraction and deflection and focus on the actual issues at hand. Research shows that restrictive gun law states have lower pediatric gun deaths. There is plenty of published research on this or that impact of gun control laws within 2a. But I may surmise that you only cherry pick the highly disputed good guy with a gun research of Locke and ignore anything that contradicts it?

Can we prevent every child from being murdered or accidentally shooting themself or committing suicide? No. Can we reduce it statistically? Yes. Is that worth it to me, a mother? YES. Is it worth it to you? Apparently not.

Do not tell me about mental illness or video games or whatever that many other countries in the world have, because that argument is BS.

Ever comforted someone who attended a funeral of a child who died in a school shooting and talked about how tiny the casket was? I have.

Stop with the technical detail to brag about your gun knowledge. It does not matter.

You have posted the same mantra about “strict” states with miraculously lower death rates multiple times, but have tellingly failed, refused or been unable to provide any underlying information that might undercut the post hoc reasoning that attributes the alleged better crime statistics solely to the difference in firearm laws.

That underlying information matters. A jurisdiction with extremely severe drunk driving laws might have less drunk driving because of those laws. Or it may be overpopulated with Mormons, Southern Baptists and other teetotalers; or the police may not like enforcing what they perceive to be unfair laws.

Your arguments mix accidental shooting deaths into the present discussion of willful, malicious, hateful murderers by a despicable and clearly floridly mentally ill person. Well, there are already laws against criminal negligence, and every shot the shooter in this case fired violated multiple laws.

You wish to foreclose discussion of the various social forces that contribute to criminal violence in the United States, arguing that other countries have crazy people too so it must be the evil scary looking guns. No country in the world is as mixed or media driven as the US and unfortunately there may be no country with an equal level of social isolation for people who need help.

Technical issues matter a great deal when discussing whether, how and to what extent to attempt to abridge the rights of decent people in a doomed effort to stop crime by focusing on one type or model of firearm as a magical totem, the eradication of which will somehow miraculously bring peace and tranquility everywhere. You may not know, and many people on your side of the fence may not know, and you may not care — you may even be in favor — but trying to “ban” firearms based on cosmetic appearances, action type or caliber will impact far beyond the specific “totem” models you have in mind.

What this means in real terms is that attempted “bans” will either be eyewash or ineffective. They will face enormous levels of noncompliance. They will open the door to actual “military grade weapons of war” brought in by profiteering black marketeers.

Don’t believe me? Before 1968, most criminals (and a lot of decent people) were armed with inexpensive, soft metal, low power, unreliable firearms imported and sold at rock bottom prices — so called “Saturday Night Specials.” After the Gun Control Act of 1968 stopped those from coming in, domestic manufacturers filled the void and criminals now routinely are at least as well armed as the police.

The percentage of firearms ever misused is infinitesimal in comparison to the millions of lawfully owned guns in the country. Solving behavioral problems by magical thinking and impossible measures never works.

What works is taking criminals out of circulation.

Lets get their weapons out of circulation as well.

Why don’t you get back to us on that the day after all of the illicit drugs and alcohol, the bootlegged cigarettes, the hideous pornography and other contraband dry up?

Okay I guess. What is the connection with those things to the shooting? Did I miss that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
This particular deranged murderer made a lot of noise and managed to kill (I think) just two people. The very list of knife events you reject demonstrates how quickly the body count can rise with a committed knife attacker. Bladed weapons were responsible for industrial-strength slaughter for millennia.

Besides the two dead, there were 17 injured including 14 children. Many of these (especially among those classified as being in critical condition) will likely be crippled for life.

Also note that the murderer shot at the children through the Church windows. This is something that could not be done with a knife. Yes, a committed knife attacker can kill multiple people, but it is much, much easier done with a gun.

+1

Also BFR. If you were shopping at Target with your kids and a crazy violent person came into the store, would you rather they have an AR-15 or a knife? … there is only one sane answer here

An ER doctor wrote an oped about the damage that an AR15 does to the body compared to a single shot pistol. He stated that most victims of one shot gun shot wounds can be saved, but the damage to a victim from an AR15 was basically like a blender came through the insides of the person.

There is no reason for an AR15, that's for sure.

The terminal ballistics of a 5.56 rifle bullet are relatively unpredictable and depend on, among other things, the weight and jacket material of the bullet, its design, the propellant used, and the length and twist rate of the barrel, as well as the range from which the wound is inflicted, and the build and clothing of the individual struck. Even when all else is equal, two different 5.56 wounds can vary from a small through and through wound to one with greater tissue destruction. The AR15 is popular but it is not the only firearm that uses 5.56 ammunition. And not all AR15’s use that round. The idea that a bullet wound is ever “like a blender came through a person” is simply ridiculous hyperbole.

Not hyperbole when it hits a child.

-RN

From your alleged sample size of?

I trust the experts more than some ammosexual anonymous poster.

"Instead of just being sort of point on straight through, there's more erratic passage of the bullet through the victim so the extent of tissue damage is greater," Shapiro explained.

What's more, assault weapons can cause a process called cavitation to occur, meaning it creates a large cavity in the body, destroying tissues and organs.

"The difference with high velocity bullets and military-grade weapons...is the damage they inflict on the human body and our internal organs are much more gruesome and tend to have what is known as a blast effect, because that bullet is carrying so much energy with it as it enters the human body," Griggs said. "Instead of, for example, if the bullet traveled through the lung, instead of a hole in the lung, we're looking at an exploded lung."

Griggs explained that the same holds true if a bullet hits a human bone. A bullet from a handgun that hits a bone might fracture the bone, but a bullet from a semi-automatic rifle might shatter the bone due to the high velocity.

"Children, their organs are a lot more compact, and they have a lot less fat surrounding their vital organs," Griggs said. "And so, you can imagine that a bullet that is causing a blast effect inside their body, inside their abdomen or their torso or their chest, it's not just going to explode, or tear apart, their lung, but also their heart. Not just going to completely shatter their liver, but also their spleen, causing catastrophic fatal bleeding."

"When we see a child who has been shot with an AR-15-style rifle, there is often very little hope -- depending on where the bullet has hit them in their body -- that we can save their life even if they make it to the hospital," she said. "And devastatingly, the children who were shot in Nashville were dead on arrival to the hospital. There's nothing that trauma surgery team could do and that is very classic of what we have come to see as the norm."

https://abc7.com/post/why-ar15-semi-automatic-weapons-dangerous/13051721/

You ammosexuals have a mental illness.

Name calling is so puerile, and the sure sign of insecure belief in a weak argument.

“Military grade” is another rhetorical buzzword without meaning.

The 5.56 cartridge was developed to hunt “varmints” like prairie dogs and only later adopted by the military.

Grandpa’s old hunting rifle very likely was chambered in a military cartridge and may even have been a “sporterixed” ex-military “weapon of war.”

Focuding on inanimate objects is a waste of time driven by magical thinking.

Typical response, touting technical gun details. Not that PP, but you absolutely know more than me about technical gun specifics. Gold star for that.

Now stop with the distraction and deflection and focus on the actual issues at hand. Research shows that restrictive gun law states have lower pediatric gun deaths. There is plenty of published research on this or that impact of gun control laws within 2a. But I may surmise that you only cherry pick the highly disputed good guy with a gun research of Locke and ignore anything that contradicts it?

Can we prevent every child from being murdered or accidentally shooting themself or committing suicide? No. Can we reduce it statistically? Yes. Is that worth it to me, a mother? YES. Is it worth it to you? Apparently not.

Do not tell me about mental illness or video games or whatever that many other countries in the world have, because that argument is BS.

Ever comforted someone who attended a funeral of a child who died in a school shooting and talked about how tiny the casket was? I have.

Stop with the technical detail to brag about your gun knowledge. It does not matter.

You have posted the same mantra about “strict” states with miraculously lower death rates multiple times, but have tellingly failed, refused or been unable to provide any underlying information that might undercut the post hoc reasoning that attributes the alleged better crime statistics solely to the difference in firearm laws.

That underlying information matters. A jurisdiction with extremely severe drunk driving laws might have less drunk driving because of those laws. Or it may be overpopulated with Mormons, Southern Baptists and other teetotalers; or the police may not like enforcing what they perceive to be unfair laws.

Your arguments mix accidental shooting deaths into the present discussion of willful, malicious, hateful murderers by a despicable and clearly floridly mentally ill person. Well, there are already laws against criminal negligence, and every shot the shooter in this case fired violated multiple laws.

You wish to foreclose discussion of the various social forces that contribute to criminal violence in the United States, arguing that other countries have crazy people too so it must be the evil scary looking guns. No country in the world is as mixed or media driven as the US and unfortunately there may be no country with an equal level of social isolation for people who need help.

Technical issues matter a great deal when discussing whether, how and to what extent to attempt to abridge the rights of decent people in a doomed effort to stop crime by focusing on one type or model of firearm as a magical totem, the eradication of which will somehow miraculously bring peace and tranquility everywhere. You may not know, and many people on your side of the fence may not know, and you may not care — you may even be in favor — but trying to “ban” firearms based on cosmetic appearances, action type or caliber will impact far beyond the specific “totem” models you have in mind.

What this means in real terms is that attempted “bans” will either be eyewash or ineffective. They will face enormous levels of noncompliance. They will open the door to actual “military grade weapons of war” brought in by profiteering black marketeers.

Don’t believe me? Before 1968, most criminals (and a lot of decent people) were armed with inexpensive, soft metal, low power, unreliable firearms imported and sold at rock bottom prices — so called “Saturday Night Specials.” After the Gun Control Act of 1968 stopped those from coming in, domestic manufacturers filled the void and criminals now routinely are at least as well armed as the police.

The percentage of firearms ever misused is infinitesimal in comparison to the millions of lawfully owned guns in the country. Solving behavioral problems by magical thinking and impossible measures never works.

What works is taking criminals out of circulation.

What garbage. Guns kill period end of story. This does not happen in countries with gun control.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
This particular deranged murderer made a lot of noise and managed to kill (I think) just two people. The very list of knife events you reject demonstrates how quickly the body count can rise with a committed knife attacker. Bladed weapons were responsible for industrial-strength slaughter for millennia.

Besides the two dead, there were 17 injured including 14 children. Many of these (especially among those classified as being in critical condition) will likely be crippled for life.

Also note that the murderer shot at the children through the Church windows. This is something that could not be done with a knife. Yes, a committed knife attacker can kill multiple people, but it is much, much easier done with a gun.

+1

Also BFR. If you were shopping at Target with your kids and a crazy violent person came into the store, would you rather they have an AR-15 or a knife? … there is only one sane answer here

An ER doctor wrote an oped about the damage that an AR15 does to the body compared to a single shot pistol. He stated that most victims of one shot gun shot wounds can be saved, but the damage to a victim from an AR15 was basically like a blender came through the insides of the person.

There is no reason for an AR15, that's for sure.

The terminal ballistics of a 5.56 rifle bullet are relatively unpredictable and depend on, among other things, the weight and jacket material of the bullet, its design, the propellant used, and the length and twist rate of the barrel, as well as the range from which the wound is inflicted, and the build and clothing of the individual struck. Even when all else is equal, two different 5.56 wounds can vary from a small through and through wound to one with greater tissue destruction. The AR15 is popular but it is not the only firearm that uses 5.56 ammunition. And not all AR15’s use that round. The idea that a bullet wound is ever “like a blender came through a person” is simply ridiculous hyperbole.

Not hyperbole when it hits a child.

-RN

From your alleged sample size of?

I trust the experts more than some ammosexual anonymous poster.

"Instead of just being sort of point on straight through, there's more erratic passage of the bullet through the victim so the extent of tissue damage is greater," Shapiro explained.

What's more, assault weapons can cause a process called cavitation to occur, meaning it creates a large cavity in the body, destroying tissues and organs.

"The difference with high velocity bullets and military-grade weapons...is the damage they inflict on the human body and our internal organs are much more gruesome and tend to have what is known as a blast effect, because that bullet is carrying so much energy with it as it enters the human body," Griggs said. "Instead of, for example, if the bullet traveled through the lung, instead of a hole in the lung, we're looking at an exploded lung."

Griggs explained that the same holds true if a bullet hits a human bone. A bullet from a handgun that hits a bone might fracture the bone, but a bullet from a semi-automatic rifle might shatter the bone due to the high velocity.

"Children, their organs are a lot more compact, and they have a lot less fat surrounding their vital organs," Griggs said. "And so, you can imagine that a bullet that is causing a blast effect inside their body, inside their abdomen or their torso or their chest, it's not just going to explode, or tear apart, their lung, but also their heart. Not just going to completely shatter their liver, but also their spleen, causing catastrophic fatal bleeding."

"When we see a child who has been shot with an AR-15-style rifle, there is often very little hope -- depending on where the bullet has hit them in their body -- that we can save their life even if they make it to the hospital," she said. "And devastatingly, the children who were shot in Nashville were dead on arrival to the hospital. There's nothing that trauma surgery team could do and that is very classic of what we have come to see as the norm."

https://abc7.com/post/why-ar15-semi-automatic-weapons-dangerous/13051721/

You ammosexuals have a mental illness.

Name calling is so puerile, and the sure sign of insecure belief in a weak argument.

“Military grade” is another rhetorical buzzword without meaning.

The 5.56 cartridge was developed to hunt “varmints” like prairie dogs and only later adopted by the military.

Grandpa’s old hunting rifle very likely was chambered in a military cartridge and may even have been a “sporterixed” ex-military “weapon of war.”

Focuding on inanimate objects is a waste of time driven by magical thinking.

Yawn. Sorry but we still want a weapons ban.

Yawn. To quote Mick Jagger “you can’t always get what you want.”

Do you realize how absolutely despicable you sound on this thread? Are dead kids just collateral to you?

k

Do you realize how shrill and deranged you sound on this thread? Are the rights of millions of decent people just collateral to you as you leverage innocent murder victims to push magical “solutions” that have no possible chance of actually accomplishing anything?

Correct - some shrillness is the non-psychopathic response to the murder of children. The supposed “right” to bear arms is a suicidal perversion of the constitution and I look forward to it being corrected. The fact that you keep repeating that we think gun control is a “magical solution” to gun violence makes you sound not only like a psychopath but also stupid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
This particular deranged murderer made a lot of noise and managed to kill (I think) just two people. The very list of knife events you reject demonstrates how quickly the body count can rise with a committed knife attacker. Bladed weapons were responsible for industrial-strength slaughter for millennia.

Besides the two dead, there were 17 injured including 14 children. Many of these (especially among those classified as being in critical condition) will likely be crippled for life.

Also note that the murderer shot at the children through the Church windows. This is something that could not be done with a knife. Yes, a committed knife attacker can kill multiple people, but it is much, much easier done with a gun.

+1

Also BFR. If you were shopping at Target with your kids and a crazy violent person came into the store, would you rather they have an AR-15 or a knife? … there is only one sane answer here

An ER doctor wrote an oped about the damage that an AR15 does to the body compared to a single shot pistol. He stated that most victims of one shot gun shot wounds can be saved, but the damage to a victim from an AR15 was basically like a blender came through the insides of the person.

There is no reason for an AR15, that's for sure.

The terminal ballistics of a 5.56 rifle bullet are relatively unpredictable and depend on, among other things, the weight and jacket material of the bullet, its design, the propellant used, and the length and twist rate of the barrel, as well as the range from which the wound is inflicted, and the build and clothing of the individual struck. Even when all else is equal, two different 5.56 wounds can vary from a small through and through wound to one with greater tissue destruction. The AR15 is popular but it is not the only firearm that uses 5.56 ammunition. And not all AR15’s use that round. The idea that a bullet wound is ever “like a blender came through a person” is simply ridiculous hyperbole.

Not hyperbole when it hits a child.

-RN

From your alleged sample size of?

I trust the experts more than some ammosexual anonymous poster.

"Instead of just being sort of point on straight through, there's more erratic passage of the bullet through the victim so the extent of tissue damage is greater," Shapiro explained.

What's more, assault weapons can cause a process called cavitation to occur, meaning it creates a large cavity in the body, destroying tissues and organs.

"The difference with high velocity bullets and military-grade weapons...is the damage they inflict on the human body and our internal organs are much more gruesome and tend to have what is known as a blast effect, because that bullet is carrying so much energy with it as it enters the human body," Griggs said. "Instead of, for example, if the bullet traveled through the lung, instead of a hole in the lung, we're looking at an exploded lung."

Griggs explained that the same holds true if a bullet hits a human bone. A bullet from a handgun that hits a bone might fracture the bone, but a bullet from a semi-automatic rifle might shatter the bone due to the high velocity.

"Children, their organs are a lot more compact, and they have a lot less fat surrounding their vital organs," Griggs said. "And so, you can imagine that a bullet that is causing a blast effect inside their body, inside their abdomen or their torso or their chest, it's not just going to explode, or tear apart, their lung, but also their heart. Not just going to completely shatter their liver, but also their spleen, causing catastrophic fatal bleeding."

"When we see a child who has been shot with an AR-15-style rifle, there is often very little hope -- depending on where the bullet has hit them in their body -- that we can save their life even if they make it to the hospital," she said. "And devastatingly, the children who were shot in Nashville were dead on arrival to the hospital. There's nothing that trauma surgery team could do and that is very classic of what we have come to see as the norm."

https://abc7.com/post/why-ar15-semi-automatic-weapons-dangerous/13051721/

You ammosexuals have a mental illness.

Name calling is so puerile, and the sure sign of insecure belief in a weak argument.

“Military grade” is another rhetorical buzzword without meaning.

The 5.56 cartridge was developed to hunt “varmints” like prairie dogs and only later adopted by the military.

Grandpa’s old hunting rifle very likely was chambered in a military cartridge and may even have been a “sporterixed” ex-military “weapon of war.”

Focuding on inanimate objects is a waste of time driven by magical thinking.

Typical response, touting technical gun details. Not that PP, but you absolutely know more than me about technical gun specifics. Gold star for that.

Now stop with the distraction and deflection and focus on the actual issues at hand. Research shows that restrictive gun law states have lower pediatric gun deaths. There is plenty of published research on this or that impact of gun control laws within 2a. But I may surmise that you only cherry pick the highly disputed good guy with a gun research of Locke and ignore anything that contradicts it?

Can we prevent every child from being murdered or accidentally shooting themself or committing suicide? No. Can we reduce it statistically? Yes. Is that worth it to me, a mother? YES. Is it worth it to you? Apparently not.

Do not tell me about mental illness or video games or whatever that many other countries in the world have, because that argument is BS.

Ever comforted someone who attended a funeral of a child who died in a school shooting and talked about how tiny the casket was? I have.

Stop with the technical detail to brag about your gun knowledge. It does not matter.

You have posted the same mantra about “strict” states with miraculously lower death rates multiple times, but have tellingly failed, refused or been unable to provide any underlying information that might undercut the post hoc reasoning that attributes the alleged better crime statistics solely to the difference in firearm laws.

That underlying information matters. A jurisdiction with extremely severe drunk driving laws might have less drunk driving because of those laws. Or it may be overpopulated with Mormons, Southern Baptists and other teetotalers; or the police may not like enforcing what they perceive to be unfair laws.

Your arguments mix accidental shooting deaths into the present discussion of willful, malicious, hateful murderers by a despicable and clearly floridly mentally ill person. Well, there are already laws against criminal negligence, and every shot the shooter in this case fired violated multiple laws.

You wish to foreclose discussion of the various social forces that contribute to criminal violence in the United States, arguing that other countries have crazy people too so it must be the evil scary looking guns. No country in the world is as mixed or media driven as the US and unfortunately there may be no country with an equal level of social isolation for people who need help.

Technical issues matter a great deal when discussing whether, how and to what extent to attempt to abridge the rights of decent people in a doomed effort to stop crime by focusing on one type or model of firearm as a magical totem, the eradication of which will somehow miraculously bring peace and tranquility everywhere. You may not know, and many people on your side of the fence may not know, and you may not care — you may even be in favor — but trying to “ban” firearms based on cosmetic appearances, action type or caliber will impact far beyond the specific “totem” models you have in mind.

What this means in real terms is that attempted “bans” will either be eyewash or ineffective. They will face enormous levels of noncompliance. They will open the door to actual “military grade weapons of war” brought in by profiteering black marketeers.

Don’t believe me? Before 1968, most criminals (and a lot of decent people) were armed with inexpensive, soft metal, low power, unreliable firearms imported and sold at rock bottom prices — so called “Saturday Night Specials.” After the Gun Control Act of 1968 stopped those from coming in, domestic manufacturers filled the void and criminals now routinely are at least as well armed as the police.

The percentage of firearms ever misused is infinitesimal in comparison to the millions of lawfully owned guns in the country. Solving behavioral problems by magical thinking and impossible measures never works.

What works is taking criminals out of circulation.

Lets get their weapons out of circulation as well.

Why don’t you get back to us on that the day after all of the illicit drugs and alcohol, the bootlegged cigarettes, the hideous pornography and other contraband dry up?

Okay I guess. What is the connection with those things to the shooting? Did I miss that?

Those things have exactly the same connection to the shooting that the millions of firearms owned by decent people who do not misuse them have — none.

Those things do have a connection to the never ending confabulated argument that evil behavior will vanish if only some specified totem-object can be magically eliminated. Prohibition doesn’t work.

But you knew all that when you asked.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
This particular deranged murderer made a lot of noise and managed to kill (I think) just two people. The very list of knife events you reject demonstrates how quickly the body count can rise with a committed knife attacker. Bladed weapons were responsible for industrial-strength slaughter for millennia.

Besides the two dead, there were 17 injured including 14 children. Many of these (especially among those classified as being in critical condition) will likely be crippled for life.

Also note that the murderer shot at the children through the Church windows. This is something that could not be done with a knife. Yes, a committed knife attacker can kill multiple people, but it is much, much easier done with a gun.

+1

Also BFR. If you were shopping at Target with your kids and a crazy violent person came into the store, would you rather they have an AR-15 or a knife? … there is only one sane answer here

An ER doctor wrote an oped about the damage that an AR15 does to the body compared to a single shot pistol. He stated that most victims of one shot gun shot wounds can be saved, but the damage to a victim from an AR15 was basically like a blender came through the insides of the person.

There is no reason for an AR15, that's for sure.

The terminal ballistics of a 5.56 rifle bullet are relatively unpredictable and depend on, among other things, the weight and jacket material of the bullet, its design, the propellant used, and the length and twist rate of the barrel, as well as the range from which the wound is inflicted, and the build and clothing of the individual struck. Even when all else is equal, two different 5.56 wounds can vary from a small through and through wound to one with greater tissue destruction. The AR15 is popular but it is not the only firearm that uses 5.56 ammunition. And not all AR15’s use that round. The idea that a bullet wound is ever “like a blender came through a person” is simply ridiculous hyperbole.

Not hyperbole when it hits a child.

-RN

From your alleged sample size of?

I trust the experts more than some ammosexual anonymous poster.

"Instead of just being sort of point on straight through, there's more erratic passage of the bullet through the victim so the extent of tissue damage is greater," Shapiro explained.

What's more, assault weapons can cause a process called cavitation to occur, meaning it creates a large cavity in the body, destroying tissues and organs.

"The difference with high velocity bullets and military-grade weapons...is the damage they inflict on the human body and our internal organs are much more gruesome and tend to have what is known as a blast effect, because that bullet is carrying so much energy with it as it enters the human body," Griggs said. "Instead of, for example, if the bullet traveled through the lung, instead of a hole in the lung, we're looking at an exploded lung."

Griggs explained that the same holds true if a bullet hits a human bone. A bullet from a handgun that hits a bone might fracture the bone, but a bullet from a semi-automatic rifle might shatter the bone due to the high velocity.

"Children, their organs are a lot more compact, and they have a lot less fat surrounding their vital organs," Griggs said. "And so, you can imagine that a bullet that is causing a blast effect inside their body, inside their abdomen or their torso or their chest, it's not just going to explode, or tear apart, their lung, but also their heart. Not just going to completely shatter their liver, but also their spleen, causing catastrophic fatal bleeding."

"When we see a child who has been shot with an AR-15-style rifle, there is often very little hope -- depending on where the bullet has hit them in their body -- that we can save their life even if they make it to the hospital," she said. "And devastatingly, the children who were shot in Nashville were dead on arrival to the hospital. There's nothing that trauma surgery team could do and that is very classic of what we have come to see as the norm."

https://abc7.com/post/why-ar15-semi-automatic-weapons-dangerous/13051721/

You ammosexuals have a mental illness.

Name calling is so puerile, and the sure sign of insecure belief in a weak argument.

“Military grade” is another rhetorical buzzword without meaning.

The 5.56 cartridge was developed to hunt “varmints” like prairie dogs and only later adopted by the military.

Grandpa’s old hunting rifle very likely was chambered in a military cartridge and may even have been a “sporterixed” ex-military “weapon of war.”

Focuding on inanimate objects is a waste of time driven by magical thinking.

Typical response, touting technical gun details. Not that PP, but you absolutely know more than me about technical gun specifics. Gold star for that.

Now stop with the distraction and deflection and focus on the actual issues at hand. Research shows that restrictive gun law states have lower pediatric gun deaths. There is plenty of published research on this or that impact of gun control laws within 2a. But I may surmise that you only cherry pick the highly disputed good guy with a gun research of Locke and ignore anything that contradicts it?

Can we prevent every child from being murdered or accidentally shooting themself or committing suicide? No. Can we reduce it statistically? Yes. Is that worth it to me, a mother? YES. Is it worth it to you? Apparently not.

Do not tell me about mental illness or video games or whatever that many other countries in the world have, because that argument is BS.

Ever comforted someone who attended a funeral of a child who died in a school shooting and talked about how tiny the casket was? I have.

Stop with the technical detail to brag about your gun knowledge. It does not matter.

You have posted the same mantra about “strict” states with miraculously lower death rates multiple times, but have tellingly failed, refused or been unable to provide any underlying information that might undercut the post hoc reasoning that attributes the alleged better crime statistics solely to the difference in firearm laws.

That underlying information matters. A jurisdiction with extremely severe drunk driving laws might have less drunk driving because of those laws. Or it may be overpopulated with Mormons, Southern Baptists and other teetotalers; or the police may not like enforcing what they perceive to be unfair laws.

Your arguments mix accidental shooting deaths into the present discussion of willful, malicious, hateful murderers by a despicable and clearly floridly mentally ill person. Well, there are already laws against criminal negligence, and every shot the shooter in this case fired violated multiple laws.

You wish to foreclose discussion of the various social forces that contribute to criminal violence in the United States, arguing that other countries have crazy people too so it must be the evil scary looking guns. No country in the world is as mixed or media driven as the US and unfortunately there may be no country with an equal level of social isolation for people who need help.

Technical issues matter a great deal when discussing whether, how and to what extent to attempt to abridge the rights of decent people in a doomed effort to stop crime by focusing on one type or model of firearm as a magical totem, the eradication of which will somehow miraculously bring peace and tranquility everywhere. You may not know, and many people on your side of the fence may not know, and you may not care — you may even be in favor — but trying to “ban” firearms based on cosmetic appearances, action type or caliber will impact far beyond the specific “totem” models you have in mind.

What this means in real terms is that attempted “bans” will either be eyewash or ineffective. They will face enormous levels of noncompliance. They will open the door to actual “military grade weapons of war” brought in by profiteering black marketeers.

Don’t believe me? Before 1968, most criminals (and a lot of decent people) were armed with inexpensive, soft metal, low power, unreliable firearms imported and sold at rock bottom prices — so called “Saturday Night Specials.” After the Gun Control Act of 1968 stopped those from coming in, domestic manufacturers filled the void and criminals now routinely are at least as well armed as the police.

The percentage of firearms ever misused is infinitesimal in comparison to the millions of lawfully owned guns in the country. Solving behavioral problems by magical thinking and impossible measures never works.

What works is taking criminals out of circulation.

Lets get their weapons out of circulation as well.

Why don’t you get back to us on that the day after all of the illicit drugs and alcohol, the bootlegged cigarettes, the hideous pornography and other contraband dry up?

Okay I guess. What is the connection with those things to the shooting? Did I miss that?

Those things have exactly the same connection to the shooting that the millions of firearms owned by decent people who do not misuse them have — none.

Those things do have a connection to the never ending confabulated argument that evil behavior will vanish if only some specified totem-object can be magically eliminated. Prohibition doesn’t work.

But you knew all that when you asked.

Prohibition does work - again do you think we are stupid? We all know that countries with gun control don’t have this problem. and I care zero about the “decent gun owners.” I guess the bona fide hunters can keep a reasonable number of hunting weapons.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
This particular deranged murderer made a lot of noise and managed to kill (I think) just two people. The very list of knife events you reject demonstrates how quickly the body count can rise with a committed knife attacker. Bladed weapons were responsible for industrial-strength slaughter for millennia.

Besides the two dead, there were 17 injured including 14 children. Many of these (especially among those classified as being in critical condition) will likely be crippled for life.

Also note that the murderer shot at the children through the Church windows. This is something that could not be done with a knife. Yes, a committed knife attacker can kill multiple people, but it is much, much easier done with a gun.

+1

Also BFR. If you were shopping at Target with your kids and a crazy violent person came into the store, would you rather they have an AR-15 or a knife? … there is only one sane answer here

An ER doctor wrote an oped about the damage that an AR15 does to the body compared to a single shot pistol. He stated that most victims of one shot gun shot wounds can be saved, but the damage to a victim from an AR15 was basically like a blender came through the insides of the person.

There is no reason for an AR15, that's for sure.

The terminal ballistics of a 5.56 rifle bullet are relatively unpredictable and depend on, among other things, the weight and jacket material of the bullet, its design, the propellant used, and the length and twist rate of the barrel, as well as the range from which the wound is inflicted, and the build and clothing of the individual struck. Even when all else is equal, two different 5.56 wounds can vary from a small through and through wound to one with greater tissue destruction. The AR15 is popular but it is not the only firearm that uses 5.56 ammunition. And not all AR15’s use that round. The idea that a bullet wound is ever “like a blender came through a person” is simply ridiculous hyperbole.

Not hyperbole when it hits a child.

-RN

From your alleged sample size of?

I trust the experts more than some ammosexual anonymous poster.

"Instead of just being sort of point on straight through, there's more erratic passage of the bullet through the victim so the extent of tissue damage is greater," Shapiro explained.

What's more, assault weapons can cause a process called cavitation to occur, meaning it creates a large cavity in the body, destroying tissues and organs.

"The difference with high velocity bullets and military-grade weapons...is the damage they inflict on the human body and our internal organs are much more gruesome and tend to have what is known as a blast effect, because that bullet is carrying so much energy with it as it enters the human body," Griggs said. "Instead of, for example, if the bullet traveled through the lung, instead of a hole in the lung, we're looking at an exploded lung."

Griggs explained that the same holds true if a bullet hits a human bone. A bullet from a handgun that hits a bone might fracture the bone, but a bullet from a semi-automatic rifle might shatter the bone due to the high velocity.

"Children, their organs are a lot more compact, and they have a lot less fat surrounding their vital organs," Griggs said. "And so, you can imagine that a bullet that is causing a blast effect inside their body, inside their abdomen or their torso or their chest, it's not just going to explode, or tear apart, their lung, but also their heart. Not just going to completely shatter their liver, but also their spleen, causing catastrophic fatal bleeding."

"When we see a child who has been shot with an AR-15-style rifle, there is often very little hope -- depending on where the bullet has hit them in their body -- that we can save their life even if they make it to the hospital," she said. "And devastatingly, the children who were shot in Nashville were dead on arrival to the hospital. There's nothing that trauma surgery team could do and that is very classic of what we have come to see as the norm."

https://abc7.com/post/why-ar15-semi-automatic-weapons-dangerous/13051721/

You ammosexuals have a mental illness.

Name calling is so puerile, and the sure sign of insecure belief in a weak argument.

“Military grade” is another rhetorical buzzword without meaning.

The 5.56 cartridge was developed to hunt “varmints” like prairie dogs and only later adopted by the military.

Grandpa’s old hunting rifle very likely was chambered in a military cartridge and may even have been a “sporterixed” ex-military “weapon of war.”

Focuding on inanimate objects is a waste of time driven by magical thinking.

Typical response, touting technical gun details. Not that PP, but you absolutely know more than me about technical gun specifics. Gold star for that.

Now stop with the distraction and deflection and focus on the actual issues at hand. Research shows that restrictive gun law states have lower pediatric gun deaths. There is plenty of published research on this or that impact of gun control laws within 2a. But I may surmise that you only cherry pick the highly disputed good guy with a gun research of Locke and ignore anything that contradicts it?

Can we prevent every child from being murdered or accidentally shooting themself or committing suicide? No. Can we reduce it statistically? Yes. Is that worth it to me, a mother? YES. Is it worth it to you? Apparently not.

Do not tell me about mental illness or video games or whatever that many other countries in the world have, because that argument is BS.

Ever comforted someone who attended a funeral of a child who died in a school shooting and talked about how tiny the casket was? I have.

Stop with the technical detail to brag about your gun knowledge. It does not matter.

You have posted the same mantra about “strict” states with miraculously lower death rates multiple times, but have tellingly failed, refused or been unable to provide any underlying information that might undercut the post hoc reasoning that attributes the alleged better crime statistics solely to the difference in firearm laws.

That underlying information matters. A jurisdiction with extremely severe drunk driving laws might have less drunk driving because of those laws. Or it may be overpopulated with Mormons, Southern Baptists and other teetotalers; or the police may not like enforcing what they perceive to be unfair laws.

Your arguments mix accidental shooting deaths into the present discussion of willful, malicious, hateful murderers by a despicable and clearly floridly mentally ill person. Well, there are already laws against criminal negligence, and every shot the shooter in this case fired violated multiple laws.

You wish to foreclose discussion of the various social forces that contribute to criminal violence in the United States, arguing that other countries have crazy people too so it must be the evil scary looking guns. No country in the world is as mixed or media driven as the US and unfortunately there may be no country with an equal level of social isolation for people who need help.

Technical issues matter a great deal when discussing whether, how and to what extent to attempt to abridge the rights of decent people in a doomed effort to stop crime by focusing on one type or model of firearm as a magical totem, the eradication of which will somehow miraculously bring peace and tranquility everywhere. You may not know, and many people on your side of the fence may not know, and you may not care — you may even be in favor — but trying to “ban” firearms based on cosmetic appearances, action type or caliber will impact far beyond the specific “totem” models you have in mind.

What this means in real terms is that attempted “bans” will either be eyewash or ineffective. They will face enormous levels of noncompliance. They will open the door to actual “military grade weapons of war” brought in by profiteering black marketeers.

Don’t believe me? Before 1968, most criminals (and a lot of decent people) were armed with inexpensive, soft metal, low power, unreliable firearms imported and sold at rock bottom prices — so called “Saturday Night Specials.” After the Gun Control Act of 1968 stopped those from coming in, domestic manufacturers filled the void and criminals now routinely are at least as well armed as the police.

The percentage of firearms ever misused is infinitesimal in comparison to the millions of lawfully owned guns in the country. Solving behavioral problems by magical thinking and impossible measures never works.

What works is taking criminals out of circulation.

What garbage. Guns kill period end of story. This does not happen in countries with gun control.

Again, and I’m sorry it conflicts with your deeply held simplistic belief that inanimate objects cause crime by themselves — there are highly material geographic, population, demographic, social and especially cultural differences that go well beyond firearm laws when comparing other places to the US.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
This particular deranged murderer made a lot of noise and managed to kill (I think) just two people. The very list of knife events you reject demonstrates how quickly the body count can rise with a committed knife attacker. Bladed weapons were responsible for industrial-strength slaughter for millennia.

Besides the two dead, there were 17 injured including 14 children. Many of these (especially among those classified as being in critical condition) will likely be crippled for life.

Also note that the murderer shot at the children through the Church windows. This is something that could not be done with a knife. Yes, a committed knife attacker can kill multiple people, but it is much, much easier done with a gun.

+1

Also BFR. If you were shopping at Target with your kids and a crazy violent person came into the store, would you rather they have an AR-15 or a knife? … there is only one sane answer here

An ER doctor wrote an oped about the damage that an AR15 does to the body compared to a single shot pistol. He stated that most victims of one shot gun shot wounds can be saved, but the damage to a victim from an AR15 was basically like a blender came through the insides of the person.

There is no reason for an AR15, that's for sure.

The terminal ballistics of a 5.56 rifle bullet are relatively unpredictable and depend on, among other things, the weight and jacket material of the bullet, its design, the propellant used, and the length and twist rate of the barrel, as well as the range from which the wound is inflicted, and the build and clothing of the individual struck. Even when all else is equal, two different 5.56 wounds can vary from a small through and through wound to one with greater tissue destruction. The AR15 is popular but it is not the only firearm that uses 5.56 ammunition. And not all AR15’s use that round. The idea that a bullet wound is ever “like a blender came through a person” is simply ridiculous hyperbole.

Not hyperbole when it hits a child.

-RN

From your alleged sample size of?

I trust the experts more than some ammosexual anonymous poster.

"Instead of just being sort of point on straight through, there's more erratic passage of the bullet through the victim so the extent of tissue damage is greater," Shapiro explained.

What's more, assault weapons can cause a process called cavitation to occur, meaning it creates a large cavity in the body, destroying tissues and organs.

"The difference with high velocity bullets and military-grade weapons...is the damage they inflict on the human body and our internal organs are much more gruesome and tend to have what is known as a blast effect, because that bullet is carrying so much energy with it as it enters the human body," Griggs said. "Instead of, for example, if the bullet traveled through the lung, instead of a hole in the lung, we're looking at an exploded lung."

Griggs explained that the same holds true if a bullet hits a human bone. A bullet from a handgun that hits a bone might fracture the bone, but a bullet from a semi-automatic rifle might shatter the bone due to the high velocity.

"Children, their organs are a lot more compact, and they have a lot less fat surrounding their vital organs," Griggs said. "And so, you can imagine that a bullet that is causing a blast effect inside their body, inside their abdomen or their torso or their chest, it's not just going to explode, or tear apart, their lung, but also their heart. Not just going to completely shatter their liver, but also their spleen, causing catastrophic fatal bleeding."

"When we see a child who has been shot with an AR-15-style rifle, there is often very little hope -- depending on where the bullet has hit them in their body -- that we can save their life even if they make it to the hospital," she said. "And devastatingly, the children who were shot in Nashville were dead on arrival to the hospital. There's nothing that trauma surgery team could do and that is very classic of what we have come to see as the norm."

https://abc7.com/post/why-ar15-semi-automatic-weapons-dangerous/13051721/

You ammosexuals have a mental illness.

Name calling is so puerile, and the sure sign of insecure belief in a weak argument.

“Military grade” is another rhetorical buzzword without meaning.

The 5.56 cartridge was developed to hunt “varmints” like prairie dogs and only later adopted by the military.

Grandpa’s old hunting rifle very likely was chambered in a military cartridge and may even have been a “sporterixed” ex-military “weapon of war.”

Focuding on inanimate objects is a waste of time driven by magical thinking.

Typical response, touting technical gun details. Not that PP, but you absolutely know more than me about technical gun specifics. Gold star for that.

Now stop with the distraction and deflection and focus on the actual issues at hand. Research shows that restrictive gun law states have lower pediatric gun deaths. There is plenty of published research on this or that impact of gun control laws within 2a. But I may surmise that you only cherry pick the highly disputed good guy with a gun research of Locke and ignore anything that contradicts it?

Can we prevent every child from being murdered or accidentally shooting themself or committing suicide? No. Can we reduce it statistically? Yes. Is that worth it to me, a mother? YES. Is it worth it to you? Apparently not.

Do not tell me about mental illness or video games or whatever that many other countries in the world have, because that argument is BS.

Ever comforted someone who attended a funeral of a child who died in a school shooting and talked about how tiny the casket was? I have.

Stop with the technical detail to brag about your gun knowledge. It does not matter.

You have posted the same mantra about “strict” states with miraculously lower death rates multiple times, but have tellingly failed, refused or been unable to provide any underlying information that might undercut the post hoc reasoning that attributes the alleged better crime statistics solely to the difference in firearm laws.

That underlying information matters. A jurisdiction with extremely severe drunk driving laws might have less drunk driving because of those laws. Or it may be overpopulated with Mormons, Southern Baptists and other teetotalers; or the police may not like enforcing what they perceive to be unfair laws.

Your arguments mix accidental shooting deaths into the present discussion of willful, malicious, hateful murderers by a despicable and clearly floridly mentally ill person. Well, there are already laws against criminal negligence, and every shot the shooter in this case fired violated multiple laws.

You wish to foreclose discussion of the various social forces that contribute to criminal violence in the United States, arguing that other countries have crazy people too so it must be the evil scary looking guns. No country in the world is as mixed or media driven as the US and unfortunately there may be no country with an equal level of social isolation for people who need help.

Technical issues matter a great deal when discussing whether, how and to what extent to attempt to abridge the rights of decent people in a doomed effort to stop crime by focusing on one type or model of firearm as a magical totem, the eradication of which will somehow miraculously bring peace and tranquility everywhere. You may not know, and many people on your side of the fence may not know, and you may not care — you may even be in favor — but trying to “ban” firearms based on cosmetic appearances, action type or caliber will impact far beyond the specific “totem” models you have in mind.

What this means in real terms is that attempted “bans” will either be eyewash or ineffective. They will face enormous levels of noncompliance. They will open the door to actual “military grade weapons of war” brought in by profiteering black marketeers.

Don’t believe me? Before 1968, most criminals (and a lot of decent people) were armed with inexpensive, soft metal, low power, unreliable firearms imported and sold at rock bottom prices — so called “Saturday Night Specials.” After the Gun Control Act of 1968 stopped those from coming in, domestic manufacturers filled the void and criminals now routinely are at least as well armed as the police.

The percentage of firearms ever misused is infinitesimal in comparison to the millions of lawfully owned guns in the country. Solving behavioral problems by magical thinking and impossible measures never works.

What works is taking criminals out of circulation.

What garbage. Guns kill period end of story. This does not happen in countries with gun control.

Again, and I’m sorry it conflicts with your deeply held simplistic belief that inanimate objects cause crime by themselves — there are highly material geographic, population, demographic, social and especially cultural differences that go well beyond firearm laws when comparing other places to the US.

If we are so uniquely bad in the US all the more reason to ban guns.

[Anonymous]

This individual had no indication of any mental illness treatment at all, but did work at a cannabis drug dispensary. That is significant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
This particular deranged murderer made a lot of noise and managed to kill (I think) just two people. The very list of knife events you reject demonstrates how quickly the body count can rise with a committed knife attacker. Bladed weapons were responsible for industrial-strength slaughter for millennia.

Besides the two dead, there were 17 injured including 14 children. Many of these (especially among those classified as being in critical condition) will likely be crippled for life.

Also note that the murderer shot at the children through the Church windows. This is something that could not be done with a knife. Yes, a committed knife attacker can kill multiple people, but it is much, much easier done with a gun.

+1

Also BFR. If you were shopping at Target with your kids and a crazy violent person came into the store, would you rather they have an AR-15 or a knife? … there is only one sane answer here

An ER doctor wrote an oped about the damage that an AR15 does to the body compared to a single shot pistol. He stated that most victims of one shot gun shot wounds can be saved, but the damage to a victim from an AR15 was basically like a blender came through the insides of the person.

There is no reason for an AR15, that's for sure.

The terminal ballistics of a 5.56 rifle bullet are relatively unpredictable and depend on, among other things, the weight and jacket material of the bullet, its design, the propellant used, and the length and twist rate of the barrel, as well as the range from which the wound is inflicted, and the build and clothing of the individual struck. Even when all else is equal, two different 5.56 wounds can vary from a small through and through wound to one with greater tissue destruction. The AR15 is popular but it is not the only firearm that uses 5.56 ammunition. And not all AR15’s use that round. The idea that a bullet wound is ever “like a blender came through a person” is simply ridiculous hyperbole.

Not hyperbole when it hits a child.

-RN

From your alleged sample size of?

I trust the experts more than some ammosexual anonymous poster.

"Instead of just being sort of point on straight through, there's more erratic passage of the bullet through the victim so the extent of tissue damage is greater," Shapiro explained.

What's more, assault weapons can cause a process called cavitation to occur, meaning it creates a large cavity in the body, destroying tissues and organs.

"The difference with high velocity bullets and military-grade weapons...is the damage they inflict on the human body and our internal organs are much more gruesome and tend to have what is known as a blast effect, because that bullet is carrying so much energy with it as it enters the human body," Griggs said. "Instead of, for example, if the bullet traveled through the lung, instead of a hole in the lung, we're looking at an exploded lung."

Griggs explained that the same holds true if a bullet hits a human bone. A bullet from a handgun that hits a bone might fracture the bone, but a bullet from a semi-automatic rifle might shatter the bone due to the high velocity.

"Children, their organs are a lot more compact, and they have a lot less fat surrounding their vital organs," Griggs said. "And so, you can imagine that a bullet that is causing a blast effect inside their body, inside their abdomen or their torso or their chest, it's not just going to explode, or tear apart, their lung, but also their heart. Not just going to completely shatter their liver, but also their spleen, causing catastrophic fatal bleeding."

"When we see a child who has been shot with an AR-15-style rifle, there is often very little hope -- depending on where the bullet has hit them in their body -- that we can save their life even if they make it to the hospital," she said. "And devastatingly, the children who were shot in Nashville were dead on arrival to the hospital. There's nothing that trauma surgery team could do and that is very classic of what we have come to see as the norm."

https://abc7.com/post/why-ar15-semi-automatic-weapons-dangerous/13051721/

You ammosexuals have a mental illness.

Name calling is so puerile, and the sure sign of insecure belief in a weak argument.

“Military grade” is another rhetorical buzzword without meaning.

The 5.56 cartridge was developed to hunt “varmints” like prairie dogs and only later adopted by the military.

Grandpa’s old hunting rifle very likely was chambered in a military cartridge and may even have been a “sporterixed” ex-military “weapon of war.”

Focuding on inanimate objects is a waste of time driven by magical thinking.

Typical response, touting technical gun details. Not that PP, but you absolutely know more than me about technical gun specifics. Gold star for that.

Now stop with the distraction and deflection and focus on the actual issues at hand. Research shows that restrictive gun law states have lower pediatric gun deaths. There is plenty of published research on this or that impact of gun control laws within 2a. But I may surmise that you only cherry pick the highly disputed good guy with a gun research of Locke and ignore anything that contradicts it?

Can we prevent every child from being murdered or accidentally shooting themself or committing suicide? No. Can we reduce it statistically? Yes. Is that worth it to me, a mother? YES. Is it worth it to you? Apparently not.

Do not tell me about mental illness or video games or whatever that many other countries in the world have, because that argument is BS.

Ever comforted someone who attended a funeral of a child who died in a school shooting and talked about how tiny the casket was? I have.

Stop with the technical detail to brag about your gun knowledge. It does not matter.

You have posted the same mantra about “strict” states with miraculously lower death rates multiple times, but have tellingly failed, refused or been unable to provide any underlying information that might undercut the post hoc reasoning that attributes the alleged better crime statistics solely to the difference in firearm laws.

That underlying information matters. A jurisdiction with extremely severe drunk driving laws might have less drunk driving because of those laws. Or it may be overpopulated with Mormons, Southern Baptists and other teetotalers; or the police may not like enforcing what they perceive to be unfair laws.

Your arguments mix accidental shooting deaths into the present discussion of willful, malicious, hateful murderers by a despicable and clearly floridly mentally ill person. Well, there are already laws against criminal negligence, and every shot the shooter in this case fired violated multiple laws.

You wish to foreclose discussion of the various social forces that contribute to criminal violence in the United States, arguing that other countries have crazy people too so it must be the evil scary looking guns. No country in the world is as mixed or media driven as the US and unfortunately there may be no country with an equal level of social isolation for people who need help.

Technical issues matter a great deal when discussing whether, how and to what extent to attempt to abridge the rights of decent people in a doomed effort to stop crime by focusing on one type or model of firearm as a magical totem, the eradication of which will somehow miraculously bring peace and tranquility everywhere. You may not know, and many people on your side of the fence may not know, and you may not care — you may even be in favor — but trying to “ban” firearms based on cosmetic appearances, action type or caliber will impact far beyond the specific “totem” models you have in mind.

What this means in real terms is that attempted “bans” will either be eyewash or ineffective. They will face enormous levels of noncompliance. They will open the door to actual “military grade weapons of war” brought in by profiteering black marketeers.

Don’t believe me? Before 1968, most criminals (and a lot of decent people) were armed with inexpensive, soft metal, low power, unreliable firearms imported and sold at rock bottom prices — so called “Saturday Night Specials.” After the Gun Control Act of 1968 stopped those from coming in, domestic manufacturers filled the void and criminals now routinely are at least as well armed as the police.

The percentage of firearms ever misused is infinitesimal in comparison to the millions of lawfully owned guns in the country. Solving behavioral problems by magical thinking and impossible measures never works.

What works is taking criminals out of circulation.

Lets get their weapons out of circulation as well.

Why don’t you get back to us on that the day after all of the illicit drugs and alcohol, the bootlegged cigarettes, the hideous pornography and other contraband dry up?

Okay I guess. What is the connection with those things to the shooting? Did I miss that?

Those things have exactly the same connection to the shooting that the millions of firearms owned by decent people who do not misuse them have — none.

Those things do have a connection to the never ending confabulated argument that evil behavior will vanish if only some specified totem-object can be magically eliminated. Prohibition doesn’t work.

But you knew all that when you asked.

Prohibition does work - again do you think we are stupid? We all know that countries with gun control don’t have this problem. and I care zero about the “decent gun owners.” I guess the bona fide hunters can keep a reasonable number of hunting weapons.

No, prohibition doesn’t work.

It didn’t work with alcohol. The US went from “dry” to awash in bathtub gin overnight and then got quality Canadian stuff smuggled in.

It didn’t work with marijuana. In fact it was such an abject failure that the prohibition has largely been abandoned at least at the state level.

It doesn’t work with narcotics, as evidenced most recently by waves of deaths from Chinese fentanyl.

***

Hunting is not the reason for the Second Amendment. And the hunting guns you’d “allow” your neighbors if you could be a despotic tyrant have their genesis in — gasp — “military grade weapons of war.”