20 victims reported at Annunciation Catholic School in Minneapolis

[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.

DP it absolutely matters. Technical features are what you would have to ban. Otherwise they get deisgned around like with the 1990s assualt weapons ban.

You can't just ban "ar-15"s, unless you have a definition of one.

The “technical features” typically targeted by attempted “bans” are largely cosmetic and demonstrate both the futility of such “bans” and the magical thinking that underlies them.

Waiting periods, increase the age to 21, crack down on straw purchases that are largely done in red states who make illegal straw purchases ridiculously easy, ammunition limits, close loopholes on background checks there are things that can be done.

The Second Amendment is “not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”
-Scalia

[Anonymous]

As a Tier-1 MegaMAGA Trump supporter, I strongly advocate for outlawing ALL guns.

When Daddy Trump seizes power in the spring of 28, I don’t what liberals to be able to access weapons to resist. I want everyone disarmed except for us Trump-forces.

[Anonymous]

I live in the state with the strictest gun laws in the country and there are still mass shootings more days than not. Most barely make the news.
The laws are not being enforced because "too many black and brown men" were being punished according to our county prosecutor.
Can we enforce the laws we already have on the books?
What about NYC? The safest years for that city were when "stop and frisk" was being used to keep guns out of public areas. It was abandoned. Can we go back to using that?
Banning guns will do nothing if laws aren't enforced.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I live in the state with the strictest gun laws in the country and there are still mass shootings more days than not. Most barely make the news.
The laws are not being enforced because "too many black and brown men" were being punished according to our county prosecutor.
Can we enforce the laws we already have on the books?
What about NYC? The safest years for that city were when "stop and frisk" was being used to keep guns out of public areas. It was abandoned. Can we go back to using that?
Banning guns will do nothing if laws aren't enforced.

And your states guns come from...

(Checks notes)

Red states

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I live in the state with the strictest gun laws in the country and there are still mass shootings more days than not. Most barely make the news.
The laws are not being enforced because "too many black and brown men" were being punished according to our county prosecutor.
Can we enforce the laws we already have on the books?
What about NYC? The safest years for that city were when "stop and frisk" was being used to keep guns out of public areas. It was abandoned. Can we go back to using that?
Banning guns will do nothing if laws aren't enforced.

Stop and frisk was deemed a violation of constitutional rights, so no.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I live in the state with the strictest gun laws in the country and there are still mass shootings more days than not. Most barely make the news.
The laws are not being enforced because "too many black and brown men" were being punished according to our county prosecutor.
Can we enforce the laws we already have on the books?
What about NYC? The safest years for that city were when "stop and frisk" was being used to keep guns out of public areas. It was abandoned. Can we go back to using that?
Banning guns will do nothing if laws aren't enforced.

PS a large issue with crime prosecution in DC has centered on cases being tossed after arrest due to violation of 4th amendment rights... And that is without stop and frisk. Even now, Pirrio is having difficulty prosecuting for the illegal guns they keep touting in news, due to searches being deemed illegal.

[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.

DP it absolutely matters. Technical features are what you would have to ban. Otherwise they get deisgned around like with the 1990s assualt weapons ban.

You can't just ban "ar-15"s, unless you have a definition of one.

The “technical features” typically targeted by attempted “bans” are largely cosmetic and demonstrate both the futility of such “bans” and the magical thinking that underlies them.

Waiting periods, increase the age to 21, crack down on straw purchases that are largely done in red states who make illegal straw purchases ridiculously easy, ammunition limits, close loopholes on background checks there are things that can be done.

The Second Amendment is “not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”
-Scalia

Waiting periods were invented to allow time for background checks back in the horse and buggy days. They make no sense in the present day of instant background checks. Particularly where, as here, an individual already owns one or more firearms so that any supposed “cooling off period” would be immaterial.

“Ammunition limits” are inherently arbitrary and would have no meaningful on criminality. It is unlikely that any of these deranged shooters used up more than a box or two of ammunition. Legitimate firearm users need ammunition both for their hobby and to become and remain competent with their firearm.

All of the “loopholes” and “age changes” and “straw purchase” sloganeering is great rhetoric but the need for it does not seem to be borne out in the demographics of these psychopaths.

[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.

DP it absolutely matters. Technical features are what you would have to ban. Otherwise they get deisgned around like with the 1990s assualt weapons ban.

You can't just ban "ar-15"s, unless you have a definition of one.

The “technical features” typically targeted by attempted “bans” are largely cosmetic and demonstrate both the futility of such “bans” and the magical thinking that underlies them.

Waiting periods, increase the age to 21, crack down on straw purchases that are largely done in red states who make illegal straw purchases ridiculously easy, ammunition limits, close loopholes on background checks there are things that can be done.

The Second Amendment is “not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”
-Scalia

Waiting periods were invented to allow time for background checks back in the horse and buggy days. They make no sense in the present day of instant background checks. Particularly where, as here, an individual already owns one or more firearms so that any supposed “cooling off period” would be immaterial.

“Ammunition limits” are inherently arbitrary and would have no meaningful on criminality. It is unlikely that any of these deranged shooters used up more than a box or two of ammunition. Legitimate firearm users need ammunition both for their hobby and to become and remain competent with their firearm.

All of the “loopholes” and “age changes” and “straw purchase” sloganeering is great rhetoric but the need for it does not seem to be borne out in the demographics of these psychopaths.

Lack of gun regulation made more sense in horse and buggy days so let's reconsider it. As Jefferson said (more or less), we should redo the constitution periodically so we don't end up imprisoned by laws that served a prior generation.

Bottom line is statistical reduction is good enough for me, especially when it comes to children. Bottom line is you are willing to explain away any research on anything with vague arguments because you are beholden to gun culture and an outdated document in light of today's weapons. Just because laws do not work absolutely does not mean that they do not have an effect.

[Anonymous]

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

It depends. Are they 5 feet away? Is the weapon drawn and ready? Am I armed ? Is there cover nearby? Does the crazy person have concealment? Have clear are their lines of shooting or are there objects that make wielding a knife easier than a gun?

If you have self defense training, which I highly recommend anyone get in this reality you learn that some situations are more favorable than others based off what scenario you are in as to weapon type of an aggressor.

I have been following your responses and arguments all day here. You are far too informed and sensible to be arguing with these people.

[Anonymous]

You are recommending children have self defense training?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For trans people being so rare, they sure do commit a lot of school shootings.

Isn't it like 2, out of a total of about 1000 school shootings over the last 5 years?

I think it’s like .1% of mass shootings that are committed by trans people.

Also, I’m not 100% sure these “trans” shooters are really trans vs. mentally ill with gender dysphoria.

To be clear, I’m not saying being trans is a mental illness. But I do think there is a delineation between genuinely trans people just trying to live their lives to match their inside vs. people who are mentally ill and confused. Just like how some people are truly neurodiverse and some people are just weird and self diagnosing.

Also for being less than half the general population, cis men sure commit a disproportionate amount of mass shootings (like 90% +). So if there is a demographic that is concerning it is men. They also commit the vast majority of sexual assaults, robberies, terrorist attacks, etc.

Well said.

No, it's not. By definition, gender dysphoria--which is what all trans people have (no, not intersex people, trans people) is a mental illness. I am not saying as this as a slight or insult, but fact. This is why we have such a problem in the US. People like you and the PP have no clue that this is a mental illness. You have bought into the mania that now requires all people--mentally ill or not--to "affirm" their illness by pretending like they are. It is not healthy, it is not right. And most people haven't made the smallest effort to educate themselves because they don't want to look "conservative." I am not a conservative--far from it--but I know that a man cannot be a woman. We have to stop this "affirming" care and just get these people the kind of care they would actually benefit from.

[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.

DP it absolutely matters. Technical features are what you would have to ban. Otherwise they get deisgned around like with the 1990s assualt weapons ban.

You can't just ban "ar-15"s, unless you have a definition of one.

The “technical features” typically targeted by attempted “bans” are largely cosmetic and demonstrate both the futility of such “bans” and the magical thinking that underlies them.

Waiting periods, increase the age to 21, crack down on straw purchases that are largely done in red states who make illegal straw purchases ridiculously easy, ammunition limits, close loopholes on background checks there are things that can be done.

The Second Amendment is “not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”
-Scalia

Waiting periods were invented to allow time for background checks back in the horse and buggy days. They make no sense in the present day of instant background checks. Particularly where, as here, an individual already owns one or more firearms so that any supposed “cooling off period” would be immaterial.

“Ammunition limits” are inherently arbitrary and would have no meaningful on criminality. It is unlikely that any of these deranged shooters used up more than a box or two of ammunition. Legitimate firearm users need ammunition both for their hobby and to become and remain competent with their firearm.

All of the “loopholes” and “age changes” and “straw purchase” sloganeering is great rhetoric but the need for it does not seem to be borne out in the demographics of these psychopaths.

Lack of gun regulation made more sense in horse and buggy days so let's reconsider it. As Jefferson said (more or less), we should redo the constitution periodically so we don't end up imprisoned by laws that served a prior generation.

Bottom line is statistical reduction is good enough for me, especially when it comes to children. Bottom line is you are willing to explain away any research on anything with vague arguments because you are beholden to gun culture and an outdated document in light of today's weapons. Just because laws do not work absolutely does not mean that they do not have an effect.

Did you actually mean to say this? Laws have some magical efficacy even if they demonstrably fail to accomplish their stated purpose?

When I talked about “horse and buggy days” I was talking about the late 1960’s and 1970’s when “cooling off” periods were invented as the “sure thing” to prevent crime involving firearms.

The Constitution has provisions for amendment. I don’t expect the Second Amendment to vanish anytime soon, being as the Constitution would never have been enacted without it and the rest of the Bill of Rights.

I’m “beholden” to no one, least of all to the callous exploitation of “the children” to further attack on enumerated civil rights, driven by a paranoiac fear of inanimate objects while ignoring the people who misuse them and the social forces that shape their behavior.

[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.

DP it absolutely matters. Technical features are what you would have to ban. Otherwise they get deisgned around like with the 1990s assualt weapons ban.

You can't just ban "ar-15"s, unless you have a definition of one.

The “technical features” typically targeted by attempted “bans” are largely cosmetic and demonstrate both the futility of such “bans” and the magical thinking that underlies them.

Waiting periods, increase the age to 21, crack down on straw purchases that are largely done in red states who make illegal straw purchases ridiculously easy, ammunition limits, close loopholes on background checks there are things that can be done.

The Second Amendment is “not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”
-Scalia

Waiting periods were invented to allow time for background checks back in the horse and buggy days. They make no sense in the present day of instant background checks. Particularly where, as here, an individual already owns one or more firearms so that any supposed “cooling off period” would be immaterial.

“Ammunition limits” are inherently arbitrary and would have no meaningful on criminality. It is unlikely that any of these deranged shooters used up more than a box or two of ammunition. Legitimate firearm users need ammunition both for their hobby and to become and remain competent with their firearm.

All of the “loopholes” and “age changes” and “straw purchase” sloganeering is great rhetoric but the need for it does not seem to be borne out in the demographics of these psychopaths.

Lack of gun regulation made more sense in horse and buggy days so let's reconsider it. As Jefferson said (more or less), we should redo the constitution periodically so we don't end up imprisoned by laws that served a prior generation.

Bottom line is statistical reduction is good enough for me, especially when it comes to children. Bottom line is you are willing to explain away any research on anything with vague arguments because you are beholden to gun culture and an outdated document in light of today's weapons. Just because laws do not work absolutely does not mean that they do not have an effect.

Did you actually mean to say this? Laws have some magical efficacy even if they demonstrably fail to accomplish their stated purpose?

When I talked about “horse and buggy days” I was talking about the late 1960’s and 1970’s when “cooling off” periods were invented as the “sure thing” to prevent crime involving firearms.

The Constitution has provisions for amendment. I don’t expect the Second Amendment to vanish anytime soon, being as the Constitution would never have been enacted without it and the rest of the Bill of Rights.

I’m “beholden” to no one, least of all to the callous exploitation of “the children” to further attack on enumerated civil rights, driven by a paranoiac fear of inanimate objects while ignoring the people who misuse them and the social forces that shape their behavior.

You’re wasting your time. I applaud your efforts, but you’re basically Sir Edmund Burke trying to hold a debate with Chimpanzees. Not only will you never convince them, you’re using arguments they’re not even mentally or emotionally equipped to understand.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You are recommending children have self defense training?

Everyone should get self defense training.

That doesn't meany you just learn to fight. You learn how to recognize and avoid threats. You learn how to de-escalate. You learn how to look like less of a target. You learn situational awareness.

Fighting is when all else fails and is the LEAST important part because if you can recognize most threats you can get away from them.

[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.

DP it absolutely matters. Technical features are what you would have to ban. Otherwise they get deisgned around like with the 1990s assualt weapons ban.

You can't just ban "ar-15"s, unless you have a definition of one.

The “technical features” typically targeted by attempted “bans” are largely cosmetic and demonstrate both the futility of such “bans” and the magical thinking that underlies them.

Waiting periods, increase the age to 21, crack down on straw purchases that are largely done in red states who make illegal straw purchases ridiculously easy, ammunition limits, close loopholes on background checks there are things that can be done.

The Second Amendment is “not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”
-Scalia

Waiting periods were invented to allow time for background checks back in the horse and buggy days. They make no sense in the present day of instant background checks. Particularly where, as here, an individual already owns one or more firearms so that any supposed “cooling off period” would be immaterial.

“Ammunition limits” are inherently arbitrary and would have no meaningful on criminality. It is unlikely that any of these deranged shooters used up more than a box or two of ammunition. Legitimate firearm users need ammunition both for their hobby and to become and remain competent with their firearm.

All of the “loopholes” and “age changes” and “straw purchase” sloganeering is great rhetoric but the need for it does not seem to be borne out in the demographics of these psychopaths.

Lack of gun regulation made more sense in horse and buggy days so let's reconsider it. As Jefferson said (more or less), we should redo the constitution periodically so we don't end up imprisoned by laws that served a prior generation.

Bottom line is statistical reduction is good enough for me, especially when it comes to children. Bottom line is you are willing to explain away any research on anything with vague arguments because you are beholden to gun culture and an outdated document in light of today's weapons. Just because laws do not work absolutely does not mean that they do not have an effect.

Did you actually mean to say this? Laws have some magical efficacy even if they demonstrably fail to accomplish their stated purpose?

When I talked about “horse and buggy days” I was talking about the late 1960’s and 1970’s when “cooling off” periods were invented as the “sure thing” to prevent crime involving firearms.

The Constitution has provisions for amendment. I don’t expect the Second Amendment to vanish anytime soon, being as the Constitution would never have been enacted without it and the rest of the Bill of Rights.

I’m “beholden” to no one, least of all to the callous exploitation of “the children” to further attack on enumerated civil rights, driven by a paranoiac fear of inanimate objects while ignoring the people who misuse them and the social forces that shape their behavior.

I did because they do. Not magical thinking. Laws, and their enforcement, work as a deterrent. You believe this too, you just emphasize different laws.