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."
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.
So because you subjectively think gun laws won’t work the rest of the country just has to accept the status quo and we shouldn’t even *try* to see if we can reduce shooting deaths?
I mean if you declare that these laws “make no sense” and “would be arbitrary” then it must be decidedly so.
I think the reality is republicans know that harsher national gun laws would reduce deaths and then they’d have to admit they’ve allowed kids to die for decades in order to avoid minor inconveniences.
Actually, what “we’ve” been trying for decades is the same tired and ineffectual set of infringements to distract from the root causes of criminal violence, because addressing those would be unpopular with certain politically useful groups.
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.
I don’t see how this is sensible. If someone is 5 feet away they may be able to stab you, but they can definitely shoot you. Heck they can shoot you from much farther away before you even see them.
The vast majority of criminal shootings are at very close range. This case actually is an exception because the murderer stayed outside the building and fired blindly through stained glass windows.
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."
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.
Name calling and personal attack. Drags down the discussion to primitive levels.
Wrong.
People who look away from the shooting of CHILDREN and act like the only solution is "thoughts and prayers" or worthless talk but zero meaningful and compassionate action about "mental illness" are the ones drag us down. People who call a normal reaction to shooting of children, the desire to make a real change to protect children, "shrill" and "deranged" in the name of keeping your guns are compensating for some real lack of decency. You are useless and without compassion.
The problem is that a paper “ban” on inanimate objects will accomplish nothing — as is amply demonstrated by many similar failures with other objects; any attempt at an enforced “ban” will never get political or social support; there is no possible way to remove firearms from circulation; if they are removed from circulation they will be replaced and in the process empower criminal cartels.
If you want “real change,” start by asking what happened between now and, say, the 1970’s, when students routinely took guns to school and nobody got shot — when actual military firearms that were the functional equivalent of AR15’s if not more powerful were sold by the millions as “surplus” and nobody got mowed down in droves.
Well if we go back to the 1970s, we can invent all sorts of things. I pick PFAs and microplastics.
PS waiting periods are shown to reduce gun deaths by 17 percent. Small, still good enough for me when coupled with other restrictions
When was that? Was the alleged study controlled for people who already had access to firearms as the individual in this case reportedly did, and certainly did after he bought the first of the three weapons he misused.
Maybe before deciding all gun laws do not ever work, spend some time reading studies before you make that opinion?
Or just have opinions without data. Most of your arguments seem vague.
No, what’s “vague” is the assertion of a study allegedly showing that waiting periods reduced crime without any citation to the claimed study. I’d be happy to look at it, if only to answer my question about how well-controlled it was (if at all).
I’ve read lots of studies, including the ones nobody on DCUM wants to hear about, showing that lawfully owned firearms are used tens to hundreds of thousands of times a year to stop criminal assault, typically without a shot being fired.
FFS we aren’t trying to take away guns from the “good guy with a gun.” We are asking the “good guy with a gun” to accept some minor inconveniences in gun and ammo purchasing to help reduce the number of shooting deaths. They are welcome to participate in a national background check/data base and continue to lawfully and non-negligently own their guns.
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."
There are probably a thousand different models of rifles that shoot the exact same bullet as an AR15. I cannot understand this fetish-like fixation some of you seem to have with this particular gun. Can any of you explain it?
DP, but that makes it even easier. Just outlaw this type of bullet. It’s not good for hunting because it will destroy the meat. There’s less destructive means for self defense. If there is some sort of rationale for needing a bullet that can pulverize children’s’ organs then people can apply for an exception with clear proof of their intent to use them.
It's not great for hunting because it's not destructive enough. It wounds rather than kills.
Go compare an ar10 with .308 or 7.92 vs an AR-15 with 223 or 5.56. in ballistics gel
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."
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.
So because you subjectively think gun laws won’t work the rest of the country just has to accept the status quo and we shouldn’t even *try* to see if we can reduce shooting deaths?
I mean if you declare that these laws “make no sense” and “would be arbitrary” then it must be decidedly so.
I think the reality is republicans know that harsher national gun laws would reduce deaths and then they’d have to admit they’ve allowed kids to die for decades in order to avoid minor inconveniences.
Actually, what “we’ve” been trying for decades is the same tired and ineffectual set of infringements to distract from the root causes of criminal violence, because addressing those would be unpopular with certain politically useful groups.
Ah yes like forcing Christianity on us? If only we went to church more? Or repealed the 19th like Hegseth's church leaders want?
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."
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.
So because you subjectively think gun laws won’t work the rest of the country just has to accept the status quo and we shouldn’t even *try* to see if we can reduce shooting deaths?
I mean if you declare that these laws “make no sense” and “would be arbitrary” then it must be decidedly so.
I think the reality is republicans know that harsher national gun laws would reduce deaths and then they’d have to admit they’ve allowed kids to die for decades in order to avoid minor inconveniences.
Actually, what “we’ve” been trying for decades is the same tired and ineffectual set of infringements to distract from the root causes of criminal violence, because addressing those would be unpopular with certain politically useful groups.
Then by all means, I’m anxiously awaiting the MAGA platform on funding better mental health treatment and creating better supports for families so that parents are home to monitor things like internet usage. I’m so excited for this.
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."
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.
Name calling and personal attack. Drags down the discussion to primitive levels.
Wrong.
People who look away from the shooting of CHILDREN and act like the only solution is "thoughts and prayers" or worthless talk but zero meaningful and compassionate action about "mental illness" are the ones drag us down. People who call a normal reaction to shooting of children, the desire to make a real change to protect children, "shrill" and "deranged" in the name of keeping your guns are compensating for some real lack of decency. You are useless and without compassion.
The problem is that a paper “ban” on inanimate objects will accomplish nothing — as is amply demonstrated by many similar failures with other objects; any attempt at an enforced “ban” will never get political or social support; there is no possible way to remove firearms from circulation; if they are removed from circulation they will be replaced and in the process empower criminal cartels.
If you want “real change,” start by asking what happened between now and, say, the 1970’s, when students routinely took guns to school and nobody got shot — when actual military firearms that were the functional equivalent of AR15’s if not more powerful were sold by the millions as “surplus” and nobody got mowed down in droves.
Well if we go back to the 1970s, we can invent all sorts of things. I pick PFAs and microplastics.
PS waiting periods are shown to reduce gun deaths by 17 percent. Small, still good enough for me when coupled with other restrictions
When was that? Was the alleged study controlled for people who already had access to firearms as the individual in this case reportedly did, and certainly did after he bought the first of the three weapons he misused.
Maybe before deciding all gun laws do not ever work, spend some time reading studies before you make that opinion?
Or just have opinions without data. Most of your arguments seem vague.
No, what’s “vague” is the assertion of a study allegedly showing that waiting periods reduced crime without any citation to the claimed study. I’d be happy to look at it, if only to answer my question about how well-controlled it was (if at all).
I’ve read lots of studies, including the ones nobody on DCUM wants to hear about, showing that lawfully owned firearms are used tens to hundreds of thousands of times a year to stop criminal assault, typically without a shot being fired.
FFS we aren’t trying to take away guns from the “good guy with a gun.” We are asking the “good guy with a gun” to accept some minor inconveniences in gun and ammo purchasing to help reduce the number of shooting deaths. They are welcome to participate in a national background check/data base and continue to lawfully and non-negligently own their guns.
Regardless of your personal desires, complete disarmament and the eradication of privately held firearms is the express goal and desire of numerous “gun control” proponents, as evidenced by post after post on this and other threads.
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."
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.
So because you subjectively think gun laws won’t work the rest of the country just has to accept the status quo and we shouldn’t even *try* to see if we can reduce shooting deaths?
I mean if you declare that these laws “make no sense” and “would be arbitrary” then it must be decidedly so.
I think the reality is republicans know that harsher national gun laws would reduce deaths and then they’d have to admit they’ve allowed kids to die for decades in order to avoid minor inconveniences.
Actually, what “we’ve” been trying for decades is the same tired and ineffectual set of infringements to distract from the root causes of criminal violence, because addressing those would be unpopular with certain politically useful groups.
Then by all means, I’m anxiously awaiting the MAGA platform on funding better mental health treatment and creating better supports for families so that parents are home to monitor things like internet usage. I’m so excited for this.
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."
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.
So because you subjectively think gun laws won’t work the rest of the country just has to accept the status quo and we shouldn’t even *try* to see if we can reduce shooting deaths?
I mean if you declare that these laws “make no sense” and “would be arbitrary” then it must be decidedly so.
I think the reality is republicans know that harsher national gun laws would reduce deaths and then they’d have to admit they’ve allowed kids to die for decades in order to avoid minor inconveniences.
Actually, what “we’ve” been trying for decades is the same tired and ineffectual set of infringements to distract from the root causes of criminal violence, because addressing those would be unpopular with certain politically useful groups.
Ah yes like forcing Christianity on us? If only we went to church more? Or repealed the 19th like Hegseth's church leaders want?
Gee thanks
-Law abiding atheist.
I'm obviously being provocative with this statement and correlation is not causation:
We had less mass shootings and less violence when there was no 19th amendment or when organized religion was a larger part of Americans lives.
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."
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.
Name calling and personal attack. Drags down the discussion to primitive levels.
Wrong.
People who look away from the shooting of CHILDREN and act like the only solution is "thoughts and prayers" or worthless talk but zero meaningful and compassionate action about "mental illness" are the ones drag us down. People who call a normal reaction to shooting of children, the desire to make a real change to protect children, "shrill" and "deranged" in the name of keeping your guns are compensating for some real lack of decency. You are useless and without compassion.
The problem is that a paper “ban” on inanimate objects will accomplish nothing — as is amply demonstrated by many similar failures with other objects; any attempt at an enforced “ban” will never get political or social support; there is no possible way to remove firearms from circulation; if they are removed from circulation they will be replaced and in the process empower criminal cartels.
If you want “real change,” start by asking what happened between now and, say, the 1970’s, when students routinely took guns to school and nobody got shot — when actual military firearms that were the functional equivalent of AR15’s if not more powerful were sold by the millions as “surplus” and nobody got mowed down in droves.
Well if we go back to the 1970s, we can invent all sorts of things. I pick PFAs and microplastics.
PS waiting periods are shown to reduce gun deaths by 17 percent. Small, still good enough for me when coupled with other restrictions
When was that? Was the alleged study controlled for people who already had access to firearms as the individual in this case reportedly did, and certainly did after he bought the first of the three weapons he misused.
Maybe before deciding all gun laws do not ever work, spend some time reading studies before you make that opinion?
Or just have opinions without data. Most of your arguments seem vague.
No, what’s “vague” is the assertion of a study allegedly showing that waiting periods reduced crime without any citation to the claimed study. I’d be happy to look at it, if only to answer my question about how well-controlled it was (if at all).
I’ve read lots of studies, including the ones nobody on DCUM wants to hear about, showing that lawfully owned firearms are used tens to hundreds of thousands of times a year to stop criminal assault, typically without a shot being fired.
FFS we aren’t trying to take away guns from the “good guy with a gun.” We are asking the “good guy with a gun” to accept some minor inconveniences in gun and ammo purchasing to help reduce the number of shooting deaths. They are welcome to participate in a national background check/data base and continue to lawfully and non-negligently own their guns.
Regardless of your personal desires, complete disarmament and the eradication of privately held firearms is the express goal and desire of numerous “gun control” proponents, as evidenced by post after post on this and other threads.
Put some of those posts on this thread. If someone has that view, they're entitled to it, but I have mostly read that people want to go back to banning certain types of weapons.
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."
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.
Name calling and personal attack. Drags down the discussion to primitive levels.
Wrong.
People who look away from the shooting of CHILDREN and act like the only solution is "thoughts and prayers" or worthless talk but zero meaningful and compassionate action about "mental illness" are the ones drag us down. People who call a normal reaction to shooting of children, the desire to make a real change to protect children, "shrill" and "deranged" in the name of keeping your guns are compensating for some real lack of decency. You are useless and without compassion.
The problem is that a paper “ban” on inanimate objects will accomplish nothing — as is amply demonstrated by many similar failures with other objects; any attempt at an enforced “ban” will never get political or social support; there is no possible way to remove firearms from circulation; if they are removed from circulation they will be replaced and in the process empower criminal cartels.
If you want “real change,” start by asking what happened between now and, say, the 1970’s, when students routinely took guns to school and nobody got shot — when actual military firearms that were the functional equivalent of AR15’s if not more powerful were sold by the millions as “surplus” and nobody got mowed down in droves.
Well if we go back to the 1970s, we can invent all sorts of things. I pick PFAs and microplastics.
PS waiting periods are shown to reduce gun deaths by 17 percent. Small, still good enough for me when coupled with other restrictions
When was that? Was the alleged study controlled for people who already had access to firearms as the individual in this case reportedly did, and certainly did after he bought the first of the three weapons he misused.
Maybe before deciding all gun laws do not ever work, spend some time reading studies before you make that opinion?
Or just have opinions without data. Most of your arguments seem vague.
No, what’s “vague” is the assertion of a study allegedly showing that waiting periods reduced crime without any citation to the claimed study. I’d be happy to look at it, if only to answer my question about how well-controlled it was (if at all).
I’ve read lots of studies, including the ones nobody on DCUM wants to hear about, showing that lawfully owned firearms are used tens to hundreds of thousands of times a year to stop criminal assault, typically without a shot being fired.
FFS we aren’t trying to take away guns from the “good guy with a gun.” We are asking the “good guy with a gun” to accept some minor inconveniences in gun and ammo purchasing to help reduce the number of shooting deaths. They are welcome to participate in a national background check/data base and continue to lawfully and non-negligently own their guns.
Regardless of your personal desires, complete disarmament and the eradication of privately held firearms is the express goal and desire of numerous “gun control” proponents, as evidenced by post after post on this and other threads.
I am the PP you have been arguing with on multiple posts and have never said this. Yes, some say this and some right wing would force Christianity on schools if theu could (maybe you are one of them?)
Anonymous wrote:Victims thus far are two children - 8 and 10 years old. The coward gunman shot threw the church windows while the students were at mass.
Pure evil.
Gina are fundamental to American culture. If you don’t like it, leave.
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."
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.
Name calling and personal attack. Drags down the discussion to primitive levels.
Wrong.
People who look away from the shooting of CHILDREN and act like the only solution is "thoughts and prayers" or worthless talk but zero meaningful and compassionate action about "mental illness" are the ones drag us down. People who call a normal reaction to shooting of children, the desire to make a real change to protect children, "shrill" and "deranged" in the name of keeping your guns are compensating for some real lack of decency. You are useless and without compassion.
The problem is that a paper “ban” on inanimate objects will accomplish nothing — as is amply demonstrated by many similar failures with other objects; any attempt at an enforced “ban” will never get political or social support; there is no possible way to remove firearms from circulation; if they are removed from circulation they will be replaced and in the process empower criminal cartels.
If you want “real change,” start by asking what happened between now and, say, the 1970’s, when students routinely took guns to school and nobody got shot — when actual military firearms that were the functional equivalent of AR15’s if not more powerful were sold by the millions as “surplus” and nobody got mowed down in droves.
Well if we go back to the 1970s, we can invent all sorts of things. I pick PFAs and microplastics.
PS waiting periods are shown to reduce gun deaths by 17 percent. Small, still good enough for me when coupled with other restrictions
When was that? Was the alleged study controlled for people who already had access to firearms as the individual in this case reportedly did, and certainly did after he bought the first of the three weapons he misused.
Maybe before deciding all gun laws do not ever work, spend some time reading studies before you make that opinion?
Or just have opinions without data. Most of your arguments seem vague.
No, what’s “vague” is the assertion of a study allegedly showing that waiting periods reduced crime without any citation to the claimed study. I’d be happy to look at it, if only to answer my question about how well-controlled it was (if at all).
I’ve read lots of studies, including the ones nobody on DCUM wants to hear about, showing that lawfully owned firearms are used tens to hundreds of thousands of times a year to stop criminal assault, typically without a shot being fired.
FFS we aren’t trying to take away guns from the “good guy with a gun.” We are asking the “good guy with a gun” to accept some minor inconveniences in gun and ammo purchasing to help reduce the number of shooting deaths. They are welcome to participate in a national background check/data base and continue to lawfully and non-negligently own their guns.
Regardless of your personal desires, complete disarmament and the eradication of privately held firearms is the express goal and desire of numerous “gun control” proponents, as evidenced by post after post on this and other threads.
I am the PP you have been arguing with on multiple posts and have never said this. Yes, some say this and some right wing would force Christianity on schools if theu could (maybe you are one of them?)
Exactly. Some posters on here don't seem to understand that.just because we have lenient gun laws currently, that doesn't mean it needs to stay that way. If we as a country decide we want to change that, then we can change it.
Anonymous wrote:Victims thus far are two children - 8 and 10 years old. The coward gunman shot threw the church windows while the students were at mass.
Pure evil.
Gina are fundamental to American culture. If you don’t like it, leave.
You can leave. All of American would be better off without gun fetishists.
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."
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.
So because you subjectively think gun laws won’t work the rest of the country just has to accept the status quo and we shouldn’t even *try* to see if we can reduce shooting deaths?
I mean if you declare that these laws “make no sense” and “would be arbitrary” then it must be decidedly so.
I think the reality is republicans know that harsher national gun laws would reduce deaths and then they’d have to admit they’ve allowed kids to die for decades in order to avoid minor inconveniences.
Actually, what “we’ve” been trying for decades is the same tired and ineffectual set of infringements to distract from the root causes of criminal violence, because addressing those would be unpopular with certain politically useful groups.
Ah yes like forcing Christianity on us? If only we went to church more? Or repealed the 19th like Hegseth's church leaders want?
Gee thanks
-Law abiding atheist.
I'm obviously being provocative with this statement and correlation is not causation:
We had less mass shootings and less violence when there was no 19th amendment or when organized religion was a larger part of Americans lives.
If you know that then why on earth would you write it unless you believed it? Particularly on the 19th part(!!). So now your underlying views are revealed. Perhaps you can acknowledge that domestic violence rates against women were higher years ago so women having a vote is helpful? I might even say women having the right to vote is a basic form of self-defense.
I was actually appreciating the debate and banter here and you lost me on that comment. You are like Hegseth and such views are dangerous to women. I am now disgusted and leaving.
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}