Why the AR-15 is DIFFERENT

[_RockSlider]

The doctor in this article is ignorant about ballistics. The "exploding watermelon" effect has nothing to do with a given type of weapon, but everything to do with the projectile ballistics of the weapon. He is comparing a handgun to a rifle.

The maximum destructive power of any gun is based on two factors:
1. The weight of the bullet.
2. The muzzle velocity of the bullet.

On the following site, note the major division of two tabs "Handgun Ballistics" and "Rifle Ballistics". Comparing someone shot with a handgun verses someone shot with a rifle (any rifle) will be a night and day comparison.

http://www.ballistics101.com

From the above linked site, look these up:

Caliber ... muzzle energy ft-lb ... muzzle velocity fps ... bullet weight ... type
9mm..............351........................... 1126.................... 124........hand gun
223..............1642............................3100......................77........rifle hunting or ar-15
30-06...........3360............................2900......................180........rifle hunting or M1A

Note: 1642/351 = 4.67 - 223 delivers 4.67 times the energy of the 9mm
3360/351 = 9.57 - a 30 caliber rifle delivers 9.57 times the energy of a 9mm

I've shot watermelons with all of these calibers (and more). Trust me, 9mm does not explode it, 223 busts it up a bit, 30 cal explodes it. It has nothing to do with it being an AR-15 other than that rifle will deliver a 124gr. bullet out of the muzzle at 3100fps

Note that 1,125 ft/s is supersonic, the 9mm is just barely supersonic. All rifles exceed supersonic (3100/1125 = mach 2.75) It's this velocity along with the energy that gives the explosive effect on soft tissue

[_Kevin Graham]

The doctor in this article is ignorant about ballistics. The "exploding watermelon" effect has nothing to do with a given type of weapon, but everything to do with the projectile ballistics of the weapon. He is comparing a handgun to a rifle.

The maximum destructive power of any gun is based on two factors:
1. The weight of the bullet.
2. The muzzle velocity of the bullet.

On the following site, note the major division of two tabs "Handgun Ballistics" and "Rifle Ballistics". Comparing someone shot with a handgun verses someone shot with a rifle (any rifle) will be a night and day comparison.

http://www.ballistics101.com

From the above linked site, look these up:

Caliber ... muzzle energy ft-lb ... muzzle velocity fps ... bullet weight ... type
9mm..............351........................... 1126.................... 124........hand gun
223..............1642............................3100......................77........rifle hunting or ar-15
30-06...........3360............................2900......................180........rifle hunting or M1A

Note: 1642/351 = 4.67 - 223 delivers 4.67 times the energy of the 9mm
3360/351 = 9.57 - a 30 caliber rifle delivers 9.57 times the energy of a 9mm

I've shot watermelons with all of these calibers (and more). Trust me, 9mm does not explode it, 223 busts it up a bit, 30 cal explodes it. It has nothing to do with it being an AR-15 other than that rifle will deliver a 124gr. bullet out of the muzzle at 3100fps

Note that 1,125 ft/s is supersonic, the 9mm is just barely supersonic. All rifles exceed supersonic (3100/1125 = mach 2.75) It's this velocity along with the energy that gives the explosive effect on soft tissue

Tell me Rock, is this guy ignorant?

What about this guy?

What about this group of Veterans?

Also The military is like the rest of America -- divided on guns

Robert Bateman
‏

@RobertLBatemanFeb 19
I carried a rifle as an infantry LT, as a CPT, and then as a MAJ and as an LTC because my job involved a lot of traveling and a pistol doesn’t work so well in a real firefight. We do not need 30 rd capacity weapons that punch through cinderblocks at home. #VetsForGunReform

I don't know why people like you get so hung up on whether there are other guns like the AR15 or guns that are worse. I can assure you that if any legislation is passed it won't be in the legal jargon of "Ban the AR15." Because seriously, if you really believe that, then you should pray that this is the case and stop "educating" the rest of the gun hating world about all these other models that are equal or better. Because all you're doing is telling them which other guns they should ban.

[_RockSlider]

Because seriously, if you really believe that, then you should pray that this is the case and stop "educating" the rest of the gun hating world about all these other models that are equal or better. Because all you're doing is telling them which other guns they should ban.

This is kind of my point, making everyone fearful of those 'scary guns', get them banned ... is not going to solve a damn thing.

Once those are banned, the remaining will come out, being just as deadly. If the problem is sick individuals, they will just find another weapon. Somehow we need to address the root of the problem ... sick individuals.

[_honorentheos]

...with access to weapons capable of causing high casualty rates.

Maybe I'm getting too cynical but wanting to keep access to such weapons generally in society kinda fits my definition of a sick individual. Like someone who demands the right to own a pet tiger or venomous snake, maybe that person is a normal every day Joe. But the odds don't look good.

[_Kevin Graham]

This is kind of my point, making everyone fearful of those 'scary guns', get them banned ... is not going to solve a damn thing.

You're basing this on what? You've already been given ample evidence to the contrary. It works in Canada, Australia, UK, etc.

Once those are banned, the remaining will come out, being just as deadly.

What do you mean the remaining will come out? Currently cops confiscate hundreds of thousands of firearms every year and in some states they just auction them back to the public. They need to start destroying them. If high powered, high capacity rifles are banned, it will only be a matter of time before they go extinct. Same as the Tommy gun. May take a half century, but at least its a step in the right direction.

If the problem is sick individuals, they will just find another weapon. Somehow we need to address the root of the problem ... sick individuals.

The problem isn't "sick" individuals. Sick people have always existed in all countries. Only we have this problem with mass shootings because only we allow such weapons to be owned at a high rate. The problem is high accessibility of deadly weapons designed to kill many people in a short time. Saying they can and will do this with any other weapon is easily refuted and just begs the question.

Take for instance the Las Vegas shooter. If those guns were already banned and he couldn't get access to 14 different AR15s (or any other similar weapons) fitted with 12 bump Stocks, there is no way he fires off 1,100 rounds in less than 10 minutes hitting 481 people and killing 59.

[_Some Schmo]

If you walk into a room full of people, some of which are crazy, and there are no guns in the room, what are the odds of you and others being shot/killed?

How much do those odds increase when someone brings a gun into the room?

This isn't rocket science.

[_Markk]

The kid chose an AR15 for a reason. Goons and thugs want to feel tough and look intimidating. They want the weapon that was made to kill. So that’s a decent reason to take it away from them.

He didn't get this from watching Little House on the Prairie, and listening to Percy Faith?

Kidding aside, your post lends to my point about underlying factors that lead to the root of the problem. If someone listens to violent music, and watches violent movies...there is a greater chance they might emulate these actions and basically become a product of their environment. Add not having parental support and structure...it compounds the chances for criminal behavior. And if they have mental issues...that is a perfect storm.

[_Some Schmo]

If someone listens to violent music, and watches violent movies...there is a greater chance they might emulate these actions and basically become a product of their environment. Add not having parental support and structure...it compounds the chances for criminal behavior. And if they have mental issues...that is a perfect storm.

So how do we keep guns out of those people's hands?

[_Jersey Girl]

The kid chose an AR15 for a reason. Goons and thugs want to feel tough and look intimidating. They want the weapon that was made to kill. So that’s a decent reason to take it away from them.

He didn't get this from watching Little House on the Prairie, and listening to Percy Faith?

Kidding aside, your post lends to my point about underlying factors that lead to the root of the problem. If someone listens to violent music, and watches violent movies...there is a greater chance they might emulate these actions and basically become a product of their environment. Add not having parental support and structure...it compounds the chances for criminal behavior. And if they have mental issues...that is a perfect storm.

Why are you willing to raise every issue except the issue of the weapons?

[_honorentheos]

Markk. Seriously. Do.you really intend to engage the subject or just keep thread hoping bringing it up.but ignore old threads once people start posting evidence that movies and video games aren't the problem in the US?

Taking Markk seriously for a moment, let's allow that there is more at issue than just the physical availability and presence of guns that are behind the disproportiante amount of gun violence in the US compared to other highly developed countries.

So, is there evidence for Markk's claim since he won't provide it himself? A recent Forbes article took on the same question to make it easier than having to look up actual studies...anyway.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2 ... 01aa8e67f3

It's relevant for Markk to note that Justice Scalia, the liberal bastard, cited actual studies when considering this in 2011 in Brown v. EMA:

Writing the majority opinion for the court, conservative Justice Antonin Scalia noted that California's attempt to regulate violent video games was largely based on research by Dr. Craig Anderson. 
However, much of that research is not only inconclusive, it shows that whatever aggression spikes children experience after playing a violent game are almost indistinguishable from other types of media, including Saturday morning cartoons.

"Even taking for granted Dr. Anderson’s conclusions that violent video games produce some effect on children’s feelings of aggression, those effects are both small and indistinguishable from effects produced by other media," Scalia wrote. "In his testimony in a similar lawsuit, Dr. Anderson admitted that the “effect sizes” of children’s exposure to violent video games are “about the same” as that produced by their exposure to violence on television. And he admits that the same effects have been found when children watch cartoons starring Bugs Bunny or the Road Runner, or when they play video games like Sonic the Hedgehog that are rated “E” (appropriate for all ages), or even when they “view a picture of a gun.”"

In other words, one of the most conservative Supreme Court Justices found California's attempt to regulate violent video games not only a waste of time but a clear First Amendment violation.
Scalia and the court's decision is based not just on first principles, but on the available data. Since the 2011 decision, many studies have been released that continue to back Scalia's opinion on the issue.

Wait a minute. What did Scalia say?

And he admits that the same effects have been found when children watch cartoons starring Bugs Bunny or the Road Runner, or when they play video games like Sonic the Hedgehog that are rated “E” (appropriate for all ages), or even when they “view a picture of a gun.”"

...a picture of a gun?

Like, say, all the gun culture NRA ____ may be just as significant as playing Call of Duty?

Could gun cultural be this missing puzzle piece that Trump and the NRA are talking around that explains, for example, why countries like Japan that watch just as much violent media and play just as violent or more violent video games have significantly less gun violence?

For instance, the United States is the only country with this level of gun deaths and mass shootings, but it is not the only country in which people play video games. There are fewer mass shootings, fewer school shootings, fewer homicides and fewer suicides in every single other industrialized nation by an order of magnitude. Somehow these nations pull this off while their citizens engage in video gaming and pornography without also killing one another at unimaginably high rates.

So, we have both a cultural difference in the US tied to an availability issue in the US when it comes to guns.

Want to talk about that, Markk?