Maybe you should learn the difference between a weapon and a communication device.

and, which are just damn inconvenient to those that live in fear.

As an aside, It will be damned hard to blow anyone to bits with a 5.56/.223 round.

...to the parents of those 20 dead first-graders in Connecticut. Of course, you might run the risk of them finding your words "damn inconvenient".....

I respect their position, and grieve for their loss. But I refuse to assume to speak for anyone but myself.

....like what a 5.56/.223 round does when it hits a human body:

Sniper's bullet designed to do deadly damage

QUOTES:

Famous for its use in the military's M-16 rifle, the .223-caliber round is known for causing extensive tissue damage, says surgeon Ron Maier of the Northwest Regional Trauma Center at Harborview Medical Center in Seattle.

Like all high-velocity bullets, the .223 slug passes through the body with an accompanying shock wave that whipsaws blood vessels and organ tissue that are inches away from the bullet.

The "cavitation," or cavity, caused by the high-velocity shock wave may briefly expand the diameter of the bullet hole almost 2 inches, about 10 times the width of the slug itself, before it collapses behind, tearing tissue further.

....and....

The shock wave damages soft tissue such as the brain immensely. Anyone receiving a head wound loses motor function almost immediately, says surgeon Basil Pruitt Jr. of the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio. Soft organs such as the liver also fare badly; more elastic tissues such as the lungs or stomach survive the shock better.

Heavier bullets, such as those fired by the popular .30-06 hunting rifle, may deliver more of a punch, says rifle wound expert Vincent Di Maio, chief medical examiner of Bexar County in San Antonio. But "the .223 breaks up more than other bullets," he says. After it hits someone, the .223 round tumbles and fragments as it punches deeper into the body, multiplying the damage.

You were saying?

No matter what movies show.. I am responding to the hyperbole.
I am well versed on wound channels as well as terminal ballistics, I went through about 500 lbs of ballistics gelatin just this last summer alone..
So an agenda based and lurid article from USA Today, I guess I will go with my own experience and that of people that actually test this stuff for a living.

....I'll take the word of the experts quoted in the USA article I linked in my post.

So, the bullets kill and kill very effectively, but all those damned gun grabbers make it sound like the bullets are DESIGNED to kill or something. Silly gun grabbers. Thanks for the education... or lack of it.

I try to be very exact and reasoned with my facts and ideas on how to deal with the idea of gun violence, and so few here will bother to look beyond the feel good bans it all or sarcastic penis imagery.. this is why nothing will be done...
I and others have posted time after time various and reasonable ideas to address these issues, ideas from a educated and technically feasible points of view.
I am fairly educated and experienced in the firearms arena, and can and do go toe to toe with just about any NRA pimp...
Gun ban extremists can keep shrieking hyperbole, impotently wringing their hands and making unreasonable demands and the blood will be on their hands as well, because Joe and Suzy Public have already made their decisions, and he is tuning out the extremists on both side.

If you think it makes a damned bit of difference whether those 20 KIDS were killed, maimed, blown to bits, then you're not adding a constructive voice to this conversation. You sound just like the gun nuts who say "You don't even know the difference between a mag and a clip, you obviously don't have a worthwhile voice to contribute to this argument." It's utter idiocy. The gun nuts who talk like this (which is the great bulk of them) are idiots who think semantics are more important than saving lives. They believe that stroking their precious firearms is more important than people having the right to not die. "Joe and Suzy Public" are sick of the bullshit coming from the NRA. They know the bullshit being spewed is as far from reasonable as is possible. You don't want honest debate, you want to argue utterly pointless semantics so you can make a point. Reasonable people know better.

I try and offer education, and point out reasonable ideas..
feelings are unimportant in this debate, and should not be the basis of law and public policy.
Lurid and sensationalized arguments just make one look as perverse as those you are looking to defame.

or merely kills them in some other horrific manner. If an NRA idiot like LaPierre tried to make a deal about that particular distinction, he'd be torn apart for it. And for good reason. If the gun nuts want to have ANY respectability in this debate, they should learn that.

to truly save lives, children and adult. Then WE need to work together on common sense and doable changes. Adding macabre adjectives is not getting anywhere and merely turns people off to the entire thing.

At this moment status quo is winning the day, and I find that deplorable, I do believe common sense laws, universal background checks, insurance and licensing requirements are actually necessary, but the extremists on both sides are causing a pushback..

They don't give a fuck, so they try to obfuscate the issues with ridiculous semantic arguments. The GUN NUTS are the ones trying to ensure that the status quo remains. I, and other reasonable people are refusing to play their games. Downplaying the deaths of innocents is not getting anyone anywhere and that's what you're attempting to do. Excuse me if I refuse to play your stupid little games.

GUN NUTS

most of the so called Gun nuts here are not even close to that.

I see no reason to continue a monolog with the wall

The ones who feign indignation when someone would say that an assault weapon rips a body to pieces when they know in actuality that the assault weapon only fucks up a body beyond recognition. It's THAT stupid semantic bullshit that makes one a gun nut. If you don't want to be considered a gun nut, how about valuing the lives of innocents more than your precious or winning a pointless semantic argument. Sadly, there are lot of them here at DU.

winning an argument ...
I refuse to even acknowledge your reality as valid, this is not an either or, I am sure you can understand that I can value human life and have a weapon, if not.. well damn, again monologues are boring.

Rights are not absolute. One person's rights can infringe upon another person's rights. Notice that people don't have the right to smoke wherever the fuck they feel like. Also, people don't have the right to own machine guns either. So once again this boils down to what I've been saying from the start. You, and other gun nuts don't give a damn about who is killed, they just want to be sure that they can remain able to buy any mass murdering device which is currently available to them. You DON'T value human life more than you value your weapons. You think it's fine if people continue to die en masse so long as the gun nuts can continue to buy their instruments of death with NO restrictions. You make it very clear where you stand, there's no ambiguity there.

I do not claim rights are absolute, I have put forth many ideas and compromises, you have decided to cuss and fume and stomp about, because the general public has recognized my rights.. And you are mistaken, but again I reject your flawed premise, and there really is not a thing you can do to get me to even agree your are valid. Laws are there to protect me as well as you. Luckily the 2A enumerates my inherent right to defense, and in this case the individuals right is trumping societies want to "feel safe"

Hope all you want, but the narrative has shifted and public opinion is not what it was a month ago, sadly an opportunity for substantive dialog has been lost.

There is no constitutionally guaranteed "right" to own an automatic weapons. You can under strict regulation own one, but there is no guarantee of ownership and possession. I think a limit on large capacity magazines is rather meaningless (check on how the VT murderer did his slaughter: No rifles, No "large capacity clips."

I have heard a lot of anger and hatred toward gun-owners in these threads, but precious little about how the banners feel about the shooting in Connecticut. Seems they equate their self-righteous animosity with compassion for children. They do not equate. But they feel smug enough to question gun-owners about their "values," and term them "nuts" when they don't meet the controllers' explanations and expectations.

Again, learn to reasonably define what you seek to ban. Laws rise and fall based on definitions.

They want to ban guns that look scarey to them, despite those guns being responsible for only a fraction of gun deaths.
OTOH, they haven't shown the least bit of interest in trying to keep ALL guns out of criminal and mentally ill hands, which WOULD save a great number of lives.
What this tells me is the anti-gun zealots merely want to pick a political battle with 100 million gunowners, 99,988,000 of whom won't ever cause a gun death. To me, this is like penalizing 30,000,000 gays because a few are pedophiles.

got anything to say about #171?

any yahoo, criminal or whatever can walk into a gun show and buy some cheap uzi BS for $350?

and that has no effect on crime?

you are getting creepy.

CNN Host Destroys Supporter Of Boy Scouts Discrimination For Equating Pedophilia With Being Gay
ThinkProgress ?- 9 hours ago
CNN's Soledad O'Brien challenged the conservative opposition to keeping gays scouts and leaders out of the Boy Scouts on Wednesday ...

I don't mind, though, at your repeated silliness. Just further discredits your position.

"You people" = anti-gun zealots...the Democratic Party's version of the teabaggers. You employ tactics right out of their handbook. Full of moral certitude, incapable of either rational dialog or compromise, attempts to bully and silence opposition, living in a non-reality based bubble.

And as further evidence of your foolishness, a person cannot walk into a gunshow, and walk out with a $350 Uzi. First of all, there aren't all that many dealers permitted to sell automatic weapons. The license is hard to get. A dealer who manages to get one isn't going to risk it with an illegal sale to a person unlicensed to own it. Secondly, sales made inside a gun show are subject to background checks and waiting periods. The "gun show loophole" is dealers who aren't federally licensed stepping outside into the parking lot and conducting a private sale. While that is a major problem, its not what you stated in your premise. Thirdly, while I don't know the price of an Uzi either legal, or black market...I am quite sure its much more than $350. As a wild guess, I'd say its at least 10X as much, perhaps twenty. I suspect your fantasy is a result of watching too many reruns of Miami Vice. Guys running around shooting Uzis is a Hollywood script, not reality. Maybe you should check out this reality concept.

someone has to explain in detail how twisted you are!

backing off of that 'gay' comment, are ya?

If you don't understand that post, which is self-explanatory, then you merely have to click on "reply" at the bottom of that post to request a clarification.
Demanding a response in one subthread to a post in another subthread is silliness rightfully ignored. Try again.

i did just that, and now you are self-destructing!

so you say things in one post that don't relate to other posts of yours?
why?

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 05:52 PM
HooptieWagon (5,862 posts)
57. Uh, the anti-gun zealots aren't interesred in saving lives...To me, this is like penalizing 30,000,000 gays because a few are pedophiles.


farminator3000
Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #57)
Wed Feb 6, 2013, 06:28 PM
you are getting creepy.

CNN Host Destroys Supporter Of Boy Scouts Discrimination For Equating Pedophilia With Being Gay
ThinkProgress ?- 9 hours ago
CNN's Soledad O'Brien challenged the conservative opposition to keeping gays scouts and leaders out of the Boy Scouts on Wednesday ...

Since I don't have post numbers. And I answered your question. Unfortunately for you, your insinuations are off-target, just as the rest of your argument.

Navigating around DU on ph isn't easy, b/c post numbers aren't shown.

As to the post...does the name Jerry Sandusky ring a bell? Do you think gays in general should painted with a broad brush that includes him and those like him? If not (and I would hope not) then how can you justify painting ALL gun-owners with the actions of a very few? Are you a hypocrite?

Sandusky wasn't gay.

you are the one painting, and it ain't rainbow colors...

It appears your objection is because it shows you to be a hypocrite. My work is done.

and the questionable comment.

maybe someone else will chip in to clear up your confusion.

If you questioned that post, then you should have replied to that post...not a different one. Good luck with the schizophrenic posting technique, I'm sure one of your rainbows and unicorns loving anti-gun zealot friends will answer your cry for assistance.
:rolleyes:

in post #57 you said " To me, this is like penalizing 30,000,000 gays because a few are pedophiles."

i said-

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 06:28 PM
174. oh give it up its the same damn post every time ^^ this one is slightly more offensive
Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #57)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 06:28 PM

got anything to say about #171?

any yahoo, criminal or whatever can walk into a gun show and buy some cheap uzi BS for $350?

and that has no effect on crime?

you are getting creepy.

CNN Host Destroys Supporter Of Boy Scouts Discrimination For Equating Pedophilia With Being Gay
ThinkProgress ?- 9 hours ago
CNN's Soledad O'Brien challenged the conservative opposition to keeping gays scouts and leaders out of the Boy Scouts on Wednesday ...

on one of the nearly infinite tools to do violence.

Anything suggested that would reduce violence all around is blown off by something like "how would that have stopped the slaughter of those babies". They don't give a shit about saving the many unless it also impacts the evil totem.

Some are just plain full of it. I've seen the same folks pile on a Second Amendment supporter for "not mourning these little angels and worrying about saving your precious guns" that themselves mourned jack apple shit but rather went straight to pushing their agenda without pause or segway.

Mourning isn't exactly not letting a tragedy go to waste, not how I came up anyway.
Don't get me wrong, I have no issue with the strategy of striking while the iron is hot in general or even in this specific situation (even though I disagree), the best time to make a move is when issue meets situation and hardest is after the normalcy kicks in after a watershed event (see our wasted opportunity for real financial reform, dithered until weak sauce can water too many noodles). So, I don't blame folks on the other end of this than me, I do take a lot of the moral high ground with a grain of salt.

Personally, I'm a little shook by a byproduct of this "debate" (it isn't one to me, I think the whole spectrum is on an emotional and irrational tangent on this) and that is my discovery of a pretty deep division on nature of government (not role or size) that I have not been able to reconcile spotlighted by the ever increasing encroachment on all civil liberties fueled by the wars on drugs and terror and the rising security state in all of it's manifestations. I am troubled by these "free trade" agreements that surrender our self rule, which negates the power of our votes as well as multi-national capture of or government that is pure entropy.

I've always been a policy focused person but this is whole other can of worms that takes precedence for me and the divisions are so many, fragmented along so many lines that I don't have a handle on it and don't even see it accounted for in our politics yet they are dominated by these fissures in many ways, fought in proxy via infringement on individual sovereignty from both sides and especially "centrist".

I read an account that said some of the Newtown children were indeed "blown to bits." One child, for instance, was shot in the face, and the bullet completely severed his jaw.

Or doesn't a child's jaw being in one part of a room, and the rest of his face in another, qualify in your mind as "bits"?

Interesting too, for all your attention to detail, you seem to have no problem with the NRA equating an 18th century smooth bore musket with a 21st century semi-automatic rifle. Isn't that rather "lurid" and "agenda based"?

And I find them as FOS as the other side.
The entire argument is deflection, as is the printing press vs internet argument.
But if you insist, as long as the Constitution is an ever changing and growing basis of out system of governance, then yes what he says is true, the two are equitable in terms of usage, actually, by his argument, I should have an M4, or SAW, and the Military would have ARs. Remember the Kentucky rifle was technologically superior to the smoothbore carried by the British regulars.. So again a silly argument on it's face

is the notion that private US citizens in the 21st century should own and stockpile weapons for some coming revolution in which said citizens will rise up to overthrow a tyrannical US government. And who, in this incredible equation, would be the analogous to the French army and navy at Yorktown? Which foreign power would you enlist in your effort to destroy the US government?

BTW: I notice you didn't answer my question about "bits."

I wouldn't argue with you that 5.56mm ammo can do some horrendous damage (I've seen it myself), but "blowing someone to bits" IS hyperbole. We're not talking about high explosives here, we're talking about fragmenting high-speed bullets. Your link doesn't support this hyperbole either.

...one child who had a total of 11 such wounds. Additionally, what kind of wounds do you think these children had after those .223 rounds fragmented and/or tumbled through their small bodies? "Hyperbole"? Really??

So, what's YOUR definition of "blowing someone to bits" when that someone is a child?

UPDATE: CT State Medical Examiner Says Bushmaster Rifle Did The Killing

QUOTE:

The .223 round is slightly lighter than the military grade version, but reacts the same on impact and is pretty much as deadly. It's designed to bounce around inside the body once it makes contact with bone.The AR-15 is the civilian version of the military's M16 and has been in production since Vietnam. The caliber is the same used in the DC sniper shootings. It was also used in the Colorado shooting.

Is that they are, well, in bits afterwards. Saying multiple wound channels through a body is the equivalent of blowing a body apart into pieces IS hyperbole. Like I've said, I've seen what 5.56mm ammo can do to flesh, and I know what the results look like.

The horror in Newtown is already more than enough for any sane person to fathom. Elevating it to the point of saying the kids were blown to bits is unnecessary and inaccurate.

...blown to bits in my opinion. You're welcome to whatever you want to say about it.

And without going into a lurid and unnecassary details, the wounds you are imagining didnt happen.

This guy has been quite the topic among the technical people I know by the way. your quote has 2 fallacies alone...

Small bodies? why was that necassary except to inflame emotion?

are you willing to go to firearm and ammo websites.
These are full of info if you stick to the technical side, but they are hideously RW outside of the technical.
NEVER go to a GD on a gunboard, you will need a scrubbing.

I would rather not clutter DU with links to firearms, and ammo sites...

....so I won't be responding to you privately.

Is there something about the links you sent me by PM that cause you to be afraid to post them in an open forum?

if you cant be bothered.. well
I feel no need to waste anymore time, the info is there.

....be posted by you in this thread.

What is it about the links you sent me that you don't want anyone else to see?

have a nice day

In which he explained the "tumbling" effect of that round was the result of the rate of rifling in some the early M-16 rifles. This was changed in subsequent lots, resulting in stable more accurate bullet flights.

Dr. Fackler, one of the top ballisticians in the world, has called it a myth: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrostatic_shock#Fackler.27s_contra-claim

....who are as well-qualified as Fackler who believe hydrostatic shock is more than just a theory.

Where comparatively soft bullets (sheathed in copper or other metals) mushrooms out on contact and expands the surface area of the bullet for a better means of transmitting the foot-lbs of energy into the body of a deer, hog, etc., thus often causing a shock wave through organs (mostly fluid), often affecting the nervous system. This is supposed to result in an animal going down immediately, or running in a haphazard, slow manner. In the interim, the animal bleeds out and goes unconscious, then dies. This is advantageous for quickly locating a downed animal. I've seen what is purported to be hydrostatic shock in action with soft lead bullets, and I have had to find deer which ran fast for considerable distances. There is debate about the phenomenon, but the theory is plausible. Evidently, much depends on bullet construction and range.

....let's throw a few number out, shall we?

The average weight for a mature whitetail deer in the US is in the range of 100-200 pounds depending on where the deer is located.

The average weight of a 6-7 year old child is in the range of 40-60 pounds depending on build.

Which of the two above do you think will suffer greater effects from an AR-15 round fired from fairly close range?

My post was just a contribution to the notion of hydrostatic shock.

BTW, were the rounds used by the Connecticut fuck-up FMJ or a soft-lead hunting round? Some ranges forbid the use of FMJs. And I believe the Geneva Accords forbid expanding rounds.

Because things change. Random example, the 15th Amendment:

Section. 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

I cannot believe people here are fucking ARGUING about whether a dead child's body was in pieces or merely had craters in it. If I had any doubt that gun nuts were fucking insane, this thread has definitely done away with those doubts. I'm also having a good laugh at them calling US 'scared'. They are the ones in a panic that their piece of metal may be taken away.

especially since the first 10 came in one fell swoop in the beginning. Tell us, when did the last one pass? Given the divided nature of the country at present, when do you think the next one will pass?

> nd, which are just damn inconvenient to those that live in fear.

The Delicate Flowers, living in morbid fear 24x7, clutching their guns, constantly misinterpreting the 2nd Amendment. You've described them well.

should've read your reply, that was my thought exactly. Fear, lol.

Also rather inconvenient to be counted as merely 3/5ths of a person, regardless of whether they lived in fear or not.

Maybe you can learn the difference between specificity and generality.

When you do, you may wish to consider the specificity of the "press" was because there was little on the horizon other than this form of mass communication. The "arms" of the Second, on the other hand, was put in because there was a technological curve the Founders were aware of. For example, "muskets" (smooth bore, short range, and inaccurate weapons for regular armies), were available to standing armies, but at the time of the Revolution, many Americans did not have muskets. They had RIFLES of far greater range and accuracy than muskets. Within a couple of decades after independence, there was an operating repeating air rifle of considerable power used by Lewis & Clark in their expedition, and within another hundred years, repeaters were available.

If you get past your snarkiness, you might agree that the courts have held that "press" was a term sufficient to cover all manner of communication, and "arms" was a term to describe an infantry weapon suitable for the times (another fluid concept).

You should be thankful that arms suitable for the times haven't much evolved for the last 100 years, and in any case have been "capped off" at semi-auto technology (for civilians).

The specific "press" has enjoyed a one artful renaissance after another!

1. It's a trick fire that any semi-automatic is capable of

2. We should *hope* mass shooters would start trying to do that; many fewer people would die

3. Precisely zero people have been killed by bump-firing in the past... oh... six billion years

4. Even given all that, an AR15 is incapable of firing 700 rounds in 1 minute; the barrel would break first.

and in reply you get a video showing you precisely how it is possible.

To call it a "trick" and to say nobody has ever been killed by "bump firing" seems rather a lame response.

And how could you possibly know "precisely zero" people have been killed by bump firing? Assuming the shooter isn't caught or doesn't confess, didn't film the assault or otherwise record it, and assuming the victims are dead--well, it just seems a rather wild assertion to make, that "precisely zero" people have been killed in this way.

Given how obsessive-compulsive so many gun enthusiasts seem to be about all the various and exact details of all-things-gunnery (as evidenced by this thread, i.e.: small children "blown to bits" as opposed to merely shot into multiple fragments) I'd think you'd want to avoid a seemingly impossible-to-prove assertion such as that.

Physically impossible.

It can fire for shorter periods at a rate that, if it could sustain (which it cannot), would equal 700 rounds in one minute. But at that point the barrel would have shattered.

in under 2 hours. A brief trick is not the same as regular operation.

The AR-15 that you can buy in a store can't fire "700 to 950" rounds a minute. It fires one shot per trigger pull. Just made up crap.

What?

Only if you can pull the trigger 12 times per second. Otherwise, this is not possible with an AR-15 without modifications that would render the weapon very inaccurate and ineffective (and which modification -- the "slide fire" -- should, and likely will, be illegal).

700 rounds a minute sounds very scary, but it's not realistic. Even with the slide fire modification, the rifle would shoot so fast that it would probably make it worse even for a potential mass shooter. Rather than being able to shoot 30 people once, he would be able to shoot 1 person 30 times, or maybe 2 people 15 times before needing to reload.

With semi-automatic firearms, rounds per minute is not really a relevant metric.

As for the original statement, the AR-15 is probably one of the most common rifles in the country, which I think is where the statement comes from. In other words, if someone in America is grabbing a rifle, it's probably an AR-15 (don't know about the accuracy of that statement, but I think that's what the quote is getting at).

This modification (the "slide fire stock&quot has a negative effect on the accuracy and the functionality of the rifle. No one who is interested in killing lots of people (or hitting any target for that matter) would use one. It's for novelty at the range and has no practical use. It's like saying a honda accord can go 250 miles per hour if you bolt a rocket engine to it.

And I have no problem banning those since they are a legal loophole.

Sadly, they're really that dumb and hence figure it is a politically smart thing to say. The whole concept of "The musket of today" is something that could only come from a reptilian mind.

when "bump fired".

If fired out of a giant cannon in outer space a Camry could go that fast.

But it is still what used to be called "a lie"

The claim that an AR-15 "can fire between 700 to 950 rounds a minute" is a lie, and aimed at idiots

realistically impossible. Take a look at the army's manual on the M16 http://archive.org/stream/OperatorsManualForM16M16a1#page/n27/mode/2up

They state that the maximum realistic rate of fire is 200 rounds of ammunition. This is the amount the maximum rate of fire (in short durations) that the rifle can sustain without taking significant damage. the key point here is that if that rate of fire is kept up for more than 30 seconds, the rifle will start to take serious damage including barrel failures and dangerous blow-outs.

My AR-15 manual (which is a version of the Navy's manual) states that the maximum sustainable rate of fire for the weapon is only 13 rounds a second. Anything more than that and the rifle will start showing permanent signs of barrel damage

But you knew that already, right?

Bake

He's really not that wrong. Those who are getting into the details of what a musket ball will do versus a modern bullet are missing the point. These are today's scary weapons that make people uncomfortable. In its day, the musket was that weapon, but today it's a historical curiosity that nobody would find particularly useful. Similarly, longbows, then crossbows, were the terrifying weapons in their day, but by the time muskets and other guns began rolling out they were hardly a concern.

Now saying it that way... yeah, he's not smart. People who don't play with weapons of all eras and who don't know their history aren't going to understand the reference, and it'll just sound absurd.

. . . . . . The gun culture excepted.

Kreene's murderous son is a good example of what happens if we listen to his lies and gun dogma.