ip_law-hokie wrote:
An unwillingness to devote time to sensitive, insecure people with predisposed, redneck dispositions suggests that his time is more valuable than your average “mall accountant,” whatever TF that is.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Ah, more sanctimonious bullsh!t I see. What it actually reveals (rather than 'suggests') is that he has no well thought-out argument here. He's just spewing the emotional Democrat party line.
"If we could just outlaw AR-15s, the world would be a better place...until we figure out what the next scary looking gun is we need to outlaw."
You asked a very emotional question, why not ask for facts?
Here are 3 potential answers.
1) The destructive power of an AR15 is greater than that of a handgun. The velocity is 3x (or so) that of a normal handgun, so when it hits a bone or an organ, it destroys it. Not the case with a typical handgun.
2) AR15 and high capacity. If you have a 30 or 60 round magazine vs something like a 10 round magazine, that’s a lot less reloading. Not sure how long it takes an average person to change out a magazine, but if people are running away from you, that’s meaningful time.
3) Range. AR15 has a longer range than a handgun, so that area that can be covered by an AR15 is significantly larger than a handgun.
Thoughts?
Good post. Additionally, he wasn’t old enough to buy a handgun, but was old enough to buy a more dangerous gun.
I don’t pretend to believe that banning the AR-15 will bring gun violence/mass shootings down to zero. Nobody is silly enough to argue that, and one would be silly to also argue that as the basis for not changing the law (it’s a red herring). What it would do is make things more difficult for killers to acquire the weaponry to carry out attacks to this extent, and it would also likely reduce the number of casualties if using a lower capacity weapon. I believe that to be a reasonable exception for gun ownership while also supporting the 2A. Absolutism is not productive for enacting sound policy. If it was, why not argue for owning automatic weapons? (We know why that’s a bad idea)
ip_law-hokie wrote:
An unwillingness to devote time to sensitive, insecure people with predisposed, redneck dispositions suggests that his time is more valuable than your average “mall accountant,” whatever TF that is.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Ah, more sanctimonious bullsh!t I see. What it actually reveals (rather than 'suggests') is that he has no well thought-out argument here. He's just spewing the emotional Democrat party line.
"If we could just outlaw AR-15s, the world would be a better place...until we figure out what the next scary looking gun is we need to outlaw."
You asked a very emotional question, why not ask for facts?
Here are 3 potential answers.
1) The destructive power of an AR15 is greater than that of a handgun. The velocity is 3x (or so) that of a normal handgun, so when it hits a bone or an organ, it destroys it. Not the case with a typical handgun.
2) AR15 and high capacity. If you have a 30 or 60 round magazine vs something like a 10 round magazine, that’s a lot less reloading. Not sure how long it takes an average person to change out a magazine, but if people are running away from you, that’s meaningful time.
3) Range. AR15 has a longer range than a handgun, so that area that can be covered by an AR15 is significantly larger than a handgun.
Thoughts?
1. That's an argument to ban all rifles. Not a winning argument and the 5.56 is at the bottom of the heap compared to any other rifle. The main criticism against it has been its ineffectiveness in combat. Also, 9mm will go right through bone.
2. Cho used a handgun. Some of his magazines were even 10rnd. Police have guns for the same reason civilians do. They find standard (not "high capacity") magazines useful for the same reason Joe blow does.
3. None of these school shootings involved long range or precision shooting. Most were just spraying bullets. The effective range of a 9mm is 1800m...or basically any distance that someone just wants to spray bullets into a crowd.
ip_law-hokie wrote:
An unwillingness to devote time to sensitive, insecure people with predisposed, redneck dispositions suggests that his time is more valuable than your average “mall accountant,” whatever TF that is.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Ah, more sanctimonious bullsh!t I see. What it actually reveals (rather than 'suggests') is that he has no well thought-out argument here. He's just spewing the emotional Democrat party line.
"If we could just outlaw AR-15s, the world would be a better place...until we figure out what the next scary looking gun is we need to outlaw."
You asked a very emotional question, why not ask for facts?
Here are 3 potential answers.
1) The destructive power of an AR15 is greater than that of a handgun. The velocity is 3x (or so) that of a normal handgun, so when it hits a bone or an organ, it destroys it. Not the case with a typical handgun.
2) AR15 and high capacity. If you have a 30 or 60 round magazine vs something like a 10 round magazine, that’s a lot less reloading. Not sure how long it takes an average person to change out a magazine, but if people are running away from you, that’s meaningful time.
3) Range. AR15 has a longer range than a handgun, so that area that can be covered by an AR15 is significantly larger than a handgun.
Thoughts?
Good post. Additionally, he wasn’t old enough to buy a handgun, but was old enough to buy a more dangerous gun.
I don’t pretend to believe that banning the AR-15 will bring gun violence/mass shootings down to zero. Nobody is silly enough to argue that, and one would be silly to also argue that as the basis for not changing the law (it’s a red herring). What it would do is make things more difficult for killers to acquire the weaponry to carry out attacks to this extent, and it would also likely reduce the number of casualties if using a lower capacity weapon. I believe that to be a reasonable exception for gun ownership while also supporting the 2A. Absolutism is not productive for enacting sound policy. If it was, why not argue for owning automatic weapons? (We know why that’s a bad idea)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
3.5% of all firearm homicides are committed with rifles of any kind (per FBI stats from the most recent year available). AR's would make up a fraction of that fraction.
nolanvt wrote:Absolutism is not productive for enacting sound policy. If it was, why not argue for owning automatic weapons? (We know why that’s a bad idea)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Who here is arguing for everyone to own nukes? Anyone?
Quit it with your petty, childish rhetorical bullshit.
USN_Hokie wrote:1. That's an argument to ban all rifles. Not a winning argument and the 5.56 is at the bottom of the heap compared to any other rifle. The main criticism against it has been its ineffectiveness in combat. Also, 9mm will go right through bone. Ayup...another reason why the 5.56 (".223") is a perfect varmint rifle along with light recoil. Yes a 9mm will phuque you up.
2. Cho used a handgun. Some of his magazines were even 10rnd. Police have guns for the same reason civilians do. They find standard (not "high capacity") magazines useful for the same reason Joe blow does. Anything more than a 10rnd magazine is a crapshoot. I have authentic Ruger 20 & 30rnd magazines for my Ruger Mini and a 25rnd magazine for my Ruger .22 carbine. All I can say is meh. 9 times out of 10 they jam after a few shots. 8 and 10rnd mags are by far the best.
3. None of these school shootings involved long range or precision shooting. Most were just spraying bullets. The effective range of a 9mm is 1800m...or basically any distance that someone just wants to spray bullets into a crowd. Pretty much
USN_Hokie wrote:1. That's an argument to ban all rifles. Not a winning argument and the 5.56 is at the bottom of the heap compared to any other rifle. The main criticism against it has been its ineffectiveness in combat. Also, 9mm will go right through bone. Ayup...another reason why the 5.56 (".223") is a perfect varmint rifle along with light recoil. Yes a 9mm will phuque you up.
2. Cho used a handgun. Some of his magazines were even 10rnd. Police have guns for the same reason civilians do. They find standard (not "high capacity") magazines useful for the same reason Joe blow does. Anything more than a 10rnd magazine is a crapshoot. I have authentic Ruger 20 & 30rnd magazines for my Ruger Mini and a 25rnd magazine for my Ruger .22 carbine. All I can say is meh. 9 times out of 10 they jam after a few shots. 8 and 10rnd mags are by far the best.
3. None of these school shootings involved long range or precision shooting. Most were just spraying bullets. The effective range of a 9mm is 1800m...or basically any distance that someone just wants to spray bullets into a crowd. Pretty much
IRT #2, For AR's my favorite magazine size is 20rnd. Anything more than 30 is definitely a crap shoot and novelty only. The drum mags in particular are garbage and jam.
Maybe they should only ask for thoughts and prayers. Those have done a great job of stopping these things so far.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Please elaborate on what gun law change you propose that would have prevented the school shooting?
I was already in favor of banning AR-15s, which is what the killer used in this attack and what has been used in other mass shootings - there’s a reason the AR-15 is popular with mass shooters. While I support the 2A, I believe there should be reasonable exceptions on what type of weapons that civilians should be allowed to own. Now, that won’t prevent every single shooting event (nobody is arguing that and to counter argue that is silly), but banning certain assault weapons will reduce the number of deaths IMO.
But maybe we should stick with thoughts and prayers, or maybe even award medals to children who go to school and survive. I dunno.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Ok. You've singled out the AR-15. It "looks scary", militaristic, and is semi-automatic. Fair enough. But a majority of handguns are semi-automatic as well. They have clips that can be easily carried and quickly changed out too. So why just AR-15s? What is the logic or rationale for just stopping there? And if you decide to extrapolate out to other similar weapons, where does it end, and are you now seriously infringing on the 2A?
I disagree that banning AR-15s is infringing on the 2A.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
In what way? What is the differentiator between various weapons that leads you to say some are protected and some aren't?
ip_law-hokie wrote:
An unwillingness to devote time to sensitive, insecure people with predisposed, redneck dispositions suggests that his time is more valuable than your average “mall accountant,” whatever TF that is.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Ah, more sanctimonious bullsh!t I see. What it actually reveals (rather than 'suggests') is that he has no well thought-out argument here. He's just spewing the emotional Democrat party line.
"If we could just outlaw AR-15s, the world would be a better place...until we figure out what the next scary looking gun is we need to outlaw."
You asked a very emotional question, why not ask for facts?
Here are 3 potential answers.
1) The destructive power of an AR15 is greater than that of a handgun. The velocity is 3x (or so) that of a normal handgun, so when it hits a bone or an organ, it destroys it. Not the case with a typical handgun.
2) AR15 and high capacity. If you have a 30 or 60 round magazine vs something like a 10 round magazine, that’s a lot less reloading. Not sure how long it takes an average person to change out a magazine, but if people are running away from you, that’s meaningful time.
3) Range. AR15 has a longer range than a handgun, so that area that can be covered by an AR15 is significantly larger than a handgun.
Thoughts?
1. That's an argument to ban all rifles. Not a winning argument and the 5.56 is at the bottom of the heap compared to any other rifle. The main criticism against it has been its ineffectiveness in combat. Also, 9mm will go right through bone.
2. Cho used a handgun. Some of his magazines were even 10rnm. Police have guns for the same reason civilians do. They find standard (not "high capacity") magazines useful for the same reason Joe blow does.
3. None of these school shootings involved long range or precision shooting. Most were just spraying bullets. The effective range of a 9mm is 1800m...or basically any distance that someone just wants to spray bullets into a crowd.
1. I'm not making an argument, I'm answering a question about the AR15, which has a higher muzzle velocity than a normal handgun. It's simply a question of physics. The kinetic energy of an AR15 round is higher than that of a normal handgun. When an AR15 hits a bone directly, it doesn't break it, or go through it, it disintegrates it, and a lot of it.
2. So?? You're not countering what I said. It's possible that in these mass shootings, the AR15s jammed. And possible they didn't. If they didn't jam, then the magazine capacity means less reloading and more shots in a given time period.
3. Again, so? I was just stating a fact. The idea that a 9mm handgun like a S&W M&P is effective at 1800mm, is silly. In this conversation, the range is something like 30 or 40m.
ip_law-hokie wrote:
An unwillingness to devote time to sensitive, insecure people with predisposed, redneck dispositions suggests that his time is more valuable than your average “mall accountant,” whatever TF that is.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Ah, more sanctimonious bullsh!t I see. What it actually reveals (rather than 'suggests') is that he has no well thought-out argument here. He's just spewing the emotional Democrat party line.
"If we could just outlaw AR-15s, the world would be a better place...until we figure out what the next scary looking gun is we need to outlaw."
You asked a very emotional question, why not ask for facts?
Here are 3 potential answers.
1) The destructive power of an AR15 is greater than that of a handgun. The velocity is 3x (or so) that of a normal handgun, so when it hits a bone or an organ, it destroys it. Not the case with a typical handgun.
2) AR15 and high capacity. If you have a 30 or 60 round magazine vs something like a 10 round magazine, that’s a lot less reloading. Not sure how long it takes an average person to change out a magazine, but if people are running away from you, that’s meaningful time.
3) Range. AR15 has a longer range than a handgun, so that area that can be covered by an AR15 is significantly larger than a handgun.
Thoughts?
1. That's an argument to ban all rifles. Not a winning argument and the 5.56 is at the bottom of the heap compared to any other rifle. The main criticism against it has been its ineffectiveness in combat. Also, 9mm will go right through bone.
2. Cho used a handgun. Some of his magazines were even 10rnm. Police have guns for the same reason civilians do. They find standard (not "high capacity") magazines useful for the same reason Joe blow does.
3. None of these school shootings involved long range or precision shooting. Most were just spraying bullets. The effective range of a 9mm is 1800m...or basically any distance that someone just wants to spray bullets into a crowd.
1. I'm not making an argument, I'm answering a question about the AR15, which has a higher muzzle velocity than a normal handgun. It's simply a question of physics. The kinetic energy of an AR15 round is higher than that of a normal handgun. When an AR15 hits a bone directly, it doesn't break it, or go through it, it disintegrates it, and a lot of it.
2. So?? You're not countering what I said. It's possible that in these mass shootings, the AR15s jammed. And possible they didn't. If they didn't jam, then the magazine capacity means less reloading and more shots in a given time period.
3. Again, so? I was just stating a fact. The idea that a 9mm handgun like a S&W M&P is effective at 1800mm, is silly. In this conversation, the range is something like 30 or 40m.
Stop, AR 15 rounds are soft and made to tumble to create max soft tissue damage. It's the opposite of a bone crusher. Your ammunition design is how a kid thinks, more velocity just goes right through tissue, making a small hole. That's more of an armour piercing round, best killing rounds don't have exit holes as all energy is delivered into the target.
ip_law-hokie wrote:
An unwillingness to devote time to sensitive, insecure people with predisposed, redneck dispositions suggests that his time is more valuable than your average “mall accountant,” whatever TF that is.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Ah, more sanctimonious bullsh!t I see. What it actually reveals (rather than 'suggests') is that he has no well thought-out argument here. He's just spewing the emotional Democrat party line.
"If we could just outlaw AR-15s, the world would be a better place...until we figure out what the next scary looking gun is we need to outlaw."
You asked a very emotional question, why not ask for facts?
Here are 3 potential answers.
1) The destructive power of an AR15 is greater than that of a handgun. The velocity is 3x (or so) that of a normal handgun, so when it hits a bone or an organ, it destroys it. Not the case with a typical handgun.
2) AR15 and high capacity. If you have a 30 or 60 round magazine vs something like a 10 round magazine, that’s a lot less reloading. Not sure how long it takes an average person to change out a magazine, but if people are running away from you, that’s meaningful time.
3) Range. AR15 has a longer range than a handgun, so that area that can be covered by an AR15 is significantly larger than a handgun.
Thoughts?
1. That's an argument to ban all rifles. Not a winning argument and the 5.56 is at the bottom of the heap compared to any other rifle. The main criticism against it has been its ineffectiveness in combat. Also, 9mm will go right through bone.
2. Cho used a handgun. Some of his magazines were even 10rnm. Police have guns for the same reason civilians do. They find standard (not "high capacity") magazines useful for the same reason Joe blow does.
3. None of these school shootings involved long range or precision shooting. Most were just spraying bullets. The effective range of a 9mm is 1800m...or basically any distance that someone just wants to spray bullets into a crowd.
1. I'm not making an argument, I'm answering a question about the AR15, which has a higher muzzle velocity than a normal handgun. It's simply a question of physics. The kinetic energy of an AR15 round is higher than that of a normal handgun. When an AR15 hits a bone directly, it doesn't break it, or go through it, it disintegrates it, and a lot of it.
2. So?? You're not countering what I said. It's possible that in these mass shootings, the AR15s jammed. And possible they didn't. If they didn't jam, then the magazine capacity means less reloading and more shots in a given time period.
3. Again, so? I was just stating a fact. The idea that a 9mm handgun like a S&W M&P is effective at 1800mm, is silly. In this conversation, the range is something like 30 or 40m.
1. It's an argument whether you want to claim it for yourself or not. The 5.56 is not a particularly powerful round - it's not even legal to hunt deer with in VA. I'm rolling my eyes at your characterization of it "disintegrating" ( a lot of) bone. That's simply rubbish.
2. In almost every single one of these incidents, the attackers usually have plenty of time. Reloading isn't an issue, and even low capacity magazines are enough to heat a gun up to the point that it starts failing. Those who have used high capacity magazines have had malfunctions as a result. It happened in Vegas.
3. I said effectiveness of the the ammunition, not a particular gun. A 9mm is effective at killing someone from far, far away. Plenty for spraying into a crowd. Stevie Wonder could hit a crowd of people 40m away with a pistol.
ip_law-hokie wrote:
An unwillingness to devote time to sensitive, insecure people with predisposed, redneck dispositions suggests that his time is more valuable than your average “mall accountant,” whatever TF that is.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Ah, more sanctimonious bullsh!t I see. What it actually reveals (rather than 'suggests') is that he has no well thought-out argument here. He's just spewing the emotional Democrat party line.
"If we could just outlaw AR-15s, the world would be a better place...until we figure out what the next scary looking gun is we need to outlaw."
You asked a very emotional question, why not ask for facts?
Here are 3 potential answers.
1) The destructive power of an AR15 is greater than that of a handgun. The velocity is 3x (or so) that of a normal handgun, so when it hits a bone or an organ, it destroys it. Not the case with a typical handgun.
2) AR15 and high capacity. If you have a 30 or 60 round magazine vs something like a 10 round magazine, that’s a lot less reloading. Not sure how long it takes an average person to change out a magazine, but if people are running away from you, that’s meaningful time.
3) Range. AR15 has a longer range than a handgun, so that area that can be covered by an AR15 is significantly larger than a handgun.
Thoughts?
1. That's an argument to ban all rifles. Not a winning argument and the 5.56 is at the bottom of the heap compared to any other rifle. The main criticism against it has been its ineffectiveness in combat. Also, 9mm will go right through bone.
2. Cho used a handgun. Some of his magazines were even 10rnm. Police have guns for the same reason civilians do. They find standard (not "high capacity") magazines useful for the same reason Joe blow does.
3. None of these school shootings involved long range or precision shooting. Most were just spraying bullets. The effective range of a 9mm is 1800m...or basically any distance that someone just wants to spray bullets into a crowd.
1. I'm not making an argument, I'm answering a question about the AR15, which has a higher muzzle velocity than a normal handgun. It's simply a question of physics. The kinetic energy of an AR15 round is higher than that of a normal handgun. When an AR15 hits a bone directly, it doesn't break it, or go through it, it disintegrates it, and a lot of it.
2. So?? You're not countering what I said. It's possible that in these mass shootings, the AR15s jammed. And possible they didn't. If they didn't jam, then the magazine capacity means less reloading and more shots in a given time period.
3. Again, so? I was just stating a fact. The idea that a 9mm handgun like a S&W M&P is effective at 1800mm, is silly. In this conversation, the range is something like 30 or 40m.
1. It's an argument whether you want to claim it for yourself or not. The 5.56 is not a particularly powerful round - it's not even legal to hunt deer with in VA. I'm rolling my eyes at your characterization of it "disintegrating" ( a lot of) bone. That's simply rubbish.
2. In almost every single one of these incidents, the attackers usually have plenty of time. Reloading isn't an issue, and even low capacity magazines are enough to heat a gun up to the point that it starts failing. Those who have used high capacity magazines have had malfunctions as a result. It happened in Vegas.
3. I said effectiveness of the the ammunition, not a particular gun. A 9mm is effective at killing someone from far, far away. Plenty for spraying into a crowd. Stevie Wonder could hit a crowd of people 40m away with a pistol.
I'd hate to be behind the guy the guy DC is shooting with those rounds, wouldn't mind being the first guy as it's going right through me. Second guy is getting walloped.
I'd also like to inject here the preferred weapon of poachers, the .22 mag. Powerful enough to kill without a lot of noise. These gun ban conversations crack me up as they miss the obvious points that any weapon they're discussing can kill like at any of the shootings we've seen. They're not military grade weapons and anyone that says otherwise is a clueless boob, military grade has been banned for a while. The AR 15 just looks like a military weapon to these ignoramuses and so they want to ban it based on skin color. Even the bump stock in Vegas, that can be put on about any weapon. And the NRA asked for their status to be reevaluated after that shooting so they're about to go too. This debate is dumb chasing dumb, ignorant softball playing suburban people injecting themselves into a conversation they have no business being part of as they have no idea about guns and what they're talking about. Everything they're asking to be banned already is, they're just stupid AF and think the AR is military grade when it's not. All of it misses the point is the shooter is most important aspect of the whole operation anyway. I could do more killing with a .22 short than Nolan or DC could with a fully auto .50 cal just because they don't know what the F they're doing whereas I do.
awesome guy wrote:All of it misses the point is the shooter is most important aspect of the whole operation anyway. I could do more killing with a .22 short than Nolan or DC could with a fully auto .50 cal just because they don't know what the F they're doing whereas I do.
Training is definitely important. Lots of attacks which never happened because the shooters were imbeciles.
ip_law-hokie wrote:
An unwillingness to devote time to sensitive, insecure people with predisposed, redneck dispositions suggests that his time is more valuable than your average “mall accountant,” whatever TF that is.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Ah, more sanctimonious bullsh!t I see. What it actually reveals (rather than 'suggests') is that he has no well thought-out argument here. He's just spewing the emotional Democrat party line.
"If we could just outlaw AR-15s, the world would be a better place...until we figure out what the next scary looking gun is we need to outlaw."
You asked a very emotional question, why not ask for facts?
Here are 3 potential answers.
1) The destructive power of an AR15 is greater than that of a handgun. The velocity is 3x (or so) that of a normal handgun, so when it hits a bone or an organ, it destroys it. Not the case with a typical handgun.
2) AR15 and high capacity. If you have a 30 or 60 round magazine vs something like a 10 round magazine, that’s a lot less reloading. Not sure how long it takes an average person to change out a magazine, but if people are running away from you, that’s meaningful time.
3) Range. AR15 has a longer range than a handgun, so that area that can be covered by an AR15 is significantly larger than a handgun.
Thoughts?
1. That's an argument to ban all rifles. Not a winning argument and the 5.56 is at the bottom of the heap compared to any other rifle. The main criticism against it has been its ineffectiveness in combat. Also, 9mm will go right through bone.
2. Cho used a handgun. Some of his magazines were even 10rnm. Police have guns for the same reason civilians do. They find standard (not "high capacity") magazines useful for the same reason Joe blow does.
3. None of these school shootings involved long range or precision shooting. Most were just spraying bullets. The effective range of a 9mm is 1800m...or basically any distance that someone just wants to spray bullets into a crowd.
1. I'm not making an argument, I'm answering a question about the AR15, which has a higher muzzle velocity than a normal handgun. It's simply a question of physics. The kinetic energy of an AR15 round is higher than that of a normal handgun. When an AR15 hits a bone directly, it doesn't break it, or go through it, it disintegrates it, and a lot of it.
2. So?? You're not countering what I said. It's possible that in these mass shootings, the AR15s jammed. And possible they didn't. If they didn't jam, then the magazine capacity means less reloading and more shots in a given time period.
3. Again, so? I was just stating a fact. The idea that a 9mm handgun like a S&W M&P is effective at 1800mm, is silly. In this conversation, the range is something like 30 or 40m.
Stop, AR 15 rounds are soft and made to tumble to create max soft tissue damage. It's the opposite of a bone crusher. Your ammunition design is how a kid thinks, more velocity just goes right through tissue, making a small hole. That's more of an armour piercing round, best killing rounds don't have exit holes as all energy is delivered into the target.
HokieFanDC wrote:
That’s nonsense about the tumbling. You stop.
No it's not, that's why they're effective. You not knowing won't be a detriment to you continuing to dig a hole. Like how you seem to think only rifles can shoot certain rounds, I'm dying laughing over here.
HokieFanDC wrote:
That’s nonsense about the tumbling. You stop.
No it's not, that's why they're effective. You not knowing won't be a detriment to you continuing to dig a hole. Like how you seem to think only rifles can shoot certain rounds, I'm dying laughing over here.
DC is googling frantically to become a ballistics expert on a Sunday night.
HokieFanDC wrote:
That’s nonsense about the tumbling. You stop.
No it's not, that's why they're effective. You not knowing won't be a detriment to you continuing to dig a hole. Like how you seem to think only rifles can shoot certain rounds, I'm dying laughing over here.
DC is googling frantically to become a ballistics expert on a Sunday night.
I bet he thinks tumbling happens on exit of the barrell. "That's just stupid!" LOL
HokieFanDC wrote:
That’s nonsense about the tumbling. You stop.
No it's not, that's why they're effective. You not knowing won't be a detriment to you continuing to dig a hole. Like how you seem to think only rifles can shoot certain rounds, I'm dying laughing over here.
They’re effective because they have high kinetic energy from their velocity. When they hit something - bone, tissue, whatever, they fragment and transmit that energy to the target. The AR15 shatters the bone into pieces. The handgun bullet makes a hole.
You two jack holes are funny in your criticism.
I especially like USNs google search on handgun effectiveness. If you google effective handgun range, you get one article at the top that says 1,800 meters and all the rest say something less than 100 meters.
HokieFanDC wrote:
That’s nonsense about the tumbling. You stop.
No it's not, that's why they're effective. You not knowing won't be a detriment to you continuing to dig a hole. Like how you seem to think only rifles can shoot certain rounds, I'm dying laughing over here.
They’re effective because they have high kinetic energy from their velocity. When they hit something - bone, tissue, whatever, they fragment and transmit that energy to the target. The AR15 shatters the bone into pieces. The handgun bullet makes a hole.
You two jack holes are funny in your criticism.
I especially like USNs google search on handgun effectiveness. If you google effective handgun range, you get one article at the top that says 1,800 meters and all the rest say something less than 100 meters.
So sure, a 9mm can kill someone from 1800m if you could ever hit someone, but of course, that has no bearing on what I was talking about.
And you’re the ones who are talking about rounds. I wasn’t.
Maybe you should decide if the bullet fragments on impact or if everything it hits does. You seem confused You have no idea what you are talking about.
HokieFanDC wrote:
That’s nonsense about the tumbling. You stop.
No it's not, that's why they're effective. You not knowing won't be a detriment to you continuing to dig a hole. Like how you seem to think only rifles can shoot certain rounds, I'm dying laughing over here.
They’re effective because they have high kinetic energy from their velocity. When they hit something - bone, tissue, whatever, they fragment and transmit that energy to the target. The AR15 shatters the bone into pieces. The handgun bullet makes a hole.
You two jack holes are funny in your criticism.
I especially like USNs google search on handgun effectiveness. If you google effective handgun range, you get one article at the top that says 1,800 meters and all the rest say something less than 100 meters.
So sure, a 9mm can kill someone from 1800m if you could ever hit someone, but of course, that has no bearing on what I was talking about.
And you’re the ones who are talking about rounds. I wasn’t.
Try again, it's tumbling. A pistol can shatter bone too, not sure which wrong link gave you that wrong information. You can shoot the same ammo used by an AR from a pistol. Just stop with the Google lecture, it's embarrassing. Have you ever actually shot an AR? They're kind of a wimpy weapon, all things considered.
HokieFanDC wrote:
That’s nonsense about the tumbling. You stop.
No it's not, that's why they're effective. You not knowing won't be a detriment to you continuing to dig a hole. Like how you seem to think only rifles can shoot certain rounds, I'm dying laughing over here.
They’re effective because they have high kinetic energy from their velocity. When they hit something - bone, tissue, whatever, they fragment and transmit that energy to the target. The AR15 shatters the bone into pieces. The handgun bullet makes a hole.
You two jack holes are funny in your criticism.
I especially like USNs google search on handgun effectiveness. If you google effective handgun range, you get one article at the top that says 1,800 meters and all the rest say something less than 100 meters.
So sure, a 9mm can kill someone from 1800m if you could ever hit someone, but of course, that has no bearing on what I was talking about.
And you’re the ones who are talking about rounds. I wasn’t.
Maybe you should decide if the bullet fragments on impact or if everything it hits does. You seem confused You have no idea what you are talking about.
Actually, you don’t. You should spend an hour with a trauma doctor about the difference between a wound from a high velocity weapon and a lower velocity weapon with a heavier round.
All in all, you two are a perfect example of the gun debate. I answered a direct question from Upstate and. you two automatically go into attack mode, creating arguments that aren't there, while also being FOS.