Good to see the kids stand up

Your Virginia Tech Politics and Religion source
Forum rules
Be Civil. Go Hokies.
User avatar
awesome guy
Posts: 54187
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:10 pm
Party: After 10
Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified

Re: Good to see the kids stand up

Post by awesome guy »

USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
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.

http://bfy.tw/Gg25

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. :lol:
It's like being hit by a Mack truck, let me tell ya! LOL.


The last deer I killed was with a .306. DC seems to be thinking the AR is the same thing, it's not. A .306 is a bone crusher, the round went through both shoulder blades. And it didn't kill the deer, just immobilized it. I had to finish it off with my mitts. .223 with the same shot would tumble, fragment, and do a lot of damage to the organs for the kill. Doubt it would have had an exit wound, just looked like to get beat with a bat as it's soft tissue is destroyed from the round tumbling in the carcass.
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
HokieFanDC
Posts: 18547
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 8:57 pm

Re: Good to see the kids stand up

Post by HokieFanDC »

USN_Hokie wrote:
awesome guy wrote:Have you ever actually shot an AR? They're kind of a wimpy weapon, all things considered.
Good question. DC?
Nope, so what. Have you ever been hit by an AR 15 round?. You shouldn't talk about it unless you have. :roll: :roll:
User avatar
awesome guy
Posts: 54187
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:10 pm
Party: After 10
Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified

Re: Good to see the kids stand up

Post by awesome guy »

HokieFanDC wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
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.

http://bfy.tw/Gg25

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. :lol:
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.

You are the RW equivalent of Dianne Feinstein.

I see it every fall and you're FOS. How the round behaves on impact has the most effect on damage.
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
User avatar
awesome guy
Posts: 54187
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:10 pm
Party: After 10
Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified

Re: Good to see the kids stand up

Post by awesome guy »

HokieFanDC wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
awesome guy wrote:Have you ever actually shot an AR? They're kind of a wimpy weapon, all things considered.
Good question. DC?
Nope, so what. Have you ever been hit by an AR 15 round?. You shouldn't talk about it unless you have. :roll: :roll:

Seen it on a deer, it ain't close to what you think it is.. It's the opposite actually.
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
User avatar
USN_Hokie
Posts: 30831
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:58 pm
Party: Draintheswamp

Re: Good to see the kids stand up

Post by USN_Hokie »

HokieFanDC wrote: 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.

You are the RW equivalent of Dianne Feinstein.
I've been polite to you in this thread, but you are an insufferable imbecile who has no idea what you're talking about and should probably shut up before you make a bigger arse of yourself.

I shoot thousands of 5.56 a year myself. You? The primary difference between rifle and pistol rounds is hydrostatic shock. Feel free to google that.
User avatar
USN_Hokie
Posts: 30831
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:58 pm
Party: Draintheswamp

Re: Good to see the kids stand up

Post by USN_Hokie »

HokieFanDC wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
awesome guy wrote:Have you ever actually shot an AR? They're kind of a wimpy weapon, all things considered.
Good question. DC?
Nope, so what. Have you ever been hit by an AR 15 round?. You shouldn't talk about it unless you have. :roll: :roll:
What kind of AR15 round? I have several chambered in different calibers. One is even ....*wait for it*... a pistol caliber.

Haven't been shot with one. But I have seen animals (to include Somalians) shot with them, thanks. Don't recall any disintegrated bone. :roll:
HokieFanDC
Posts: 18547
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 8:57 pm

Re: Good to see the kids stand up

Post by HokieFanDC »

awesome guy wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
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.

http://bfy.tw/Gg25

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. :lol:
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.

You are the RW equivalent of Dianne Feinstein.

I see it every fall and you're FOS. How the round behaves on impact has the most effect on damage.
.

Not sure what you're argument is. You're saying that people are using AR15s to kill deer because they're effective at killing from distance. From what I was told earlier in this thread, they should using handguns instead.
HokieFanDC
Posts: 18547
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 8:57 pm

Re: Good to see the kids stand up

Post by HokieFanDC »

USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
awesome guy wrote:Have you ever actually shot an AR? They're kind of a wimpy weapon, all things considered.
Good question. DC?
Nope, so what. Have you ever been hit by an AR 15 round?. You shouldn't talk about it unless you have. :roll: :roll:
What kind of AR15 round? I have several chambered in different calibers. One is even ....*wait for it*... a pistol caliber.

Haven't been shot with one. But I have seen animals (to include Somalians) shot with them, thanks. Don't recall any disintegrated bone. :roll:
Your unique personal experience is not extremely relevant.

You keep yapping about different rounds, are you trying to make a point? The question I was answering was about the AR 15. Not about its versatility.
HokieJoe
Posts: 13122
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 2:12 pm
Alma Mater: Virginia Tech
Party: Eclectic

Re: Good to see the kids stand up

Post by HokieJoe »

I will never entertain banning AR's. The AR didn't kill those people. A crazy F did. If you want to get angry, then get angry at lawmakers who refuse to do something about shiitheads like that who aren't institutionalized.
"I predict future happiness for Americans, if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." - Thomas Jefferson
User avatar
USN_Hokie
Posts: 30831
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:58 pm
Party: Draintheswamp

Re: Good to see the kids stand up

Post by USN_Hokie »

HokieFanDC wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
awesome guy wrote:Have you ever actually shot an AR? They're kind of a wimpy weapon, all things considered.
Good question. DC?
Nope, so what. Have you ever been hit by an AR 15 round?. You shouldn't talk about it unless you have. :roll: :roll:
What kind of AR15 round? I have several chambered in different calibers. One is even ....*wait for it*... a pistol caliber.

Haven't been shot with one. But I have seen animals (to include Somalians) shot with them, thanks. Don't recall any disintegrated bone. :roll:
Your unique personal experience is not extremely relevant.

You keep yapping about different rounds, are you trying to make a point? The question I was answering was about the AR 15. Not about its versatility.
I see, but your complete lack of experience is? :lol:

Just stop...
HokieFanDC
Posts: 18547
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 8:57 pm

Re: Good to see the kids stand up

Post by HokieFanDC »

USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote: 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.

You are the RW equivalent of Dianne Feinstein.
I've been polite to you in this thread, but you are an insufferable imbecile who has no idea what you're talking about and should probably shut up before you make a bigger arse of yourself.

I shoot thousands of 5.56 a year myself. You? The primary difference between rifle and pistol rounds is hydrostatic shock. Feel free to google that.
I don't really care. You are just proving the point about not coming up with any solutions.

You keep yapping about things I'm not talking about. I don't know as much about guns as you.
Whoopeee. I know a trauma doctor who has treated lots of gun wounds, including AR 15. I am going to take his experience over yours.
HokieFanDC
Posts: 18547
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 8:57 pm

Re: Good to see the kids stand up

Post by HokieFanDC »

HokieJoe wrote:I will never entertain banning AR's. The AR didn't kill those people. A crazy F did. If you want to get angry, then get angry at lawmakers who refuse to do something about shiitheads like that who aren't institutionalized.
Just to be clear to you, I don't advocate banning AR's.
But, I uderstand why some people would.
And yes, we need improved mental illness support.
User avatar
awesome guy
Posts: 54187
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:10 pm
Party: After 10
Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified

Re: Good to see the kids stand up

Post by awesome guy »

HokieFanDC wrote: Not sure what you're argument is. You're saying that people are using AR15s to kill deer because they're effective at killing from distance. From what I was told earlier in this thread, they should using handguns instead.
I have no idea what you're trying to say. I said the tumble of the round creates the damage, not high velocity. It's not a bone smashing round. I don't use that round because of the soft tissue damage as I want to eat what I kill so go with something that will cleanly exit the animal and not screw up the meat. What you described as an .223 round was actually how a higher caliber round behaves.

Just to point our another dimension of stupidity in this, you can make an AR that shoots plenty of other caliber rounds or you can fire that same round from a varmint gun. You ignorant people destroy the debate as you're focused on products as that's all you can see. But weapons is a whole other universe of options and configurations. The language you use and point of reference about a specific brand of weapon make debate impossible as it's not the language or understanding educated people would have. This isn't like buying a hat at Miller and Rhoads where the only options are what's in the display case. It's more like building a computer where you can get or make parts that achieve what you want. So trying to ban X product or X style product is just stupid. Not to mention that what you're getting at about wanting to ban military weapons is already the law.
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
User avatar
awesome guy
Posts: 54187
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:10 pm
Party: After 10
Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified

Re: Good to see the kids stand up

Post by awesome guy »

HokieFanDC wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote: 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.

You are the RW equivalent of Dianne Feinstein.
I've been polite to you in this thread, but you are an insufferable imbecile who has no idea what you're talking about and should probably shut up before you make a bigger arse of yourself.

I shoot thousands of 5.56 a year myself. You? The primary difference between rifle and pistol rounds is hydrostatic shock. Feel free to google that.
I don't really care. You are just proving the point about not coming up with any solutions.

You keep yapping about things I'm not talking about. I don't know as much about guns as you.
Whoopeee. I know a trauma doctor who has treated lots of gun wounds, including AR 15. I am going to take his experience over yours.

Didn't you use that move in a couple years ago in a defense argument where you got everything wrong because you knew a guy that new a guy in the military? Seems like you should have learned the lesson in that of not regurgitating someone else's knowledge as if it's your own as you can't defend it and likely got it wrong anyway.
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
User avatar
awesome guy
Posts: 54187
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:10 pm
Party: After 10
Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified

Re: Good to see the kids stand up

Post by awesome guy »

USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
awesome guy wrote:Have you ever actually shot an AR? They're kind of a wimpy weapon, all things considered.
Good question. DC?
Nope, so what. Have you ever been hit by an AR 15 round?. You shouldn't talk about it unless you have. :roll: :roll:
What kind of AR15 round? I have several chambered in different calibers. One is even ....*wait for it*... a pistol caliber.

Haven't been shot with one. But I have seen animals (to include Somalians) shot with them, thanks. Don't recall any disintegrated bone. :roll:
Your unique personal experience is not extremely relevant.

You keep yapping about different rounds, are you trying to make a point? The question I was answering was about the AR 15. Not about its versatility.
I see, but your complete lack of experience is? :lol:

Just stop...

He really can't see what you're telling him by pointing out the different calibers available when he's making an argument about the caliber used. This is hilarious.
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
User avatar
USN_Hokie
Posts: 30831
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:58 pm
Party: Draintheswamp

Re: Good to see the kids stand up

Post by USN_Hokie »

HokieFanDC wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote: 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.

You are the RW equivalent of Dianne Feinstein.
I've been polite to you in this thread, but you are an insufferable imbecile who has no idea what you're talking about and should probably shut up before you make a bigger arse of yourself.

I shoot thousands of 5.56 a year myself. You? The primary difference between rifle and pistol rounds is hydrostatic shock. Feel free to google that.
I don't really care. You are just proving the point about not coming up with any solutions.

You keep yapping about things I'm not talking about. I don't know as much about guns as you.
Whoopeee. I know a trauma doctor who has treated lots of gun wounds, including AR 15. I am going to take his experience over yours.
1. Ahh, there you go. The "we have to do something" emotional infant argument. Violent crime has been on a steady downward trend for the last 30 or so years. What we're doing now seems to be working great.

2. Your imaginary trauma doctor friend is more full of excrement than you are. 5.56 wounds are statistically extremely rare, not that he would even know what caliber weapon the wounds were caused by. A trauma doctor should know that bones don't "disintegrate" too.
HokieFanDC
Posts: 18547
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 8:57 pm

Re: Good to see the kids stand up

Post by HokieFanDC »

awesome guy wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote: Not sure what you're argument is. You're saying that people are using AR15s to kill deer because they're effective at killing from distance. From what I was told earlier in this thread, they should using handguns instead.
I have no idea what you're trying to say. I said the tumble of the round creates the damage, not high velocity. It's not a bone smashing round. I don't use that round because of the soft tissue damage as I want to eat what I kill so go with something that will cleanly exit the animal and not screw up the meat. What you described as an .223 round was actually how a higher caliber round behaves.

Just to point our another dimension of stupidity in this, you can make an AR that shoots plenty of other caliber rounds or you can fire that same round from a varmint gun. You ignorant people destroy the debate as you're focused on products as that's all you can see. But weapons is a whole other universe of options and configurations. The language you use and point of reference about a specific brand of weapon make debate impossible as it's not the language or understanding educated people would have. This isn't like buying a hat at Miller and Rhoads where the only options are what's in the display case. It's more like building a computer where you can get or make parts that achieve what you want. So trying to ban X product or X style product is just stupid. Not to mention that what you're getting at about wanting to ban military weapons is already the law.
You seem to agree that an AR15 causes a lot of damage. It causes that damage because it's a lighter round that expands more when it breaks apart and carries a lot of energy because of the high velocity.
And why a 9mm round, which is heavier and slower, penetrated further and leaves a smaller wound.

Your second paragraph has no relation to anything I've said.
User avatar
awesome guy
Posts: 54187
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:10 pm
Party: After 10
Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified

Re: Good to see the kids stand up

Post by awesome guy »

HokieFanDC wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote: Not sure what you're argument is. You're saying that people are using AR15s to kill deer because they're effective at killing from distance. From what I was told earlier in this thread, they should using handguns instead.
I have no idea what you're trying to say. I said the tumble of the round creates the damage, not high velocity. It's not a bone smashing round. I don't use that round because of the soft tissue damage as I want to eat what I kill so go with something that will cleanly exit the animal and not screw up the meat. What you described as an .223 round was actually how a higher caliber round behaves.

Just to point our another dimension of stupidity in this, you can make an AR that shoots plenty of other caliber rounds or you can fire that same round from a varmint gun. You ignorant people destroy the debate as you're focused on products as that's all you can see. But weapons is a whole other universe of options and configurations. The language you use and point of reference about a specific brand of weapon make debate impossible as it's not the language or understanding educated people would have. This isn't like buying a hat at Miller and Rhoads where the only options are what's in the display case. It's more like building a computer where you can get or make parts that achieve what you want. So trying to ban X product or X style product is just stupid. Not to mention that what you're getting at about wanting to ban military weapons is already the law.
You seem to agree that an AR15 causes a lot of damage. It causes that damage because it's a lighter round that expands more when it breaks apart and carries a lot of energy because of the high velocity.
And why a 9mm round, which is heavier and slower, penetrated further and leaves a smaller wound.

Your second paragraph has no relation to anything I've said.
You're changing your argument. You said it was a bone crusher and that's why it kills. That's BS. It's a soft tissue killer. The 9mm isn't tumbling, it enters and leaves, even through bone. You can load your own rounds and play with velocities too. They design of the bullet itself has the most effect on damage.
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
User avatar
USN_Hokie
Posts: 30831
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:58 pm
Party: Draintheswamp

Re: Good to see the kids stand up

Post by USN_Hokie »

HokieFanDC wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote: Not sure what you're argument is. You're saying that people are using AR15s to kill deer because they're effective at killing from distance. From what I was told earlier in this thread, they should using handguns instead.
I have no idea what you're trying to say. I said the tumble of the round creates the damage, not high velocity. It's not a bone smashing round. I don't use that round because of the soft tissue damage as I want to eat what I kill so go with something that will cleanly exit the animal and not screw up the meat. What you described as an .223 round was actually how a higher caliber round behaves.

Just to point our another dimension of stupidity in this, you can make an AR that shoots plenty of other caliber rounds or you can fire that same round from a varmint gun. You ignorant people destroy the debate as you're focused on products as that's all you can see. But weapons is a whole other universe of options and configurations. The language you use and point of reference about a specific brand of weapon make debate impossible as it's not the language or understanding educated people would have. This isn't like buying a hat at Miller and Rhoads where the only options are what's in the display case. It's more like building a computer where you can get or make parts that achieve what you want. So trying to ban X product or X style product is just stupid. Not to mention that what you're getting at about wanting to ban military weapons is already the law.
You seem to agree that an AR15 causes a lot of damage. It causes that damage because it's a lighter round that expands more when it breaks apart and carries a lot of energy because of the high velocity.
And why a 9mm round, which is heavier and slower, penetrated further and leaves a smaller wound.

Your second paragraph has no relation to anything I've said.
Depends, what type of rounds for each caliber are you talking about DC? What bullet weight? Range? Barrel length? Twist rate? What calibration for the ballistic gelatin? How many layers of denim?
HokieFanDC
Posts: 18547
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 8:57 pm

Re: Good to see the kids stand up

Post by HokieFanDC »

USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote: 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.

You are the RW equivalent of Dianne Feinstein.
I've been polite to you in this thread, but you are an insufferable imbecile who has no idea what you're talking about and should probably shut up before you make a bigger arse of yourself.

I shoot thousands of 5.56 a year myself. You? The primary difference between rifle and pistol rounds is hydrostatic shock. Feel free to google that.
I don't really care. You are just proving the point about not coming up with any solutions.

You keep yapping about things I'm not talking about. I don't know as much about guns as you.
Whoopeee. I know a trauma doctor who has treated lots of gun wounds, including AR 15. I am going to take his experience over yours.
1. Ahh, there you go. The "we have to do something" emotional infant argument. Violent crime has been on a steady downward trend for the last 30 or so years. What we're doing now seems to be working great.

2. Your imaginary trauma doctor friend is more full of excrement than you are. 5.56 wounds are statistically extremely rare, not that he would even know what caliber weapon the wounds were caused by. A trauma doctor should know that bones don't "disintegrate" too.
Yes, there we go. I didn't say we have to do something. That's you're trigger response.

On #2, yawn. He was talking about the damage done to the bones, i.e. so many tiny pieces and a large radius, it's impossible to repair.
HokieFanDC
Posts: 18547
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 8:57 pm

Re: Good to see the kids stand up

Post by HokieFanDC »

awesome guy wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote: Not sure what you're argument is. You're saying that people are using AR15s to kill deer because they're effective at killing from distance. From what I was told earlier in this thread, they should using handguns instead.
I have no idea what you're trying to say. I said the tumble of the round creates the damage, not high velocity. It's not a bone smashing round. I don't use that round because of the soft tissue damage as I want to eat what I kill so go with something that will cleanly exit the animal and not screw up the meat. What you described as an .223 round was actually how a higher caliber round behaves.

Just to point our another dimension of stupidity in this, you can make an AR that shoots plenty of other caliber rounds or you can fire that same round from a varmint gun. You ignorant people destroy the debate as you're focused on products as that's all you can see. But weapons is a whole other universe of options and configurations. The language you use and point of reference about a specific brand of weapon make debate impossible as it's not the language or understanding educated people would have. This isn't like buying a hat at Miller and Rhoads where the only options are what's in the display case. It's more like building a computer where you can get or make parts that achieve what you want. So trying to ban X product or X style product is just stupid. Not to mention that what you're getting at about wanting to ban military weapons is already the law.
You seem to agree that an AR15 causes a lot of damage. It causes that damage because it's a lighter round that expands more when it breaks apart and carries a lot of energy because of the high velocity.
And why a 9mm round, which is heavier and slower, penetrated further and leaves a smaller wound.

Your second paragraph has no relation to anything I've said.
You're changing your argument. You said it was a bone crusher and that's why it kills. That's BS. It's a soft tissue killer. The 9mm isn't tumbling, it enters and leaves, even through bone. You can load your own rounds and play with velocities too. They design of the bullet itself has the most effect on damage.
I'm not. I said the lighter faster round destroys the bone, which it does because the energy is distributed outward, and that the large, slow round creates a hole.

And you're back to the round. I get what you're saying, but in a general discussion, how about sticking with the most common combination. And in general, a longer barrel produces higher velocities. And lighter rounds will deliver higher velocities.
User avatar
USN_Hokie
Posts: 30831
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:58 pm
Party: Draintheswamp

Re: Good to see the kids stand up

Post by USN_Hokie »

HokieFanDC wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
I don't really care. You are just proving the point about not coming up with any solutions.

You keep yapping about things I'm not talking about. I don't know as much about guns as you.
Whoopeee. I know a trauma doctor who has treated lots of gun wounds, including AR 15. I am going to take his experience over yours.
1. Ahh, there you go. The "we have to do something" emotional infant argument. Violent crime has been on a steady downward trend for the last 30 or so years. What we're doing now seems to be working great.

2. Your imaginary trauma doctor friend is more full of excrement than you are. 5.56 wounds are statistically extremely rare, not that he would even know what caliber weapon the wounds were caused by. A trauma doctor should know that bones don't "disintegrate" too.
Yes, there we go. I didn't say we have to do something. That's you're trigger response.

On #2, yawn. He was talking about the damage done to the bones, i.e. so many tiny pieces and a large radius, it's impossible to repair.
1. You said we had to come up with a solution. Basic statistics show that premise is false. You're making an emotional soccer mom appeal to emotion.

2. Interesting. What was your "friend's" sample size to make this determination?
User avatar
USN_Hokie
Posts: 30831
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:58 pm
Party: Draintheswamp

Re: Good to see the kids stand up

Post by USN_Hokie »

HokieFanDC wrote:

I'm not. I said the lighter faster round destroys the bone, which it does because the energy is distributed outward, and that the large, slow round creates a hole.

And you're back to the round. I get what you're saying, but in a general discussion, how about sticking with the most common combination. And in general, a longer barrel produces higher velocities. And lighter rounds will deliver higher velocities.
You should google a little harder. Sounds like you googled a comparison to NATO ball ammo.
HokieFanDC
Posts: 18547
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 8:57 pm

Re: Good to see the kids stand up

Post by HokieFanDC »

USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
I don't really care. You are just proving the point about not coming up with any solutions.

You keep yapping about things I'm not talking about. I don't know as much about guns as you.
Whoopeee. I know a trauma doctor who has treated lots of gun wounds, including AR 15. I am going to take his experience over yours.
1. Ahh, there you go. The "we have to do something" emotional infant argument. Violent crime has been on a steady downward trend for the last 30 or so years. What we're doing now seems to be working great.

2. Your imaginary trauma doctor friend is more full of excrement than you are. 5.56 wounds are statistically extremely rare, not that he would even know what caliber weapon the wounds were caused by. A trauma doctor should know that bones don't "disintegrate" too.
Yes, there we go. I didn't say we have to do something. That's you're trigger response.

On #2, yawn. He was talking about the damage done to the bones, i.e. so many tiny pieces and a large radius, it's impossible to repair.
1. You said we had to come up with a solution. Basic statistics show that premise is false. You're making an emotional soccer mom appeal to emotion.

2. Interesting. What was your "friend's" sample size to make this determination?
On #1, I didn't.

On #2, I don't know. He's seen lots of handgun wounds. None was like the AR wound he saw. Not sure why you're harping on this. What does your hydrostatic shock knowledge say about high velocity/light vs low velocity/heavy projectiles?
User avatar
USN_Hokie
Posts: 30831
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:58 pm
Party: Draintheswamp

Re: Good to see the kids stand up

Post by USN_Hokie »

HokieFanDC wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
I don't really care. You are just proving the point about not coming up with any solutions.

You keep yapping about things I'm not talking about. I don't know as much about guns as you.
Whoopeee. I know a trauma doctor who has treated lots of gun wounds, including AR 15. I am going to take his experience over yours.
1. Ahh, there you go. The "we have to do something" emotional infant argument. Violent crime has been on a steady downward trend for the last 30 or so years. What we're doing now seems to be working great.

2. Your imaginary trauma doctor friend is more full of excrement than you are. 5.56 wounds are statistically extremely rare, not that he would even know what caliber weapon the wounds were caused by. A trauma doctor should know that bones don't "disintegrate" too.
Yes, there we go. I didn't say we have to do something. That's you're trigger response.

On #2, yawn. He was talking about the damage done to the bones, i.e. so many tiny pieces and a large radius, it's impossible to repair.
1. You said we had to come up with a solution. Basic statistics show that premise is false. You're making an emotional soccer mom appeal to emotion.

2. Interesting. What was your "friend's" sample size to make this determination?
On #1, I didn't.

On #2, I don't know. He's seen lots of handgun wounds. None was like the AR wound he saw. Not sure why you're harping on this. What does your hydrostatic shock knowledge say about high velocity/light vs low velocity/heavy projectiles?
1. Yep

2. What does hydrostatic shock have to do with penetration through bone? :?: :?:
Post Reply