Stoneman survivor speaks out

[Jag]

Exactly.

I don't currently own a gun. I have before and may in the future.

No matter I am against a gun ban. I am ok with reasonable background checks and restrictions to prevent ownership by high risk persons such as the mentally unstable, domestic abusers, and felons.

Are you against limiting access to high powered weapons designed to do this?

I was looking at a CT scan of one of the mass-shooting victims from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, who had been brought to the trauma center during my call shift. The organ looked like an overripe melon smashed by a sledgehammer, and was bleeding extensively. How could a gunshot wound have caused this much damage?

The reaction in the emergency room was the same. One of the trauma surgeons opened a young victim in the operating room, and found only shreds of the organ that had been hit by a bullet from an AR-15, a semiautomatic rifle that delivers a devastatingly lethal, high-velocity bullet to the victim. Nothing was left to repair—and utterly, devastatingly, nothing could be done to fix the problem. The injury was fatal.

[Isgrimnur]

It means the 2nd amendment is going no where, even if there is broad support for gun regulation of some sort.

You're really taking a risk there with that wild speculation.

30% own a gun. 36% don't but could see owning one in the future. So 66% of the population definitely have no issues owning a gun. And that's assuming that all 33% that could never see owning a gun are all of the mind that they feel that no one else should own a gun, either.

Yeah, banning guns isn't going to work with those numbers.

[GreenGoo]

First, banning "guns", whatever that means, isn't going to happen. No first world country does that, and you have it enshrined in your constitution. There is room between "guns for everyone" and "no guns for anyone".

Second, I guarantee you that plenty of those 66% have a major problem with children being slaughtered, and would like something done about it. Some of those, presumably, would be ok with some form of gun control.

If the argument is 30% own guns, another 36% want to own guns, so 66% are ok with current gun laws, that's a helluva conclusion to reach.

Clearly, polls are showing a lot of support for more gun control. More than 34%, so there is some overlap as Lawbeef himself suggests, between gun owners/future gun owners and desire for gun control. How much? Let's find out.

[Isgrimnur]

Are you against limiting access to high powered weapons designed to do this?

If this thing shows up in my neighborhood, I absolutely want something with that power at my disposal.

Thats some SERIOUS bacon

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/gigantic-w ... -dumpster/

Gigantic wild boar dubbed "Pigzilla" seen rummaging through dumpster

Wild boar are common in the hills around Hong Kong. The beasts can weigh up to 450 pounds and often venture into the city in search of food.

[noxiousdog]

It's a real problem.

... mature feral hog may reach a shoulder height of 36 inches and weigh from 100 to over 400 pounds.

There is currently an estimated population in excess of 1.5 million feral hogs in Texas. ... There seem to be very few inhibiting factors to curtail this population growth and distribution although extreme arid conditions may impede it.

Extreme caution should be maintained when tracking wounded animals, trapping animals or encountering females with young. Their razor sharp tusks combined with their lightning speed can cause serious injury.

I doubt this means AR-15s, but firearms are a legitimate need.

[noxiousdog]

It means the 2nd amendment is going no where, even if there is broad support for gun regulation of some sort.

You're really taking a risk there with that wild speculation.

It was purely in response to Carpet_pissr who said, "We're being held hostage by a minority, and an archaic and obsolete amendment to the Constitution."

[LordMortis]

It's a real problem.

... mature feral hog may reach a shoulder height of 36 inches and weigh from 100 to over 400 pounds.

There is currently an estimated population in excess of 1.5 million feral hogs in Texas. ... There seem to be very few inhibiting factors to curtail this population growth and distribution although extreme arid conditions may impede it.

Extreme caution should be maintained when tracking wounded animals, trapping animals or encountering females with young. Their razor sharp tusks combined with their lightning speed can cause serious injury.

I doubt this means AR-15s, but firearms are a legitimate need.

They are shoot on sight please in Michigan. No permit needed.

http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,4570,7-15 ... --,00.html

I'm guessing coyotes will be that way eventually here as they get sighted more and more often in suburban areas. The rural areas mostly had to deal with it for years but it becomes a thing they start killing family pets in the 'burbs and we have to start "thinking of the children."

https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/ ... /83553624/

Cougar still on the endangered species and illegal but I also suspect they will eventually find their way from rural areas to the 'burbs and our treatment of them will change.

[LawBeefaroni]

Are you against limiting access to high powered weapons designed to do this?

If this thing shows up in my neighborhood, I absolutely want something with that power at my disposal.

Thats some SERIOUS bacon

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/gigantic-w ... -dumpster/

Gigantic wild boar dubbed "Pigzilla" seen rummaging through dumpster

Wild boar are common in the hills around Hong Kong. The beasts can weigh up to 450 pounds and often venture into the city in search of food.

ARs in 5.56/.223 don't make good hog guns actually. The reason they are so devastating to humans is because the small, high velocity bullets fragment and tumble and tumble when they hit flesh. (This is why many think they make decent home defense weapons because they have less penetration in drywall than bigger, slower pistol calibers, including 9mm.). However, with big hogs, a potential lack of penetration leads to less lethal wounds. And they are designed for closer range than larger rifle calibers. Past 150 yards 5.56 is going to lose it's velocity/fragmentation advantage.

I have a friend who just got back from hog hunting in Florida. He took his AR-15. On the first day he shot a hog in the shoulder zone and it just ran off. The guides recommended a different caliber and loaned him a .308 bolt action and the next hog went down in like 10 yards.

That's not to say an AR in 5.56/.223 won't work if you already have one but it's not a great first choice. They do make special hog hunting ammo in .223 so I guess there's that.







Tl;Dr, in the case of AR-15 in 5.56, their ability to be so lethal isn't in that they are so "high-powered". It is that the smaller, high velocity bullets do massive tissue and organ damage when they fragment and tumble upon impact.

[Remus West]

I get why people focus on the ridiculously huge swine there but the other three are not exactly small.

[Jag]

Are you against limiting access to high powered weapons designed to do this?

If this thing shows up in my neighborhood, I absolutely want something with that power at my disposal.

Thats some SERIOUS bacon

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/gigantic-w ... -dumpster/

Gigantic wild boar dubbed "Pigzilla" seen rummaging through dumpster

Wild boar are common in the hills around Hong Kong. The beasts can weigh up to 450 pounds and often venture into the city in search of food.

Not sure if you are just trolling now or really taking talking points directly from the NRA playbook.

[Skinypupy]

Rubio decides inferring that the the Parkland students are "arrogant" is a good way to welcome them back to school today.

The debate after #Parkland reminds us We The People don’t really like each other very much.We smear those who refuse to agree with us.We claim a Judea-Christian heritage but celebrate arrogance & boasting. & worst of all we have infected the next generation with the same disease

[LordMortis]

Rubio decides inferring that the the Parkland students are "arrogant" is a good way to welcome them back to school today.

The debate after #Parkland reminds us We The People don’t really like each other very much.We smear those who refuse to agree with us.We claim a Judea-Christian heritage but celebrate arrogance & boasting. & worst of all we have infected the next generation with the same disease

Shouldn't #Parkland be replaced with #POTUS45? It really fits his description perfectly. I mean it really sounds like a swipe at the 2016 election.

[Jag]

He's pissy the Parkland kids shit all over him in primetime. Well fuck him. The next generation "infection" happened when they saw their friends murdered and their school shot up. What an absolute fucking asshole.

And he is their goddam own Senator. I can't wait to vote this little prick out.

[Blackhawk]

FWIW, I own a gun. I love owning a gun. I owned my first gun when I was 14 (birthday present), and have owned one or more almost my entire adult life.

I would vote for a law that took them away in a heartbeat.

[Kraken]

My radio told me this morning that a huge sporting goods chain (Dick's, maybe?) announced that it will no longer carry assault rifles or sell to anyone under 21. They have 800+ stores. If other retailers follow their lead, it's kind of a big deal.

[Isgrimnur]

Not sure if you are just trolling now or really taking talking points directly from the NRA playbook.

Fuck the NRA. And I'm going to try really hard to not feel insulted.

[LordMortis]

My radio told me this morning that a huge sporting goods chain (Dick's, maybe?) announced that it will no longer carry assault rifles or sell to anyone under 21. They have 800+ stores. If other retailers follow their lead, it's kind of a big deal.

Yep.... go to dicks dot com and check it out... Just kidding, but yeah it was Dick's because it's annoyed the piss out of the conservative feed on my FB page. This also extends to their hunting stores, I want to say Field and Stream but then Field and Stream are a magazine and TV program, which suggests that's not the store.

[$iljanus]

My radio told me this morning that a huge sporting goods chain (Dick's, maybe?) announced that it will no longer carry assault rifles or sell to anyone under 21. They have 800+ stores. If other retailers follow their lead, it's kind of a big deal.

It's Dicks. The owner is a supporter of gun ownership, not a NRA member according to an article I read about this but couldn't ignore the voices of the students demanding change.

Also high capacity magazines will no longer be sold as well.

[Smoove_B]

There's seven new bills that are being pushed in NJ, in part because of what happened in Stoneman. I have no idea how it will all play out, but they list the bills here. The one that surprises me is the one that restricts the ability to get a concealed/carry permit. It's already nearly impossible to get one. I have no idea how they could possibly make it more restrictive. Unless the bill is somehow going to change language or make it less ambiguous.

But overall, they represent a much wider strategy (I think) to try and deal with this. A shotgun approach, if you will.

* A1217, which creates a specially designated gun violence restraining order effectively allowing family members or others to present a case to a judge to have a person's weapons seized and prohibit them from buying weapons for up to a year.

* A1181, mandating law enforcement seize a person's guns if a mental health professional determines they pose a threat to their self or others.

* A2758, which would strictly define New Jersey's "justifiable need" standard for handgun carry permits, making it tougher for anyone to get permission to carry a handgun unless they can show they face a specific threat to their own safety.

* A1016, creating a commission to determine standards for the sale of "smart guns," also known as child-proof or personalized guns, which use technology to prevent anyone but the gun's owner from firing them.

* A2757, requiring all private gun sales go through a licensed dealer who can perform an additional background check at the point of sale.

* A2759, an outright ban on possessing armor-piercing bullets.

* A2761, banning magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, with some exceptions.

[Isgrimnur]

My take on those? (if anyone cares)

Support
Support
Oppose
Support
Support
Depends on the definition
Oppose

[Smoove_B]

I am. Mainly because as someone that couldn't care less if guns were to disappear overnight, I do find value in hearing the reasons why people oppose things. Assuming, of course, your reasoning isn't "Because Jesus" or "Because 2nd Amendment". I'm open to nuanced opinions that I don't have a perspective on.

[Isgrimnur]

Then let's explore #3. This lends itself to the idea that, somehow, the first time I have a "justifiable need" is something that I will survive. And it's something that I have to convince some, likely hostile, bureaucracy that I need. I find that to be an onerous burden. I don't expect everyone to always make their own best call when determining a justifiable need, but they should have the right to make that decision until such time as they make a mistake serious enough to deprive them of it.

#6 bill text limits the armor-piercing restriction to pistol ammunition, which is a good start toward making it acceptable in my book, as it won't attempt to blanket bad rifle ammunition. I'm not savvy enough on the details of ammunition construction to know how severe the restriction would be, but I lean more now toward it being acceptable until more technical information is available.

#7 I consider to be a feel-good restriction that will have little to no impact on the type of events that are driving the current discussion. In the midst of an event, reload time is a factor. In preventing an event, it's not going to make a difference. But this is not an issue that I'm going to spend any time fighting with any level of enthusiasm.

[Rip]

Exactly.

I don't currently own a gun. I have before and may in the future.

No matter I am against a gun ban. I am ok with reasonable background checks and restrictions to prevent ownership by high risk persons such as the mentally unstable, domestic abusers, and felons.

Are you against limiting access to high powered weapons designed to do this?

I was looking at a CT scan of one of the mass-shooting victims from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, who had been brought to the trauma center during my call shift. The organ looked like an overripe melon smashed by a sledgehammer, and was bleeding extensively. How could a gunshot wound have caused this much damage?

The reaction in the emergency room was the same. One of the trauma surgeons opened a young victim in the operating room, and found only shreds of the organ that had been hit by a bullet from an AR-15, a semiautomatic rifle that delivers a devastatingly lethal, high-velocity bullet to the victim. Nothing was left to repair—and utterly, devastatingly, nothing could be done to fix the problem. The injury was fatal.

An AR-15 isn't a high powered weapon. Far from it.

Most AR-15s fire a .223 caliber. The fifth round from the left on this chart.



There are what over dozen more powerful rounds?

Of course getting hit with a bullet from a rifle is devastatingly lethal. Hunting large animals like a bear with something that wasn't would be a fool's errand.

So yes I am against banning any particular semi-automatic weapon.

[Rip]

My radio told me this morning that a huge sporting goods chain (Dick's, maybe?) announced that it will no longer carry assault rifles or sell to anyone under 21. They have 800+ stores. If other retailers follow their lead, it's kind of a big deal.

Not that big a deal.

But the decision might not be as courageous as Dick’s executives have portrayed it to be. That’s because the company has not sold AR-15 style rifles at its main stores since 2012, when it removed the guns from the shelves of its Dick’s-branded locations.

Instead, Dick’s had only been selling the rifles at its chain of Field & Stream stores, a much smaller subsidiary that specializes in hunting, fishing and camping gear. While Dick’s operates more than 600 main store locations across the U.S., there are only 35 Field & Stream retail locations.

[Skinypupy]

Then why are there so many 2A folks howling about how they'll never shop there again?

Might not be a big deal from a revenue perspective, but from an optics perspective it certainly is.

[GreenGoo]

So they've moved twice to reduce firearms sales, but they aren't "courageous" because they had already moved once before?

Spin spin spin.

[Isgrimnur]

Then why are there so many 2A folks howling about how they'll never shop there again?

Might not be a big deal from a revenue perspective, but from an optics perspective it certainly is.

Many of them probably don't shop there now.

[LordMortis]

My radio told me this morning that a huge sporting goods chain (Dick's, maybe?) announced that it will no longer carry assault rifles or sell to anyone under 21. They have 800+ stores. If other retailers follow their lead, it's kind of a big deal.

Not that big a deal.

But the decision might not be as courageous as Dick’s executives have portrayed it to be. That’s because the company has not sold AR-15 style rifles at its main stores since 2012, when it removed the guns from the shelves of its Dick’s-branded locations.

Instead, Dick’s had only been selling the rifles at its chain of Field & Stream stores, a much smaller subsidiary that specializes in hunting, fishing and camping gear. While Dick’s operates more than 600 main store locations across the U.S., there are only 35 Field & Stream retail locations.

That's weird for your link to say they are portraying corageousnessitdude when there announcement says exactly what your quote is criticizing them for, only they left on "in response to Sandy Hook" part.

(Didn't click on the link. Daily caller lost my click for $.00001)

From Dick's FB page

[Holman]

An AR-15 isn't a high powered weapon. Far from it.

Most AR-15s fire a .223 caliber. The fifth round from the left on this chart.

[CHART]

There are what over dozen more powerful rounds?

I've read all my life that the .223 (5.56mm) round was developed to tumble when it hit a human body and cause maximum internal injuries.

That's why we chose it for the M-16 against earlier service rifles' larger .30 (7.62mm) round, which was more likely to cut straight through.

[Rip]

Exactly.

I don't currently own a gun. I have before and may in the future.

No matter I am against a gun ban. I am ok with reasonable background checks and restrictions to prevent ownership by high risk persons such as the mentally unstable, domestic abusers, and felons.

Are you against limiting access to high powered weapons designed to do this?

I was looking at a CT scan of one of the mass-shooting victims from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, who had been brought to the trauma center during my call shift. The organ looked like an overripe melon smashed by a sledgehammer, and was bleeding extensively. How could a gunshot wound have caused this much damage?

The reaction in the emergency room was the same. One of the trauma surgeons opened a young victim in the operating room, and found only shreds of the organ that had been hit by a bullet from an AR-15, a semiautomatic rifle that delivers a devastatingly lethal, high-velocity bullet to the victim. Nothing was left to repair—and utterly, devastatingly, nothing could be done to fix the problem. The injury was fatal.

An AR-15 isn't a high powered weapon. Far from it.

Most AR-15s fire a .223 caliber. The fifth round from the left on this chart.

[CHART]

There are what over dozen more powerful rounds?

Of course getting hit with a bullet from a rifle is devastatingly lethal. Hunting large animals like a bear with something that wasn't would be a fool's errand.

So yes I am against banning any particular semi-automatic weapon.

I've read all my life that the .223 (5.56mm) round was developed to tumble when it hit a human body and cause maximum internal injuries.

That's why we chose it for the M-16 against earlier service rifles' larger .30 (7.62mm) round, which was more likely to cut straight through.

The damage caused by the 5.56 mm bullet was originally believed to be caused by "tumbling" due to the slow 1 in 14-inch (360 mm) rifling twist rate.[44][57] However, any pointed lead core bullet will "tumble" after penetration in flesh, because the center of gravity is towards the rear of the bullet. The large wounds observed by soldiers in Vietnam were actually caused by bullet fragmentation, which was created by a combination of the bullet's velocity and construction.[59] These wounds were so devastating, that the photographs remained classified into the 1980s.

It is really about velocity as much as anything. Here is a good article on the 5.56 versus the 7.62 which is more common and used in the AK-47.

https://www.swggun.org/5-56-vs-7-62/

and this shows how much more powerful a couple other popular hunting rounds are.

https://www.swggun.org/30-30-vs-30-06/

https://www.swggun.org/7mm-08-vs-308/

[Holman]

So you're arguing that a round designed to kill humans and that has done so thousands upon thousands upon thousands of times is not "powerful."

Maybe the Stoneman Douglas shooter's victims should have just walked it off?

[Rip]

So you're arguing that a round designed to kill humans and that has done so thousands upon thousands upon thousands of times is not "powerful."

Maybe the Stoneman Douglas shooter's victims should have just walked it off?

I'm arguing that the same rounds that are good for killing people are good for killing game. So not willing to make them illegal, period.

[Holman]

Right. People will starve without AR-15s.

Think of the frontier farmsteads!!

You specifically rejected Jag's implication that the .223 was powerful, and I responded to that. Goalposts.

[Zaxxon]

[msteelers]

And he is their goddam own Senator. I can't wait to vote this little prick out.

We had our chance in 2016. I thought Patrick Murphy would have made an excellent Senator (he was my Representative before he ran for the Senate).

Now, we have to wait until 2022 to vote the little prick out.

[LawBeefaroni]

The damage caused by the 5.56 mm bullet was originally believed to be caused by "tumbling" due to the slow 1 in 14-inch (360 mm) rifling twist rate.[44][57] However, any pointed lead core bullet will "tumble" after penetration in flesh, because the center of gravity is towards the rear of the bullet. The large wounds observed by soldiers in Vietnam were actually caused by bullet fragmentation, which was created by a combination of the bullet's velocity and construction.[59] These wounds were so devastating, that the photographs remained classified into the 1980s.

It is really about velocity as much as anything. Here is a good article on the 5.56 versus the 7.62 which is more common and used in the AK-47.

Already addressed.

Tl;Dr, in the case of AR-15 in 5.56, their ability to be so lethal isn't in that they are so "high-powered". It is that the smaller, high velocity bullets do massive tissue and organ damage when they fragment and tumble upon impact.

It's not about "power", it's about velocity and terminal ballistics. But it's perfectly reasonable (if not technically correct) to call high velocity rounds "powerful".

Once again, it comes down to pedantics and vocabulary, doesn't it.

[Isgrimnur]

Or one could watch tests of the .223 and 7.62mm.

[Rip]

When someone says "high powered rifle" I think of something like this.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accuracy_ ... ional_AS50

Not some round that is found in more rifles than any other caliber. Kind of takes the point out of "high powered" when it is the predominant standard.

[Blackhawk]

Who cares about the silly semantics? We all know what's being discussed. You're not going to go after a boar with a .223, and you're not going to go after a squirrel with that .50 unless all you want is ears and a tail.

You also aren't going to need a quick succession of ten rounds for either. When you're hunting, one of three scenarios applies: you're going get a killing/wounding shot on the first round, you're going to miss and not have a second shot, or you're going to miss and have plenty of time to operate a bolt for a second shot.

Simply being able to hunt with it doesn't justify its legality. You can fish with C4.

[Rip]

Who cares about the silly semantics? We all know what's being discussed. You're not going to go after a boar with a .223, and you're not going to go after a squirrel with that .50 unless all you want is ears and a tail.

You also aren't going to need a quick succession of ten rounds for either. When you're hunting, one of three scenarios applies: you're going get a killing/wounding shot on the first round, you're going to miss and not have a second shot, or you're going to miss and have plenty of time to operate a bolt for a second shot.

Simply being able to hunt with it doesn't justify its legality. You can fish with C4.

You are right I would use something more powerful than a .223 for Boar. Probably a .308 or 30-06. For squirrel probably .22LR but a .223 could be used.

As far as reload time goes, a wild boar can run 30mph a bear can reach 35mph. That gives you what 7-10 seconds from 100 yards away? Thanks but not about to bet my life on how fast I can work a bolt action.

Don't need to justify its legality, it is up to those wishing to ban them to justify their illegality.