AR-15 Rifles: The instruments of slaughter & murder in America

[Moon]

“The bullets fired by an AR-15 are different: They travel at a higher velocity and are far more lethal than routine bullets fired from a handgun. The damage they cause is a function of the energy they impart as they pass through the body. A typical AR-15 bullet leaves the barrel traveling almost three times faster than—and imparting more than three times the energy of—a typical 9mm bullet from a handgun. An AR-15 rifle outfitted with a magazine with 50 rounds allows many more lethal bullets to be delivered quickly without reloading.”

What I Saw Treating the Victims From Parkland Should Change the Debate on Guns

They weren’t the first mass-shooting victims the Florida radiologist saw—but their wounds were radically different.

www.theatlantic.com

There you go toting those goalposts around again. Your comment earlier was a comparison of the time difference between the two weapons, not the ammo.

 

[braindrain]

The author of the opinion piece seems to think high velocity bullets are unique to AR-15s. Actually, she is smart enough to be a radiologist, so I'm going to assume she's a little smarter than a turnip and she's just lying in her implication.

Yep. The author of that article and those who try and peddle it are either dishonest or horrible uneducated on the topic they are trying to act like experts on.

 

[Chase Morgan]

“The bullets fired by an AR-15 are different: They travel at a higher velocity and are far more lethal than routine bullets fired from a handgun. The damage they cause is a function of the energy they impart as they pass through the body. A typical AR-15 bullet leaves the barrel traveling almost three times faster than—and imparting more than three times the energy of—a typical 9mm bullet from a handgun. An AR-15 rifle outfitted with a magazine with 50 rounds allows many more lethal bullets to be delivered quickly without reloading.”

What I Saw Treating the Victims From Parkland Should Change the Debate on Guns

They weren’t the first mass-shooting victims the Florida radiologist saw—but their wounds were radically different.

www.theatlantic.com

And many (delusional) gun neanderthals actually believe that the 2a's 18th-century author, jimmy "musket" madison, envisioned that level of firepower being available to future plebs and would've had no problem with it...

 

[braindrain]

There you go toting those goalposts around again. Your comment earlier was a comparison of the time difference between the two weapons, not the ammo.

Wait you were expecting honesty. How silly.

 

[braindrain]

And many (delusional) gun neanderthals actually believe that the 2a's 18th-century author, jimmy "musket" madison, envisioned that level of firepower being available to future plebs and would've had no problem with it...

Just like those silly 1st amendment clowns that think the 1st applies to modern communication technology. As if any founder could imagine the internet.

 

[Moon]

Wait you were expecting honesty. How silly.

It’s the optimist in me, can’t help it.

 

[Chase Morgan]

Just like those silly 1st amendment clowns that think the 1st applies to modern communication technology. As if any founder could imagine the internet.

We'll talk when some teenage maniac mows down a couple dozen elementary school kids with an iPhone...

 

[RF667799]

We'll talk when some teenage maniac mows down a couple dozen elementary school kids with an iPhone...

Phones aren't used to facilitate crime?

I'm thinking they're used to facilitate so much crime, I'm going to have to consider adding them to the items that require background checks for possession.

Of course, you probably hate the idea of background checks.

 

[braindrain]

We'll talk when some teenage maniac mows down a couple dozen elementary school kids with an iPhone...

Ah so amendments only apply to modern technology if they meet some arbitrary level of dangerousness. Can you highlight the part of the Constitution that lays that out.

And if you don’t think social media hasn’t played a role in plenty of violent acts then I don’t know what to tell you.

 

[RF667799]

Ah so amendments only apply to modern technology if they meet some arbitrary level of dangerousness. Can you highlight the part of the Constitution that lays that out.

And if you don’t think social media hasn’t played a role in plenty of violent acts then I don’t know what to tell you.

He'll talk about it when some maniac uses a phone to remotely detonate an IED.

 

[Ginger Ale]

Haven’t seen much headway made so far. Best of luck.

The Republicans are acting so idiot lately, after the blue wave in Nov. it will get easier. I just have to rely on those Trumpers to act so ridiculous nobody will vote them in out of fear of living in a Christian Nation, with Christian Nationalist like Marjorie Greene leading the way. So far, they're doing a great job!

With a Republican minority in the house, and senate, they won't be blocking much anymore. They're my biggest asset. They're already getting me closer to my goal. So don't you worry about me, worry about yourself.

 

[RF667799]

The Republicans are acting so idiot lately, after the blue wave in Nov. it will get easier. I just have to rely on those Trumpers to act so ridiculous nobody will vote them in out of fear of living in a Christian Nation, with Christian Nationalist like Marjorie Greene leading the way. So far, they're doing a great job!

With a Republican minority in the house, and senate, they won't be blocking much anymore. They're my biggest asset. They're already getting me closer to my goal. So don't you worry about me, worry about yourself.

You'll need 3/4 of the states too.

 

[OpportunityCost]

The murder rate per million people is FOUR TIMES greater in the US than in Britain. The clear reason is the availability of guns in the US, which makes it much easier to commit murder.

And the other crimes? C'mon, don't just pick the statistic you like...

 

[Port & Starboard]

The trial of the hateful liar Alex Jones got me to thinking about how the gun wackos get extremely upset when the term "slaughter" is used in reference to mass murders in a very short period of time by a shooter wielding an assault-style rifle. '

Let's take a look at the definition to see if the term slaughter applies. Here is a sample definition that I found numerous times in a Google search of different dictionary definitions: "to kill a large number of people indiscriminately".

Now let's take a look at some of the AR-15 mass murder events of the past 10 years or so:
he following is a partial list of when an AR-15-style weapon was used in a mass shooting:

• Feb. 14, 2018: Shooting at Stoneman Douglas High School shooting in Florida leaves 17 people dead.
• Oct. 1, 2017: The Las Vegas slaughter of 58 people.
• Nov. 5, 2017: The Sutherland Springs, Texas, church shooting that claimed 26 lives.
• June 12, 2016: The Pulse nightclub shooting in Orlando, Fla., that left 49 dead.
• Dec. 2, 2015: The San Bernardino, Calif., shooting that killed 14 people.
• Dec. 14, 2012: The shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut that took 27 lives.

Where AR-15-style rifles fit in America's tragic history of mass shootings

The weapon used to carry out the mass shooting in Uvalde, Texas, is one all too familiar to Americans and lawmakers who have witnessed mass shootings occur over the past decade.

www.npr.org

And thus it sure looks like the term "slaughter" can apply to the events listed above, given that they are indeed "indiscriminate" killings since, in almost all cases, the murderer did not know the victims. I suppose that the gun wackos will complain that a "large number" of people were not killed, but I would have to ask them how many murders in a very short time with an assault-style rifle they would need in order to verify that it was a "slaughter".
To me, the killings of 27, 14, 49, 26, 58, and 17 sure seems like a "large number" given that these people were living normal lives up until the second before the slaughter began. The only question is when the next slaughter by AR-15 will happen, and how many will be murdered then.

4 weekends in Chicago can top that total easily and they mainly use pistols.

60 shootings last weekend alone

 

[braindrain]

The Republicans are acting so idiot lately, after the blue wave in Nov. it will get easier. I just have to rely on those Trumpers to act so ridiculous nobody will vote them in out of fear of living in a Christian Nation, with Christian Nationalist like Marjorie Greene leading the way. So far, they're doing a great job!

With a Republican minority in the house, and senate, they won't be blocking much anymore. They're my biggest asset. They're already getting me closer to my goal. So don't you worry about me, worry about yourself.

Like I said earlier good luck with that.

But deep down we both know there is no constitutional amendment anywhere on the horizon. But if you want to cling to your delusions who am I to pop your bubble.

 

[Disputatious71]

The question that you have never answered honestly: why would a mass murderer use an AR-15 as his weapon of choice?

The type of gun used in most US homicides is not an AR-15​

And yet it appears that this article refutes the OP and this thread ...

 

[watsup]

4 weekends in Chicago can top that total easily and they mainly use pistols.

60 shootings last weekend alone

View attachment 67404989

Goal post moving.

 

[Moon]

Goal post moving.

Says the goal post mover.

 

[Willie Orwontee]

I suppose that the gun wackos will complain that a "large number" of people were not killed, but I would have to ask them how many murders in a very short time with an assault-style rifle they would need in order to verify that it was a "slaughter".

Your immature emotionally charged verbiage aside, that an AR platform rifle with a standard sized magazine is an efficient killing / war fighting tool is not the rationale to ban it, it is the rationale, the legal basis for that type of arm's protection under the 2nd Amendment, for private citizen possession and use.

The criteria that SCOTUS uses to determine if a gun is afforded 2ndA protection (which actually means government is powerless to restrict its possession and use) dates back to 1939.

It says that if the arm is of a type that is part of the ordinary military equipment, and of a type that is usual in civilized warfare and/or if its use could contribute to the common defense or simply, of a type in common use by the citizens, the power claimed by government to restrict its possession and use by individual citizens must be repelled (or invalidated if already in force).

Heller in 2008, clarified that the 2nd Amendment's protection criteria is not stuck in a time capsule; the 2ndA's protection "extends . . . to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding".

In Heller, the Court only used the "in common use" test to invalidate the DC handgun ban . . . The other criteria remain ready to be cited and applied when a salty weapon ban finally comes before the Court, ALL the criteria will be employed to invalidate that law because those arms called "assault weapons" meet ALL the criteria.

.

 

[watsup]

There you go toting those goalposts around again. Your comment earlier was a comparison of the time difference between the two weapons, not the ammo.

The “lethality” of the assault-style rifle due to the manner in which its ammo rips apart the body results in more deaths (as opposed to survivable injuries) than when a handgun is used. The AR-15 was developed to do just that—to kill as many people as possible in a very short amount of time. In other words, to “slaughter”.

 

[watsup]

P

"fairing rapid fire? AR only shoots as fast as the shooter can pull the trigger.

45 to 60 rounds per minute with a large magazine attached results in a “slaughter” when used by a mass murderer. How many could have been killed with a handgun from the window in Las Vegas? Only a fraction.

 

[Willie Orwontee]

The “lethality” of the assault-style rifle due to the manner in which its ammo rips apart the body results in more deaths (as opposed to survivable injuries) than when a handgun is used. The AR-15 was developed to do just that—to kill as many people as possible in a very short amount of time. In other words, to “slaughter”.

You are doing a bang-up job explaining why the AR-15 can't be banned.

 

[KevinKohler]

The question that you have never answered honestly: why would a mass murderer use an AR-15 as his weapon of choice?

Why do some guys shake it more than twice?

 

[rahl]

The trial of the hateful liar Alex Jones got me to thinking about how the gun wackos get extremely upset when the term "slaughter" is used in reference to mass murders in a very short period of time by a shooter wielding an assault-style rifle. '

Let's take a look at the definition to see if the term slaughter applies. Here is a sample definition that I found numerous times in a Google search of different dictionary definitions: "to kill a large number of people indiscriminately".

Now let's take a look at some of the AR-15 mass murder events of the past 10 years or so:
he following is a partial list of when an AR-15-style weapon was used in a mass shooting:

• Feb. 14, 2018: Shooting at Stoneman Douglas High School shooting in Florida leaves 17 people dead.
• Oct. 1, 2017: The Las Vegas slaughter of 58 people.
• Nov. 5, 2017: The Sutherland Springs, Texas, church shooting that claimed 26 lives.
• June 12, 2016: The Pulse nightclub shooting in Orlando, Fla., that left 49 dead.
• Dec. 2, 2015: The San Bernardino, Calif., shooting that killed 14 people.
• Dec. 14, 2012: The shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut that took 27 lives.

Where AR-15-style rifles fit in America's tragic history of mass shootings

The weapon used to carry out the mass shooting in Uvalde, Texas, is one all too familiar to Americans and lawmakers who have witnessed mass shootings occur over the past decade.

www.npr.org

And thus it sure looks like the term "slaughter" can apply to the events listed above, given that they are indeed "indiscriminate" killings since, in almost all cases, the murderer did not know the victims. I suppose that the gun wackos will complain that a "large number" of people were not killed, but I would have to ask them how many murders in a very short time with an assault-style rifle they would need in order to verify that it was a "slaughter".
To me, the killings of 27, 14, 49, 26, 58, and 17 sure seems like a "large number" given that these people were living normal lives up until the second before the slaughter began. The only question is when the next slaughter by AR-15 will happen, and how many will be murdered then.

Ar's are used in less than 1% of shootings

 

[poppopfox]

And many (delusional) gun neanderthals actually believe that the 2a's 18th-century author, jimmy "musket" madison, envisioned that level of firepower being available to future plebs and would've had no problem with it...