Quote:
Originally Posted by BobbyStrawberry
Man, all you are doing is obfuscating over and over. Did you have any reaction to the numberous articles that have been shared on this thread? That might give people a break.
|
Yes, answering your questions that you chose to ask, in all their directly contradictory glory, is obfuscating. I'm sorry you completely contradicted yourself one sentence to the next and made a claim that is simply untrue, while you ignored the "or" to try and twist what I actually said (again, transcript!) to be easier to take down.
As I've said before, I think arguing by authority is irrational and silly and I am more interested in people's actual idea's than in whatever opinion article they've linked, on both sides. From a TikTok from a conservative to an op-ed by a liberal, I don't see as evidence for one side or another; it's someones opinion who is not here to answer questions, go into detail, or engage in dialectic. I wrote extensively about one earlier, but okay, here's your two:
I genuinely do not know what you are looking to hear about the first one. It is a brief transcript of an FBI statement that they did not follow up on a tip about the Parkland shooter. Maybe they should have! There's not much beneath the obvious surface to engage with on this. What is our idea here we want to dive into? 'If the FBI has credible information that someone might be planning a massacre, should they look into it?'. Obviously. Not a single person has implied that they should not.
The second is what you seem to have used for the false claim that 5.56 is specially or abnormally powerful, when it is one of the weakest of all rifle calibers. Read what the author actually claims, besides the appeal to emotion. They are comparing 5.56 to "thousands of handgun injuries"; all very carefully phrased to subsequently use "gunshot wounds" and similar phrasing after specifically stipulating only handguns as the framework of comparison. The trauma she feels over seeing the carnage is, I'm sure, real and would be experienced by any decent person. Her pretense as a 'trauma center radiologist' that she was stunned to see rifle wounds are more severe than handgun wounds is, of course, extremely unlikely to be true. I would think people who work in gunshot injuries are aware of what the vast majority of Americans are aware of. I would hope every single person here already knows that a rifle cartridge is more powerful than a pistol cartridge. That is, literally, what makes it a rifle class cartridge and not a pistol one. If the gun that fires this cartridge should be treated differently, as some have said and you heavily implied in 930, then one must hold that the same is true for every gun that is MORE powerful; which is essentially every single arm chambered for a rifle cartridge, or the position is contradictory and illogical.
You can measure the energy a cartridge produces, you can don't have to take my word for it. Any person who knows anything about the subject will tell you the same, as the people in this thread with some firearms experience have done. 5.56x45mm, the standard chambering of an AR-15, is a low-level rifle cartridge. It is not very effective over much distance, it's low recoil is a result of this relatively weak cartridge. When I am teaching someone new to shoot, a 5.56 is the first gun they get to shoot after a .22lr plinker, because of this. This article does not even claim what you have interpreted it to mean in 923. 5.56 is not the standard of choice for mass murderers because it has some unique ability or power or damage to humans. It's because it has been the standard, most commonly encountered and used rifle cartridge for decades, and it's not really even close. Yes, rifle rounds are more powerful than pistol rounds. Do we not all already know this?