Gun ownership poll

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by BobbyStrawberry

Some people might buy one because of the look, sure. School shooters want them because of the damage they do with that "little baby" ammo.

But don't take my word for these things:

From a Trauma Center Radiologist

From the FBI

I don't want to get shot with a BB gun but 223s are baby ammo for rifles. If they are choosing them for their damage they are complete morons at best when it is one of the weakest rounds.

I have personaly shot many rifles including AR-15s. My 30-06 makes them look like a BB shot by a Daisy Red Rider.

Have you personaly fired any rifles or are you just finding info on the internet? Nothing wrong with that just trying to understand you POV on the 223 round.

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by bnorth

I don't want to get shot with a BB gun but 223s are baby ammo for rifles. If they are choosing them for their damage they are complete morons at best when it is one of the weakest rounds.

I have personaly shot many rifles including AR-15s. My 30-06 makes them look like a BB shot by a Daisy Red Rider.

Have you personaly fired any rifles or are you just finding info on the internet? Nothing wrong with that just trying to understand you POV on the 223 round.

My point was about the guns, not the ammo. And yes, I have. What do you think about how the Uvalde shooter obtained his weapons and ammo? Should something about that be changed? In addition to the shooter himself (and the cowardly, inept local cops) who bears responsibility for all the murdered schoolchildren?

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by BobbyStrawberry

My point was about the guns, not the ammo. And yes, I have. What do you think about how the Uvalde shooter obtained his weapons and ammo? Should something about that be changed? In addition to the shooter himself (and the cowardly, inept local cops) who bears responsibility for all the murdered schoolchildren?

I honestly do not follow that stuff or even care. I am glad there are people that do care but I don't.

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by bnorth

I honestly do not follow that stuff or even care. I am glad there are people that do care but I don't.

Fair enough! Such direct honestly on this thread is refreshing

[G1911]

5.56 is a lethal round, like any bullet. It is also one of the LEAST powerful rifle rounds. Go to your gun store and try to find a centerfire rifle caliber on the shelf that has less 'power'.

It's around 1,700-1,800 joules for standard ammunition. 7.62x51 is about 3,500. .30-06 is just shy of 4,000, for comparison to the major US rifle cartridges.

5.56 fired from an AR-15 is, of course, no less or more lethal than a 5.56 from any other arm with the same barrel length.

There is a reason 5.56 is not used for hunting anything more than a deer, and even then a heavier and different loading is used.

If someone wants to propose banning all rifle rounds or some strict regulation that is not a ban on them, then propose it. Pretending the AR-15 (a platform, not a cartridge) should be regulated differently or banned because it's standard chambering is extra powerful is just, time 5,002 here, absolutely factually wrong.

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by G1911

Pretending the AR-15 (a platform, not a cartridge) should be regulated differently or banned because it's standard chambering is extra powerful is just, time 5,002 here, absolutely factually wrong.

Who is pretending? The 10 year federal assault weapons ban has been mentioned on this thread. Was that pretend? Who on this thread is calling for guns to be banned now, other than your straw man?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by BobbyStrawberry

Who is pretending? The 10 year federal assault weapons ban has been mentioned on this thread. Was that pretend? Who on this thread is calling for guns to be banned now, other than your straw man?

"regulated differently or banned" is what I said, as you even quoted. Both have been proposed in this thread, several times. You surely know this.

Some on this page have proposed banning them, in this thread, very explicitly and directly. Several, including you, have suggested they are somehow more lethal than other rifles, which is simply false. You made the claim that 5.56 that is specially powerful (923, factually untrue), and said you don't propose a ban (928), then intimated support for some kind of stricter regulation for certain ages (930). "Regulated differently or banned" seems to encompass your own words and those of others in the recent debate in this thread.

Speaking of bans is a straw man? It's been the primary subject for the last several hundred posts and multiple, including some of the major participants, have proposed them. Again, every post is public record so you can validate this yourself.

You want to talk about the 1994 ban and simultaneously claim ban talk is a straw man? You are asking if I think the 1994 AW ban was "pretend" and then in the next sentence label talking about bans a straw man? You should at least put a few sentences before spinning a 180...

Why would you think that I think the 1994 ban was pretend, and was not a historical event that happened?