Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Your continuing with the "exploding organs" just demonstrates how little knowledge about firearms and ballistics you have. Which means you then argue not from logic and intelligence but fro emotion and fear. That article you linked specifically takes advantage of your lack of knowledge and emotions.
Se below for a further explanation about "exploding organs".
So the doctor who treated the Parkland patients and described injuries, comparing these injuries to gun injuries she typically sees, as follows is wrong then?
Quote:
The organ looked like an overripe melon smashed by a sledgehammer, with extensive bleeding.
Quote:
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 semi-automatic rifle which delivers a devastatingly lethal, high-velocity bullet to the victim. There was nothing left to repair, and utterly, devastatingly, nothing that could be done to fix the problem. The injury was fatal.
Quote:
The bullet from an AR-15 passes through the body like a cigarette boat travelling at maximum speed through a tiny canal. The tissue next to the bullet is elastic—moving away from the bullet like waves of water displaced by the boat—and then returns and settles back. This process is called cavitation; it leaves the displaced tissue damaged or killed. The high-velocity bullet causes a swath of tissue damage that extends several inches from its path. It does not have to actually hit an artery to damage it and cause catastrophic bleeding. Exit wounds can be the size of an orange.
Quote:
Handgun injuries to the liver are generally survivable unless the bullet hits the main blood supply to the liver. An AR-15 bullet wound to the middle of the liver would cause so much bleeding that the patient would likely never make it to a trauma center to receive our care.
How would you describe such injuries then, Dr. North Beach Person?
So the doctor who treated the Parkland patients and described injuries, comparing these injuries to gun injuries she typically sees, as follows is wrong then?
How would you describe such injuries then, Dr. North Beach Person?
Just as an FYI, AR's have multiple calibers and those calibers can have different loads, so they don't all do what's described.
So the doctor who treated the Parkland patients and described injuries, comparing these injuries to gun injuries she typically sees, as follows is wrong then?
How would you describe such injuries then, Dr. North Beach Person?
You're not understanding that MOST bullets would inflict similar damage.
Larger and equally common bullets, like a .308 would have inflicted worse.
And hundreds died last year and the year before and are headed that way this year in Chicago (with STRONG gun laws) and yet they get none of this hand wringing or any of your or others that are gun haters angst.
Why is that?
One, do not call me a "gun hater." Enough of the me vs. you attitude. It's divisive and unhelpful. And I am not a "gun hater" anyway, so enough with your BS.
Two, there is a double standard with mass shootings and shootings in violent areas of cities like Chicago. HOWEVER, big differences tend to be that the guns used in mass shootings were often lawfully obtained and legally owned, and these mass shootings tend to happen out of nowhere to innocent people who were just going about their daily lives - at school, work, an outdoor concert.
Gun violence in places like Chicago is typically gang-related violence, people who choose to engage in a life of crime and get their hands on weapons they do not legally own. They choose to get involved in their stupid turf wars and whatever else goes on, and shoot each other. They are rather geographically isolated. And there tend to not be mass shootings in this type of scenario, either. The kids shot to death at school or the people at the Vegas concert were doing nothing wrong, not engaging in crime (at least not at the moment), did not have weapons in turn to defend themselves. They seemingly can happen anywhere, anytime. Mass shootings like these put people more on edge, and rightfully IMO.
You're not understanding that MOST bullets would inflict similar damage.
Larger and equally common bullets, like a .308 would have inflicted worse.
WOW that's comforting. Even better.
That admission did not help your argument. It actually helped mine. So thanks. My point is that the severity of the injuries and the short amount of time in which such damage can be inflicted is more important, at the end of the day, than technically getting it correct what category of guns, or whatever, was used. I am tired of seeing people try to correct people who say "assault weapons" or "automatic weapons." While it may be technically incorrect... it doesn't actually matter when you consider the fact that 17 kids just died at school last week in less than 10 minutes. It doesn't matter.
-except for slavery, lets's amend it and fix that
-also, black people should be able to vote, let's amend it and fix that
-oh, and women need to vote too, let's amend it and fix that
-people really seem to like their alcohol, let's repeal that amendment and fix that
-4th term president? Not a good idea, let's amend it and fix that
1st Rights to Religion, Speech, Press, Assembly, Petition
2nd Right to Bear Arms
3rd Quartering of Soldiers
4th Search and Seizure
5th Grand Jury, Double Jeopardy, Self-Incrimination, Due Process
6th Rights of Accused in Criminal Prosecutions: Rights to Jury Trial, to Confront Opposing Witnesses and to Counsel
7th Jury Trial
8th Protections against Excessive Bail, Cruel and Unusual Punishment
9th Non-Enumerated Rights
10th Rights Reserved to States
- The Constitution never said that slavery was a right of anyone.
- The Constitution never said that only white males could vote.
- Please point out where, before adding Amendment 15, it said that black people could not vote?
- Please point out where, before adding Amendment 19, it said that females could not vote?
Any decisions to deny anyone voting, or to allow slavery, was based on state's rights. It was never handed down that "no blacks or females" can vote from the Constitution. At no point in time did the Constitution say, "slavery is a right". All of those decisions were up to the states - I mean, we had a fricken Civil War because of it. Some states didn't like the Federal Government telling them that they couldn't exercise their rights as a state. (Amendment 10: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.)
The Constitution never said: "It is the right of people to own slaves." Nor did it say, "Only white males may vote, all others are restricted from voting."
- The 18th Amendment was not part of the original Constitution, it was added in 1920 and later repealed.
The 2nd Amendment is part of our Bill of Rights. It is always right. What you have failed to remember, as so many do, is that these are inalienable rights. No person gave them to us, no person can take them away.
That admission did not help your argument. It actually helped mine. So thanks. My point is that the severity of the injuries and the short amount of time in which such damage can be inflicted is more important, at the end of the day, than technically getting it correct what category of guns, or whatever, was used. I am tired of seeing people try to correct people who say "assault weapons" or "automatic weapons." While it may be technically incorrect... it doesn't actually matter when you consider the fact that 17 kids just died at school last week in less than 10 minutes. It doesn't matter.
No you're missing the point
But you have to realize it looks foolish to argue against guns and specifically ar15s when you don't realize there isn't anything unique about an ar15 and that all bullets inflict severe trauma on soft tissue. Its not just an ar15 issue.
The point I'm making is people who don't know about guns assume the ar15 is some death Ray. Comparatively speaking there are far deadlier guns out there.
The most common caliber AR15 bullet is a .223 / 5.56mm.
The smallest most common caliber in the world is .22LR. .22lr is the best small game (think squirrel or rabbit) gun or target practice, shooting introduction gun in the world
The actual bullet diameter from a .22lr to re ar15s .223 is .003. Like the size of a hair.
One, do not call me a "gun hater." Enough of the me vs. you attitude. It's divisive and unhelpful. And I am not a "gun hater" anyway, so enough with your BS.
Two, there is a double standard with mass shootings and shootings in violent areas of cities like Chicago. HOWEVER, big differences tend to be that the guns used in mass shootings were often lawfully obtained and legally owned, and these mass shootings tend to happen out of nowhere to innocent people who were just going about their daily lives - at school, work, an outdoor concert.
Gun violence in places like Chicago is typically gang-related violence, people who choose to engage in a life of crime and get their hands on weapons they do not legally own. They choose to get involved in their stupid turf wars and whatever else goes on, and shoot each other. They are rather geographically isolated. And there tend to not be mass shootings in this type of scenario, either. The kids shot to death at school or the people at the Vegas concert were doing nothing wrong, not engaging in crime (at least not at the moment), did not have weapons in turn to defend themselves. They seemingly can happen anywhere, anytime. Mass shootings like these put people more on edge, and rightfully IMO.
I tried to make it clear that "gun hater" was not aimed at you. Sorry if that's how you read it.
The 2nd Amendment is part of our Bill of Rights. It is always right. What you have failed to remember, as so many do, is that these are inalienable rights. No person gave them to us, no person can take them away.
It can most certainly can be taken away. Will it? Not likely.
Article V
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress;
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
