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.
I would say that any doctor who would actually publish that sort of nonsense need to lose their medical license. This is where having real world experience with firearms comes in handy. Whoever these "doctors" were they have some sort of agenda that propogating outright lies furthers. The AR 15 does not fire any special kind of ammunition. Most ammo shot through ARs is military style non expanding ball ammunition designed to actually do a minimum of damage. See Hauge Accords. Frangible ammunition designed to expand is forbidden by international treaty. "Military" ammunition is the LEAST damaging type of projectile that can be loaded.
Mostly it will just leave a through and through wound with small holes front and back which a real doctor will tell you is the type of wound with the most hope to treat well. A "standard" hunting round off the shelf from Cabelas is designed for expansion and deep penetration doing max damage in big game chamberings. Such ammo is available for the 223/5.56 but it is designed for lightweight varmints and in some loadings actually delivers all it's energy on the surface.
"Military" ammunition sound really scary though so anti firearms types have twisted it to mean that it is some sort of special highly destructive stuff. It's not. It is designed to wound not kill. If I had to get shot and medically treated I would much rather be hit by a "military" style 5.56 62 gr ball than a "standard" hunting round 30 06 180 gr Silvertip. Chances of survival are highly increased.
I choose to believe the ER doctors I've read who say those they've seen shot with AR type rounds are beyond saving where as, those shot with standard rounds have a chance.
hmm, I think you might have taken their words out of context. I seriously doubt AR type rounds are beyond saving, meaning, I seriously doubt once you got shot by AR, you are dead. The reason I am saying this is because soldiers and Marines on battlefield have been saved everyday and their wounds are (more often than not) way more devastating than AR type of wounds.
I am not a doctor, but one uncle is an emergency room doctor . From what I heard, at least I learned that For most gunshot victims, the loss of blood is the biggest immediate threat to life. Shock can set in quickly, followed by unconsciousness and death. If the femoral artery, a large blood vessel in the thigh, is severed or even nicked, that can happen within a matter of minutes.
Even though the patient wasn't in a lot of pain, I assume doctors knew the seriousness of the situation. If the victim didn't get help quickly, he.she would bleed to death right there on the sidewalk where he/she got shot.
Patients with gunshot wounds in their torso face a more uncertain path.
Getting from the scene to the hospital quickly is important, but getting to the scene in the first place is critical.
This said, I understand your point. By no means, am I suggesting AR type of wounds are no big deal. They are big deal. They crated a very different entry-exit point (so that I read, and I have no reasons to doubt its accuracy.). I personally have seen my friends' gunshot wounds (They were combat Marines). I must say it is a A Ghastly Thing to See. I hope I don't sound insensitive, but they have survived. Emotion aside, I still don't believe this should be the reason to ban AR type of rifle.
We must know why and how the AR-15 became mass shooter's first choice. They chose it because it is uncannily easy to use.
Last but not the least, the Mini-14 is also exactly the same caliber, can accept magazines the same capacity, and even operates in much the same way as the AR-15. The Mini-14 uses the Garand-style rotating-bolt action while the AR uses a compound linear-travel action, but they are both .223 Remington gas-operated rifles with detachable magazines. Which simply proves that Feinstein’s Assault Weapons Ban legislation (she’s authored every version of this bill from 1994 to today) doesn’t have any effect other than to benefit Sturm Ruger and maybe Springfield over every other manufacturer who went with the AR or AK pattern for their rifle models in this general class.
Simply put, if you want to ban AR15, "they" will find others to use.
I would say that any doctor who would actually publish that sort of nonsense need to lose their medical license. This is where having real world experience with firearms comes in handy. Whoever these "doctors" were they have some sort of agenda that propogating outright lies furthers. The AR 15 does not fire any special kind of ammunition. Most ammo shot through ARs is military style non expanding ball ammunition designed to actually do a minimum of damage. See Hauge Accords. Frangible ammunition designed to expand is forbidden by international treaty. "Military" ammunition is the LEAST damaging type of projectile that can be loaded.
Mostly it will just leave a through and through wound with small holes front and back which a real doctor will tell you is the type of wound with the most hope to treat well. A "standard" hunting round off the shelf from Cabelas is designed for expansion and deep penetration doing max damage in big game chamberings. Such ammo is available for the 223/5.56 but it is designed for lightweight varmints and in some loadings actually delivers all it's energy on the surface.
"Military" ammunition sound really scary though so anti firearms types have twisted it to mean that it is some sort of special highly destructive stuff. It's not. It is designed to wound not kill. If I had to get shot and medically treated I would much rather be hit by a "military" style 5.56 62 gr ball than a "standard" hunting round 30 06 180 gr Silvertip. Chances of survival are highly increased.
Did you read the second article?
The doctor quoted is a combat surgeon with real world experience.
"The wounds are just otherworldly," said Penn Medicine trauma surgeon Jeremy W. Cannon, an expert marksman who served with the Air Force in Iraq and Afghanistan. "You're talking big, giant cavities and a hole you can put your fist through."
Did you read the second article?
The doctor quoted is a combat surgeon with real world experience.
"The wounds are just otherworldly," said Penn Medicine trauma surgeon Jeremy W. Cannon, an expert marksman who served with the Air Force in Iraq and Afghanistan. "You're talking big, giant cavities and a hole you can put your fist through."
Say you gave me an AR-15, you would never turn me into the next mass shooter. It is a simple fact.
Regardless your political belief, we should all agree that "law" is used to regulate law-abiding citizens.
Yes, Bones are exploded, soft tissue is absolutely destroyed, it is a Ghastly Thing to see. So tell me this, why should the criminals have better (for lack of a better word) rifles than all of us? Most people don't want to be the last good citizens without it.
This said, I probably will never own one, but I don't think I have the heart to tell other law-abiding citizens "You can't have one, but the criminals can." or "stay in the gun free zone, you'd be safe" It is ridiculous to believe "gun free zone is safe".
I'm not against owning an AR, hell, I'd like one myself.
My issue, and I started a thread on this a while ago, is the average gun owner should not start out with a permit that allows him to own an AR.
I believe gun owners should get ahead of this before it is mandated to them. the mandate will certainly be worse than a well thought out plan for licensing.
If there were levels of ownership based on training and experience you wouldn't have 18 year Olds with high velocity/high capacity weapons the day after they get a permit.
Capacity is another area to monitor. I'm all for 5 shot magazines to start. prove you are trained and experienced before you get 30 round mags.
Semi Auto firearms are NOT assault weapons, and no politicians don't get to decide what something is or isn't, or force me to call something a label which is clearly inaccurate.
Semi auto firearms have been around since the late 1800's. Now all of a sudden we can't trust humans to possess them? I will tell you what IS dangerous. Arbitrarily taking away the RIGHTS of the law abiding citizen.
Ah, but in the open-mindedness of liberals/progressives they do have the right to insist you only use certain speech.
For example, the trannys now have so much clout among the PC types, you must refer to them as the gender they identity with, not what they factually are biologically. Thus if you were to refer to Bruce Jenner as a man of in the male vernacular, you can and should be punished in their warped minds.
As to guns themselves, we might not be forced to call them inaccurate names, but that will not stop them from using the worst sounding names to try and create a false narrative among the uneducated populace.
Don't think for a minute it is not intentional, trying to demonize something for their agenda.
Colt Ad from 1962 when it debuted to public market.
Show us where it says assault rifle.
Because I'm failing to see it...
Buzzwords and buzzphrases are subjective good feelz, hollow and empty, like the people's heads who regurgitate them to be inflammatory to conjure lemmings by the feelz to feel- since they're incapable of thinking, there is a substantial problem/threat needing adressing.
Have to admit... assault rifle assault weapon sounds intimidating and menacing...
We play fast and loose with definitions... Ban this. Ban that. Won't be long before grandpa Fudds marlin or winchester lever action is subjectively interpreted as an assault weapon/rifle.
Yet...
The supporting evidence is never provided. Just emote out and carry on incessantly like an immature child.
I mean, you would think if semi auto rifles were such a threat to society, homicides involving a rifle would be in the 10s of thousands correct?
Yet... when you look at data... both FBI and CDC and even some from the ATF...
The evidence does not exist to justify the tyrannical approach of restricting individuals liberty en masse for a false sense of security.
I can't call something something that it's not without supporting evidence.
Words have set in stone definitions. Yet... some think since it's cool and hip they can subjectively reinterpret definitions to further their agendas... Nah....
Indeed
They will be coming for these assault rifles soon enough;
So you claim to own all there, yet you blissfully enjoy your inaccurate terminology
Are any of your firearms semi-automatics?
If so, do you consider them "assault weapons"?
`
Quibbling over terms, grammar, nick names and whatever is pointless.
I've owned guns for 40 years and still don't know the term-of-the-month.
What I do know is the general public is tired of seeing massacres and us legal owners will be handcuffed with regulations if we do not get ahead of this.
Did you read the second article?
The doctor quoted is a combat surgeon with real world experience.
"The wounds are just otherworldly," said Penn Medicine trauma surgeon Jeremy W. Cannon, an expert marksman who served with the Air Force in Iraq and Afghanistan. "You're talking big, giant cavities and a hole you can put your fist through."
Possibly if an FMJ hits bone otherwise you'll look like you were stabbed with a pencil. Military ammo, aka hardball isn't even legal to use for hunting most all game because it wounds and doesn't efficiently expand enough to kill quickly.
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.
