So one of the factors of late that is a point of discussion regarding AR-15s and their legality is the massive horrible wounds they apparently create (or more specifically, the .223 and 5.56 rounds). Medical personnel have noted that unlike say a 9mm which punches a clean hole in a person, with an AR-15, the person has a baseball or grapefruit sized hole and the internal organs are completely destroyed. Lungs gone, bones made into powder, etc...so some naturally are using this as a way to demand that these weapons be banned, that they are extra-super-lethal.
As gun people, I am thinking that we need to know how to explain this to anti's and to fence-sitters. Now I have never shot anybody or hunted any animals, so I do not know wound ballistics first-hand, however from what I have read, one of the problems with hand guns like a 9mm is that while the wound is a lot less severe, the stopping power of such weapons can also be a lot less. For example, I have read about criminals, especially drugged-up criminals, taking a multitude of shots and not dropping, and then there was that woman in Georgia defending herself and her child who shot the guy five times with a revolver and he didn't drop (lucky for her, he ran out of there however as he decided he'd been shot enough).
Now there was a prior thread related to this not too long ago, but it got closed down. In it, I noticed some people talking about animals they'd hunted and how the ammunition had done some real devastation to the internals of the animal. So what I am thinking is that it seems that any kind of ammunition from a firearm that has real stopping power is going to by its nature just be very devastating to the body. With animals and hunting, you want ammunition that will drop the animal quickly, so that it doesn't just get shot, run away, and die a slow death. To bring it down fast, the ammunition thus does severe internal damage it seems.
With humans, it sounds like a similar case. You shoot someone with a handgun, it may bring the person down, or it may not immediately do so, especially if they are a big person and on drugs. However, with something like an AR-15 chambered in .223 or 5.56 or say a 12 gauge shotgun firing 00 buckshot or slugs, the effect is very devastating. So what I would explain to anti's and fence sitters, based on my current knowledge if asked, is that yes, those weapons will likely do terrible damage to the body, but that is the point. They are meant to be able to kill someone quickly, not allow the person to keep walking around for some time. So they cause devastating effects to the internals of the body. It is just what's necessary to make them where the person will drop quickly. Handguns definitely can kill, but are more limited due to their size.
Was wondering your thoughts? This is IMO an important part of this subject that we need to be able to explain to people, to everyone from regular folk to government representatives at hearings on legislation.
As gun people, I am thinking that we need to know how to explain this to anti's and to fence-sitters. Now I have never shot anybody or hunted any animals, so I do not know wound ballistics first-hand, however from what I have read, one of the problems with hand guns like a 9mm is that while the wound is a lot less severe, the stopping power of such weapons can also be a lot less. For example, I have read about criminals, especially drugged-up criminals, taking a multitude of shots and not dropping, and then there was that woman in Georgia defending herself and her child who shot the guy five times with a revolver and he didn't drop (lucky for her, he ran out of there however as he decided he'd been shot enough).
Now there was a prior thread related to this not too long ago, but it got closed down. In it, I noticed some people talking about animals they'd hunted and how the ammunition had done some real devastation to the internals of the animal. So what I am thinking is that it seems that any kind of ammunition from a firearm that has real stopping power is going to by its nature just be very devastating to the body. With animals and hunting, you want ammunition that will drop the animal quickly, so that it doesn't just get shot, run away, and die a slow death. To bring it down fast, the ammunition thus does severe internal damage it seems.
With humans, it sounds like a similar case. You shoot someone with a handgun, it may bring the person down, or it may not immediately do so, especially if they are a big person and on drugs. However, with something like an AR-15 chambered in .223 or 5.56 or say a 12 gauge shotgun firing 00 buckshot or slugs, the effect is very devastating. So what I would explain to anti's and fence sitters, based on my current knowledge if asked, is that yes, those weapons will likely do terrible damage to the body, but that is the point. They are meant to be able to kill someone quickly, not allow the person to keep walking around for some time. So they cause devastating effects to the internals of the body. It is just what's necessary to make them where the person will drop quickly. Handguns definitely can kill, but are more limited due to their size.
Was wondering your thoughts? This is IMO an important part of this subject that we need to be able to explain to people, to everyone from regular folk to government representatives at hearings on legislation.