How to Defend the Wounds Caused by Guns Like AR-15s

If you see what .223 does at close range and haven’t before, you will probably be surprised.
To deny the damage caused by high velocity bullets is dishonest. It’s not the most powerful and there’s plenty to top it.
 
Guns are deadly weapons. The right of individuals to own them and have them in a state that allows them to be readily used for defense as Heller notes is an individual right is predicated on the fact that they are deadly weapons.

We gain nothing in allowing an argument that focuses on "this caliber is simply too deadly" especially if we allow the argument to be focused on the .223.

Think about it. How do you codify the "deadliness" of the .223 (or 5.56 or whatever)? Energy, size, projectile weight? None of these are going to only address the .223. As a "weapon of war" which in countries in Europe has also addressed the 9MM and 7.62 among others. In the end what does it matter? Make the .223 a illegal too specifically and the 6.5CM becomes more widely adopted and has changed nothing.

Guns are deadly. The .223 is not exceptionally deadly or not deadly. For all the doctors talking about "vaporized bone" is there evidence? Physical and graphic evidence beyond accounts should be readily available. Of course a rifle is more deadly then a pistol.

The argument for the individual right to bear arms does not deny the effectiveness of such arms. In fact, to some degree, it relies on it.
 
Medical personnel have noted that unlike say a 9mm which punches a clean hole in a person
Click to expand...

There's nothing nice or clean about the wounds created by supersonic jacketed hollow points...... in truth, there is nothing nice or clean about any bullet wound...... that some wounds are less severe than others is a PC distinction akin to some excrement is stinkier than others ..... so you should only be allowed this kind of diet, or this amount of food...... so that your excrement won't smell as bad.

I think this whole line of reasoning is severely flawed: The purpose of the gun is to stop the assailant from doing whatever it was he was doing that got him shot. The "only shoot him a little" flavor of this is total crap. If I need to shoot somebody, I'm doing it with as much gun as is available.......... pistols are portable, and that's why folks carry them. In a fight, I'd much rather have as much as I can have, while still being able to move .....

..... Going down the road of "You only need ________." is stupid. Since when does somebody else get to decide what my Rights are, based upon what they perceive to be my "need"?
 
"How to Defend the Wounds Caused by Guns Like AR-15s"
It would be a no win conversation. I have never had someone ask me to defend the types of wounds made by guns. They have wonder why I like guns, why we should have guns, and if I have shot anybody. I would guess if asked I would have to say "with a wound like that their ability to harm has been diminished."
 
An example of an AR-15 failing to stop, would be in Vietnam.

The M16 in Vietnam, failed to stop the NVA/VC on occasion, because they were junked up on opium and/or meth. They took hits from .50 caliber machine guns, and kept coming. Now that would be a devastating wound, a .50 BMG round, into a human body.

That could happen in America, with an AR-15, shooting someone high on meth.
If a critic doesn't understand that, then they are being obstinate, and they are unteachable. High cap mags serve a useful purpose in defense against maniacs, who are not stopped with 2 or 3 shots. Instead it may take 10 or 12, who knows?
 
Last edited:
I still don't get the original purpose. As said above, guns are lethal. The 223s have been proven to kill many folks in rampages.

Discussing this in any manner will just prime negative attitudes towards the weapons if you don't believe we should have such. I agree with that analysis.

We cannot win any argument by claimed a certain gun is 'nicer' than others so we should be able to have it.

Unless, we can invent reliable phasers on stun, this is not a useful path.
 
One more mass shooting with an AR-15 and
the argument for owning them, particularly
with high cap magazines, will be closed.

It might not be logical especially from a
very pro-gun owner's point of view but
that logic will carry no weight.

A counter argument might be statistics
that show the AR-15 in private
ownership hands has stemmed or
stopped a large number of attacks
by criminals etc. Not what "might be"
but what is the current statistical evidence.
 
Maybe direct the "grapefruit-sized powdered bone" crowd to Blackhawk Down for anecdotal evidence that the M4, under some conditions, creates a wound akin to poking someone with an ice pick, passing right through without doing much more damage than you'd do with a .22 rimfire.
 
RickB is correct , using a M16 in the military , most 16 rounds were through & through . Only the older M16's did a better job ,the wounds were horrific . The military corrected the problem . A 5.56 round is no different then any other round . Whether a shotgun with double O buck or a 22 lr.they all do damage . It's the shooter you have to be concerned with not the bullet.
 
Last edited:
Whitetail deer are smaller and lighter than average adults. Typically they run somewhere around 125 pounds, IIRC.
Click to expand...

That depends on where you live. In South Florida a 100 lb deer is huge, many are under 50. Around 125-180 is typical in many places, but in others over 200 isn't unusual, and in parts of Canada and the NE USA 300-400 lbs isn't unheard of.

But even the big ones aren't hard to kill. A 223 cartridge with a bullet designed for big game kills all of them just fine. You do have to limit range, and pick shots more carefully than with other cartridges. It's no different than choosing to hunt with archery or muzzle loaders.

Many non gun people have been led to believe that the AR-15 shoots a round much more powerful than a typical hunting cartridge. A friend once asked me about why I wanted to hunt with an AR 15. "It is like hunting with a rifle on steroids" he asked. I simply showed him a 223 cartridge and a 30-06 cartridge. He then understood.

Another thing that bothers me is when I see guys with military experience claim that AR's shouldn't be owned by civilians. These guys may well understand military weapons, but they are apparently clueless about hunting weapons. As a hunter I know darn well that many of my hunting rifles and shotguns would be every bit as effective in most of these shootings. Having an AR is not an advantage when walking around shooting unarmed kids in a crowded hallway. It does help level the field when being shot at by multiple attackers.

That is the point that I try to make when talking to people who ask. If "assault weapons" could somehow be banned and all of them rounded up and destroyed it wouldn't prevent any of this. People who want to do bad things will still do it.
 
The guy who fired a wore out M-16A4 in basic and might have been issued a Beretta while he worked inside a FOB is about as bad as some political pundits when it comes to talking about guns.

As a vet, I loathe the guy or girl who flouts their armed service as some sort of professional qualification to discuss firearms.
 
Lohman446 said:
The argument for the individual right to bear arms does not deny the effectiveness of such arms. In fact, to some degree, it relies on it.
Click to expand...
Like the apocryphal story of the old Texas Ranger who carried a cocked-and-locked 1911 on his belt? Someone noticed the cocked hammer one day and asked him if that wasn't dangerous. The Ranger allegedly replied, "Shucks, if it wasn't dangerous I wouldn't carry it."
 
I’m a vet and I had a lengthy service. Very few soldiers are firearms experts, that’s just a fact. I learned more about guns outside the army than I did while in.
When people use that as a qualifier to say that civilians shouldn’t own weapons really, really irks me.
I’ve noticed a disturbing trend on social media and in the comments sections too: there’s a great deal of people claiming to be veterans saying that civilians should not own these weapons. A lot of focus is on the caliber, probably even more than magazine capacity. Good thing that I see, real veterans pick apart the frauds fairly quickly and expose them as such. But, there are real vets who say the same rhetoric.
 
I would ask if it is ok with them if school kids are murdered with handguns, shotguns or other rifles besides ars. Do we want this to be about keeping bad guns out of the hands of everyone or about keeping all guns out of the hands of bad people who are shooting up schools?
 
I ask them to remember that police response times are not incredible and that is assuming the call is even made. I then ask them to imagine a scenario where I, haven taken an “upper”, have had s psychotic break and believe killing them is a vital need. I ask them, absent a firearm, what they think their chances are. I then point out that there are actual convicted killers out there inFAR better shape than me. How certain do you want your means of defense to be? Deadly does help with being certain? What about your daughters?

I don’t NEED an AR-15. A 12 gauge, a Winchester model 94, or various other things will work for me. I have the skill and build to use them effectively. I don’t believe the most likely threat is a large gang of skillful operators. However even against a single individual the hypothetical “your” or “your daughter’s” best defense may reside in the deadliness of a weapon like the AR-15 and it’s combination of speed of shots, stopping power, and limited recoil. The effectiveness of the AR15 in the hands of even a minimally skilled user is precisely the reason they should be protected. They are a tremendous equalizer should someone like my 120 lb 18 year old need to stop a 200 pound skilled fighter
 
Educating someone who has already determined guns are bad is just a bad idea.
Think of the path you are taking them down.

"If you think a 5.56 is bad, you should see what a 30-06 does!"
"did you know that you don't need a bump stock to auto fire an AR, all you need is your belt".

The discussion should be about criminals who commit crimes.
If you are truly concerned about children, look at the top 3 things that kills our youth and let's work on the low hanging fruit.
It should be about the right to defend ourselves and our families.
 
rickyrick said:
But, there are real vets who say the same rhetoric.
Click to expand...
Yes, there are. I worked with one for a couple of years (Marine, and -- like me -- a Vietnam veteran). The other one I know is a good friend, and he is a shooter -- but he shoots hunting rifles and has no problem with universal background checks, assault weapon bans, or any of the current crop of useless, anti-gun proposals. In fact, he favors them -- they don't affect what he shoots.

[Yes, I know -- "not yet."]

It's disappointing, to say the least.
 
Last edited:
jmr40 said:
Many non gun people have been led to believe that the AR-15 shoots a round much more powerful than a typical hunting cartridge.
Click to expand...
Perhaps, but the problem today is that many are convinced that the AR is simply more lethal than most other firearms, and you're not going to convince them otherwise with your esoteric and arcane knowledge of ballistics. Quite the contrary, actually.

If you tell them it's not the round it fires, then they'll move along to the magazine it accepts, then to the fact that it takes detachable magazines, and lastly to the mere facts that it's semi-automatic and a rifle. None of this does us any kind of good.

The whole intermediate-caliber argument needs to be buried in the deep hole. I'd suggest under the reactor at Chernobyl, where it will become so radioactive that nobody will want to dig it back up.
Glenn E. Meyer said:
We cannot win any argument by claim[ing that] a certain gun is 'nicer' than others so we should be able to have it.
Click to expand...
Yup. The argument we need to win is whether armed self-defense by private citizens is justifiable. If so, then EFFECTIVE armed self defense is in turn justifiable. All else flows from that.
 
Yup. The argument we need to win is whether armed self-defense by private citizens is justifiable. If so, then EFFECTIVE armed self defense is in turn justifiable. All else flows from that.
Click to expand...

Exactly.
No disrespect, but allowing ourselves to be sucked into believing that we need to defend something like a wound caused by a bullet from a particular firearm is simply handing our opposition the reigns to drive us to our defeat.
We've got to stand firm together.
What Spats wrote, "Not one more inch. We've given enough."
 
Last edited:
A question: is the .223 and 5.56 unique in that they fragment, which from my understanding is what causes the massive damage, or do other rounds such as .308 and 7.62x51 do the same? Or 30.06?
Click to expand...

A cartridge/round is made up of four parts, the shell, the primer, the propellant, and the projectile.
The amount and type of powder effects the speed of the projectile and that can have an effect on whether the bullet fragments. The bullet itself depending on construction will fragment or not depending on what it hits.

So you can get a fragmenting bullet in any type of cartridge size. If a person uses a varmint or deer bullet they will be more likely to fragment or deform than a military fmj round.

The mythos of wounds from the AR-15 5.56 cartridge doesn't have as much to do with fragmenting as it does with tumbling. The original bullet was a relatively light 55gr. Stories started circulating that the round wasn't stable. "If it hits a leaf in flight it will tumble", "A tumbling bullet will hit a guy in the heel and exit through his arm pit", and "a bullet will hit a man then tumble through his body".
These are all lines I've heard from a variety of sources, but its pretty much all anecdotal. It is possibly this that reporters are talking about when they describe the wounds of people shot by the .223/5.56.

There are of course other possibilities for how horrible the wounds were. Some victims were shot several times and of course the victims are frequently children.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top