How to Defend the Wounds Caused by Guns Like AR-15s
- Thread starter LogicMan
- Start date
Noting the original issue:
I agree that the grizzly description of the wound is intended to be a persuasive element of the argument. Is it pertinent?
If when threatened with grave harm, you could snap your fingers and the aggressor would simply vanish without pain or any mess, but no chance of survival, would your self-defense be any less just for the absence of a gorey wound?
If you were to snap those same finger to have someone vanish without any justification, would the lack of pain, blood or wound reduce the severity of your wrong?
If the answer to the last two questions is "no", then it is also "no" to the first question.
Logicman said:
I agree that the grizzly description of the wound is intended to be a persuasive element of the argument. Is it pertinent?
If when threatened with grave harm, you could snap your fingers and the aggressor would simply vanish without pain or any mess, but no chance of survival, would your self-defense be any less just for the absence of a gorey wound?
If you were to snap those same finger to have someone vanish without any justification, would the lack of pain, blood or wound reduce the severity of your wrong?
If the answer to the last two questions is "no", then it is also "no" to the first question.
Last edited:
As a former EMT, I can tell you that all wounds, GSW or otherwise, are "nasty, dirty things ".......
.... and it's a losing argument: The other side is making an emotional plea ...... you can't win with logic. "Guns cause wounds, therefore are bad." I'm saying the only way to win is not to debate that point. Don't go down that road.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
Perhaps not exactly that argument, as I read the posts in this discussion. As long we allow the discussion to focus on the AR-15, we are allowing the anti-gun side to again control the narrative. Today they have fixated on the AR-15, and their argument is that it's unreasonably lethal. The counter-argument (IMHO) isn't that ARs aren't unreasonably deadly, or that most rifles are deadly, or that there are rifles that are MORE deadly -- the counter-argument is that firearms, in law, are classified as "lethal force" for the reason that they can kill. That's why we have them. Not that we want to kill anyone, but that we want effective defense against violent attacks. Under carefully prescribed conditions, the laws of every state allow us to employ lethal (or "deadly") force for self defense. If we're allowed to use deadly force, then we should be allowed to use the most effective iteration of deadly force we can get -- when necessary, and under the conditions prescribed by law. Anything beyond or outside that is already illegal multiple times over.Lohman446 said:
The anti-gun people are again seeking to punish the innocent for the transgressions of one individual. They complain about the wounds an AR-15 produces. We shouldn't argue that -- wounds are wounds. The point is, how many laws were broken in order for that individual to have wounded (or killed) his victims? There are already systems in place that are supposed to prevent such incidents. In how many ways did those systems fail to accomplish their goal? Why aren't we trying to fix what is obviously broken, rather than punishing the innocent?
I'm of the opinion that this discussion is a no-win topic.
I say that b/c I believe that the vast majority of society (even though they may watch shoot-em-ups on TV or in the movies or even if they might play first person shooter games) are really not willing to look at a hurt person or physically hurt another person (at least in this society at this time). Restated: deep down, the vast majority of people (including your fellow citizens) do not want to hurt another human being. Such damage is "aberrant." And I'd agree.
To accept that firearms, especially rifles can do that type of "horrific" damage quickly and without much skill and that those types of weapons should be allowed to all private citizens (with criminal and mental exceptions, of course) requires several stops on a not-very-difficult train of thought:
1. Existential threats to our entire country have not been met by our professional armed services before they get to the private citizen's door. We have the world's best army (etc) : not gonna happen.
2. Within our safe/defended society, this rifle would have to be used against someone (probably just another citizen) who "needed" to be stopped by a private citizen. (Ninjas don't drop from the ceiling except in crappy B movies; you're paranoid).
3. The private citizen who needed the rifle was somehow so far outside the normal zone of "order" provided by police other law enforcement agencies and he/she had to depend upon himself or herself against a threat so massive that it called for a terrible black rifle. (Where do you live? Alaska? No one lives in Alaska, you should move if you're so far away from safety.)
or
4. The threat would have to be of an institutional variety that was so vastly unjust (racism, etc) that the threat would be recognized for what it was and confronted and stopped by the due process long before society reached the point of individuals having to defend themselves from an institutional threat.
(#resist, aided by a powerful and free media will expose evil and keep us free. Our society is becoming more free and tolerant all the time all demographics say the trend will continue).
There are two types of people in the world "better to have it and not need it" and "why do you need it?"
If you're in one camp, it's really hard to justify your mindset to the other camp. The 2nd amendment is very obviously written by someone of the "better to have it and not need it" camp, but to someone who's lost family or seen a wound that shakes them to the bone, it's hard to justify the need based on maybe.
There are a lot of losing topics out there that also fall under the header of "why do you need that?"
I think that the best answer _might_ be:
I agree that the power of a rifle is a fearsome thing. I think that people in society should have access to this type of hardware b/c the Founders of this nation recognized through historical events related to the founding of this nation that that the general population of this nation not an institutional government should have the first and last say regarding their freedom.
I say that b/c I believe that the vast majority of society (even though they may watch shoot-em-ups on TV or in the movies or even if they might play first person shooter games) are really not willing to look at a hurt person or physically hurt another person (at least in this society at this time). Restated: deep down, the vast majority of people (including your fellow citizens) do not want to hurt another human being. Such damage is "aberrant." And I'd agree.
To accept that firearms, especially rifles can do that type of "horrific" damage quickly and without much skill and that those types of weapons should be allowed to all private citizens (with criminal and mental exceptions, of course) requires several stops on a not-very-difficult train of thought:
1. Existential threats to our entire country have not been met by our professional armed services before they get to the private citizen's door. We have the world's best army (etc) : not gonna happen.
2. Within our safe/defended society, this rifle would have to be used against someone (probably just another citizen) who "needed" to be stopped by a private citizen. (Ninjas don't drop from the ceiling except in crappy B movies; you're paranoid).
3. The private citizen who needed the rifle was somehow so far outside the normal zone of "order" provided by police other law enforcement agencies and he/she had to depend upon himself or herself against a threat so massive that it called for a terrible black rifle. (Where do you live? Alaska? No one lives in Alaska, you should move if you're so far away from safety.)
or
4. The threat would have to be of an institutional variety that was so vastly unjust (racism, etc) that the threat would be recognized for what it was and confronted and stopped by the due process long before society reached the point of individuals having to defend themselves from an institutional threat.
(#resist, aided by a powerful and free media will expose evil and keep us free. Our society is becoming more free and tolerant all the time all demographics say the trend will continue).
There are two types of people in the world "better to have it and not need it" and "why do you need it?"
If you're in one camp, it's really hard to justify your mindset to the other camp. The 2nd amendment is very obviously written by someone of the "better to have it and not need it" camp, but to someone who's lost family or seen a wound that shakes them to the bone, it's hard to justify the need based on maybe.
There are a lot of losing topics out there that also fall under the header of "why do you need that?"
I think that the best answer _might_ be:
I agree that the power of a rifle is a fearsome thing. I think that people in society should have access to this type of hardware b/c the Founders of this nation recognized through historical events related to the founding of this nation that that the general population of this nation not an institutional government should have the first and last say regarding their freedom.
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
Accepted for now maybe... before there was an assault weapon ban, there was "Handgun Control, Inc.". When banning handguns couldn't get traction, it was "ban Saturday Night Specials." It is really about setting the precedent that some type of firearm can't be used by the bourgeoise.
Once you've got that foot in the door, it is easy... that one carries too many rounds in its magazine, that one that has fewer rounds is too powerful. Etc. Goldilocks gun control, except there isn't any "just right."
Kevin Rohrer
New member
Ummm, the 5.56 round is not magical and is no worse than any similar round. There is a reason it is called a "mouse gun", as most other center-fire calibers are worse.
HiBC said:
How am I a fairly new member when I joined in January of 2013 and have as of now 253 posts? That said, even if I was a brand-new member, so what? It is a topic I wanted to see people's thoughts on. Thus far I have been seeing what I think are a lot of good points, including one of yours:
Last edited:
Bartholomew Roberts said:
While this is true in general, and I agree with it, when you get into the legal issues, such as arguing before a court with justices who may not know a thing about firearms, such things are important I think. Sometimes it is important to know how to go into the weeds so as to properly defend the right.
Like with "assault weapon," the NY judge who upheld NY's ban said that since the "military-style features" make the weapon easier-to-use, then they thus make it more lethal. Arguing how that is not the case can require going into some weeds, but they are nonetheless necessary.
Bartholomew Roberts said:
Oh definitely. You could come up with a justification to ban every gun:
AR-15s and similar guns: "These guns are easy-to-use and thus too deadly!"
Bolt-action rifles: "These guns are high-powered sniper rifles!"
12 gauge shotgun: "These were nicknamed "trench brooms" in WWI, they are far too powerful and deadly for a person to use. They also are too difficult for the average citizen to use without training, therefore they should be banned!"
Handguns: "These are easily concealed and constitute the weapon used in the majority of gun murders, therefore they should be banned!"
Last edited:
look past the smoke and mirrors, and see what they are really saying. Forget about how much harm this or that does, that is part of their misdirection.
False is the idea to take fire from man, because it burns....
yet, they would do so, gladly, if they could.
Its a waste of time to argue with these people, but if you're so inclined, consider that when they bring up how horrible the wounds from an AR 15 are, ask them, WHY DO THE POLICE HAVE THEM????
Is it so they can murder us easier???
(of course, its not, but see how they respond to that one...
)
False is the idea to take fire from man, because it burns....
yet, they would do so, gladly, if they could.
Its a waste of time to argue with these people, but if you're so inclined, consider that when they bring up how horrible the wounds from an AR 15 are, ask them, WHY DO THE POLICE HAVE THEM????
Is it so they can murder us easier???
(of course, its not, but see how they respond to that one...
)Those wounds, often several recountings removed and with no graphic evidence, are precisely the reason we should be allowed AR-15 rifles. As others have noted the individual right to self defense begets the right to effective self defense. Those descriptions sound like the hallmarks of a tool of effective self defense.
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
You don't even need a law to ban these since the NFA gives the Attorney General to ban anything with a bore greater than 0.50" if he deems it lacks a "sporting purpose."
Sure Shot Mc Gee
New member
The intention of any military small arms cartridge is to wound not kill. What changes that military intended purpose? > bullet change out.
Maybe the diplomats think so ....... and maybe weapons designers bought that line of PC
BS from them ...... but the guys with their feet inside the "boots on the ground" don't shoot someone to wound him. They intend to "Kill that (Expletive)!", before he can do that to them.