I do not think I ever said anything about what an AR- 15 looks like. ??
You are clearly more concerned with what you call assault weapons than handguns, and this unfortunately is an all- too common belief because the assault weapon "looks evil". But statistically, magazine fed auto-loading rifles are virtually insignificant in the instances of undesirable uses of firearms; it is the handgun that causes almost all the firearms related deaths and gunshot wounds in the US. In fact, guess which single model of firearm has the lowest fatality rate in the US of A...... yep, the AR-15 series of rifles.
Brian (masquerading as a reasoning individual for over half- a- century now)
Perhaps you are starting to confuse me and maxtog? Do we 'all look alike' to you?
I am certainly not confusing you with Charles Rangle (NY) or John Lewis (GA) or Diane Feinstein (CA) though you seem to share a political party.
And I have, and will continue to defend your right to say whatever you want, and further freely admit your thoughts and opinions are as valid as mine or anyone else's.
Brian (not maxtog)
What I said is that most people have an irrational judgement about the AR-15 because of the way it looks... because it looks "scary" (and it does look scary) and that is true. There are plenty of other non-military rifles that are just as or even more dangerous than the AR-15, but aren't being targeted (pun intended) because they lack the "look" of an intimidating rifle. A typical hunting rifle is every bit as dangerous, but it doesn't have the look.
If we are going to do down that road, then I will step up and say (type) out loud: the caliber used in the AR-15, 5.56 NATO, is a relatively low power rifle caliber and in fact, far less powerful than many, if not most, pistol calibers. Somehow or other, the standard cartridge used in that rifle has been 'tagged' as some type of 'very powerful' cartridge and it is not, not even close. Not legal to hunt deer with in many states in the US, and absolutely lacking stopping and 'lethality' as compared with other, commonly used pistol and rifle cartridges.
For example, the classic 30-06 Springfield that everybody, starting with great- granddad used and continues to use for hunting, target shooting and typical sporting uses is far, far larger and more powerful than the 5.56 NATO. So is the 7.62 NATO cartridge, which is the same diameter and only very slightly behind the 30-06 in power, still far more powerful than the AR-15 caliber.
5.56 NATO is the standard service rifle caliber currently in use by the US armed forces (standard issue, not sniper rifles, etc.). It is by far the smallest and least powerful service rifle caliber to have been used by the US in a century and most likely, ever in the country's history. In fact, part of the reason it was adopted was its low recoil, the by- product of a low powered cartridge. The standard service cartridge from 1906 through 1957 was the already mentioned 30-06 Springfield, used in several bolt action rifles as well as the M1 Garand, still in wide spread use and in fact a standard target rifle and caliber at many of the largest shooting events in the US. From ~1957 to the mid- 1960's the US armed service standard issue rifle caliber was the 7.62 NATO or .308 Winchester, and again it was virtually as powerful as the previous 30-06. Finally, when the AR-15 was adopted, it was adopted in caliber 5.56 NATO, or the equivalent .223 Remington (virtually interchangeable).
So the oft- stated 'legend' of this 'horribly powerful caliber' just is not correct.
The above is fact, but this is conjecture on my part: had the Las Vegas shooting been done with a similar but larger rifle chambered in 7.62 NATO, such as the FN-FAL that is the most widely used service arm in the 'free world' (often called 'the right hand of the Free World'), there would have been more fatalities due to both the increased lethality of the larger (and still standard sporting size) in initial wounds but almost certainly due to greatly increased power of the ricochets off the ground behind the initial victims (a human is almost NEVER NEARLY enough to stop a 7.62 NATO).
We can argue endlessly about many of these issues but the mechanical facts remain facts. The AR-15 is NOT chambered for a 'very powerful' or 'more powerful' caliber than is otherwise typically used in hunting, target shooting and general civilian use but in fact is LESS powerful than MOST calibers typically used by the civilian shooting public.
OK, end of rant.
Brian
A firearm does not have to be powerful to be lethal. I have read some medical accounts to the effect that the 5.56 inflicts massive damage on human tissue realtive to its size. And this reminds me that an AR-15 fan friend of mind once told me that the round is so deadly because it tumbles in flight or on impact. Any truth to that?
It may very well be underpowered compared to other hunting rifles, but we are not talking about sniper marksmanship here. The targets are in relatively close quarters and you are conveniently ignoring the 50 - 60 round high capacity magazines that wreak havoc in a cluster of panicked individuals.
It seems you may be deflecting here a bit. You can say with confidence that none of the British built weapons were sold illegally and floated across the waters? That they all came from the former Colonies or Libya?
I'm sure that there have been occasions where British built firearms have been sold illegally and smuggled into/out of various countries
Entertain the ignorant, what manufacturer? I know of at least one in Belgium, but have no clue about manufacturers in GB. Sorry.
Rick
Technically BAE are firearms manufacturers as well then of course you have the various shotgun makers such as Purdey etc.
Can't forget Holland and Holland. Arn't they the Roles Royce of firearms and made in London? I've seen some H&H guns but have never touched one.
Found this today, 26 Feb. 2018.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/students-resolute-enter-school-shooting-045640708.html
Fifth paragraph down is the following:
"She's very lucky, very, very lucky" said Igor Nichiporenko, M.D., medical director of trauma services at Broward Health North, adding that the large caliber bullets "penetrated through her chest and abdomen."
This is exactly the type of incorrect statement, made by a learned person, a physician, that leads to so much general misunderstanding and outright errors that 'everyone knows' to be the truth. No one nor any authoritative source I am aware of or can find considers a .223 or 5.56 NATO to be a 'large caliber' in any way, shape or fashion.
Please understand I am not in any way trying to minimize this victim's injuries nor in any way shrugging off her extremely, apparently life- threatening injuries from multiple gunshots. I am just pointing out how falsehoods get mixed in with facts and are presented as 'evidence' in these types of contentious situations (gun control, nothing to do with this specific tragedy). And I am not trying to belittle the physician either, he simply made a mistake as we all do. But when these types of mistakes slide over into 'facts', it is unfortunate and leads to incorrect conclusions on the parts of many on- lookers.
Brian
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2018/02/23/serial-failure-heres-how-government-totally-dropped-the-ball-in-stopping-florid-n2453448
Good summary of the so many failures and warning signs. Cruz might have just as well walked around with a sign saying "I am a ticking time bomb. Please stop me."
...
So I found this picture of common bullet sizes on the interwebs.
There are 18 bullets shown so working on the small , medium & large principle that very neatly gives us 6 of each size calibre
There are several errors in that placement, starting with a .22 LR being more 'powerful' than a .380, a 9mm being more powerful than a .40 S&W, a 5.56 NATO being more powerful than a 7.62 X 39 (standard caliber of AK-47, SKS and other similar firearms), the 5.56 NATO also being more powerful than the .300 Blackout, the 7.62 X 54R being more powerful than the 7.62 NATO and the 12 ga. being more powerful than the .50 BMG and very possibly, the 30-06 Springfield.
I would not use that particular chart for firearm cartridge instruction or proof myself.
But back to rifle calibers, I would claim that the 5.56 NATO is the least powerful rifle cartridge (primarily rifle, some knock- off lever actions use .357 magnum though it absolutely IS a pistol caliber) in that chart.
But before we argue, we need to decide on what defines 'power' as it applies to cartridges anyway. We can use muzzle energy, or what is commonly accepted by the hunting community as acceptable 'power' for various game, etc. But again, by either of those two standards, the 5.56 NATO will fall well behind both .30 caliber cartridges to its left in that chart.
Brian
I would not use that particular chart for firearm cartridge instruction or proof myself.
I am not ignoring anything, although I don't remember being asked to address that. What is the question? A full-sized 9mm handgun typically holds 17 rounds but one can often use a much larger magazine in that, too (although it would look strange and certainly be inconvenient because it sticks way out). There is plenty of info on the 'net showing how a trained person can quickly and easily change magazines (hint, about 1 to 2 seconds). 50/17 = 3. 1 in the gun already, so that means 2 to 4 seconds of total downtime. Not crippling.
Sure, a larger magazine is more convenient, and potentially more situationally deadly, but it is probably not a major factor with a well-prepared, crazy gunner on a rampage.