Thank God he used an AR-15.

[SavannahMann]

I know. I’m not supposed to say that. But here is the rub. I know weapons, and I understand ballistics and Kinetic Energy.

The AR was designed to use a very small cartridge. This small or even anemic cartridge was acceptable for one reason. It created a militarily significant wound. It was not designed to be a killing cartridge. It was designed to wound.

A wounded enemy takes not only himself off the field. It takes two others to carry him. This is called a force multiplier. A dead guy can wait, a wounded guy is screaming in pain, and must be attended to immediately.

People choose the AR because it looks bad. But you need a different cartridge to get a higher probability of a kill. While we were choosing the AR the British, Belgian, and many others were going with the FN FAL chambered in the much more powerful .308 Winchester.

The .308 has twice the energy of a .223 cartridge. This means more wounded but still alive victims. 50 wounded is bad. 17 dead is bad. But more than fifty dead would have been much worse. That would be the likely outcome if the fool had a modicum of knowledge.

I’d much rather get shot with at least an 80% chance of survival. Banning the AR means that people go for a bigger cartridge with a much higher lethality.

Look at the pistols. A .357 is twice as powerful as a 9mm. Literally twice the kinetic energy. Of course I would rather that no one get shot. But if they are, I’d prefer them to be wounded rather than dead. Wouldn’t you choose the same outcome?

 

[Lewdog]

No guns are built just to "wound."

Some of the very basic rules of gun training are, never point a gun at someone you aren't prepared to shoot, and NEVER shoot just to wound or as a warning shot. Shoot center mass to kill... unless you are highly skilled and you are told to shoot center mass first, double tap with the second shot to the head.

 

[xband]

I know. I’m not supposed to say that. But here is the rub. I know weapons, and I understand ballistics and Kinetic Energy.

The AR was designed to use a very small cartridge. This small or even anemic cartridge was acceptable for one reason. It created a militarily significant wound. It was not designed to be a killing cartridge. It was designed to wound.

A wounded enemy takes not only himself off the field. It takes two others to carry him. This is called a force multiplier. A dead guy can wait, a wounded guy is screaming in pain, and must be attended to immediately.

People choose the AR because it looks bad. But you need a different cartridge to get a higher probability of a kill. While we were choosing the AR the British, Belgian, and many others were going with the FN FAL chambered in the much more powerful .308 Winchester.

View attachment 176859

The .308 has twice the energy of a .223 cartridge. This means more wounded but still alive victims. 50 wounded is bad. 17 dead is bad. But more than fifty dead would have been much worse. That would be the likely outcome if the fool had a modicum of knowledge.

I’d much rather get shot with at least an 80% chance of survival. Banning the AR means that people go for a bigger cartridge with a much higher lethality.

Look at the pistols. A .357 is twice as powerful as a 9mm. Literally twice the kinetic energy. Of course I would rather that no one get shot. But if they are, I’d prefer them to be wounded rather than dead. Wouldn’t you choose the same outcome?

I had a .357 mag revolver but sold it to my neighbor. My neighbor is VP of a major corporation so I was not worried about him. The .357 mag is high velocity and momentum equals mass times velocity squared.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

I know. I’m not supposed to say that. But here is the rub. I know weapons, and I understand ballistics and Kinetic Energy.

The AR was designed to use a very small cartridge. This small or even anemic cartridge was acceptable for one reason. It created a militarily significant wound. It was not designed to be a killing cartridge. It was designed to wound.

A wounded enemy takes not only himself off the field. It takes two others to carry him. This is called a force multiplier. A dead guy can wait, a wounded guy is screaming in pain, and must be attended to immediately.

People choose the AR because it looks bad. But you need a different cartridge to get a higher probability of a kill. While we were choosing the AR the British, Belgian, and many others were going with the FN FAL chambered in the much more powerful .308 Winchester.

View attachment 176859

The .308 has twice the energy of a .223 cartridge. This means more wounded but still alive victims. 50 wounded is bad. 17 dead is bad. But more than fifty dead would have been much worse. That would be the likely outcome if the fool had a modicum of knowledge.

I’d much rather get shot with at least an 80% chance of survival. Banning the AR means that people go for a bigger cartridge with a much higher lethality.

Look at the pistols. A .357 is twice as powerful as a 9mm. Literally twice the kinetic energy. Of course I would rather that no one get shot. But if they are, I’d prefer them to be wounded rather than dead. Wouldn’t you choose the same outcome?

Interesting take on the shooting. Thanks for contributing.

 

[Rustic]

No guns are built just to "wound."

Some of the very basic rules of gun training are, never point a gun at someone you aren't prepared to shoot, and NEVER shoot just to wound or as a warning shot. Shoot center mass to kill... unless you are highly skilled and you are told to shoot center mass first, double tap with the second shot to the head.

You don’t know jack shit

 

[Rustic]

I know. I’m not supposed to say that. But here is the rub. I know weapons, and I understand ballistics and Kinetic Energy.

The AR was designed to use a very small cartridge. This small or even anemic cartridge was acceptable for one reason. It created a militarily significant wound. It was not designed to be a killing cartridge. It was designed to wound.

A wounded enemy takes not only himself off the field. It takes two others to carry him. This is called a force multiplier. A dead guy can wait, a wounded guy is screaming in pain, and must be attended to immediately.

People choose the AR because it looks bad. But you need a different cartridge to get a higher probability of a kill. While we were choosing the AR the British, Belgian, and many others were going with the FN FAL chambered in the much more powerful .308 Winchester.

View attachment 176859

The .308 has twice the energy of a .223 cartridge. This means more wounded but still alive victims. 50 wounded is bad. 17 dead is bad. But more than fifty dead would have been much worse. That would be the likely outcome if the fool had a modicum of knowledge.

I’d much rather get shot with at least an 80% chance of survival. Banning the AR means that people go for a bigger cartridge with a much higher lethality.

Look at the pistols. A .357 is twice as powerful as a 9mm. Literally twice the kinetic energy. Of course I would rather that no one get shot. But if they are, I’d prefer them to be wounded rather than dead. Wouldn’t you choose the same outcome?

...AR10s are notoriously unreliable

 

[xband]

I know. I’m not supposed to say that. But here is the rub. I know weapons, and I understand ballistics and Kinetic Energy.

The AR was designed to use a very small cartridge. This small or even anemic cartridge was acceptable for one reason. It created a militarily significant wound. It was not designed to be a killing cartridge. It was designed to wound.

A wounded enemy takes not only himself off the field. It takes two others to carry him. This is called a force multiplier. A dead guy can wait, a wounded guy is screaming in pain, and must be attended to immediately.

People choose the AR because it looks bad. But you need a different cartridge to get a higher probability of a kill. While we were choosing the AR the British, Belgian, and many others were going with the FN FAL chambered in the much more powerful .308 Winchester.

View attachment 176859

The .308 has twice the energy of a .223 cartridge. This means more wounded but still alive victims. 50 wounded is bad. 17 dead is bad. But more than fifty dead would have been much worse. That would be the likely outcome if the fool had a modicum of knowledge.

I’d much rather get shot with at least an 80% chance of survival. Banning the AR means that people go for a bigger cartridge with a much higher lethality.

Look at the pistols. A .357 is twice as powerful as a 9mm. Literally twice the kinetic energy. Of course I would rather that no one get shot. But if they are, I’d prefer them to be wounded rather than dead. Wouldn’t you choose the same outcome?

...AR10s are notoriously unreliable

The 5" 54 cal Naval Gun is reliable unless put in rapid fire. Semi-fixed ammunition and the bullet weighs 73 pounds and the powder weighs 42 pounds.

 

[usmbguest5318]

I know. I’m not supposed to say that. But here is the rub. I know weapons, and I understand ballistics and Kinetic Energy.

The AR was designed to use a very small cartridge. This small or even anemic cartridge was acceptable for one reason. It created a militarily significant wound. It was not designed to be a killing cartridge. It was designed to wound.

A wounded enemy takes not only himself off the field. It takes two others to carry him. This is called a force multiplier. A dead guy can wait, a wounded guy is screaming in pain, and must be attended to immediately.

People choose the AR because it looks bad. But you need a different cartridge to get a higher probability of a kill. While we were choosing the AR the British, Belgian, and many others were going with the FN FAL chambered in the much more powerful .308 Winchester.

View attachment 176859

The .308 has twice the energy of a .223 cartridge. This means more wounded but still alive victims. 50 wounded is bad. 17 dead is bad. But more than fifty dead would have been much worse. That would be the likely outcome if the fool had a modicum of knowledge.

I’d much rather get shot with at least an 80% chance of survival. Banning the AR means that people go for a bigger cartridge with a much higher lethality.

Look at the pistols. A .357 is twice as powerful as a 9mm. Literally twice the kinetic energy. Of course I would rather that no one get shot. But if they are, I’d prefer them to be wounded rather than dead. Wouldn’t you choose the same outcome?

Guns and ammo come in two classes:

• Designed to kill living creatures -- unless the thing is designed to kill nothing larger than a rabbit or goose, the gun/ammo designed/intended to bring down large game, if fired at a human, has a damn good chance of killing a human.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
• Designed not to do all manners of things other than kill living creatures
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

I have to say too that all the talk I've heard about "defensive" munitions/rounds/guns strikes me as little other than semantic tomfoolery bereft of winks and nods. What makes a weapon/round defensive? From what I can tell, nothing other than the fact that it's fired in response to someone else's having offensively shot the same or a different round/weapon at the so-called defensive shooter and having missed or hit a non-critical (not critical enough to prevent return fire) part of the defender's body. In other words, there is absolutely nothing stopping a defensive munition/weapon/round from in, an instant, becoming an offensive one.

50 wounded is bad. 17 dead is bad. But more than fifty dead would have been much worse.

"Holy relative privation, Batman!"

I would laugh, but I know you wrote that ostensibly exculpatory remark in all seriousness and sincerity, and that you did is no laughing matter.

more than fifty dead would have been much worse.

• .223 ammo used in the following shootings:
  • Sandy Hook Elementary School - 26 dead
    
  • Pulse Nightclub - 49 dead
  • Clackamas Town Center -- 2 dead
• Other mass shootings 1999 - 2013

What kind of ammo did the Las Vegas shooter use? Nearly 60 people died there.

The AR was designed to use a very small cartridge.

Apparently it can use a variety of cartridge/round types regardless of what it was designed for.

​

Are you aware of any unlawful users of the AR-15 having said, "I decided to use the AR-15 because it wasn't designed to use a large round/cartridge," or "I chose to use the AR-15 because it was designed to use a very small cartridge/round?"

I'm not saying you're wrong about what the gun was designed for. I'm saying that pointing out what cartridge it was designed to use highlights a distinction that makes no difference in the contexts of (1) its having been used unlawfully and (2) what may be done to dramatically curtail people's unlawful use of it.

People choose the AR because it looks bad.

Would you please provide credible evidence that a preponderance or material share of buyers purchase AR-15s because it looks "bad?"

• 10 Reasons To Own An AR-15
  
• AR-15 Owners Explain Why They Have Their Guns
  
• How the AR-15 became America's most popular rifle
  
• Business Case Analysis of the AR-15 Market

I'm aware that people like that has scads of available accessories (bump stocks apparently being among them) and that that is a motivating factor in the purchase decision. I'm aware the some people were moved to buy them because of the colors they come in and that may have played a role. and I'll even grant that heads in the direction of "looks bad," but is still very different from "looks bad." For all that, however, that it "looks bad" isn't anything I've heard folks say or allude to. In contrast, I do know one person who bought a Zonda because of, in his words, its "badass" look. (I presume "badass" is about the same thing you mean by "bad.")

Indeed, "[t]he MCX rifle [Omar] Mateen used in Orlando has a magazine capacity of 30 rounds and a military-spec trigger. Sig Sauer describes the roughly $1,700 rifle as "built from the ground up to be silenced, light and short" as well as customizable with a number of accessories 'for any scenario or environment.' "

Wouldn’t you choose the same outcome?

None of them are outcomes I'd choose.



Note:

• It's not clear to me whether, OP-er, you're splitting hairs when you write "AR," that is whether you mean specifically the AR-15 in its original incarnation or whether you mean the original one as well as the myriad AR-15/M4 variants and derivatives that are at present available in the civilian marketplace. For the sake of clarity, by "AR-15" I mean the latter. I suspect your choice of "AR" rather than something more precise indicates you too mean the latter.

 

[Lewdog]

No guns are built just to "wound."

Some of the very basic rules of gun training are, never point a gun at someone you aren't prepared to shoot, and NEVER shoot just to wound or as a warning shot. Shoot center mass to kill... unless you are highly skilled and you are told to shoot center mass first, double tap with the second shot to the head.

You don’t know jack shit

I don't? What did I say that was incorrect?

 

[IsaacNewton]

This is what gun huggers have come to. Hey OP why not send your vomitus on the subject to the parents of the 17 dead children. Tell them how lucky they are the shooter used an AR15 and how their children are really 'only wounded'.

The cognitive dissonance among people that cling to guns is grossly ghoulish.

 

[harmonica]

it depends a lot on where the round hits--not so much the cartridge

The most important factor in killing power, by far, is bullet placement.

Rifle Cartridge Killing Power List

it's not easy to get kill shots with an M16A1 or 2 on an enemy that is camoued/hiding/in buidlings/ etc which makes them very hard to even see

we were taught to aim center mass---but unless you are prone or have a solid rest with tight sling--it's not easy at all to get a kill hit on a target--much less a hidden enemy at 300m

I was one of the best shooters in my company....
at 500 meters it's next to impossible

aimed kill shots are more probable with single fire --not auto..not wild semi-auto

this thread is highly disgusting--it should be reported

 

[martnH]

I know. I’m not supposed to say that. But here is the rub. I know weapons, and I understand ballistics and Kinetic Energy.

The AR was designed to use a very small cartridge. This small or even anemic cartridge was acceptable for one reason. It created a militarily significant wound. It was not designed to be a killing cartridge. It was designed to wound.

A wounded enemy takes not only himself off the field. It takes two others to carry him. This is called a force multiplier. A dead guy can wait, a wounded guy is screaming in pain, and must be attended to immediately.

People choose the AR because it looks bad. But you need a different cartridge to get a higher probability of a kill. While we were choosing the AR the British, Belgian, and many others were going with the FN FAL chambered in the much more powerful .308 Winchester.

View attachment 176859

The .308 has twice the energy of a .223 cartridge. This means more wounded but still alive victims. 50 wounded is bad. 17 dead is bad. But more than fifty dead would have been much worse. That would be the likely outcome if the fool had a modicum of knowledge.

I’d much rather get shot with at least an 80% chance of survival. Banning the AR means that people go for a bigger cartridge with a much higher lethality.

Look at the pistols. A .357 is twice as powerful as a 9mm. Literally twice the kinetic energy. Of course I would rather that no one get shot. But if they are, I’d prefer them to be wounded rather than dead. Wouldn’t you choose the same outcome?

You surely are afraid of banning your toys

How about banning all your toys If one of you kids don't behave? Do you think if unfair? Well you better solve the problem otherwise your toys will be banned.
How long do you need?

Sent from my LG-H870DS using Tapatalk

 

[martnH]

And also your title.....

"Thank God he used an AR-15".....

How about banning all the guns so he will probably use a knife? How about that?

Sent from my LG-H870DS using Tapatalk

 

[TheOldSchool]

I know. I’m not supposed to say that. But here is the rub. I know weapons, and I understand ballistics and Kinetic Energy.

The AR was designed to use a very small cartridge. This small or even anemic cartridge was acceptable for one reason. It created a militarily significant wound. It was not designed to be a killing cartridge. It was designed to wound.

A wounded enemy takes not only himself off the field. It takes two others to carry him. This is called a force multiplier. A dead guy can wait, a wounded guy is screaming in pain, and must be attended to immediately.

People choose the AR because it looks bad. But you need a different cartridge to get a higher probability of a kill. While we were choosing the AR the British, Belgian, and many others were going with the FN FAL chambered in the much more powerful .308 Winchester.

View attachment 176859

The .308 has twice the energy of a .223 cartridge. This means more wounded but still alive victims. 50 wounded is bad. 17 dead is bad. But more than fifty dead would have been much worse. That would be the likely outcome if the fool had a modicum of knowledge.

I’d much rather get shot with at least an 80% chance of survival. Banning the AR means that people go for a bigger cartridge with a much higher lethality.

Look at the pistols. A .357 is twice as powerful as a 9mm. Literally twice the kinetic energy. Of course I would rather that no one get shot. But if they are, I’d prefer them to be wounded rather than dead. Wouldn’t you choose the same outcome?

^ sick, disgusting fuck

 

[Esmeralda]

I know. I’m not supposed to say that. But here is the rub. I know weapons, and I understand ballistics and Kinetic Energy.

The AR was designed to use a very small cartridge. This small or even anemic cartridge was acceptable for one reason. It created a militarily significant wound. It was not designed to be a killing cartridge. It was designed to wound.

A wounded enemy takes not only himself off the field. It takes two others to carry him. This is called a force multiplier. A dead guy can wait, a wounded guy is screaming in pain, and must be attended to immediately.

People choose the AR because it looks bad. But you need a different cartridge to get a higher probability of a kill. While we were choosing the AR the British, Belgian, and many others were going with the FN FAL chambered in the much more powerful .308 Winchester.

View attachment 176859

The .308 has twice the energy of a .223 cartridge. This means more wounded but still alive victims. 50 wounded is bad. 17 dead is bad. But more than fifty dead would have been much worse. That would be the likely outcome if the fool had a modicum of knowledge.

I’d much rather get shot with at least an 80% chance of survival. Banning the AR means that people go for a bigger cartridge with a much higher lethality.

Look at the pistols. A .357 is twice as powerful as a 9mm. Literally twice the kinetic energy. Of course I would rather that no one get shot. But if they are, I’d prefer them to be wounded rather than dead. Wouldn’t you choose the same outcome?

He killed 17 people in six minutes. That is nothing to be thankful for. If he had a non-automatic weapon, or no gun at all, only a knife, he couldn't have done that. Your post is ridiculous and pathetic.