Moron journalist Tom Brokaw called for a ban on the "AR-14" today. MSNBC morons said 2nd amendment covers guns...not "weapons of war".
I can't take it anymore. My final attempt to educate them.
Guns:
An AR-15 shoots a TINY bullet...a .223. That bullet is HALF THE size of a standard cops pistol bullet...
a .45. Plus....pistols have big hollow point bullets...far deadlier. In fact...so deadly...they aren't allowed in war. That's right....the hollow point pistol bullet is banned from wars by the 1899 Hague Convention treaty. The .223 bullet an AR shoots? Army and Marine troops complain that they aren't deadly enough in war. They created the 6.8 round to try to fix it....which the standard AR-15 doesn't shoot.
Guns: 30 round magazines for a .223 AR??? GUESS WHAT??? They make 30 round mags for Glocks...that shoot the far larger and far deadlier hollow point bullets. AR15s are almost all semi auto...not full auto. Almost none are full auto.
**A side note: A gunman with a rifle is also FAR EASIER to disarm than one with a pistol. Imagine trying to pry away a broom from a guy vs prying away a fork. The larger gun is by far easier to grab...control...and wrestle away.
2nd Amendment: Libs are now saying the Founders meant muskets....not "Weapons of War". Hey idiots....in 1776....muskets WERE WEAPONS OF WAR
View attachment 78100
I'll add more later. Can't overwhelm the ignorant brains reading this.
Dude, you make claims that are either (1) factually so in your mind alone or (2) the result of your callus attitude toward being factually and completely accurate with your assertions made on a topic you know to be highly acrimonious and contentious. "The devil is in the details," and given the line of discussion you've chosen for your OP, the nature of ammunition types, the details matter.
Red:
Military units do use .45 caliber ammunition.
- DEVGRU, or SEAL Team 6, does use Heckler & Koch .45
- About two years ago, Marine Corps Special Operations Command awarded a $22.5 million contract to Colt Defense LLC for new .45-caliber Close Quarter Battle Pistols for the service’s elite special operations troops.
Forty-five cal ammunition can be had in full metal jacket (non-expanding) or hollow point (expanding) varieties. Are you asserting that in a declared war,
the last of which for the U.S. were the WWII declarations, the units that use .45 cal will either sit out the conflict or use something else?
The Hague treaty to which you refer prohibits, as you note, the expanding variety but not necessarily hollow point ammunition.
From the Hague Declaration document:
The Contracting Parties agree to abstain from the use of bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core or is pierced with incisions.
The present Declaration is only binding for the Contracting Powers in the case of a war between two or more of them.
Much discussion and legal analysis has transpired regarding whether hollow points can or cannot be used in war.
[T]he velocity and mass of a bullet together determine how much tissue damage can potentially be done by it. Bullet construction is only one factor to take into account when considering the size of wounds. Importantly, the higher the velocity, the greater the deformation of a dumdum bullet on impact with tissue. This means that bullet construction becomes a less important factor with increasing range. However, if one considers in the absolute the degree of injury and suffering caused by bullets on the modern battlefield, and not only the size of an individual wound, rate of fire is probably the most important factor; an increased chance of hitting the enemy which may also result in multiple wounds is an important design feature of modern military rifles. As far as we know, there has been no attempt to link the energy deposit from multiple hits to the notion of superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering.
What can one rationally conclude from the various sources above? (Yes, you'll need to click on the links and read more than just the blurb I posted.) Well, first and foremost, that bullet technology and design in 1898 was significantly less sophisticated than it is today; therefore the mere caliber of a bullet, or the design of its tip, aren't governing factors in whether a bullet complies with the humanitarian aims of the Hague Declaration.
One will also observe that the U.S. military can indeed use expanding point ammunition, but that, in compliance with the Hague Declaration, it must refrain from doing so in declared states of war. Seeing as the U.S. hasn't declared war on any nation since the 1940s, the Hague Declaration is largely irrelevant unless and until some nation is of a mind to bring the U.S. (or its leaders) to trial for war crimes resulting from conflicts that are not declared wars.
As goes the matter of a bullet's causing undue suffering, I suppose that matters to some extent, if only because there's a treaty that aims to limit/prevent that consequence among war fighters. The suffering that matters most to me is that experienced by the survivors of those who die from gunshots. I doubt they suffer more or less due to whether their loved one was killed by "this" or "that" type of bullet.
Blue:
The tinyness of the AR-15's ammunition, based on the "Pulse" massacre, is similarly irrelevant. It is a sufficiently deadly round. Moreover, it seems that in concert with the deadly-enough nature of the .223 round, the rapidity with which multiple units of those rounds can be fired has a material impact on the weapon's effectiveness at killing civilians going about their lives.
Side note:
The AR-15, which evolved into the M16, can use .233 or 5.56x45mm ammunition.
The two rounds though quite similar are notably different, specifically re: pressure. I have no idea what chamber design exists in the gun used at Pulse, but seeing as the man killed nearly 50 people, I don't think it matters.
