Well, it could happen different every time if it were replayed with the same equipment 100 times. But there is no advantage gained with a rifle of any kind in close quarters.
Wasn't close quarters when he was outside shooting at the cops. Wasn't until he went in and barricaded himself in the classroom.
My parents trusted me too. Even stuff they didn't want me to get into i.e. a locked liquor cabinet, I got access to.. Point is, If we didn't have guns, these kids wouldn't have a safe to break into to access. We're not going to get to that point so I respect your stance. Make laws at the state and local level until it overwhelms congress and the surpreme court. IDK. Trying to find a solution is very frustrating.
The original m16 bullets were designed to tumble, but that was changed due to being inaccurate on the field. So the bullets no longer actually tumble for 12 inches or so... So typically not before it has exited the body. This is called the Spitzer effect (pointy bullets). You can buy 9mm Spitzer as well as hollow point 9mm. But, as you say, once you start talking about distance and having time to aim, the rifles accuracy and it's much higher velocity bullet have a decided advantage.
I'm not trying to get in a bullet discussion here, but honestly, what is the purpose for fragmenting rounds besides murder? Why are those sold to the general population?
With rifles I'm not sure if it's possible to get away from it. I've had a .270 round fragment on impact of a rib and take out the liver and the heart of a deer in a single shot. I think any round designed for longer range (higher velocity) will have that problem. But most don't fragment from hitting flesh. I would agree that anything that did should be illegal. Even for the military.
True. But any rifle could be used that way... I'm not seeing the advantage of the AR... For example, a Remington .243 is a slightly larger round travels at much higher velocity...
The stuff I'm thinking of (frangible ammunition) is used in police training for close combat to cut down on ricochet incidents (while they are in hallways, etc). I guess the argument could be used that those rounds would be less likely pass through a wall and hit somebody in the next room... https://www.ammunitiontogo.com/lodge/what-is-frangible-ammo/ But I'm also not big on the whole "blow shit up" scene... So maybe there is something legel out there I'm not aware of. From my perspective a bullet is going to cause a lot of damage if it hits somebody.
Yep, this would be the same idea as a .243. Though the .243 would probably make 4" of bone turn to dust instead of 3", and leave bigger exit wounds and puddles of jello. There is no kick with a .243 either. I would think the .243 would take over if the AR were regulated away somehow. So instead of having millions of new ARs every year to add to what we already have we'd start seeing millions of new .243s which look and function almost exactly the same. So I'm just trying to figure out what feature or function could be targeted which wouldn't also include nearly all hunting rifles
That's true. But how would that prevent it from being used the same way? *Note* You can hunt deer with a stock AR in Oregon, but nothing bigger. You'd have to have it chambered in .243 or larger to hunt larger game. Which can be done.
The more I've looked into this the more I think the 2nd Amendment covers ammunition since arms seems to generally cover "Weapons of offence, or armour of defence." https://johnsonsdictionaryonline.com/views/search.php?term=Arms and I am brought back to the best course of action being limiting the number of people who want to commit these acts, and making it easy for people to avoid helping those people obtain dangerous items.
