President Biden's Apparently Incorrect Claim That AR-15 Bullets Travel 5 Times Faster Than Others

Here's the exact quote:

Do you realize the bullet out of an AR-15 travels five times as rapidly as a bullet shot out of any other gun …?

The muzzle velocity of an AR-15 (which is to say, the speed at which the bullet travels when it leaves the rifle) is about 3300 feet per second (here's an anti-AR-15 Washington Monthly article confirming that). Other rifles have muzzle velocities in the same general range, 2500-4000 feet per second or so according to this list, or 2700-3150 in this list (PDF p. 45), though the velocity is also influenced in some measure by barrel length. If the AR-15 bullets are faster than most rifles (not "any other" rifles), they're only slightly faster.

President Biden also said, in the same sentence, that bullets from an AR-15 "can pierce Kevlar." That is true, but only because it's true of many rifles generally (see PDF pp. 38-39).

One can say what one will about whether banning AR-15's is likely to reduce deaths. (I doubt that it will, either for mass shooting deaths or homicide deaths more generally.) But it seems pretty clear that President Biden's argument for why it would do so is not correct.

Comments

[Joe_dallas]

The vast majority of gun control advocates have little if any understanding of how guns, rifles etc operate.

Same with most of the awg advocates often having very little mechanical or scientific aptitude.

[Mr. Bumble]

The headline doesn't help. There is nothing "apparently" wrong about it, it is just plain wrong.

Nothing new for Biden.

[Don Nico]

Old Slow Joe strikes again

[Frank Drackman]

"Get a Shotgun!!"

[TwelveInchPianist]

Biden implied that the J6 rioters killed several police officers. In reality, they killed no one, in contrast to the BLM rioters.

[DaivdBehar]

Hate to interrupt this grat discussion about trivial nitpicking of a mistake. Here the reality of the failure of the lawyer profession. Most crime is committed by habitual criminals who should have been gone at a young age. Most rampage murders are committed by untreated psychotic people. Why are they untreated? Because the lawyer profession required a dangerous act and a trial employing 3 lawyers.

Muzzle velocity quibbling is not the problem. Lawyer denial of the toxicity of the profession is.

[Flight-ER-Doc]

No, but police officers did manage to kill a couple of peaceful citizens

[Sebastian Cremmington]

Nuts hopped up on speed smashing windows with their bare fists aren’t “peaceful citizens”.

[Brett Bellmore]

I can tell you from personal experience that windows aren't hard to break with a bare fist, especially if the glass isn't tempered. Apparently you can do it just knocking on a glass door, if you're unlucky.

[Currentsitguy]

I did it probably 20 years ago at a rural gas station that still had the 1970's style pumps with the painted rolling numbers. The whole front was covered in glass. It was the middle of winter and the glass was so coated in iced I couldn't see how much I was pumping, so I just barely rapped on the glass to knock the ice off and the whole damn thing shattered.

The attendant told me to not worry because they were being replaced the next week.

[Sebastian Cremmington]

Watch the video.

[ReaderY]

Brian Sicknick just spontaneously combusted?

[Darth Buckeye]

Brian Sidenick's death was not caused by the 1/06 rioters.

[Agammamon]

Of course, if the childcare becomes more than one person can manage then sure, it’s entirely reasonable that society chips in with some of those general resources of labour and so on

Even NPR says Socknick died of natural causes - a day later.

[Ben_]

Their ignorance helps them to justify their bias.

They mostly see gun owners as the other. People who are not like them need to be controlled with regulations and punishments.

Gun controllers never intend to learn anything about guns or the people who own them.

[DaivdBehar]

65 million gun owners had 400 million guns today without incident.

[MoreCurious]

1. A human aims a firearm at another human. 2. A human pulls the trigger. 3. A bullet leaves the firearm. 4. If properly aimed, the bullet hits the other human. 5. The other human is either injured or killed.

Am I missing anything, Mr. Dallas?

[Bored Lawyer]

Why don't you address yourself to the false claims the president made in support of gun control? Your arguments apply to EVERY firearm every manufactured.

[Ben_]

"Am I missing anything"

Context, at the very least.

[Jerry B.]

“1. A human aims a firearm at another human”

Very infrequently. The vast majority of the time, a human aims a firearm at an inanimate target. Less frequently, but still much more often than aiming at another human, a human aims at a game animal, in a process known as “hunting”. Then there are the times when a human does aim a firearm at another human, and tells them to stop being aggressive, and they do. Very little gunfire results in a killed or injured human.

[Agammamon]

In about 2/3rds of the instances where a human aims a gun at a human the human is aiming the gun at themselves.

We don't have a gin violence problem, we have a suicide problem and guns are only a tool.

[Flight-ER-Doc]

Let me check with Alex Baldwin

[Armchair Lawyer]

1. A human aims a "Blank1" at another human. 2. A human "blank2" the "blank3". 4. If properly aimed, the blank1 hits the other human. 5. The other human is either injured or killed.

Insert as appropriate:
1. Knife, throws, knife
2. Car, accelerates, car
3. Fist, throws, punch.
4. Pen, stabs, pen
5. Pig, throws, pig
6. insult, says, insult

[Ben_]

awg?

[Joe_dallas]

agw - corrected typo

[Ben_]

Summer is the season for agw weather.

[Orbital Mechanic]

You can get shot. That's all you need to understand.

Some guns are more popular with domestic terrorists than others. Helpful to understand that.

[Rossami]

If by "domestic terrorists", you mean the FBI's definition of mass shooters, you are correct. And AR-15s are not among them. Long arms of any type are not among them.

So with that "helpful understanding, how do you defend Biden's latest obfuscation?

[Kazinski]

There is nothing to defend about Biden's ramblings "Old Man Shouts at Clouds, News at 11".

Now if they are trying to claim Biden knows what he's talking about, well that's indefensible.

[Intelligent Mr Toad]

Well, that's true, but it doesn't matter much. I mean, if someone's kid gets hit in the head by stray gunfire, the firing mechanism of the gun usually won't be the uppermost thing in the parents' minds. Neither will the question of whether the gun was "automatic" or "semi-automatic"; also, they probably won't be ruminating on the fuzzy definitions of the term "assault weapon".

Oh, and since you mentioned AGW, the skeptics of it don't usually have very impressive knowledge of the science either. How many times have I seen these idiots argue that "There's no point in worrying about CO2, because the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is so much greater than the amount of CO2 is or ever could be, the CO2 is just a tiny tiny micro-droplet in the bucket, so increasing or decreasing it won't make any difference!" Anyone who makes this argument has either never mastered high-school chemistry, or is a clown pretending to be cognitively impaired.

[Ben_]

That’s a great argument. All we have to do is find (or make up) one bad argument from one person who disagrees and that proves more-or-less anything true and irrefutable. Thanks!

[Mr. Bumble]

Suggest you change your screen name.

Maybe The Not So Intelligent Mr. Toady.

[Rossami]

An interesting comment from someone who apparently never mastered either high school chemistry or 8th grade logic.

Hint - see strawman fallacy.

[Joe_dallas]

Intelligent -

I for one believe climate science is very complex. Javier Vinós & Andy May have a several very good studies on the complexities that affect our understanding of climate. While, CO2 may be a player in climate change, it certainly is unlikely to be the driver/control knob.

That being said, when I see climate scientists and the AGW advocates get so much of the basics wrong, it should make any one how those scientists have the capacity to understand climate science. Just look at their misconceptions of paleo reconstructions, attribution of weather to climate change, their understanding of renewables.

Go to the "Science Based" website, skeptical science dot com. Its embarrassing how misinformed they are about the basics.

[Intelligent Mr Toad]

I myself am still agnostic about atmospheric CO2.

If you ask a hundred randomly chosen atmospheric chemists whether AGW is a real thing, 95 of them will give the same answer: "I don't know. My research doesn't have anything to do with that question."

[Kazinski]

Well you are right about that, CO2 can increase temperatures when it increases, up to the point of saturation. But the dominant amount of water vapor does mean that there can be no positive feedback because of increased water vapor caused by CO2 warming, otherwise H2O would have already caused runaway feedback on its own.

[Michael Ejercito]

Explain what a positive feedback.is.

[Ben_]

Positive feedback is where a little heating causes changes that lead to more heating.

A good example is an electric circuit in thermal runaway. You can Google thermal runaway.

Systems with positive feedback are unstable. Stable systems are systems with negative feedback, where something like an increased temperature leads to cloud formation, which blocks sunlight and you get cooling (or at least heating that limits itself).

Unstable systems tend to swing wildly toward extremes and only change direction when they reach a catastrophic breakdown point. Then swing wildly in the other direction.

Climate seems pretty stable to me. Others will say it’s got levels of instability inside other levels of stability.

I’d say by the year 2150, the people of the future should be able to handle a lot more problems than we can. I’m not sure why, or how much, we should make the people of 2022 poorer to assist the much more advanced people of 2150.

[Agammamon]

Never. You've never heard a skeptic say that.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Fun fact. I looked up a table of firearms and pistol muzzle velocities.

Not a single one in common use had a muzzle velocity that was 20% of that of that of an AR-15. Not rifles, not handguns, nothing.

I needed to go back to little black powder pistols made before 1900 to get a gun with a muzzle velocity 20% of that of an AR-15.

[iowatwo]

You do understand this post has nothing to do with muzzle velocity?

This is about Biden (know nothing speech writer?) lying to generate an emotional, not logical reaction. Its about not having any facts to support their plan, so are forced to lie. Its about Democrats being stupid in the problem solving. Spending $trillion to fix high priced college, instead of addressing why college education price far outstrip inflation.

Besides all that subterfuge. Muzzle velocity has zero influence on the 2cnd amendment.

[CarlosT]

The article links to a source of various calibers and their muzzle velocities. 5.56 is on the faster side of average. It's not a hugely power round overall, however, because the bullet itself is so lightweight. By definition, the caliber is considered "intermediate", in the middle in terms of power, and effectiveness.

[Agammamon]

It is *not* on the faster side of average for rifle rounds.

[DonP]

5.56/.223 is also a very small and light projectile at 55 or 62 grains. As opposed to the 147 to 150 Grain 30-06 or .308 in the 03, M1 or M14 at around 2,800 fps. Easier to push to higher muzzle velocities.

[Frank Drackman]

357 magnum is way more than 20%

[Brett Bellmore]

Not that Biden particularly cares. He knows what he wants to do, decides on an excuse for doing it, and then just invents any supporting 'facts' he needs. He's been doing this his entire career, and getting away with it, because he's generally wanted to do things the media liked, so they didn't call him on his lies.

[Joe_dallas]

Brett - I wouldnt call Biden's statement a lie - more of complete lack of comprehension of the subject matter. A common deficiency of most leftists.

[Michael D]

You may be giving Biden too much credit.

[Joe_dallas]

Michael - you do have a valid point, though as I mentioned, most leftists have very poor mechanical or scientific aptitude. That lack of aptitude has shown up prominently with the responses associated with covid, awg, renewables, etc.

[Flight-ER-Doc]

For most leftists/democrats/progressives/tranzies, the only physics they ever took was Ex-Lax

[Don Nico]

Bravo, Doc

[Mr. Bumble]

Want to make sure it's clean before....

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

God you people are boring!

[Michael D]

But, but, “the science”.

Actually, that is an interesting observation which I have not really considered.

My wife would describe it as the difference between a man who knows how to change a tire and one who does not. She would have wanted nothing to do with the one who cannot even do that minor mechanical task.

[Ben_]

Why learn to change a tire when you can just declare the lack of tire pressure a market failure?

[Flight-ER-Doc]

Sandy? Sandy Cortez? Is that you?

[Intelligent Mr Toad]

RE: "...as I mentioned, most leftists have very poor mechanical or scientific aptitude."

So do most right-wingers. So, for that matter, do most Americans. So do most people in the world. A very old friend once mentioned, in an entirely different context: "The large majority of people in the world have never heard of Einstein."

[Mr. Bumble]

You forgot to mention the press in your list.

[PeteRR]

The guy's been pushing gun control for 30 years. Benefit of the doubt left the room decades ago. He was a complete liar in the past and now he's too dementia-addled to ever correct himself.

[Bored Lawyer]

See my comment below.

"Fraud includes the pretense of knowledge when knowledge there is none."
Ultramares Corp. v. Touche, 255 N.Y. 170, 179 (1932).

[Ridgeway]

It is the liberal version of something Trump would say: you make a sweeping declaration based on something you heard or read a while back, and half understood. There is usually a kernel of truth surrounded by a lot of BS.

[circleglider]

“Not that [the federal judiciary] particularly cares. [They] know what [they] want to do, decide on an excuse for doing it, and then just invent any supporting 'facts' [they] need. [They’ve] been doing this [their] entire careers, and getting away with it, because [they] generally wanted to do things the media liked, so [no one] called [them] on [their] lies.”

Fixed it for you.

The Tennessee Law Review article linked in Prof. Volokh’s post is a devastating indictment of our federal judiciary. Not only are many of our Article III judges intellectually bankrupt—unable to identify basic facts or employ any modicum of critical reasoning—they are also so blinded by their ideological biases as to be incapable of rendering anything approaching impartial justice. That so many of these judges were nominated and confirmed by Democratic partisans further weakens public trust in our institutions, probably now past the breaking point.

I’m embarrassed to admit that I haven’t closely followed gun control scholarship in the last few years, as I was so disappointed with the poor outcomes of the immediately post-Heller litigation. Gregory Wallace’s “‘Assault Weapon’ Lethality” article is a tour de force. But it shouldn’t be the sole responsibility of plaintiffs or advocates of enumerated constitutional rights to have to make the case for basic empirical facts. Sadly, that is the post-Enlightement world in which we all now live.

[QuantumBoxCat]

So you are capable of critically examining the claims made by others? Your whipped cream post led me to believe otherwise.

Maybe has something to do with the underlying issues involved and the message you want to convey to your readers.

[Michael P]

Lots of retailers had the broad interpretation of the whipped cream law -- and they had an incentive to be skeptical.

In this case, the claim is phenomenally stupid, so much so that only someone dishonest or both seriously motivated and deeply ignorant could believe it.

[VinniUSMC]

Were you under the impression that EV is infallible? I mean, why shouldn't he believe NBC, they're not Fox after all. Right?

[Mr. Bumble]

If ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise.

Gun control advocates wallow in ignorance.

Virtually no firearm is restricted to only one type of cartridge all of which have different ballistic characteristics.

[nobody 2]

During the Obama administration Biden rather famously claimed that instead of buying a rifle for home defense, people should buy a double-barrelled shotgun and shoot it in the air to scare off burglars--advice which manages to be ineffective for home defense, potentially lethal to the neighbors, and also illegal all at the same time.

[MoreCurious]

Since most people in a time of stress couldn't hit the side of a barn with a rifle from 10 feet away, what exactly is wrong about using a shotgun if you feel the need to defend your home and its occupants with a firearm? And how do you know that firing the first round if a double-barreled shotgun wouldn't be enough to care off burglars?

[Frank Drackman]

Shotguns are great (except maybe for the XX population) it was the "Shoot it out the window" part that was stupid

[NoobyNoobyDoo]

No one said shotguns cannot be *A* good choice.

What comes up, must come down. Shooting into the air is stupid and against gun safety rules.

[Kazinski]

"[if] you want to keep someone away from your house, just fire the shotgun through the door."
-Joe Biden Feb 2013

https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/02/28/biden-advises-shooting-shotgun-through-door

Of course firing a warning shot whether through a door or not without having some idea of who it might be is foolhardy, I think cops usually shoot at least 50 rounds with deadly intent for every warning shot loosed in their vicinity.

[Currentsitguy]

Precisely the reason I keep a 12 gauge next to the bed for the bleary eyed 3AM forcible entry. That, however, doesn't mean I don't own several other types of rifles and handguns of varying caliber and action for other times and purposes. Honestly it's nobody's business or right to think or decide they can dictate to me what I "need".

Obviously shooting into the air is one of the stupidest, most dangerous things you can do, not to mention it is highly illegal in most jurisdictions.

It also helps to load with 00 Buck. Less extraneous and potentially harmful spread that way.

[Agammamon]

We don't live on a wooded, slightly secluded, home with room to be firing off rounds up in the air without risk of hurting innocents.

[David Bremer]

Obligatory: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-mztxHgYQo

[Flight-ER-Doc]

There are at least nine rifle calibers available today in factory loads that are faster than 3250 fps at the barrel.

Some of the calibers, such as the .243 Winchester, .220 Swift and the .22-250 Remington are near 100 years old. The .220 Swift is probably the fastest at 4400 fps.

Then there are the so-called 'wildcat' cartridges, custom made by shooting aficionados, that exceed even 4400 fps.

But, as my friend Larry Elder is wont to say: Facts to a liberal are like kryptonite to Superman.

[Agammamon]

In addition, you're only getting 3k fps put of 5.56 with a 20+ in barrel.

For the more common configs (16 in or shorter) 2500-2700 is the norm and the real short barrels (sub 12in) are down to 22-2300.

[Brett Bellmore]

Worth mentioning, from a technical perspective: His claim was basically impossible.

You can't drive the bullet out the end of the barrel any faster than the speed of sound in the gas behind it. Making that gas hotter and denser gets you some gain, but the absolute fastest conventional rounds top out at under 5,000 fps.

To get to the kind of muzzle velocity he's talking about you need to use two stage light gas gun, of the sort NASA uses for simulating meteor impacts.

Now, maybe somebody told him that the muzzle velocity of an AR-15 could be as high as 5 times that of some pistol rounds, which, sure, is true. Because some pistol rounds are really lame...

[Flight-ER-Doc]

True, but some are quite speedy - the .221 Remington XP-100 bolt action pistol, for example. Short barrel and 3000 fps

[Craig Johnston]

I think he may have been told that you can fire an AR-15 five times faster than a bolt action rifle. I can’t think of anything else an AR-15 can do anything like five times faster than some other rifles.

[Absaroka]

Just to be a pedant, AR's are a type of action, which are available in pretty much any caliber from 22LR to .458 WinMag. If someone doesn't like fast cartridges, they should probably be talking about a cartridge - .223 or 5.56 or whatever - not the shape of a rifle. Unless they want to ban 5.56 AR's but not 300BLK ones.

n.b., I'm using the definition of AR's that I think Biden is likely using, i.e. one that includes AR-10's, yadda, yadda - anything that is cosmetically similar to the original AR-15. Whether it is direct impingement, piston, radial delayed, the size of the magwell, etc don't generally seem important to Biden et al. In fact, I recall a tweet from Mom's Demand calling for an AR ban that had a picture of an AR shaped bolt action rifle. I don't know if they want to ban those too, or just don't understand the difference.

(Joke I saw last week: 'In the interest of gun safety, we should ban AR-15's; the limit should be AR-10's because they are 5 AR's safer')

[Flight-ER-Doc]

Agree that we should only have AR-10's. Like mine in 6.5 Creedmore and .300 Win Mag...

Much safer, if only because the ammo is so much more expensive 🙂

[starlord1988]

I have to say, that joke is great.

[dwb68]

Muzzle velocity from an AR15 is a function of barrel length. out of my 16" most ammo is in the 2800 range, not 3300. The hottest I have tested is true 556 (not 223) Wolf Gold and PMC which came in at 3100. 3300 is kind of a pipe dream from maybe a 20" barrel, but no one uses those except target shooters and ammo manufacturers trying to pump up their marketing.

An AR Short barrel rifle (still a rifle, legally) with a 12" barrel will probably see 2600-2700 fps with commercial loads.

Also, "AR15" has no real caliber designation. My 350 legend deer gun is built on an "AR15" lower with a 350 legend caliber upper. the velocity of the 165 gr I use for deer is around 2200 fps. This is just as deadly to 2 and 4 legged creatures as 223/556. It has roughly the same ballistics as 7.62x39 and 300 blackout. Basically I now hunt with a suppressed AR15 in 350 legend, because I can thanks to the new regs.

[dwb68]

Also, there is no need to cite an antigun article on muzzle velocity when its generally printed on the package. If you google it, most manufacturers will also disclose what gun/barrel length they used to test the velocity. Many use a 26" barrel. :kek:

[MatthewSlyfield]

.22LR is going to be one of if not the slowest rifle rounds.

.22LR muzzle velosity is a little over 1100 fps, more than 1/3rd of the MV for 5.56mm NATO.

[dwb68]

nope.

.22LR varies. Some is going to be 1100 fps (which is barely supersonic). 1040 fps is typical for subsonic .22lr. This will be a function of barrel length. There are high velocity loads which go up to 1400 fps.

.22 CB and .22 short are going to be slower. .22 CB is probably 750 fps from a rifle.

However there are other larger caliber handgun rounds slower than typical .22lr: the venerable .45 cal (think 1911) will be ~830 fps. 38 special +P (158 grain) may be 800-900 fps (http://www.ballistics101.com/38_special.php).

But also: there are subsonic rifle rounds in every rifle caliber. 300 BLK is a very popular subsonic load. .22 LR high velocity is faster than 300 blk subsonic.

Speed is not a function of caliber. Speed is a function of the amount of powder behind the bullet. You can propel a wide heavy bullet slowly, or a narrow light bullet fast, or any other combination.

[MatthewSlyfield]

The speed of sound in feet per second is 1125.33. 1100 fps is sub-sonic.

[dwb68]

Speed of sound varies with air density (i.e. altitude, ambient temperature, and humidity)... but you knew that, right?.... It could be 1075 around here in winter.

Also, the box-listed velocity is not that accurate either. I have chronoed much my ammo. +/- 25 fps standard deviation in a ten shot string is not unusual. So you *will* get some that are supersonic, even if its hot outside.

Some of the factory-labeled 556 registers 2800+/- 50 fps on my magnetospeed - when it should be more like 3150. You never really know what you are getting out of the box until you measure is.

[lucia_l]

Speed of sound varies with air density (i.e. altitude, ambient temperature, and humidity)

Well, technically it's not a function of air density or altitude. It only *seems* to be a function of air density or altitude because density of a gas varies as a function of temperature (and pressure) and the temperature varies as a function of altitude.

Speed of sound in dry air varies as a function of temperature c=sqrt(γRT). The quantities γ and R do depend on the medium-- so they vary with humidity.

[MatthewSlyfield]

"Speed is not a function of caliber. Speed is a function of the amount of powder behind the bullet."

This is true and .22LR which is a cartridge, not just a bullet is one of the smallest rifle cartridges out there.

[dwb68]

and also: .22 LR and 223 or 556 are the same caliber (.224 in) in diameter. The speed difference is due to the cartridge which contains more or less powder

[Harvey Mosley]

".22 LR and 223 or 556 are the same caliber (.224 in) in diameter."

Not exactly. .22LR is .223 in. The .223 and 5.56 are .224 in.

[John F. Carr]

Typically, handguns are barely supersonic and long guns are well into the supersonic range.

There was a copy of the Shooter's Bible around the house when I grew up so I learned about ballistics long before I took any formal mechanics or fluid dynamics courses.

[MatthewSlyfield]

.22LR even out of a full size rifle will be sub-sonic.

[Goju]

Matthew, you need to read up on 22LR. CCI has some that run out the barrel at 1640 and there are specialty rounds that hit 1800. All are factory rounds.

17 Rem was the first factory produced round to surpass the 4000 mark. A couple of other calibers have joined this club.

[Bored Lawyer]

Biden LIED?

Faints on the couch.

[Sigivald]

Naw, Biden said some nonsense.

Lies are knowing deceits.

I think he was sincere, just utterly wrong/addled/mishmashing some half-remembered bullshit.

(Because why make up THAT lie? As a tactic it makes almost no sense compared to literally-true-but-misleading things one could replace it with, like the Kevlar line.

Remember that a lot more people are incompetent than cunning, and even people who'd be happy to lie are ... still incompetent.)

[Brett Bellmore]

Guy's got a record. He was lying.

[Frank Drackman]

He probably stole it from some other idiot liberal.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Good job Brett.

Now do Trump.

[zztop8970]

do you ever get tired of whataboutisms?
I realize you've got nothing better in the way of argument, but still..

[DonP]

"But, but, but TRUMP!!!" It's all they have with Biden at the Helm and his Cabinet of; "Who? What? Why Me? Secretaries". Not like they can point to his track record with pride.

[KenveeB]

Speaking with willful ignorance can still be a lie. If you're going to say something, you should have some sort of good-faith knowledge that it's true, not just "boy, this sounds great for my argument!"

[Bored Lawyer]

OR, as I have not repeatedly quoted, "Fraud includes the pretense of knowledge when knowledge there is none."
Ultramares Corp. v. Touche, 255 N.Y. 170, 179 (1932).

Biden made a very specific, and very false, factual statement. It sounded like he had some basis for what he was saying. If he did, he should point to it. If not, admit to being a first class liar.

[shawn_dude]

LOL. If that were true, 99% of the people on this thread should never post on Reason/Volokh about anything.

[Mr. Bumble]

Sorry to hear you'll be leaving.

[Kazinski]

Well the interesting thing to watch here is how the fact check sites are going to spin this so they don't have to say Biden lied.

They can't say he's confused, that would be worse. Maybe "lacks context", like any other gun meant the Brown Bess musket used by the British in the Revolutionary war, which was itself becoming obsolescent at the time.

[Carl_N_Brown]

The Brown Bess had a muzzle velocity of 1300 fps (.69" ball and 3 buckshot) to 1800 fps (.69" lead ball only) with standard issue powder charge.

660 fps for Biden's "any other gun besides an AR-15" makes the Brown Bess bullet two or three times as rapid as a bullet shot out of "any other gun".

The 1934 NFA has categories like rifle, shotgun, handgun, machine gun, and AOW (any other weapon not one of the above).
I guess "any other gun besides an AR-15" is a new category for firearms with a velocity really really low. Is there an executive order on that by Biden?

[Bruce Hayden]

Part of the absurdity here is the assumption that bullets coming out of the barrel of AR-15s all travel at one speed. They don’t. I have one AR-15 that shoots .300 Blackout, and I have subsonic ammunition (1125 fps).

So maybe what he wanted to say was that some bullets shot from one AR-15 can travel almost 5 times as fast as some other bullets from some other AR-15.

[Mr. Bumble]

"So maybe what he wanted to say was that some bullets shot from one AR-15 can travel almost 5 times as fast as some other bullets from some other AR-15."

That would assume he knew something about the topic, which for Biden is definitely not the case.

[MatthewSlyfield]

He'd still be wrong. The fastest rounds available (4300fps) are still only 4 times faster than standard .22LR (1120FPS, about the slowest you will get in a rifle round). If he's comparing against pistol rounds, that's even dumber.

[Sigivald]

Even granting "the standard and by far most common chambering", different loads have different velocities, and there are at least two standard bullet weights, because it's a 60 year old platform.

But the real problem is it's wrong no matter what, and he's the President talking nonsense.

(His talk about guns has always been laughably stupid and wrong; didn't he tell people they should fire warning shots or shoot through doors?)

[Flight-ER-Doc]

And different barrel lengths make a huge difference. An M16 firing the M193 ammo from a 20" barrel will average out around 3250 fps. An M4 firing the M193 ammo from a 14.5" barrel will be closer to 2800 fps.

Thats just physics.

Then there is the shooting esoterica - bullet mass, powder composition and mass, primer composition, temperature of the firearm and sheer randomness...

[Carl_N_Brown]

.223 Remington/5.56 NATO rounds are offered in bullet weights from 45 grains to 77 grains, with 55 grain and 62 grain being the most common.

Jody Pearson in the film "Phantasm" advised Mike: "Now, remember: you don't aim a gun at a man unless you intend to shoot him. And, you don't shoot a man unless you intend to kill him. No warning shots. Hey, you listening to me? No warning shots. Warning shots are bullshit. You shoot to kill, or you don't shoot at all."

Better self-defense advice than Joe Biden's from a B grade horror movie.

In most jurisdictions I know of, firing a warning shot implies you knew lethal force was not necessary but you used lethal force anyway and it viewed as escalation more like to enflame a situation.
And you can shoot through a door if a "reasonable person" would believe the person was coming through that door with the ability, opportunity and means to kill you if you did not act. "reasonable person" being a prosecutor or grand jury or trail judge or trial jury and they can be skeptickal.

[Longtobefree]

Anything a democrat says about guns is a lie.
Period.

[MoreCurious]

They kill people?

[Kleppe]

People kill people.

[Frank Drackman]

Ted Kennedy's Oldsmobile killed a Person (Asphyxiated, not Drowned, there's a difference)

[Mr. Bumble]

"They kill people?"
Offering proof of Longtobefree's statement?

People kill people, be it with guns, knives, hands, hammers, cars and on and on.

[Flight-ER-Doc]

And places where firearms are not in common supply, people STILL kill people.

[Michael P]

Exceedingly rarely. Bullets are more often the immediate tool of killing.

[Shamie Ervin iv]

Muzzle velocity depends on the ammo. 223 is not as fast as 5.56. No AR-15 ammo will give you mach 5. MV of 5.56 is around 3K fps. Biden is a wack.

[Flight-ER-Doc]

Not true. .223 light bullets can exceed 3250. 5.56 is either a 55 grain (M193) or 62 grain (M855) bullet.

The Black Hills Ammo 36gr bullet clocks at 3750 fps, as just one example.

Conversely the militaries Mk-262 Mod 1 77 gr bullet for 5.56 is rated at 2750 fps

[Bob from Ohio]

Biden also once again used his lie about not being able to buy cannons at the founding.

[damikesc]

I guess Twitter's rules on misinformation do not apply to when the President lies.

It's not like he does not have access to people who actually know the info.

[Bored Lawyer]

Truth is what the party says is truth.

[Jimmy the Dane]

A few years ago I read 1984 again and it shocked me how close we have come to the society painted in that book.

[Longtobefree]

You read a cautionary novel; others read an instruction manual.

[Bored Lawyer]

"Fraud includes the pretense of knowledge when knowledge there is none."
Ultramares Corp. v. Touche, 255 N.Y. 170, 179 (1932).

As usual, Cardozo did a great job summing up the point. Just need to know when to apply it.

[SRG]

So at least we can agree that when the president lies or is grossly ignorant, that's a bad thing.

[bevis the lumberjack]

I see what you’re doing there….

Yes we can agree. We’ll, a few of us anyway.

[Bob from Ohio]

"we can agree that when the president lies or is grossly ignorant, that's a bad thing."

Sure. I've always said Trump and Biden are two peas in a pod. Both faked illness to dodge the draft, both were indifferent students, both lie often.

Difference is the media harped on Trump lies, but barely notice Biden's.

[shawn_dude]

Biden: Hey Jack! These bullets are a trillion times faster!
Trump: It didn't rain during my inauguration and the crowds were bigger than Obama's!

Difference: Biden has no reason to understand the speed of various types of ammunition, like the majority of Americans. Trump was at the inauguration when it rained, as were a lot of other people, who were infamously not nearly as many as at Obama's inauguration, which was obvious to anyone with eyes.

Biden spoke about something he knew little about and made a factual error.
Trump attempted to change reality on behalf of his ego despite knowing it was a lie and despite knowing it was easy to verify.

One of them appears pathological and the other does not.

[Bob from Ohio]

Biden's lie is worse because its an attempt to influence policy. Trump was just boosting his ego in a weird way. People might believe Biden, nobody believed Trump in your example.

Biden lies just as easily as Trump.

[gormadoc]

"Biden has no reason to understand the speed of various types of ammunition"
If a politician is trying to use a fact to influence the public and create policy, then they absolutely do have a reason to know that the "fact" is true first.

[ducksalad]

So, shawn_dude, you're opinion is that policymakers have "no need" to understand the topic on which they are proposing policy?

Since you don't believe policy should be based on understanding, what *do* you think the basis should be?

[Ben_]

Making life worse for Americans is my guess. Most Dem policies seem to have that basis.

[Bored Lawyer]

And yet Biden claimed specific knowledge about a fact, and used that as an argument to enact a sweeping policy. That's utterly mendacious. In other words, a blatant liar.

And your defense seems to be, Trump is worse. Not a great defense. Imagine a murder case, "Yeah judge, I killed those three innocent people. But Charles Manson killed more and was more depraved." That gets you a lifetime trip to the state pen., and in some places capital punishment.

[Mike Hansberry]

Biden knows nothing about his son's business contacts. Discuss.

[Frank Drackman]

He also said you can't buy a cannon or automatic weapon (you can)

[Jimmy the Dane]

In some jurisdictions it is also LEGAL to fire that cannon as well, with live rounds, not just historical re-enactor stuff. You generally have to own all the land and it must be far far away from anyone else. Also to own the live round you need to have an explosives permit and pay the tax. But, there are some people who go through all of this just to once a year or so fire off an actual cannon.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, my neighbor back in Michigan had a cannon, shot it every 4th of July, and occasionally on non-holidays. We lived out in the country, he had several miles of back range.

[Jimmy the Dane]

The guy I knew who would set off his two restored civil war era cannons was something similar, but he lived in the middle of a desert. I think the tax stamp for each round was $250 at the time, but he would raise the old red, white, and blue, and fire those cannons because he said that was a small price to pay for freedom.

[Flight-ER-Doc]

Heh. In an oddity of the federal firearms laws, it's far easier to shoot a 155mm howitzer than a 105mm. A 155 has separate projectile and powder and so is not considered a destructive device...

[Jimmy the Dane]

Earlier this week a demoncrat rep was passing around disinformation that rifles leave "foot size wounds" in victims.

Also, if you want more disinformation see the communist news network's op-ed (you can't call this stuff news) on how "machine gun" violence is becoming an epidemic. Only problem is the guns involved were 1) already illegal 2) the operation that made them fire faster is illegal and 3) by "epidemic" it went from zero to three incidents.

This stuff all reminds me of the media disinformation in the early 90's that led to the AWB. Looking for the media to start talking about "street sweepers" and "uzis" again. Bonus points if they do it MC Hammer pants.

[DaveM]

Well, all politicians lie. But there's a difference between intentionally not telling the truth, and not even knowing what the truth is in the first place.

[Ben_]

In this case, it's not caring to try to learn.

[cjcoats]

The Army says the current round is too short-range (less than 200 yards) when fired from current military assault rifles.

See and :

...Yet for military use, the 5.56×45 NATO round (223 Rem) has shown itself to be consistently
inadequate in range and penetration, ever since its adoption in the 1960s. Since that time,
many different bullet weights and configurations have been introduced in an effort to address
range and penetration issues, but none have adequately solved the problem....

...particularly with the much-reduced velocity coming out of the M4's 10-inch barrel!

So they are in the process of changing to a new standard round : NGSW-6.8x51 that uses a heavier, higher ballistic coefficient (better streamlined) bullet and much higher chamber pressure (80,000 PSI vs 55,000 PSI) in order to get much-improved long-range ballistices even with a relatively short barrel.

[Flight-ER-Doc]

And we will discover that the new 6.8 round (.270 for the Jack O'Conner fans) will eat barrels like nobody's business.

And the hybrid case? Well, lets hope it works out well in the field.

[Currentsitguy]

Well I suppose you could manufacture the barrels out of something like tungsten, but it would be insanely expensive and nigh on impossible to machine.

[AmosArch]

Even if it was true what would it matter in any significant capacity? Is he afraid for the life of the Flash assaulting an NRA convention?

[Bored Lawyer]

Stop asking intelligent questions. This is Biden we are talking about.

[santamonica811]

When I read it, my assumption was that it was saying (inelegantly), "Bullets fly out of this particular gun 5 times faster (ie, in X seconds of firing, 5 bullets can come out of this gun for every 1 bullet out of a different gun."

Actually traveling 5x faster is crazy, of course. But the idea that this gun (and some others) can fire at a MUCH faster rate than, say, a revolver, is obvious. I agree that this is not what the President said. But it's a fair reading of what he might have actually meant. (When people try to ban this gun, or a few others; they almost always focus on the ability of it to fire a massive amount of bullets in a short period of time...and they do not focus on the flight-speed of the bullets, penetrating ability of the bullets, etc..)

[Mr. Bumble]

Anything other than a full auto weapons will fire only as fast as the shooter pulls the trigger.

Your attempt at a save is a fail.

[Bob from Ohio]

"this gun (and some others) can fire at a MUCH faster rate than, say, a revolver, is obvious"

An AR-15 fires at the same rate as any other semi-automatic.

I believe revolvers are actually faster by a hair, depending on the skill of the user. Its a trivial difference.

[Goju]

This is speed. And he put 2 holes in each of 6 targets at 10 yds with a center fire revolver.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qNFW8eSzb44
12 rds in 3 seconds.

[Longtobefree]

Still my favorite way to fox the banners - -
Short Magazine Lee-Enfield:
Cartridge .303 Mk VII SAA Ball
Action Bolt-action
Rate of fire 20–30 aimed shots* per minute
Muzzle velocity 744 m/s (2,441 ft/s)
Effective firing range 550 yd (503 m)[8]
Maximum firing range 3,000 yd (2,743 m)[8]
Feed system 10-round magazine, loaded with 5-round charger clips

(Note that this is NOT an assault rifle by today's definitions)
*By aimed shots they mean a head sized target at 300 yards

[DRM]

But the idea that this gun (and some others) can fire at a MUCH faster rate than, say, a revolver, is obvious.

No. A double-action revolver (like was standard issue for police departments back fifty years ago) will fire one bullet every time the trigger is pulled. A semi-automatic rifle will also fire one bullet every time the trigger is pulled. The firing rate is identical.

"Actually traveling 5x faster" on the other hand, is not crazy, if you replace "any other gun" with "many other guns". 4200 fps loads have been done for .223 AR-15s, which is indeed a bullet traveling five times faster than, for example, the standard 230-grain bullet .45 ACP load fired from a Colt 1911 (830 fps).

[Absaroka]

"and they do not focus on the flight-speed of the bullets"

The 'AR's are bad because their bullets are fast' has actually been a gun control talking point over the last few months.

[shawn_dude]

Pedantry as diversion from the larger issue and message?

Check!

[Ben_]

What’s the larger issue?

Why should anyone listen to gun controllers when they betray their near perfect ignorance of guns and gun owners in every sentence they utter on the topic?

[Eugene Volokh]

shawn_dude: 1. I've blogged my substantive big-picture arguments as to why I think "assault weapons" bans won't work; I link to them in the post's last paragraph.

2. Obviously President Biden thought that the "five times faster" item was relevant to his argument; why wouldn't an explanation that his assertion is wrong also be relevant?

[JasonT20]

Obviously President Biden thought that the "five times faster" item was relevant to his argument; why wouldn't an explanation that his assertion is wrong also be relevant?

Your explanation that he was wrong should have included information comparing the .223 Remington rounds most AR-15's fire to typical handgun rounds, rather than just to those of other rifles. 9mm rounds reach ~900-1000 fps from a handgun, so the .223 fired from an AR-15 would be about 3 times that velocity. .45 ACP is a little slower, but a heavier bullet. Kinetic energy is 1/2*mass*velocity^2, so the .223 rounds carry considerably more kinetic energy (~3x) despite their lower mass and thus will inflict more damage to body tissue.

The debate over semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15 is primarily about their comparison to handguns and shotguns. I would think that you know this quite well and yet still left out this relevant part of the comparison. Biden might be wrong on the facts, but you were not giving all of the relevant facts that are correct in response.

[Rossami]

The Biden quote says "any other gun", not 'some other guns' or 'handguns'. If he wanted us to compare AR-15 muzzle velocity to other types of weapons, his speechwriters are certainly capable of making that distinction clearly.

The Biden quote also specifically calls out AR-15s, not 'rifles' generally. Your attempt to rehabilitate the witness has failed, counselor.

By the way, your sweeping generalizations about wound ballistics are also incorrect. Or more precisely, incomplete. Kinetic energy comparisons are only relevant if 100% of the energy remains in the target. Since rifle bullets pass through the target more often than pistol bullets, the kinetic energy delivered to the target is on average lower than your analysis implies. Also relevant is the fact that the relevant energy is at the target, not at the muzzle. Higher velocity and lower mass means geometrically greater air resistance. A small effect at some ranges but significant at others - and another example of why your sweeping generalization is incomplete.

[JasonT20]

Too many links in my reply, so here it is without them while it is "awaiting moderation".

The Biden quote also specifically calls out AR-15s, not 'rifles' generally. Your attempt to rehabilitate the witness has failed, counselor.

Of course Biden was wrong about "any other gun", whether it was his speechwriters or a spontaneous comment. I was not defending his claim in any way. I was not trying to "rehabilitate the witness". My point, to reiterate, is that while criticizing Biden's statement, one shouldn't compound his mistake by also neglecting relevant information and context. The debate here is civilian ownership of semi-automatic rifles that fire high velocity rounds virtually identical to those used by modern infantry forces. The natural comparison in that debate is between such rifles and handguns or shotguns. Hunting rifles are generally not semi-automatic with 30-round magazines, unlike the AR-15. That is why we see these semi-automatic rifles used in some so-called "mass shooting" events. So comparing the velocity or energy of a round from an AR-15 to a hunting rifle is at best tangential to the debate, at worst a purposeful distraction.

Kinetic energy comparisons are only relevant if 100% of the energy remains in the target. Since rifle bullets pass through the target more often than pistol bullets, the kinetic energy delivered to the target is on average lower than your analysis implies.

Read any article or watch any video where trauma surgeons are interviewed about the wounds created by these rifle rounds, and you'll see what I'm talking about. These higher velocity rounds have a much greater cavitation effect on surrounding tissue. A handgun round will punch a hole, but not do as much damage to surrounding tissue because the higher velocity round will have a larger wake or shockwave as it passes through the body. These videos are by firearm enthusiasts that have high speed cameras: 223 ammunition and 9mm.

[Jerry B.]

Comparing .223 to 9MM doesn't matter because that's not what Biden said.

"Do you realize the bullet out of an AR-15 travels five times as rapidly as a bullet shot out of any other gun …?"

Note "...any other gun.../"

Biden is saying that the .223 is five times as fast as the fastest bullet out of any other gun. My Speer reloading manual shows several loads that exceed 4,000 fps, including 22-250 Remington and 220 Swift. So, Biden is saying that the .223 round travels 20,000 fps, or more, quite a bit faster than the 3,557 fps for the hottest .223 reload.

Biden is flat wrong.

[JasonT20]

Comparing .223 to 9MM doesn't matter because that's not what Biden said.

Perhaps you are focusing "that's not what Biden said" because you can't counter the basic point that rounds fired from guns like the AR-15 are considerably more damaging to the body than rounds fired from handguns. Biden was "flat wrong" in his statement, but the larger point he was trying to make is an important one neither you nor Prof. Volokh is addressing.

[Archibald Tuttle]

Good old boy Biden was just trying to make VP Harris feel better by showing that she isn't the only one muttering nonsense.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

How embarrassing for this country. Has America ever been weaker?

[Frank Drackman]

Maybe January 1980, with Ayatollahs in Iran, Russians in Afghanistan (HT. B Joel) and a (Mediocre) Peanut Farmer in the Oval Orifice (who might have beat Ronaldus Magnus if the "Iran Hostage Rescue" mission had succeeded) but even then Amurica had over 1000 ICBM's 500 Nuke-ular armed B52's and way more Submarine Ballistic Missiles than today...
So I'd say no

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

A former president is found to have improperly kept highly confidential government documents after lying to law enforcement authorities about that . . . and responds by stating he should be declared winner of the 2020 election and reinstated as president, then promoting a bunch of QAnon nonsense.

A Virginia judge rules that Republicans are unable to prevent book stores from selling books that displease right-wing prudes with a diminished tether to the reality-based and modern world.

John Eastman, the Trump advisor Prof. Volokh finds just dreamy but doesn't seem to want to talk about much these days, relies on the Fifth Amendment to avoid testifying before a Georgia grand jury about fake electors and other election subversion; Eastman's lawyer says his client is likely a target of a criminal investigation (can't link because of this site's limitations).

A court declares Florida's anti-woke "Individual Freedom Act" an unconstitutional exercise in right-wing partisanship; Floridians await a court decision concerning Florida Gov. DeSantis' removal of an elected prosecutor from office.

And Prof. Eugene Volokh uses his blog to direct attention to Pres. Biden's understanding of bullet velocities; a whippits controversy (that may be a confection); a proposed name change to a symbol; the dangers of diversity statements; and a lawsuit involving a no-examination diagnosis of the strange behavior of former Pres. Trump and formerly respected Prof. Dershowitz.

Carry on, clingers.

[Michael Ejercito]

John Eastman, the Trump advisor Prof. Volokh finds just dreamy but doesn't seem to want to talk about much these days, relies on the Fifth Amendment to avoid testifying before a Georgia grand jury about fake electors and other election subversion; Eastman's lawyer says his client is likely a target of a criminal investigation (can't link because of this site's limitations).

Nothing Eastman did was wrong.

[not guilty]

"Nothing Eastman did was wrong."

Is that as true as everything else you have said?

[Michael Ejercito]

How could it possibly be wrong?

[not guilty]

Why did Eastman request to be placed "on the pardon list" if nothing he did was wrong?

[Michael Ejercito]

Because he is innocent.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Innocent people don't need pardons.

Eastman knowingly and deliberately proposed a scheme by which Trump could remain in office, as long as he was ok with violating the law and the Constitution.

He is anything but innocent, and despite your mental deficiencies, you are fully aware of that fact.

[Life of Brian]

Innocent people don't need pardons.

And yet, innocent people who know they're on the short list for vindictive partisan prosecutions certainly can benefit from the short-circuiting of the process-is-punishment circus a pardon would afford.

[Michael Ejercito]

An especially egregious example is the indictment of Rick Perry.

ethicsalarms.com/2014/08/17/ethics-dunces-abc-news-jonathan-karl-and-the-sunday-morning-roundtable/

The reason for the Ethics Dunce call on ABC is that this morning, the network reported on the indictment of Perry and its effect on his Presidential prospects in 2016 without explaining the reason for the Governor’s actions that the prosecutor is straining to call illegal. A simple, thorough, clear explanation would be sufficient to cause any reasonable reader or listener to cry “What? You’re kidding! That’s not possible!” That explanation, however, was not forthcoming on ABC, and has been missing from other reporting as well.

. On ABC’s This Week with George Stephanopoulos, substitute host Jonathan Karl, showed part of the video (above) at the center of the controversy, but neither he nor a single member of the supposedly “all-star” roundtable discussing this issue even mentioned the name of Travis County District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg, or explained why Perry is threatening a veto to remove her from office. Thus none of the participants mentioned that Lehmberg has disgraced her office; that her conduct was a violation of legal ethics by any standard; that an unethical prosecutor is a threat to the public and must be removed, one way or the other. Thus ABC’s “experts” could focus on the episode as another Republican governor scandal—like Chris Christie and the mysteriously closed bridge. This is not a Rick Perry scandal. This is a government ethics and legal ethics scandal, with Perry trying to do his duty.

It is ridiculous that Perry should have to lift a finger to remove Lehmberg, and a disgrace that Democrats are not joining the chorus for her to voluntarily step down. Travis County District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg was arrested and charged with drunk driving on April 12, 2013. Her blood alcohol was determined to be .23, or nearly three times the legal limit. She also had an open bottle of vodka in her car, violating the Texas open container law.

[Michael Ejercito]

Innocent people don't need pardons.

The Innocence Project disagrees with you.

https://innocenceproject.org/texas-man-pardoned/

I wonder why.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Because he knows how corrupt the Federals are.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

" Nothing Eastman did was wrong. "

That certainly explains the request for a pardon.

This wingnut blog and its wingnut fans deserve each other.

A few law schools whose franchises have been misappropriated at this blog, however, deserve a bit better.

Carry on, clingers.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

" Nothing Eastman did was wrong. "

Still attempting to muster the courage and character to address this point, Prof. Volokh?

[Frank Drackman]

Well he could be talking about restoring Voting/Gun Ownership Rights to Pedophiles, hit a little close to home Jerry???

Frank "go Kling yourself"

[BravoCharlieDelta]

It so highly classified they leak the generalized hints and innuendo and post pictures on twitter!

So super sensitive guys!

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You're about as smart as the right-wing lawyers of Trump Litigation: Elite Strike Force who invited this bitch-slap from the Department of Justice by (1) participating in a runaround for more than a year and then (2) filing one of the worst, most counterproductive and belated motions I have seen in more than 35 years.

For just-starting law students: As your criminal law class develops, try to identify the crimes for which that Justice filing constitutes an evidentiary roadmap.

For white, male, right-wing law professors: Keep avoiding those issues while nipping incessantly at the ankles and heels of strong mainstream institutions. See how that advances your stated goal of making right-wing positions more palatable among a broader (reasoning, educated, informed, sensible) audience in modern America.

Carry on, clingers.

[Michael Ejercito]

The anti-gun cult rests upon a foundation of dishonesty, invincible ignorance, and sheer malice, just like the Holocaust denial cult and the Russians®™ Stole the 2016 Election cult.

[Frank Drackman]

Ummm, I'm telling!!! that's Race-ist!!!!
and 100% true.

[ReaderY]

Agree Biden should retract this and should take care not to make statements lime this.

[The Boss]

Q.E.D.

[Currentsitguy]

Nonsense. Everyone knows if you load those AR-15 rounds into a Mini 14 they will go significantly slower. I mean, after all the stock and butt are made of wood, so it had to be less deadly.

/sarc

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Volokh Conspirators:

It appears Christina Bobb may have some time on her hands. She seems a perfect candidate to join the Volokh Conspiracy. She probably knows John Eastman. If you're lucky, she might turn out to be another Josh Blackman!

Carry on, clingers.

[Jerry B.]

Oh, and the line in his speech about "26,000 die by suicide" with firearms.

My body. My choice.

[Carl_N_Brown]

With firearms severely restricted, Japanese suicides use improvised chemicals, jumping off buildings, throwing themselves in front of trains or vehicles, and other non firearm methods that are more likely to endanger family, neighbors, strangers, EMTs and ER personnel. Their suicide rate is higher than ours and the Japanese gun restrictions leads to more collateral damage among suicides and not less suicide.

[Agammamon]

Any gun can 'penetrate kevlar' - it all depends on how many layers you have.

Hence why there are protection level ratings for body armor. Some is only rated for small pistols. Other will stop rifle hits from guns significantly more powerful than 5.56.

[Carl_N_Brown]

One-fifth of 3300 feet per second velocity (fps) is 660 fps.

Velocities for common centerfire rifle rounds range 1950 fps for .30 Carbine, 2200 fps for .30-30, to 2700 fps for 30-06. The .220 Swift varmit control round introduced 1935 boasts 4,000 fps velocity.

The slowest commercial ammo I have are the CCI CB .22s and CCI Quiet .22s that are loaded to the same level as a quality hunting grade air rifle about 710 to 720 fps.

Standard velocity for .22 LR (billions made each year in US, UK, Russia, India, Brazil, worldwide) is 1080 fps just below the speed of sound. High velocity .22 is 1200 to 1300, hyper velocity .22 is 1400 to 1600. .22 Winchester Magnum Rimfire runs 1800 to 2000. That's common rimfire, small game hunting or varmit control ammo.

.22 WMR will penetrate the "street level" Kevlar vest designed to stop common handgun bullets fired from handguns. "Able to penetrate Kevlar" depends on the number of layers of Kevlar.

Slowest velocity gun/ammo combo I have? I reload for a Victorian Era Webley Mark IV revolver which actually has VR (Victoria Regina) proof marks, firing a 255gr .454" lead bullet at about 600 feet per second the closest I can come to original .455 Webley spex. That is about one-fifth the velocity of a .223 Remington / 5.56 NATO223 /5.56mm. But it is very uncommon compared to most commercial firearms. Bystanders at the black powder match tell me they can see the bullets flying at the target. All I get to see is a big cloud of white smoke obscuring the target.

[Flight-ER-Doc]

Warning shots are always a bad idea, actual legality notwithstanding. The person firing the firearm is responsible to know where the bullet will go. Firing into the air or ground? You have no idea.

[Joe_dallas]

Queen almathea
August.31.2022 at 5:29 pm
Flag Comment Mute User
"And what demonstrates your scientific aptitude? Because the vast majority of the actual scientists-meaning people with advanced degrees doing research-in the relevant fields think you’re view is a mountain of malarkey. The odds of them being wrong while armchair scientists such yourself discovering the truth are slim."

A) as previously stated - It is difficult to believe those climate scientists have the superior intellectual capacity to understand climate science when the get so many basic things wrong. Just look at the paleo reconstructions, the low resolution proxies providing high resolution conclusions, misconceptions on the efficiencies of renewables, gross misconceptions on lcoe for renewables, gross misconceptions or weather attribution with climate change, just to name a few.
B) the odds of the climate scientists or any scientist being wrong is quite high when they are driven by agendas.

Best example is the Bell McDermott study of premature death due to increase in ground level ozone in 96 US cities. A Study considered the gold standard. 4 or 5 fatal flaws leading to an incorrect conclusion.
Take a look at the study - based on your history, its highly doubtful that you would be able to find any of the errors.

[Mike Hansberry]

C'mon man!
air = Mars
ground = China