AR rifle ammunition is less powerful than most other rifle ammunition

Bullet speed matters, but so does bullet weight

According to "assault weapon" ban proponents, the AR rifle's lethality is all about how fast its bullets travel. The Washington Post recently claimed that "what makes [the AR] so deadly is the speed of [its] bullet." "The higher speed of a bullet from an AR-15 causes far more damage after it hits the body and drastically reduces a person's chances of survival." Scott Pelley at CBS News declared that "the AR-15's high velocity ammo is the fear of every American emergency room." In a March 2023 order denying a motion for a preliminary injunction in Delaware State Sportsmen's Ass'n v. Delaware Dep't of Safety and Homeland Security, Judge Richard Andrews described how "intermediate-caliber rounds fired at high velocity" cause "catastrophic" wounds with "multiple organs shattered, bones exploded, soft tissue absolutely destroyed, and exit wounds a foot wide."

President Joe Biden repeatedly has exaggerated the velocity of AR bullets, most recently asserting that they travel five times as fast as handgun bullets. To prove that AR's pose an "exceptional danger," Judge Virginia Kendall claimed in her February 2023 order denying a preliminary injunction in Bevis v. Naperville that "[t]he muzzle velocity of an assault weapon is four times higher than a high-powered semiautomatic firearm."

This post will discuss the comparative velocity and kinetic energy of AR bullets and how those factors affect bullet penetration and wound severity. It is co-authored by Campbell University law professor Gregory Wallace, who has published two articles on "assault weapons," most recently "Assault Weapon" Lethality, 88 Tenn. L. Rev. 1 (2020). Professor Wallace and I are among the co-authors of the law school textbook Firearms Law and the Second Amendment: Regulation, Rights, and Policy (3d ed. 2022, Aspen Pub.). In an earlier post, we examined false claims that the AR type rifles are exceptionally powerful.

While AR rifles can be chambered in various calibers, they most commonly fire the .223 Remington and 5.56 NATO rounds. The numbers .223 and 5.56 designate the caliber of the round based on a rough approximation of bullet diameter, which is expressed in decimals an inch (.223 caliber = 223 thousandths of an inch; .45 caliber = 45 hundredths of an inch ) or millimeters (5.56 caliber). The U.S. military uses the NATO designation, measured in millimeters. As detailed in our previous post, the .223 and 5.56 are mostly interchangeable.

1. Understanding terms

"AR" is short for "ArmaLite Rifle," inventor of the firearm in the 1950s. "AR-15" is the name for a particular model by Colt; the AR-15 is a now shrinking minority among AR type rifles, since the patents have long expired.

Like the vast majority of modern rifles, the AR fires "high velocity" bullets, whereas most modern handguns fire "low velocity" bullets. Bullet velocity is measured at various distances, since velocity declines as a bullet travels downrange. The highest velocity is the instant the bullet leaves the barrel of the gun and exits the muzzle. The velocity at that point is called "muzzle velocity."

There is no scientific or industry definition of "high velocity." American researchers who assign numerical values to the term generally use "high velocity" to refer to bullets with a muzzle velocity of at least 2,500 feet per second (fps), and "low-velocity" for bullets with a velocity of 1,200 feet per second or less.

Other things being equal, greater velocity increases a bullet's striking power. So does increasing the mass of the bullet. The overall striking power is commonly known as "kinetic energy" and is measured in foot pounds (a force of one pound moving through a distance of one foot). The formula for kinetic energy is one-half times bullet mass times velocity squared (KE = ¹/₂mv²).

As we detailed in How powerful are AR rifles?, a bullet's impact on a human target is also influenced by the shape and composition of the bullet and where the bullet strikes. Our article refuted false claims from the early 1960s (which are still repeated by low-information journalists today) that the AR bullets have greater wounding effects than other rifle bullets.

In this post, we provide data about the velocity  kinetic energy of AR ammunition compared to other ammunition. We also address the false claim that AR ammunition has some supposedly unique ability to penetrate body armor or interior walls.

2. Identifying velocity and kinetic energy values for various firearms

The following chart lists the typical velocity and kinetic energy of modern handgun, rifle, and shotgun projectiles measured at the firearm's muzzle. Values in the chart are supplied from Cartridges of the World (17th ed. 2022) and manufacturer websites. Common AR-15 rounds (.223 and 5.56) are bolded.

For most of these calibers, Cartridge of the World lists ammunition from a variety of manufacturers, each with its own performance characteristics. The figures below are neither the high end nor the low end for any given caliber. For weight in grains, 7,000 grains = 1 pound. An appendix at the end of this post provides a short description of when a given cartridge type was invented, its most common uses, and the kinetic energy range of various cartridges in a given caliber.

Caliber	Bullet Weight (grains)	Velocity @Muzzle ft./sec.	Energy @Muzzle ft. lbs.
Handguns
9mm Luger	115	1150	338
.357 Magnum	125	1450	583
.40 S&W	180	990	392
.44 Mag	200	1450	934
.45 ACP	230	875	391
Long-guns
.22LR Rimfire	40	1070	102
.223 Rem	55	3200	1330
5.56 NATO (U.S. Army standard through 1983)	55	3250	1325
5.56 NATO (U.S. standard since 1984)	62	3100	1325
.243 Win	100	2900	1868
.260 Rem	120	3000	2395
6.5 Creedmoor	147	2695	2370
6.8 SPC	115	2608	1736
.270 Win	150	2800	2612
.30-378 Weatherby	200	3163	4440
.300 Blackout	110	2130	1107
.308 Win	165	2600	2477
.30-06	150	3000	2998
.30-30	150	2450	1995
.300 Win Mag	165	3200	3753
.338 Win Mag	250	2700	4048
.338 Lapua Mag	250	2970	4896
.416 Weatherby	300	3000	5997
.458 Win Mag	350	2500	4859
.50 BMG	750	2820	13241
12-ga shotgun slug	438	1610	2521

 

3. Comparing the AR's velocity and energy

The AR does not fire bullets four or five times faster than handguns, as claimed by President Biden and Judge Kendall. The AR bullets are about three times faster than common 9mm handguns and only a little more than twice as fast as more powerful handguns (.357 and .44 magnums).

The apples-to-apples comparison is with other centerfire rifles. All the rifle cartridges listed above are centerfire, except for the .22LR. In a centerfire cartridge, the primer is in the center of the base of the cartridge; in a rimfire, the primer is inside the rim of the cartridge base. Centerfire cartridges are generally more powerful. Rimfire cartridges above .22 caliber are not very common these days.

As the above chart indicates, bullet velocity among popular centerfire calibers ranges from 2450 to 3250 fps, which is 75 to 100 percent of the AR's speed. (The only exception is the .300 Blackout, which is effective only at short ranges). Thus, other centerfire rifles fire bullets at speeds as fast or almost as fast as the AR-15.

The starkest difference between AR bullets and other rifle bullets is seen when comparing kinetic energy values. As with all centerfire rifle bullets, AR bullets strike with much higher kinetic energy than handgun bullets. But among rifle bullets, the .223 and 5.56 bullets strike with much less kinetic energy, despite their higher velocity. This is due to their smaller bullet size. For example, common hunting caliber bullets (.270, .308, .30-06) strike with around twice the energy of AR bullets. Larger rifle bullets (.300 Win Mag, .338 Win Mag, .338 Lapua Mag) strike with three or more times the energy of AR bullets.

A favorite tactic of "assault weapon" ban proponents is to compare AR bullet velocity to handguns to prove that the AR is far more dangerous than other semiautomatic firearms. What they don't tell you is that all centerfire rifle bullets travel at much higher speeds than handgun bullets and that AR bullets impact with much less force than most other centerfire rifles. Comparing the higher speed of AR bullets to handguns to prove ARs are exceptionally dangerous is deceptive.

The tactic is like comparing the running speed of a particular dog breed to the speed of an average housecat. Most dogs are faster than most cats. However, showing that a particular breed of dog is faster than a cat does not prove that the particular breed is much faster than other dog breeds.

4. Bullet velocity, energy, and wounding power

Higher bullet velocity does not necessarily mean greater wound severity. A ping-pong ball and a rifle bullet fired at the same velocity will produce very different terminal results. According to military trauma surgeon Dr. Martin Fackler, former director of the Army's Wound Ballistics Laboratory, and the most widely-recognized modern expert on the subject, "The false belief that a bullet damages tissue in direct proportion to its velocity is widespread." Dr. P.K. Stefanopoulos, trauma surgeon and former career military officer who has written extensively on wound ballistics, confirms that "current thinking suggests that the impact velocity can be misleading as the sole indicator of the extent and severity of the inflicted wound." ("Impact velocity" is the bullet's velocity as the moment the bullet strikes the target. Due to air friction from travel downrange, impact velocity is always lower than muzzle velocity, unless the muzzle is touching the target.)

While a bullet's speed can affect wound severity, it is not the only or even best measure. Compare the wounding effects of 00-buckshot from a 12-gauge shotgun, a .44 caliber Magnum hollow point bullet, and .22 caliber rimfire bullet—all three fired from a distance of about 15 feet. The shotgun will cause far more tissue disruption than the .44 Magnum handgun, and the .44 Magnum handgun will cause far more disruption than the .22 rifle, despite the fact that all three have approximately the same muzzle velocity.

How bullets injure and kill has less to do with velocity and kinetic energy than with the location of impact, the bullet's physical characteristics (mass, shape, construction), and the type of tissues disrupted along the bullet's path. As we explained in an earlier post discussing the dynamics of wound ballistics, the AR certainly can cause lethal wounds, but larger caliber rifles can create more massive wounds. Especially lethal are shotguns at shorter ranges.

Wound profiles from the Army's Wound Ballistics Laboratory illustrate the permanent and temporary cavities, penetration depth, deformation, and fragmentation of both the deforming (soft point) AR .223 caliber bullet, the non-deforming 5.56mm full metal jacket (FMJ) bullet, and other larger caliber bullets typically used in hunting rifles. A comparison of profiles for AR bullets with the wound profiles for larger-caliber hunting and competition rifle bullets, such as the .243, .30-30, and .308, shows that the wounding effects of the larger-caliber bullets are at least as extensive as the .223 and 5.56 bullets, and typically more so.

At shorter distances, the shotgun produces the most devastating injuries, even though the velocity of its rounds is about the same as handgun bullets. Dr. Fackler observes that at close range "the [twelve-gauge] shotgun (using either buckshot or a rifled slug) is far more likely to incapacitate than is a .223 rifle. The shotgun is simply a far more powerful weapon."

A shotgun "slug" is a single large piece of lead. Slugs are commonly used for hunting of land animals, especially in New Jersey, where rifle hunting is not allowed. The majority of shotgun users do not use slugs. Instead, their ammunition consists of a number of pellets ("shot"). For the smallest shot sizes, such as those used for dove hunting, a shot pellet might be about the size of a grain of pepper; a shot shell for doves has about 250 to 380 pellets. For larger animals, such as deer, "buckshot" is the standard. A single buckshot cartridge contains about 8 to 12 pellets, each of them with a diameter of .24 to .36 inches. (The larger the pellet, the fewer that will fit in a shotgun shell.)

In other words, a shotgun with a buckshot can instantly unleash eight or more pellets, each of them with the same diameter as a common handgun or rifle bullet. A short range, the effect is devastating, and far more so than a single bullet from a rifle or handgun. Shotgun pellets, being spheres, have lower aerodynamic stability than do conoidal rifle or handgun bullets; hence a shotgun is not effective at long ranges.

5. Penetration

Gun prohibitionists spread an additional falsehood: that the AR is more dangerous than other firearms because its high-velocity bullets pose a greater risk of penetrating body armor or of overpenetrating the interior walls of a building. For example, relying on the state's brief, Judge Andrews in Delaware State Sportsmen's Ass'n v. Delaware Dep't of Safety and Homeland Security stated:

The power and velocity of assault rifle bullets pose a particularly high risk to law enforcement officers. Although the body armor typically issued to law enforcement officers protects against most handgun bullets, it is not designed to withstand the high-velocity bullets described above; assault rifles therefore "readily penetrate" such body armor.

But this is true of all centerfire rifles. Soft body armor worn by police only stops rounds from handguns and shotguns. Stopping rifle rounds require steel, ceramic, or composite hard plates, which are bulky and heavier. Anti-rifle plates are typically worn by soldiers or special tactics law enforcement units. Judge Andrews' point shows one way rifles can be more dangerous than handguns, but it does not explain why the AR or other "assault weapons" are themselves exceptionally lethal "far beyond" other rifles.

Federal courts also have claimed that "assault weapons" are more dangerous than other firearms because their bullets can penetrate walls and endanger people on the other side. The Fourth Circuit in Kolbe v. Hogan twice emphasized that the banned weapons "pose a heightened risk to civilians in that rounds from assault weapons have the ability to easily penetrate most materials used in standard home construction, car doors, and similar materials." Citing Kolbe, the First Circuit in Worman v. Healey declared that "unlike the use of handguns . . . . the use of semiautomatic assault weapons implicates the safety of the public at large. After all, such weapons can fire through walls, risking the lives of those in nearby apartments or on the street." What Kolbe implies, Worman makes explicit: "assault weapon" bullets penetrate walls, but handgun bullets do not.

That is plainly false. Nearly all handgun, rifle, and shotgun rounds will pass through walls. FBI testing indicates that to be reliably effective, bullets must penetrate soft body tissue 12-18 inches, a range necessary to reach and disrupt a vital organ in a human target. This penetration capability also means that bullets will penetrate walls if the shooter misses the target.

Contrary to Kolbe and Worman, handgun rounds will penetrate several layers of sheetrock as well as exterior house walls. The difference between handgun and rifle rounds is how they behave when passing through walls. A pistol round typically remains relatively stable, while the AR's longer and thinner .223/5.56-caliber round is likely to fragment or to lose stability and tumble end-over-end (keyhole), losing energy rapidly due to the larger surface area hitting the drywall.

Therefore, .223/5.56 bullets generally penetrate less through building materials than do common handgun and shotgun rounds. This is one reason law enforcement officers often use the select-fire M4 or semiautomatic AR for raiding buildings and hostage situations, especially in urban areas.

While some bullet designs can reduce penetration through walls, the best way to minimize the chances of hurting innocent persons is to make accurate hits on the target. Because handguns require more skill to fire accurately than rifles, they typically pose a greater risk to public safety from bullet over-penetration than does the AR.

In short, the AR's high-velocity bullets have no more capability to penetrate soft body armor than do other centerfire rifles. Handgun and shotgun rounds typically penetrate building materials more than do AR rounds.

6. Summing up

Disinformation about the lethality of the civilian AR is widespread in media reports, court filings, and judicial opinions. The facts do not support claims by gun control advocates and some judges that high-velocity bullets from "assault weapons" like the AR are exceptionally dangerous or lethal. The AR rifle's bullet can cause more serious wounds than a handgun, but such wounds typically are no more severe than those caused by projectiles fired from shotguns or larger-caliber hunting rifles. The AR bullet normally penetrates less through walls than common handgun and shotgun rounds, reducing the risk to public safety from bullet over-penetration. While the AR's high-velocity bullet can penetrate soft body armor worn by law enforcement officers, almost every centerfire rifle bullet has that capability. In short, the AR's high-velocity bullet makes it a lethal weapon, but not more so than other centerfire rifles.

Appendix: Background about various cartridges

All information and quotes are from Cartridges of the World, 7th ed., except as noted.

Handgun

9mm Luger. Introduced 1902. Today, "the most widely used cartridge in the United States." KE range 294 to 465.

.357 Magnum. Introduced 1935 by Smith & Wesson, revolvers. At the time, the most powerful handgun load. "It is considered the best all-around handgun hunting cartridge." KE = 400 to 644.

.40 S&W. Introduced 1989. Pistol load designed for self-defense. KE = 363 to 524.

.45 ACP. Invented 1905, put to use in the venerable and still-popular Colt 1911 pistol. Widely adopted by militaries around the world. More popular for target shooting than for hunting. KE = 244 to 534,

Rifle

.22 LR (long rifle). Invented 1887. The "most popular match cartridge in existence, and also the most widely used small game and varmint cartridge." Cartridges of the World does not supply ballistic data for rimfire. We used the manufacturer's data for the CCI Standard Velocity 40 grain.

.223 Remington. Invented 1957, for the AR. "Practically every manufacturer of bolt-action rifles has at least one model chambered for the .223." KE = 965 to 1460.

5.56 NATO. Invented for the AR in 1960. A new version, adopted in 1984, has a 62 grain bullet instead of 55 grain; the KE at the muzzle is the same, namely 1325.

.243 Winchester. Invented 1955. Very common, "probably chambered in more different rifles than any other cartridge." Especially suited for deer. KE = 1599 to 2033.

.260 Remington. Introduced 1996. Very good for long distance target shooting. Good for hunters who want low recoil, but only powerful enough for big game with premium loads. KE = 2264 to to 2459.

6mm Creedmoor. Introduced 2007 and named for the NRA's iconic (in the 19th century) shooting range on Long Island. Popular for long distance precision shooting. KE = 3000 to 3700.

6.8 SPC (Special purpose cartridge). Introduced 2003 for US special forces, although not officially adopted. Attempts to solve the weaknesses of the 5.56mm in incapacitating an enemy. KE = 1444 to 2002.

.270 Winchester. Invented in 1925, it was the best long range American hunting cartridge to date. It is an adaptation of the standard U.S. Army rifle cartridge of the time, the .30-'06. KE = 2448 to 3045.

.30-.378 Weatherby. Invented in the 1950s under a U.S. Army contract. Used for very long range target shooting (e.g., 1,000 yards). Perhaps "the ultimate long-range hunting" cartridge for "for smaller species." KE = 4310 to 4840.

.300 Blackout. Invented 2009. Comes in both subsonic and supersonic loads, so the KE range is large: 498 to 1598.

.308 Winchester. Introduced 1951, sporterized version of the NATO 7.62x51mm. Excellent accuracy makes it popular for target shooters. Well-suited for big game smaller than moose or brown bear. KE = 2429 to 2759. (Plus subsonic variants of 480 or 538.(

.30-06. Adopted 1906 as the standard U.S. Army cartridge. Derived from an 1895 Winchester cartridge. "[T]he most flexible, useful, all-around big game cartridge available to the American hunter." KE = 2033 to 3076.

.30-30 Winchester. Introduced 1895. It "has long been the standard American deer cartridge." Not appropriate for over hunting shots over 200 yards. KE = 1394 to 2045.

.300 Winchester Magnum. Introduced 1963. A "magnum" cartridge has more gunpowder than ordinary loads. For long range big game. Heavy recoil. KE = 3054 to 4187.

.338 Winchester Magnum. Introduced 1957. Designed for the heaviest big game. KE = 3518 to 4164.

.338 Lapua Magnum. Development began in 1983. For snipers and very heavy game. Shoots well even at 1500 meters. KE = 4388 to 5223.

.416 Weatherby Magnum. Introduced 1989. Made for large and dangerous game. KE = 5997 to 6477.

.458 Winchester Magnum. Introduced 1956. Made for the heaviest African game. Adapted for North American use with lighter cartridges, which account for the low end of the KE range: 2938 to 5084.

.50 BMG (Browning Machine Gun). Invented 1918 for the U.S. Army and still in use by them. Sporting use in very long distance target shooting, sometimes up to 2 miles. Not very easy to carry, as weight is 20 pounds or more. KE = 12408 to 13421.

Shotguns

Shotgun caliber is measured in "gauge." The smaller the number, the wider the gun's bore. Among the most common gauges in the U.S. today are 12, 16, 20, and 28. Cartridges of the World does not provide shotgun ballistics. We used the manufacturer's data for the Federal Power-Shok Rifled Slug 12 Gauge 438 Grain.

 

 

Comments

[not guilty]

As we all know, guns don't kill people.

Gunshot wounds kill people.

[Armchair Lawyer]

As we all know...

It's really faulty logic that kills people.

[Frank Drackman]

It's not so much the muzzle energy, but where it's deposited

[Gandydancer]

Not just gunshot wounds kill people.

[Michael P]

"The AR bullets are about three times faster than common 9mm handguns [....]"

Not three times faster than -- AR bullets are three times as fast as common 9mm handgun bullets.

Also, cue the washed-up former newspaper editor ranting about how dangerous these rifles are specifically because they are easier to fire, and the only sniper rifles and similar rifles with super-high muzzle energies are safe enough for civilian use because they are hard to fire accurately in quick succession. It's amazing how different rifles are particularly dangerous for opposite reasons, depending on the phase of the moon!

[Longtobefree]

Here we go again:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mad_minute

WWI bolt action rifle .303 caliber, a true assault rifle, but without any "assault rifle" features. Rate of ACCURATE, AIMED fire is 36 hits per minute at a 48" target 300 yards away. And that is starting with only half a magazine load of ammunition.

[jimc5499]

I owned a Lee Enfield Mk IV chambered in .303 British. The Wiki article is bullshit. My personal best was 8 aimed shots per minute at 200 yards. The British Rifleman in WWI was capable of 15.
https://www.nam.ac.uk/explore/weapons-western-front#:~:text=Rifles%20were%20by%20far%20the,fire%2015%20rounds%20a%20minute.

[Orbital Mechanic]

As an engineer I appreciate all the precise technical detail. The technology of projectile weapons is fascinating and valuable. It should not be repressed or lost. We should not cease to improve it.

Yet scrolling through all this I fail to see the point. Yeah sure I can accept that politicians, pundits, and media in general get some facts wrong. But there is one fact that they don't get wrong and that is the body count and the weapons used to rack it up. And also which weapon and class of weapon is used more often than any other in mass shootings.

There's an attitude that I find pernacious and despicable among some gun rights activists (I call them 2A fetishists) that basically says that if someone says the word "clip" when they should have said "magazine" then that means they have nothing valid to say and no right to any opinion about a elementary school child blown away in such a condition that their parents wouldn't recognize them. I'm sure this smug strategy finds a lot of similar "ammunition" in the above article.

Yeah, so a lot of people have a "misconception" about the muzzle velocity or shock effect of AR ammunition relative to other rifles. They therefore should have nothing to say about the regulation of any such weapon. What bearing does that have on the Uvalde police officers who were afraid to rush a mass shooter once they realized that the shooter was armed with an AR rifle? And they themselves were armed with AR rifles!

The fact is that those of us who are utterly sick of the senseless deaths are less and less inclined to accept the 2A extremists view of things. Keep going like you are going, and you will get total bans passed rather than the sensible control measures they claim to be agreeable to but resist at every turn. Personally I am not in favor of total bans, but I would take that over what our current condition.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Yet scrolling through all this I fail to see the point. "

The point is that many arguments used to justify banning AR-15s are factually incorrect.

[Stephen Lathrop]

He made his point clear. You want to ignore what he said.

[Michael P]

Yes, OM's point was that he willfully misunderstands the dynamics of situations like the Uvalde attack, and uses that to argue for stupid regulations. He concludes that because the police leadership there was cowardly, and the police rank and file just followed orders, nobody in their right mind would attack somebody with an AR-style rifle and therefore we should ban them.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Strawman arguments should be ignored.

[OtisAH]

And the straw man in his post is…?

[Gandydancer]

How about the lies?

Start with, "But there is one fact that they don’t get wrong and that is the body count and the weapons used to rack it up. And also which weapon and class of weapon is used more often than any other in mass shootings."

The implication that that's "assault weapons", given that AR rifles are the subject of this post, seems pretty clear.

OK, here's Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States

Now, which weapon and class of weapon is used more often than any other in mass shootings? Start you sample at the top and stop whenever you want.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Yeah, so a lot of people have a “misconception” about the muzzle velocity or shock effect of AR ammunition relative to other rifles. They therefore should have nothing to say about the regulation of any such weapon."

[Miles Fortis]

Basically: You're damned right they should shut up.

[Harvey Mosley]

What he said is just a bunch of lies. The facts are that according to the FBI fists and feet kill more people than all rifles. So do knives and blunt instruments. How are we supposed to have an honest and intelligent conversation with someone who is that dishonest?

[Comment-A]

So much this. I periodically read articles (and memes) like this pointing out how AR-15's are no worse than other rifles (which I take to be true) and my first thought is well, I suppose we should do a better job of regulating all those other guns, too.

The fact of the matter is that politicians and pundits go after the AR-15 because that's the gun that people like to use to kill lots of other people all at one time. And no amount of saying, "oh, they're not that bad" will change that. But if we actually banned them, the real question is whether people would choose one of these other guns that gun fans say are just the same as AR-15's instead. I'm willing to experiment to find out, and then decide what to do.

[Bruce Hayden]

Actually, AR-15s aren’t used very often in mass shootings. That’s because they are hard to conceal. Almost always, AR-15s, and other long guns, are used almost exclusively defensively for just that reason. The only place where you see AR-15s used often, at all, is with attacks on unsecured schools, most often with mostly white child victims. Statistically, almost all mass killers utilize handguns. They don’t count though, because the victims are mostly minorities, and esp Blacks.

[Brett Bellmore]

"The fact of the matter is that politicians and pundits go after the AR-15 because that’s the gun that people like to use to kill lots of other people all at one time."

We don't have to speculate why. Gun controller Josh Sugarman of the VPC explained it years ago. Bragged about how clever it was, actually.

"Assault weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully-automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons --anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun-- can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons."

They targeted them because they could mislead people into thinking they were banning machine guns.

[M L]

"because that’s the gun that people like to use to kill lots of other people all at one time."

Gun grabbers just never stop saying false things. https://www.statista.com/statistics/476409/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-weapon-types-used/

[Gandydancer]

"[S]aying false things" is way too polite.

They never stop lying.

[Bruce Hayden]

Because limiting clip size is ludicrous for anyone who understands guns and the difference. The military often uses 10 round clips to load their 30 round magazines. Many civilians load their detachable magazines one round at a time. I have speed loaders for 9 mm and 5.56/.223 that loads a whole row (5 or 10) of rounds from a box at a time into magazines – essentially acting like a clip. In WW II, the M1 Garand loaded 6 or 8 round clips into the fixed magazine, while the M1 carbine, BAR, Grease Gun, Thompson, all utilized removable or detachable magazines. Limiting clips to 10 rounds won’t slow up your prototypical mass school shooter. Limiting detachable magazine capacities might (but likely won’t).

Same thing with Assault Rifles versus Assault weapons. Assault Rifles, in civilian hands, have been heavily regulated in this country now for 79 years (since the NFA in 1934). You can’t just pick one up at the nearby gun show. They require an ATF tax stamp, which in turn requires a year long background check by the FBI. That’s because they are classed by the NFA as machine guns.

Assault weapons, on the other hand, are a moving target, subject to political whims. But for the most part, they are the civilian version of the military’s Assault Rifles – which means that they are semiautomatic, instead of automatic. One activation of the trigger, for one round shot (machine guns under the NFA requiring more than one round being potentially shot with the single trigger activation). That means that there is almost no overlap between the set of Assault Rifles and the set of Assault Weapons.

[jimc5499]

A while back we had a local politician come to the Sportsman's Club that I belong to. He wanted some pictures taken with him holding a rifle to use in his campaign. I cleared and handed him my Ruger 10/22 and he actually stepped back from it. My 10/22 has a Black fiberglass stock and foregrip. He pointed to a different rifle and said that it would work. It was another 10/22, the exact same model as mine. It just had the wood stock and foregrip.

[Miles Fortis]

Actually that 'year long' timeframe is due to nothing more than bureaucrapic sloth. They take their sweet time because they can.

The background check takes no more than a few minutes at a computer checking the same databases the NICS 'instant check' system uses.

Approved forms for firearms controlled under the National Firearms Act often take no more than a few weeks, some times less.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

The article does fail to explain why these distortions are important.

It is because the usual disinformation is then employed in the creation of legislation which would, if enacted, have a material effect on actual things in the real world--not only on imaginary ones.

For example, by failing to appreciate that nearly all rifles are as destructive as each other (including so-called assault weapons), the public can be conveniently deceived into thinking that legislation targeting "blackgunbad" will not affect every other rifle which is not black and scary looking.

Alternatively, should the legislation somehow manage to ban only the evil darkies, the obvious effect would be for reasonable people to switch to more wholesome looking, lighter colored rifles--which are just as dangerous.

Facts matter.

[Armchair Lawyer]

" And also which weapon and class of weapon is used more often than any other in mass shootings."

That type of weapon would be a handgun. So, yes, they do "get it wrong" by trying to ban AR-15's.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/476409/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-weapon-types-used/

Again, actual facts matter.

[DaveM]

I had much the same reaction. All this technical detail was, indeed, very informative, but it left me very depressed. The dry, academic recitation of energy formulae and muzzle velocities was bizarrely tone deaf. The thought of any of these engines of destruction being used on actual people is deeply disturbing.

There really needs to be more recognition from the 2A side that you bet guns are insanely dangerous when used as weapons, and so of course society has more than a little interest in making sure they are used properly and put into the hands of people who won't use them to do bad things.

I'm not saying that guns should be banned. But they are damned dangerous to have around. I am more than glad I don't live in a community where I feel the need to own one.

[Currentsitguy]

Saying you live in a safe community and therefore don't need to arm yourself is like saying you live in newer construction and don't need a fire extinguisher.

You plan for the extremely unlikely. I never planned to burn but we did in 2013. The extinguisher bought us the time to get pets and some valuables out, along with a bottle of scotch to down while we watched it burn.

[DaveM]

It’s a good argument, but the risk of having something like a fire extinguisher around the house is nothing compared to the risk of having a firearm. That doesn’t mean I would never own a gun, but the threat would have to substantially exceed the risk before I would consider it.

[Miles Fortis]

The more likely risk is you'll run into a situation where you need a gun and right desperately, not have one, and you and/or your loved ones wind up dead, or severely injured.
Since no one can predict the future the principle of fire extinguishers and wearing seat belts applies.
In - especially - the case of self defense, you do not play the odds, which while small in most cases doesn't matter as much as what you should play the stakes, and those are your and your family's lives and safety.
Just something to keep in mind.

[Bruce Hayden]

I am more than glad that I live in a community where I think that I need one. We have all the major North American predators in our MT county: brown bears, black bears, wolves, coyotes, and mountain lions. Plus bison, elk, deer, moose, and bighorn sheep. The saying is that when you need cops there in seconds, they are minutes away. What about an hour, maybe two away? The county is 110 miles long, and it is not uncommon, late at night, for only one deputy be working, covering the entire county. A bit of self help is sometimes necessary.

Is it worth it? You get doe and a fawn or two napping on your front yard in the afternoon. Turkey flock coming through your yard maybe weekly. Two years ago, we had a just weaned bear cub sleeping outside the master bedroom window. Hunting is great and fishing is good. Teddy Roosevelt hunted here, and stayed in the hotel downtown. And you can can see the grain fed beef, or pork, you are going to eat, while still on the hoof. It’s a high trust society, for those who live there. And locks on the front door are mostly for the bears.

It comes down to, that you are willing to engage in a little self help, for you and your neighbors, as the cost of living in paradise. Every house probably has a gun or two, or more, as a result. Ditto for most of the pickups. Major crime is almost nonexistent. You are far more likely to end up in the hospital from hitting a deer on the highway, than from one of the many guns there. But that is one of the reasons to carry one in the truck – to put the deer you hit out of their misery after they jumped out on the road at an inopportune location, causing someone to wreck their vehicle.

[DaveM]

Yes, if I lived up country, I would have a firearm, too. That's the "kind of community" where one needs a gun (among others.) Now that we've established that guns can be necessary, can we please get on to the topic at hand, which is that using guns as a weapon against people is insanely dangerous.

The off thing here is that whenever this topic gets around to the deadly part of deadly force, the 2A folks seem to slip past it. I would say, do exactly the opposite. Embrace it. The fact of its deadliness is precisely why training is so necessary, etc.

[jimc5499]

That's your choice and I respect that.

[Rossami]

You display your own ignorance and prejudice with the factual misstatement buried in the middle of that rant. AR-series weapons are not "used more often than any other in mass shootings". Pistols are.

You dismiss your political opponents as "2A fetishists" while committing precisely the same mistakes that led to this article in the first place. You are basing your political position on emotion, prejudice and propaganda, not on facts and reason.

[perlmonger]

And nothing will ever change that.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

And also which weapon and class of weapon is used more often than any other in mass shootings.

This is why you fail to get “the point”. You’re one of the useful idiot who insist on regurgitating the braindead bullshit in question. No, AR-15s (nor any long guns in general) are NOT the class of weapon used more often than any other in mass shootings.

And even if they were, that in and of itself would be as meaningless as noting that the {insert whatever the current most popular make and model of car is} is involved in more traffic fatalities than any other.

[Michael Masinter]

Using weight in lieu of mass (see, e.g., the subtitle of the post) does not enhance the post's credibility; neither does using speed (a scalar) in lieu of velocity. Comparing short barreled so-called assault rifles rather than long barreled hunting rifles to pistols for wound effect sems appropriate because, particularly for unskilled users, short barreled so-called assault rifles are easier to maneuver and fire repeatedly and rapidly at close range than are long barreled hunting rifles, as borne out by the choice of weapons for mass shootings. How many mass shooters use a lever action or bolt action 30-30 or 30-06, the deer rifles of choice when I grew up long ago in West Virginia, for mass shootings? Answer that and I think you'll have your rebuttal.

[Michael P]

Congratulations on applying pedantry that would actually obfuscate the discussion by using nonstandard terms and units. The term of art is "muzzle velocity", not muzzle speed -- everyone understands the direction that is implied by that velocity. And people measure cartridge components in grains rather than grams; they weigh them under effectively standard gravity, so the weight vs mass distinction is irrelevant.

Maybe you should also learn what "assault rifle" means so you don't sound like an ignorant troll by writing "so-called assault rifle". Also learn how to express different comparisons: the comparison suggested is of "carbine" type rifles to .30-caliber rifles, rather than to pistols -- not, as you write, of carbine-type rifles rather than .30-caliber rifles to pistols. Finally, learn to distinguish barrel length and caliber from action. Larger-caliber, longer-barrel rifles are available in semiautomatic versions, not only in lever or bolt action -- perhaps you have heard of the M1 Garand and its primary use.

Maybe you would like to try again, with less hand-waving and fewer errors.

[Armchair Lawyer]

"Mass shooters" tend to use handguns more than any other firearm.

[Gandydancer]

"Using weight in lieu of mass (see, e.g., the subtitle of the post) does not enhance the post’s credibility; neither does using speed (a scalar) in lieu of velocity."

What a self-discrediting opening sentence. Whether you refer to the weight or mass of a bullet by its weight or its mass makes absolutely no difference as none of the shooting under discussion takes place where gravity is substantially different than any of the rest. And while velocity in physics is speed and direction (a vector) the direction matters not at all for the purposes of this discussion, so the scalar is entirely appropriate.

Try harder to not show your ignorance when the impulse to be a pompous ass overcomes you.

And then there's this: "...as borne out by the choice of weapons for mass shootings." Which is mostly pistols, as many others have already noted. Outside the audience of your co-religionists in the Church of Gun Grabbing abject ignorance is not a good look.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Using weight in lieu of mass (see, e.g., the subtitle of the post) does not enhance the post’s credibility; neither does using speed (a scalar) in lieu of velocity.

And that pedantic stupidity absolutely obliterates any credibility you might have otherwise had.

Comparing short barreled so-called assault rifles rather than long barreled hunting rifles

“Short barreled” rifles (including AR-15 type rifles) are restricted by the NFA, and are virtually never used in “mass shootings”. Non-NFA-restricted ARs have barrels with lengths of 16.5″ or longer (usually up to 20″ or so, like the original).

as borne out by the choice of weapons for mass shootings

What do handguns have to do with it? Or are you simply exhibiting more topical ignorance here?

[Bruce Hayden]

The other thing that you hear a bit is that (5.56/.223) AR-15 rounds do horrible damage by spinning after they hit a body. That appears to be an artifact from the 1:12 twist rate utilized in the original M16s. That meant that in the jungles of S. Vietnam, small branches would deflect the bullets. They quickly stabilized the bullets with a faster (e.g. 1:9, etc) barrel twist rate.

I would suggest that for home defense in a more urban setting, different caliber cartridges might be advantageous over the ubiquitous. My preference is the .300 Blackout, which is one of the few that is available in both subsonic (heavier bullets) and supersonic (lighter bullets). Because of the availability of subsonic cartridges, it can be more easily sound suppressed (somewhat).

[Gandydancer]

My impression is that it has nothing to do with spin in flight, but rather with post-hit tumbling, back over front.

Grosskreutz' wound from Rittenhouse's AR-15 style rifle was impressive enough to render the subject of the amount of damage done by such rounds in the category: Irrelevant. Not to mention the two criminals he killed. Bottom line: It works.

[Bruce Hayden]

Sure, it’s possible. And it does happen. But not nearly as often as many critics claim. Sure “Lefty” chose to point a Glock handgun, that he could not legally possess (being a felon), at someone, and paid the price. The angle was such that the round hit a lot of bone. The military can tell you many more tales where they got multiple through and through shots with enemies, and didn’t put them down.

[jimc5499]

The 1911 .45 pistol was purchased by the Army and Marines because of that very issue. They occupied the Philippines after the Spanish American War and had a problem with the pistol rounds that they were using, stopping Moro Tribesmen who attacked. The .45 ACP had the required stopping power.

[Gandydancer]

The tumbling of the AR round is discussed by the AR's designer, quoted in this gun-grabber article:
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/11/why-the-ar-15-is-so-lethal/545162/

At least I think that's where I saw it. SECOND time in it was put behind a paywall, so read or copy it the first time.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Switch to another browser, clear cache...

[Stephen Lathrop]

Actually, its kind of a relief to have Kopel dishing out gun pedantry, on which he is informed, instead of history, about which he knows nearly nothing.

[gVOR08]

It's years since I read it, but I recall an anecdote by Kurt Vonnegut, either in "Slaughterhouse Five" or writing about it. You may remember the book revolves around the fire bombing of Dresden in 1945. Vonnegut was an American POW held in Dresden at the time. He visited a few years later and told of a cab driver pointing out the destroyed rose window of the Cathedral. The driver went on in considerable technical detail about the British Mosquito fighter bomber that shot it out and the 20mm cannon used. Vonnegut said he encountered this often. Germans would focus on the technical details of what had happened to them. It was a way of avoiding talking, or thinking, more deeply about what had happened.

[Gandydancer]

Sounds to me like Vonnegut was overthinking the significance of that reply. Observing that the window had been destroyed isn't obviously "deep thinking" about anything, or likely to call forth any deep thinking about anything.

[MoreCurious]

My God, people, listen to us! I don't give a damn if you call it an assault weapon or an assault rifle. I don't give a damn if it's a magazine or a clip. I don't give a damn if it's grams or grains. And I sure as hell don't give a damn if the correct term is muzzle speed or muzzle velocity. No civilian needs a firearm whose only purpose is to cause pain, rip apart bodies, and kill humans including children.

[Michael P]

What are we supposed to hear when we listen to you? A cri du coeur that you missed every lesson of the American Revolution and Mexico’s ongoing cartel wars, of the Russian revolution and the Freedom Riders?

[MoreCurious]

You can act dumb if you think that suits you. My tears are for the children who would like to survive a day in school, the worshipers who would like to survive a prayer service at their churches, synagogues, and mosques, the shoppers who would like to return home after a day at the mall, and the young people who would like to come home alive after a concert or nightclub outing.

[Michael P]

That’s a resounding yes, then.

[MoreCurious]

Thanks for confirming that you're more worried about being attacked by the British, the Mexican drug cartels, the Bolsheviks, and Freedom Riders than you are about children in their classrooms hoping not to get massacred before they can see their parents again.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

Thanks for confirming that you're more worried about lives lost from shooters than lives saved. Guns save far more lives than they kill, except when used by governments, especially the socialists who murdered 100-200 million civilians last century and continue murdering today.

Or maybe you think you can snap your fingers and eliminate all guns ... except those used by governments, of course, which, again, murdered 100-200 million civilians last century. Good to know which side you are on -- burglars, stalkers, and government mass murderers.

[Gandydancer]

"My God, people, listen to us!"

Why? You and your ilk discredit yourself with your determined ignorance (e.g., the multiple claims upthread that the AR is the weapon of choice for mass shootings), and that doesn't motivate anyone with a clue to pay any attention to you.

"I don’t give a damn if you call it an assault weapon or an assault rifle."

WE are not the ones insisting on using a misleading propaganda term. If you and your ilk actually don't give a damn, just stop.

[Dr. Ed 2]

They are more likely to be hit by lightning.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"My God, people, listen to us! I don’t give a damn if you call it an assault weapon or an assault rifle. I don’t give a damn if it’s a magazine or a clip. I don’t give a damn if it’s grams or grains. And I sure as hell don’t give a damn if the correct term is muzzle speed or muzzle velocity"

So? Who's arguing that you should care about any of that stuff? Do you have any actual arguments to offer?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

You may not care about exactly what you ban, but other people do. The vast majority of them are innocent of any gun crime, and indeed will never commit any such crime in their entire lives.

If history is any guide, your "details don't matter" approach will probably fail to accomplish your laudable goal, but it will definitely punish those innocent people. That is why your amoral emotional rant will not be well-received by the people who would be most affected by your misguided efforts.

Moreover, the primary purpose of the 2nd Amendment is obviously to ensure that effective, militia-type weapons are kept in the hands of the civilian population. It had nothing to do with hunting. Accordingly, the civilian version of a standard military rifle is exactly what any member of the citizen militia would need to serve in a militia.

If ensuring a militia is able to be formed is no longer a priority, change the Constitution, following the process which has been clearly provided therein. If you don't think the American people would take the necessary steps to do this, you may need to change your message to suit what they would support.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Accordingly, the civilian version of a standard military rifle is exactly what any member of the citizen militia would need to serve in a militia."

Per Miller, the military version of a standard military rifle would be exactly what any member of the citizen militia would need. Remember, this whole distinction between military and civilian arms only arose as a consequence of the NFA, and the Court refusing for better than half a century to take 2nd amendment cases. Prior to the NFA, there was no such distinction, and until the 80's, civilians could still own standard battle rifles, they just had to jump through some constitutionally questionable hoops to do so.

If not for the Court's failure, we'd have continued the American tradition of military and civilian arms being identical right to this day. It still persists for sniper rifles and service pistols.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

You may be right, but I think the "civilian version" is the most likely result of any modern acceptance of the 2nd Amendment. Insist on full-auto and hand grenades, and that will never happen...

[Armchair Lawyer]

If you just want to ban firearms, go ahead and say so.

But making up facts as to why certain firearms need to be banned....doesn't help your case.

[Rossami]

You are wrong in your basic premise. You are looking only at recent news coverage and ignoring the far greater harms that history demonstrates inevitably occur to a disarmed populace. You may choose to ignore history and the basics of human nature. Don't expect the rest of us to cater to your adolescent natterings.

[Brett Bellmore]

And, you know what?

We don't give a damn what you think we need.

[MeanGene]

Basically all firearms will do that if directed at a human. By your logic all civillian possession of firearms should be banned. Want to run for office on that platform?

[defaultdotxbe]

So what is it about an "assault weapon" that makes it so it's "only purpose is to cause pain, rip apart bodies, and kill humans including children?"

If you can define that, then maybe we can discuss regulation.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

No civilian needs a firearm whose only purpose is to cause pain, rip apart bodies, and kill humans including children.

I own several firearms, all of which I use, and not a single one of them has ever killed (or even injured) so much as a single human. Are you saying that they're defective?

[juris imprudent]

"No civilian needs a firearm whose only purpose is to cause pain, rip apart bodies, and kill humans including children."

Ah, so you intend for police to surrender their supplies of such, right? I mean, you surely can't justify the state having things with only that dreadful purpose.

[DaveM]

There are two legitimate reasons for a citizen to own a gun: for sport, and to prevent an attacker from causing pain, ripping apart bodies, and killing humans and children.

Shooting for sport is remarkably popular, very safe, and there is absolutely nothing objectionable about it, given how careful the gun community has shown itself to be. Having a sporting gun in the house is still very risky, however, and if one is not prepared to do what it takes to secure them, then you can rent your guns from a club.

Shooting for defense is a whole 'nother thing, you are not shooting at targets, you are training to potentially kill another person. The costs, risks, time, and attention are at an entirely different level. If you do not in fact face a threat that exceeds these risks and costs, it would be exceedingly unwise for you to own a firearm for that purpose.

[Bruce Hayden]

You really can’t separate the two. I find shooting therapeutic. But I also do it to make sure that I can do what’s needed when I need to. I. Of course, never expect to need to draw or point a gun in defense, but you never know in advance that is going to happen.

I tend to shoot targets that look like targets primarily, in order to improve my accuracy. I know a guy who shoots 50 rounds a day, day in and day out - but he has killed people with a handgun before - several in Vietnam, and once in a robbery, with a gun to his head. So, I do practice sometimes with human figure targets. The military found, at one point that that was necessary to acclimate people to shooting at real people, overcoming our natural reluctance to do so.

[Miles Fortis]

"No civilian needs a firearm whose only purpose is to cause pain, rip apart bodies, and kill humans including children."

There is no such firearm. Your posting that merely indicates you're a closeminded wanna-be parroting a set of talking points.

You deserve no respect for such bullshit.

[Stephen Lathrop]

You can summarize in a few sentences what makes the AR-style weapon the public menace that it is. No need of pedantic details.

The .44 magnum pistol is reckoned one of the most powerful handguns available. Its weight and recoil make it a weapon that few shooters choose, despite destructive power which made it legendary.

Because of a specific combination of design choices made by weapons engineers, the AR-style rifle shooting the .223 cartridge used in most mass killing scenarios, delivers notably more power per shot than the .44 magnum pistol. The AR-15 also enables aimed rapid fire, and continuous fire, better than the .44 magnum can.

Yet the AR-15 is easy for almost any shooter to master quickly, and use with confidence, which the .44 magnum is not. There is almost no learning curve with the AR-15.

However slight of frame, or inexperienced with firearms, almost any shooter can quickly learn to use an AR-15 rifle. And then use it to deliver far more destructive firepower to more targets, in a shorter time interval, than could be done by anyone with a .44 magnum pistol.

That is all you need to know.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

What your last sentence really means is, that is all you want people to think that you know, which in reality is just more lies.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Á ÀSS ÄẞÇ ÃÞÇĐ ÂÞ¢ĐÆ ǍB€ÐËF ẢHF — Feel free to add anything you think matters more to a parent worried that a child might become a school shooting victim.

Let's see you minimize the danger to put into the hands of a maniac a weapon which when compared to a .44 magnum pistol delivers: more per-shot destructive energy; better armor penetration to keep police at bay; far better accuracy at longer ranges; higher rate of fire; multiple-times greater loaded capacity; quicker reload time; less recoil, lighter-weight ammunition to let an assailant carry more; less expensive ammunition to let an assailant purchase more; and which almost anyone can shoot comfortably with near-zero training or practice.

On the other hand, here is one point a gun expert writing a Wikipedia article makes about the .44 magnum pistol:

In its full-powered form, it produces so much recoil and muzzle blast that it is generally considered to be unsuitable for use as a police weapon. Rapid fire is difficult and strenuous on the user's hands, especially for shooters of smaller build.

If you were planning to shoot up a school, you would choose the AR-15 every time, in preference to the .44 magnum. Everyone knows what a horror the .44 magnum is. When movie makers need to present a symbolically powerful gun, the .44 magnum has been a top choice. The AR-15 is far worse than the .44 magnum, in so many ways it takes a long list to enumerate them.

You know every word I have said is true. You would be a lying asshole to say otherwise. Just shut up.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Ban fentanyl, not firearms....

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

Feel free to add anything you think matters...

Just shut up.

The consistency I have come to expect from you.

The rest of your comment is the cherry picking I have come to expect from all hoplophobes.

Anyone who reads this article itself, then reads your comments, can see the cherry picking, even with zero knowledge of guns.

[Absaroka]

For an apples-to-apples comparison, you should compare 223 rifles to 44 mag rifles. 44 mag rifles don't have the recoil and muzzle blast you are saying matters, and are legal for hunting in at least some states that don't consider the 223 powerful enough.

It's always hard to keep track of what you are trying to ban on any given day; if the ban du jour is 'all rifles', never mind.

[David Nieporent]

Á ÀSS ÄẞÇ ÃÞÇĐ ÂÞ¢ĐÆ ǍB€ÐËF ẢHF — Feel free to add anything you think matters more to a parent worried that a child might become a school shooting victim.

That it's not worth worrying about, because the odds are incredibly low.

[perlmonger]

Your confidence is outweighed only by your ignorance.

[Gandydancer]

“…the AR-style rifle shooting the .223 cartridge used in most mass killing scenarios, delivers notably more power per shot than the .44 magnum pistol.”

So, the reason you want to compare an AR to an oversized pistol is that the oversized pistol gets a starring role in the talkies?

This doesn’t make the slightest bit of sense. But then you never do.

Does the bit about “used in most mass killing scenarios” refer to Hollywood too?

Because if “scenarios” refers to real-life experience the claim is either ignorance or a lie. In your case both are eminently plausible.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

You know every word I have said is true. You would be a lying asshole to say otherwise.

Joe Biden has assured us that an AR-15 is just too hard to use. Are you calling him a lying asshole?

[jimc5499]

Then by logic, the mass shooter would select a 12Ga. shotgun using 00 buckshot. Asshole.

[Bruce Hayden]

“Everyone knows what a horror the .44 magnum is.”

You need to clarify. I have a .44 mag lever gun in the gun case by the front door, with bear loads. Recoil is stiff, but not like most hunting rifles. I have it there because it loads quickly. My other rifles require inserting the magazine, and then charging it.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

You make it sound like all the other "non-AR" rifles are perfectly fine...

[Armchair Lawyer]

Handguns are more commonly used in most mass shootings.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/476409/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-weapon-types-used/

So...you're entire argument....seems to be not congruent with facts.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Armchair, we are all free to choose the subjects we talk about. My subject is the kind of mass shootings which scare the public most—school shootings and other kinds of mass attacks where victims are chosen at random, and often had no previous awareness that the shooter even existed. Which is to say a kind of catastrophe recently on the increase, and which poses a threat to civil coherence in the U.S., especially over the question of gun regulation.

To choose that subject is not to disparage other gun-related subjects, involving different kinds of weapons, pre-exisiting conflicts among victims, and criminal motives more comprehensible than mass death for its own sake. Those of course are even more common than the incidents I have focused on, and thus highly worthy of remedial policy attention.

I suppose your principal interest is to prevent the kinds of shooting which concern you, and to which you point with your link. When you propose policy to reduce those, I will be glad to see what you propose, and may well urge others to back your efforts.

[Dr. Ed 2]

If you want to protect children, build a Fariday cage in every classroom and have the students hide in it everytime there is a cloudy day. It’d save more lives….

Pigs (boars) kill more people than sharks do...

[defaultdotxbe]

Even restricting to random public shootings handguns are still the most common weapon.

[Abdul Abulbul Amir]

"My subject is the kind of mass shootings which scare the public most..."

In other words, those shootings that the pols and the MSM chooses to hype for days and weeks to follow depending on the weapon and the race/sex of the shooter. Why let factual statistics get in the way of good progressive fearmongering?

Boulder CO shooter with an Arabic sounding name using a pistol kills the same number as the white racist male in Buffalo using an AR, but Biden unlike Buffalo remains silent to this day. Press coverage was similarly lopsided.

[DonP]

Excellent point.

The average Chicago 3-day holiday weekend has more people/children (anyone under 19 according to the media) killed than the Nashville hate crime attack on a Christian school. Check out "Most Hol(e)y Weekend" numbers. https://heyjackass.com/

But then again those are mainly minorities, so we don't notice those in the media.

Looking forward to media hiding the body count for their Democratic Convention. Wondering if Bernie and the rest of the lefties will ride the much heralded Public Transportation the CTA trains?

[Armchair Lawyer]

"My subject is the kind of mass shootings which scare the public most"

I'm sorry, the "kind of mass shooting"? So, despite most mass shootings involving handguns (which is what the statistics show), you instead focus on the "kind of mass shootings," but without any evidence as to the statistics used in this subclass of mass shootings....which, you don't really define, aside from being "scary".

I mean, if you define a scary mass shooting as one which uses an AR-15, then sure, that's the gun used most. But that's a circular type of logic.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Armchair, no, it is not circular. Repeated shootings in which victims get picked at random signal a much worse social breakdown than shootings among mutually known criminals settling scores. The latter kind ordinary citizens know how to avoid. The former kind implies a world of peril from which there is no escape.

That would be true no matter what the relative frequency of each kind was. But the random kind has been on the increase for years.

More generally, what is happening points to another type of social breakdown. The one actually advocated by gun enthusiasts, where everyone stocks up on mass-killing optimized weapons, to intimidate political opponents, to prevent exercise of their civil rights.

You go ahead and help the criminals reform. My focus will stay on finding ways to prevent snowballing social breakdown first. I figure if some way can be found to fix that, then maybe some similar solution might work to rescue the criminals later.

[Gandydancer]

“…we are all free to choose the subjects we talk about. My subject is the kind of mass shootings which scare the public most—school shootings and other kinds of mass attacks where victims are chosen at random, and often had no previous awareness that the shooter even existed.”

But that’s not what you SAID you were talking about. You SAID you were talking about “most mass killing scenarios”, and now you’re backing and filling, still without any evidence that ARs are indeed the most common weapon in even the ill-defined subset of mass shootings you now claim to have been talking about.

You get to choose your subject, but you DON’T have a right to lie after having done so.

Why you imagine this behavior is OK I cannot imagine.

Well, apart from “the cause is just, so lying and cheating is OK” bit.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I think he'd probably point out that he's just "doing history".

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

My subject is the kind of mass shootings which scare the public most

Well, at least you had an uncharacteristic moment of honesty that allowed you to admit that you don't give a rat's ass about the facts, and are interested only in emotion-based fear-mongering.

[juris imprudent]

"scare the public most"

What was it Mencken said about the need to keep the public in a panic, so that politicians can promise them deliverance from those fears?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Whatever Mencken said, he never endorsed killing people's children at random.

[juris imprudent]

Perhaps you can point to someone who does endorse killing people's children randomly. Otherwise, that point is pointless.

[Miles Fortis]

"You can summarize in a few sentences what makes the AR-style weapon the public menace that it is. No need of pedantic details."

No need for your bullshit either.
You indicated the wrong item as a 'public menace'.
YOU ARE.

[Dr. Ed 2]

By comparison. the speed of sound is 1,086 ft/s.

[Frank Drackman]

In a freezer maybe, depends on temperature. Remember the first time I broke the sound barrier, actually sort of anti-climactic, just looked down at the Machmeter and it was 1.1.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The figure quoted was 60 degrees at sea level -- not sure which one.

You'd think you'd notice going through the shock wave in front of you.

[Frank Drackman]

Nope, pretty uneventful.
Growing up on air farce bases, used to be a pretty common occurrence for a fighter to "Boom", usually an F-105 Thud or F4, last of a 4 ship with the last jet being delayed for a Coyote on the runway or something, and going a little too fast to catch up, "Boom"!!
Of course those F105 Air Guard guys would just do it because they could, they come under the Governor, nothing any USAF Wing Commander was gonna do.

Frank "as a matter of fact, I am legally deaf"

[questioner7]

These are technical details... The gist of the matter is that other countries (e.g. the UK, Canada, Australia) have markedly fewer horrific shootings. So the claim that we just have to accept such shootings doesn't hold water. These other countries don't have U.S.-style 2A, but they're healthy democracies with regular voting-out of gov'ts people don't like. Maybe in the 18th century it wasn't clear whether you can have a democracy without 2A, but it's clear today.

[Michael P]

Other countries (e.g. Norway, Serbia, France) have had markedly more mass shootings per capita, even considering that they rely on the United States for military protection. There are also demographic differences that you ignore, and a heavy concentration of news-making incidents in "gun free zones".

Stop disarming victims, letting psychiatric patients run amok, hyping mass shooting incidents and pushing your (he/him) political allies towards murder and let's see what happens to the rates here in the US.

[Frank Drackman]

Well that Anders Breivik incident sort of skews the stats. (he's already been up for Parole, denied thankfully, those Law & Order Norwegians!

[Armchair Lawyer]

"The gist of the matter is"

Here's what it actually is.

1. You need to actually look at mass shootings per capita. Comparing a country of the size of the US to one like Canada or Norway (at 10% or less of the population of the US) is a poor comparison.

2. When you do that, you understand that many other developed countries have higher rates of mass shootings per capita. Norway, France, Switzerland, Belgium, all with higher rates of mass shootings per capita than the US.

https://fee.org/articles/the-myth-that-the-us-leads-the-world-in-mass-shootings/

[Voize]

Adam Lankford published a study that claimed the US had the highest per-capita public mass shooting rate. The Feb. 2019 article you linked to describes how John Lott tried to reproduce Lankford's results (made difficult because Lankford did not initially release his data) and found instead that other countries had much higher rates.

That article missed the work done by Washington Post fact checker Glenn Kessler in 2018 to understand the discrepancy. He found Lankford had counted mass shootings with 4 or more killed not including the shooter, but "excluded gang-related shootings, drive-by shootings, hostage-taking incidents, robberies and acts of genocide or terrorism". Lott however used a more inclusive definition. For example, Lott included the 2008 Mumbai massacre, where 10 Pakistani operatives executed a coordinated attack at several sites in the city that killed 168 people. When Lott recalculated using a similar definition to Lankford's his results agreed.

So no, not a myth, just different answers when you ask different questions.

[tkamenick]

It's the people, not the tools.

[Gandydancer]

In 2021 60% of US murders where the perpetrator's race is identified were committed by blacks. When you figure out how to change the American population to have less blacks in it, get back to me.

https://www.unz.com/isteve/fbi-blacks-made-up-60-4-of-known-murder-offenders-in-2021/

[cjcoats]

Science is real. In particular, PHYSICS IS REAL.

Let's first talk about the physics of assault rifles: in order not to burden an infantryman with more weight, and in order to be usable atclose quarters, they are lighter and shorter than full-size rifles, with lighter ammo but higher rates of fire. And the shorter barrels reduce the energy of the bullets they shoot: remember, ENERGY = FORCE times DISTANCE -- and the distance for the powder to push on the bullet is the barrel length (exclusive of cartridge-chamber). An M16 weighs about 1/3 as much as the M1 rifle used by the US forces in WWII; it's ammunition weighs about 1/3 as much, and has about 1/3 the energy.

Now, about AR15's: they are similarly lighter and shorter-barreled (and also firing lighter ammunition, but without "burst fire" capabilities of an assault rifle). Because of the shorter (16-20 inch barrel), they are 15-20% less powerful than a full-sized rifle (24-inch barrel) firing the very same ammunition. That's physics.

[OtisAH]

AR’s have to be less powerful or it wouldn’t be legal to use them against children.

[Gandydancer]

You think saying stupid things is clever.

[OtisAH]

Holy crap, is this *another* “Well, actually, AR’s aren’t really *that* dangerous” post?! I’d comment on the appropriateness/tackiness of such an article on the heels of *this* week’s mass shooting involving AR’s. But mass shootings involving AR’s these days are like the warning about feeding Gremlins. “Don’t feed them after midnight”? It’s always “after midnight.”

[tkamenick]

Better answer - "Guns are supposed to kill. We want guns that do that better and more accurately."

[Frank Drackman]

Sirhan Sirhan accomplished his mission with a .22 LR Revolver, firing a 40g Bull-wet (HT E. Fudd) at 1200fps for 131 Ft-lbs of force. It's all Shot Placement.

Frank

[Frank Drackman]

and before any smarty pants o-pine, the "g" is for "Grains" not grams.

[Darth Buckeye]

Progressives will dismiss this all as junk science. They will urge us to be post-modern and go with progressives' lived experiences. Based on their lived experiences, a single hit from an AR-15 can cause more harm than a direct hit from a US Navy Type 7 rifle (aka 16 inch gun).

[Bob Woolley]

There's an error in the table of bullet weights and velocities:

.223 Rem 55 3200 1330
5.56 NATO
(U.S. Army standard through 1983)

55 3250 1325

If two bullets have the same weight (55), the one with greater velocity (3250) cannot have lower energy (1325).

[Frank Drackman]

You have to factor relativistic affects,

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Sign me up for a case of the first .225/5.56 rounds that achieve 90% of C at the muzzle.

[Gandydancer]

Dunno id it was fixed after your comment but the table shows the heavier bullets having a lower velocity and the same energy.

"5.56 NATO. Invented for the AR in 1960. A new version, adopted in 1984, has a 62 grain bullet instead of 55 grain; the KE at the muzzle is the same, namely 1325."

[jimc5499]

That's almost a rounding error.

[Estragon]

Wonderful- more gun pedantry. Can I ask— is the muzzle speed sufficient to shred an elementary schooler’s body? Oh, no, I’m sorry, the correct term is muzzle velocity; clearly this question fundamentally misunderstands technical aspects of these weapons and therefore need not be contemplated or discussed. Others above have said it. At least you’re not ranting about “works of satan” while you’re supposed to be giving a CLE!

[Gandydancer]

Answer: Nope. It can blow a hole through one, but shredding will not occur. If you want that effect you'll need explosives or a wood chipper or somesuch.

[Frank Drackman]

"CLE"?? Continuous Lumbar Epidural?? Hate when people use Acronyms

[CJColucci]

I have owned several long guns far more powerful than a .223 AR-15 or related rifles. They were three- or four-shot bolt-action rifles in .308 or .30-06. I am unaware of anyone -- though in a country this large there must be someone -- who has waded into a crowd with a three- or four-shot bolt-action hunting rifle. He probably wouldn't last long. The .223 round is far more powerful than handgun rounds, and chambered in a semi-automatic rifle with a large-capacity magazine, the best long arm for mass killing. There's a reason the Army uses the round.

[Absaroka]

“There’s a reason the Army uses the round.”

I believe that reason is that a 5.56 cartridge weighs maybe half of what a 7.62 cartridge weighs, so an infantryman who is already carrying 100 plus pounds of other gear can carry twice as much ammo, and they think twice as much weaker ammo is better than half as much more powerful ammo.

Note that when weight isn’t issue, e.g. for vehicle mounted machine guns, the military uses larger calibers. If they thought 5.56 was more effective, they’d use it on vehicles as well.

My sense is that spree shooters are not weight-of-ammo limited, because they aren’t humping the other 80 pounds of not-ammo that an infantryman does. If they want to carry a few hundred rounds of 30-06, they can.

“I am unaware of anyone — though in a country this large there must be someone — who has waded into a crowd with a three- or four-shot bolt-action hunting rifle. He probably wouldn’t last long.”

The 4th deadliest school shooting was in 1966 – the University of Texas shooting. While the killer had an M1 carbine, I think most of the deaths were from a bolt action (plus a couple from a shotgun, and ?one? person he bludgeoned).

Consider also the 2nd deadliest, Newton. Suppose the killer walked in to the classroom with a single shot break action shotgun. He kills the teacher. What happens then? The 2nd graders overpower him?

In the deadliest shooting – Va Tech – the shooter used a 9mm and 22LR handgun.

Wikipedia has a list. Of the top ten on the list, AR were used in three.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

I am unaware of anyone — though in a country this large there must be someone — who has waded into a crowd with a three- or four-shot bolt-action hunting rifle.

Shooters don't often "wade into a crowd" with any weapon to do their dirty work. They tend to shoot from a distance, and when relatively up close it's at utterly defenseless targets. Also, Charles Whitman killed 15 and wounded 16 more in Austin armed only with a bolt-action hunting rifle, a pump-action hunting rifle, a shotgun and a couple of pistols. And these weren't even people trapped in a confined space.

There’s a reason the Army uses the round.

There are in fact multiple reasons...none of which are the one you're so ineptly trying to claim. In fact the military is working on eliminating 5.56 in favor of something with more *oomph*, precisely because it is not

[jimc5499]

Whitman was also a trained marksman. Former Marine back when they emphasized marksmanship.

[mikeg1618]

This article is clearly well researched and no doubt factually accurate. Below are two articles from the Atlantic on the effects on the body from the relatively light weight and high velocity 223 rounds popular in most AR-15's. Simply put, the 223 round is especially good at rapidly causing devastating internal damage to a body. More so that the average hand gun and heavier rifle cartridge.

I'm a believer in a person's right to self protection both in and outside of one's home. I'm also a fan of hunting and recreational shooting. However I don't believe the AR-15 in it's most popular configuration has a place in the public. It's ability to inflict severe bodily damage delivered rapidly with high capacity magazines makes it a menace. Yes, a bolt action hunting rifle can cause the same wounds, however the design of the gun makes it many times slower to shoot, cycle, and reload, thus allowing much more time for intervention from bystanders or police.

Again, great article and thanks for the opportunity to comment.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/11/why-the-ar-15-is-so-lethal/545162/
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/02/what-i-saw-treating-the-victims-from-parkland-should-change-the-debate-on-guns/553937/

[Absaroka]

"Simply put, the 223 round is especially good at rapidly causing devastating internal damage to a body."

Can you elaborate on why you think .223 is generally thought to be marginally adequate for small deer, and completely unsuited for larger game? Why would an elk hunter, for example, choose 30-06 instead of .223, given that .223 is so much more effective?

Perhaps the Game and Fish regulators aren't as knowledgeable as the Atlantic writers?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Absaroka, when the Atlantic writer is a trauma surgeon who responded to one the nation's most prolific mass shootings, yeah, it would be a pretty rare Game and Fish guy who could match that expertise.

When I was in the newspaper business in Idaho I talked pretty regularly to a Game and Fish guy named Jack Hemingway. He seemed to enjoy deference from his colleagues. But I don't think he would have presumed medical knowledge about bullet wounds superior to that of a trauma surgeon. He never struck me as arrogant.

[Absaroka]

"who responded to one the nation’s most prolific mass shootings"

So the wounds he examined included both .223 and, say, 30-06 ones? Perhaps you can point out where in that article he says .223 does more damage than 30-06. When I read the article, all I see is him saying, correctly, that rifle rounds are generally more effective than handgun rounds.

Which is why, for example, when the police expect to be defending themselves or other innocents, they choose an AR-15 or shotgun.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Is the .223 even legal to hunt deer with? Memory is that it isn't.

[Absaroka]

Depends on the state - it is in some. N.b. that deer size varies quite a bit by area.

[CJColucci]

Back when I used to hunt, the .223 cartridge wasn't legal for deer in my state, precisely because it wasn't a reliable killer at realistic hunting ranges. (I don't know the current rules.) While it might have some use in small-game hunting, it's mainly a short-range man-killer and very good for that purpose. If I were planning to kill people at significant distance, where the victims couldn't rush me, I'd break out my old .308 or .30-06 and pick them off one-by-one from 100 yards or more. If I were planning a short-range mass killing, and preferred a long gun to a couple of handguns, I'd use an AR-15 type rifle.

[Absaroka]

Sure; it is, unfortunately an effective weapon for mass killing.

It is also an effective weapon for a policeman responding to any number of calls, or Granny defending against a burglar.

May I make a couple of suggestions for advocates of bans?

1)Try and narrowly define what you are trying to ban, and why, and make sure your ban only includes things that meet your criteria. For example, a 10/22 meets WA's definition of 'assault rifle', but you'll have to work pretty hard to keep a straight face while saying that 10/22's are uniquely dangerous. Or if you are following Mr. Lathrops 'small fast' reasoning, you should explain why your ban includes AR-10's or AK-47's or AR's in 22LR or 300BLK.

2)Try and estimate how much benefit will accrue if your ban is enacted. For example, how many more fatalities would you have expected at Va Tech if the killer had used an AR instead of generic handguns. Or how many fewer deaths would there have been at Sandy Hook if the killer had a 12 gauge pump. My sense is that those numbers are pretty small.

3)Compare the numbers from number two to other possible strategies to minimize the death toll, like not giving days or weeks of publicity to the sick wackos who perpetrate these atrocities.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Your last two paragraphs are not realistic suggestions. They are demands to accept counter-factuals as respectable arguments.

My answers are that with an AR-15 there would have been twice as many deaths at Virginia Tech, and if Adam Lanza had access only to a 12 gauge pump shotgun, he would not have attempted the crime. Your questions are no less unmoored from reality than my answers.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Absaroka, I just realized you probably aren't a hunter. If you were, you would understand that you choose an elk rifle to kill at extended ranges, often beyond 150 yards, sometimes at 300 yards or more. Elk hunters where I lived in my hunting days typically zeroed their aim at 200 yards, which is what I did too.

That means you need extra power to get a rapidly-decelerating supersonic bullet to its target, where after shedding substantial energy to air resistance, only remnant energy is available to do the killing—with a targeted game animal which might weigh in excess of 800 pounds.

Extra power is also necessary to drive a heavier, big-game killing bullet at a velocity high enough to deliver a relatively flat trajectory, to make aiming at extended ranges practical. Without a flat trajectory, difficulty to estimate range and bullet drop accurately would impair most attempts to shoot much beyond 150 yards.

None of that typically applies to AR bullets used for mass killings at far shorter ranges, where velocity and energy at impact approximates muzzle velocity and muzzle energy, and aiming is a lesser consideration.

To note those facts is not to assert that AR bullets cannot kill people at very long ranges, as the Las Vegas mass shooting proved.

[Absaroka]

The argument is ".223 is uniquely powerful relative to 'normal' hunting calibers".

And here you concede that, say, 30-06 is in fact much more powerful than .223. It's more powerful at long range, and it is more powerful at short range.

So we're in agreement that .223 is a low powered as rifle calibers go. Progress!

[Stephen Lathrop]

Absaroka, not low powered by the criterion of human mass killing and maiming. At a range of ~ 490 yards, AR-15 fire killed 60 people in the Las Vegas, while wounding more than 400 people. No other firearm style or caliber has ever come remotely close to matching that malign accomplishment. On the basis of results, the AR-15 stands for the present as the most powerful mass killing weapon ever put into civilian hands in the U.S.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"If you were, you would understand that you choose an elk rifle to kill at extended ranges, often beyond 150 yards, sometimes at 300 yards or more. Elk hunters where I lived in my hunting days typically zeroed their aim at 200 yards, which is what I did too."

"Without a flat trajectory, difficulty to estimate range and bullet drop accurately would impair most attempts to shoot much beyond 150 yards."

I for one, am happy that you are precisely dumb enough to destroy your own arguments.

[Magister]

You ignored the sentence "Extra power is also necessary to drive a heavier, big-game killing bullet at a velocity high enough to deliver a relatively flat trajectory, to make aiming at extended ranges practical."

So it is your argument, or at least your pretense to reading comprehension, that is destroyed.

[jimc5499]

For years you were not allowed to use .223 to hunt deer in Pennsylvania. The fear was that the round would NOT do enough damage to bring down a deer and many people don't track a wounded animal.

[Rossami]

You do realize that articles like those from the Atlantic are precisely the kind of misinformation that articles like this one are attempting to address, right? The Atlantic is not a credible source for this topic.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Rossami, a trauma surgeon who attended victims of one of the nation's most prolific mass shootings—and who had been treating shooting victims almost daily for years—is not a credible source? Who would be better? Someone on the NRA payroll with no medical expertise at all? What's wrong with you?

[Rossami]

That particular trauma surgeon's semi-incoherent rants have already been thoroughly dissected and the factual errors in his articles itemized. Critics notably included other trauma surgeons including many with experience in actual combat zones.

As to what's wrong with me? Probably many things. Including a stubborn insistence on facts and evidence over emotion and rhetoric.

[Gandydancer]

From the first article: “Tim Dickinson offered a useful history of the AR-15’s emergence as the main implement of mass murder last year in Rolling Stone…” “James Fallows is a contributing writer at The Atlantic…”

The main implement of mass murder last year and every year is the cheap automatic pistol. If Fallows can’t be bothered to get that right why should I pay attention to anything else he says?

Any rifle shot will have a high probability of killing you if it his center mass. Demonizing the AR round is just silly. But effective on the ignorant and dim witted.

The other article is behind a paywall.

[Gandydancer]

OK, here's the second article, out from behind the paywall:
https://www.tampabay.com/opinion/columns/Column-What-I-saw-treating-the-victims-from-Parkland-should-change-the-debate-on-guns_165857610/

As is typical with gun grabbers, her arguments make no sense. She claims that banning ARs "would drastically reduce the incidence of mass murders." But also "As a radiologist, I have now seen high-velocity AR-15 gunshot wounds firsthand, an experience that most radiologists in our country will never have." And also, "I have been a radiologist in one of the busiest trauma centers in the nation for 13 years, and have diagnosed thousands of handgun injuries to the brain, lung, liver, spleen, bowel and other vital organs. I thought that I knew all that I needed to know about gunshot wounds, but the specific pattern of injury on my computer screen was one that I had seen only once before."

Since few mass murders are committed with ARs it makes no sense to claim that eliminating ARs could significantly reduce the incidence of mass murders. Or any class of murders, given that until the Parkland shooting sheen seen only one person shot with an AR in THOUSANDS of bullet wounds.

[Stephen Lathrop]

From the OP headline: AR rifle ammunition is less powerful than most other rifle ammunition

Which is why the other ammunition is not chosen by mass shooters. The mass shooters understand that dead is dead, and AR ammunition kills its victims totally dead. That's why the U.S. military chose it.

What the mass shooters like about AR ammunition is its many other advantages, which make the mass killing process quicker, easier, more sustainable, and more broadly suitable for use by maniacs who cannot master more powerful rifles.

[Dr. Ed 2]

6.8 SPC (Special purpose cartridge). Introduced 2003 for US special forces, although not officially adopted. Attempts to solve the weaknesses of the 5.56mm in incapacitating an enemy.

Now why would US Special Forces need something like this???

[Frank Drackman]

To give bad guys a new A-hole in their forehead (love that phrase)

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

What the mass shooters like about AR ammunition is its many other advantages, which make the mass killing process quicker, easier, more sustainable, and more broadly suitable for use by maniacs who cannot master more powerful rifles.

And utterly irrelevant when it comes to a one-way shooting gallery (ie, one in which your targets are unarmed and incapable of effective resistance). See: “Cho” and “VA Tech”.

[Gandydancer]

Again, mass shooters generally DON'T "choose AR ammunition". Or AR rifles. They generally choose pistols and pistol ammunition.

ARs are chosen by NON-CRIMINAL CITIZENS for a host of good reasons. And you're not going to be allowed to stop them. Get over it.

[Bruce Hayden]

One big one being self defense. The simple reality is that long guns, including AR-15s are used primarily defensively, because they are simply not very conceilable.

[George]

It is well worth noting that the large projectile, low velocity .58 Minie balls used during the US Civil War caused much more gruesome wounds than a 5.56x45 round, and also had a much higher probability of wound infections not just due to lack of antibiotics, but also because the low velocity bullet was much more likely to carry septic material from uniforms, etc. into the wound.

One can look up photos on the web of wounds caused by 30-06 rounds in game animals and compare to photos of 5.56 wounds - particularly exit wounds - to see the much more significant damage of the larger round. The 30-06 round has both greater velocity AND a heavier projectile than 5.56x45. It wasn't replaced as the standard miliary round by the 7.62x51 and 5.56x45 cartridges due to *lethality*, but rather by weight and recoil produced - an automatic weapon like a Browning Automatic Rifle that used 30-06 simply was not stable enough to produce accurate automatic fire when shoulder fired as a squad automatic weapon, and a soldier could carry MORE rounds of the lighter-weight cartridges (the 5.56x45 round on average is 1/3 of the weight of a 30-06 round).

[ToddR]

All of my comments were lost in a tragic boating accident. And I had a lot of comments.

[BadLib]

Especially lethal are shotguns at shorter ranges.

I'll need to keep that in mind if any kids in my family ever knock on Joe Biden's door to ask if they can retrieve a soccer ball from his back yard. Since at times Joe seems a bit cranky, he might not want the kid near his house and follow his own advice "[If] you want to keep someone away from your house, just fire the shotgun through the door".

Perhaps we should start a GoFundMe to buy Joe an AR rifle to give the neighborhood kids a fighting chance when he wants them to "get off my lawn".

(Also, in some cases, it might be possible to patch the hole made in the door by a .223 but not by the shotgun so we can help Biden save money in his crabby dotage.)

[Frank Drackman]

I think it was to fire the Shotgun "On the Balcony" (he was telling (Dr) Jill Biden to do it actually)
even Senescent J isn't stupid enough to shoot through his own front door (OK, he probably is, but not what he said)
if you want a good laugh, watch the original version
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=joe+biden+get+a+shotgun+youtube+video&docid=603545082386975063&mid=80F8AE47BD7F63132EF280F8AE47BD7F63132EF2&view=detail&FORM=VIRE

[Stephen Lathrop]

To summarize the thread so far, AR-15 critics, including me, think the invention and popularization of the AR-15 is likely a causative factor behind a rising trend of a particular kind of crime—mass shootings in public places of victims the shooters choose apparently at random, or partly at random.

Pro AR-15 commenters refuse to acknowledge any such trend, and deploy subject changes. They ignore every argument that substantively criticizes the AR-15. The general pattern of argument is that AR-15 concerns should be ignored, because something else should be more concerning.

[MaverickNH]

Yes, WaPo had their big AR-15 story series two weeks ago. I loved the story based on their observation that in 10 of 17 of the mass shootings with more than 9 killed in the last 11 years the killer used an AR15. If you believe AR-15s are the bane of mankind, you don’t even question why make a claim based on 17 events with 9+ victims over 11 years. When your audience loves cherries, you pick them for your audience and they eat them up.

[MaverickNH]

Why bother publishing in Reason a detailed text rebuttal of the high-end graphics stories carried by WaPo and NYT about the AR15 rifle round’s horrible body-shredding power? Only so GOA, FPC and NRA can provide briefs and reprints to congressional staffers of Congress members supporting gun rights, so they can push back against anti-gun Democrats on the Hill. And so GOA/FPC/NRA can to lean on at-risk politicians who might not get re-elected if they support gun control, giving them the out to point to “studies” to justify their pro-gun votes.

We don’t need to read this stuff, really…pro-gun people just need to mention GOA, FPC and NRA in their calls and emails to our Congress members, so they know, that we know, that they know this side of the story. And that they will be held accountable at the ballot box.

Carry on!

[ThePublius]

There's a misleading statement in the appendix. It says ".50 BMG (Browning Machine Gun). Invented 1918 for the U.S. Army and still in use by them. Sporting use in very long distance target shooting, sometimes up to 2 miles. Not very easy to carry, as weight is 20 pounds or more. KE = 12408 to 13421."

re: 20lb. That's the weight of a 100 round belt of .50BMG, not one round.