Let's talk about guns, shootings, solutions and idiotic suggestions

[Condecito]

We are constantly told if we don’t like something/somewhere we can leave or not shop there. Same should go for malls and businesses who choose not to allow weapons on the premises.

I cannot agree more: private business, families and individuals should do how they consider with their properties. If I am the owner of the Mall, I should set the rules, whatever I want them to be: I could build a shopping mall where you cannot enter dressed. People would verify if I was right in my business plan, and if not, I will loose my money. Same goes with guns. But again, in this bigger and bigger State of the Law (more the law of the State) your property is not fully yours, politicians decide about how will be used.

 

[KeithD]

How interesting that you make no distinction between the different kinds of guns, with a vastly different killing power.

 

[jaF0]

We are constantly told if we don’t like something/somewhere we can leave or not shop there. Same should go for malls and businesses who choose to allow weapons on the premises.

I'm sure that's what you meant.

 

[HisArpy]

They had two mass shootings. One in a mall and another in a park.

Ban guns and these will stop.

And what happened before they decided to allow good guys to carry guns?

 

[HisArpy]

God bless him. His gems are precious.

Nuts are nuts and luk's nuts aren't all that desirable even to luk.

How interesting that you make no distinction between the different kinds of guns, with a vastly different killing power.

Interesting that you don't understand that those evil "assault weapons" you want to ban are small caliber weapons which shoot a .22 caliber bullet.

Meanwhile, hunters use guns which shoot .308 caliber bullets (or larger!) and you don't have a single thought about banning those on the basis of "killing power" (whatever that's supposed to mean in your head since it makes no sense in regards to guns).

 

[Fuzzy1975]

To all of those who think solving anything is as simple as "making a law", please, remember, just as an example, that in Mexico guns are illegal,

See right here, you got your facts wrong. In fact, in Mexico, Mexican citizens have a "right" to own firearms. It is in the constitution. So owning firearms in Mexico is not illegal in itself.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Interesting that you don't understand that those evil "assault weapons" you want to ban are small caliber weapons which shoot a .22 caliber bullet.

*chuckles* first off there are 11 calibre/cartridges for the AR-15 platform, not just one. The most common seems to be the .223 x 5.56. Which has a MV of 3,150 fps (50 grain). A rate of fire of 45 rounds per min, or with a bumpstock it is possible to hit around 400 rounds per min. It weights in at 6 pounds or so, and is only 39" long. Compared to a hunting rifle such as a Winchester Model 100 .308 calibre which has a rate of fire of 39 rounds per min, ( can't find a bumpstock count though but I suspect 300 rounds per min would be possible, except the barrel would warp before that happened) and a MV of 2900 fps ( 150 grain). With a length of 44 " and a weight of 7.75 pounds.

So if I was hunting:
and the game was people, I'd prefer a light, short weapon, with lots of rounds per min, cause there is no bag limit on people.
and if I was hunting deer, it doesn't really matter, just something with enough impact energy to provide a clean kill, since you can only harvest one deer per tag, and you can only buy a second tag, after filling your first....

Meanwhile, hunters use guns which shoot .308 caliber bullets (or larger!) and you don't have a single thought about banning those on the basis of "killing power" (whatever that's supposed to mean in your head since it makes no sense in regards to guns).

"killing power" is a measurable fact. All rifles are designed to kill. Period end of story. The AR-15 was designed to kill people, it was not designed to kill deer. The Winchester Model 100 was designed to kill deer, moose and some types of bear, not people.

 

[HisArpy]

*chuckles* first off there are 11 calibre/cartridges for the AR-15 platform, not just one. The most common seems to be the .223 x 5.56. Which has a MV of 3,150 fps (50 grain). A rate of fire of 45 rounds per min, or with a bumpstock it is possible to hit around 400 rounds per min. It weights in at 6 pounds or so, and is only 39" long. Compared to a hunting rifle such as a Winchester Model 100 .308 calibre which has a rate of fire of 39 rounds per min, ( can't find a bumpstock count though but I suspect 300 rounds per min would be possible, except the barrel would warp before that happened) and a MV of 2900 fps ( 150 grain). With a length of 44 " and a weight of 7.75 pounds.

So if I was hunting:
and the game was people, I'd prefer a light, short weapon, with lots of rounds per min, cause there is no bag limit on people.
and if I was hunting deer, it doesn't really matter, just something with enough impact energy to provide a clean kill, since you can only harvest one deer per tag, and you can only buy a second tag, after filling your first....



"killing power" is a measurable fact. All rifles are designed to kill. Period end of story. The AR-15 was designed to kill people, it was not designed to kill deer. The Winchester Model 100 was designed to kill deer, moose and some types of bear, not people.

Lol, what a maroon.

Military use of modern weapons includes using BALL ammo. Ball Ammo is a solid bullet which is designed to pass through the body, wounding but not killing. It's considered HUMANE because the person shot tends to live rather than die. It's considered more useful than lethal ammo like hollow points because it takes more people to care for the wounded than the dead. It is NATO and UN required for members of those bodies per the Geneva Conventions.

This type of ammo is the most common caliber for the AR platform, although hollow points are available. However, since the cost of hollow points is higher, most people use Ball ammo for practice.

THE most common caliber for AR platform rifles is the .223 and 5.56. THE most common ammo sold/used in those calibers is Ball ammo.

Yet despite these FACTS, you seem to think that "assault rifles" are designed to "kill." Laughable. The truth is the exact opposite where "assault weapons" are small caliber weapons with limited range and "hunting rifles" are large caliber rifles with what can be extremely long range capabilities. The .338 Lapua comes to mind in this regard. It travels at nearly 3000 feet per second (average) and delivers an amazing 4800 ft lbs of energy (avg). It's extremely accurate out to distances of a half mile and beyond. Contrast that with the .223 and it's relatively anemic 3100 ft per second (avg) and 1250 ft lbs of energy (avg) with an accuracy range of around 400-500 yards.

For "hunting people" (which is a disgusting concept only a progressive like you who knows nothing would contemplate and then extrapolate upon in a public forum where even the mention of such a concept SHOULD GET YOU PERMABANNED) the .223/5.56 caliber round is a STUPID choice. Which is why it's not used by snipers or other long distance shooters in competition.

Further, "killing power" is a meaningless phrase since the relevant measurable terms are "energy" and "velocity." You have to use math (I know that's a foreign concept to someone like you) to calculate the amount of impact force the bullet hits the target with. You should note that NOWHERE in those calculations does the term "killing power" appear. It, like the phrase "assault weapon", is a meaningless set of words designed to make you appear knowledgeable while the reality to ANYONE who knows even the slightest bit about guns, is that you're an absolute and complete fucking idiot spewing nothing but bullshit.

Take your crap and begone little fool.

 

[Condecito]

See right here, you got your facts wrong. In fact, in Mexico, Mexican citizens have a "right" to own firearms. It is in the constitution. So owning firearms in Mexico is not illegal in itself.

Yes, but with limitations according by law. Up to caliber 39 is illegal as far as you don't have a permission. Not sure even if for 39 and lower you also need one. Otherwise, it would be illegal.

When define as illegal owning weapons, I mean it is regulated by law. You can say drugs consumption is illegal in the US, don't you? But again, you can say it is not, if you do according to the law (medical prescription and similar) Same with guns: in Mexico it is strongly regulated.

Anyway, even let's say my facts about Mexico are wrong. Still, you will find many countries where the possession of fire arms is strongly regulated and violence is strong, while other countries with less regulation, you perceive as safe. My point is that regulations doesn't help much: the bad guys will always keep their arms, or even without them, they will still be violent.

 

[Condecito]

*chuckles* first off there are 11 calibre/cartridges for the AR-15 platform, not just one. The most common seems to be the .223 x 5.56. Which has a MV of 3,150 fps (50 grain). A rate of fire of 45 rounds per min, or with a bumpstock it is possible to hit around 400 rounds per min. It weights in at 6 pounds or so, and is only 39" long. Compared to a hunting rifle such as a Winchester Model 100 .308 calibre which has a rate of fire of 39 rounds per min, ( can't find a bumpstock count though but I suspect 300 rounds per min would be possible, except the barrel would warp before that happened) and a MV of 2900 fps ( 150 grain). With a length of 44 " and a weight of 7.75 pounds.

So if I was hunting:
and the game was people, I'd prefer a light, short weapon, with lots of rounds per min, cause there is no bag limit on people.
and if I was hunting deer, it doesn't really matter, just something with enough impact energy to provide a clean kill, since you can only harvest one deer per tag, and you can only buy a second tag, after filling your first....



"killing power" is a measurable fact. All rifles are designed to kill. Period end of story. The AR-15 was designed to kill people, it was not designed to kill deer. The Winchester Model 100 was designed to kill deer, moose and some types of bear, not people.

Whatever the designer has in mind, that doesn't mean much. A truck was not designed to kill, and some years ago, if you remember, in France terrorists used it to kill dozens of people (sorry if not dozens but maybe ten, don't get me like with the Mexico topic, it doesn't change the idea) in the streets. And an AK-47 for many people (include me!) would be a fantastic decoration at home. Or a toy for some erotic scene. Or give it to the DIY community to recycle and will be used as things I cannot even imagine.

So, even if it was conceived by the designer for an specific purpose, it is just a tool. Like a pickaxe, like handcuffs, like a screwdriver, which can be use for different purposes. And even again, if the AK-47 was designed to kill, and it is used, could be used in self defense or in defense of others. Not to mention that holding it can protect you, even if you are not able to fire it, like myself, who I think I would be petrified before shooting to anyone.

 

[HisArpy]

Whatever the designer has in mind, that doesn't mean much. A truck was not designed to kill, and some years ago, if you remember, in France terrorists used it to kill dozens of people (sorry if not dozens but maybe ten, don't get me like with the Mexico topic, it doesn't change the idea) in the streets. And an AK-47 for many people (include me!) would be a fantastic decoration at home. Or a toy for some erotic scene. Or give it to the DIY community to recycle and will be used as things I cannot even imagine.

So, even if it was conceived by the designer for an specific purpose, it is just a tool. Like a pickaxe, like handcuffs, like a screwdriver, which can be use for different purposes. And even again, if the AK-47 was designed to kill, and it is used, could be used in self defense or in defense of others. Not to mention that holding it can protect you, even if you are not able to fire it, like myself, who I think I would be petrified before shooting to anyone.

The concept he doesn't get is that guns are TOOLS (like him and the rest of them) and it's the intent of the user which decides whether that tool is used for good or harm.

They would ban the tool, even if used for good, and allow the user to devise other methods of causing harm for which there is no preventative ability.

 

[ll74]

Guns are tools, but unlike screwdrivers, they are used to inflict harm, maim and kill instead of screwing in a Philips head screw on your door hinge

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Lol, what a maroon.

Military use of modern weapons includes using BALL ammo. Ball Ammo is a solid bullet which is designed to pass through the body, wounding but not killing.

You really should stick to topics where you have some factual knowledge. Ball Ammunition is any ammunition, military, non military. The term comes from olden day wheel locks. Which shot....gasp...."lead balls". The term you really wanted to use was full metal jacket. The jacket is designed to prevent expansion of the bullet. The "legal" military requirement (The Hague Convention of 1899.)came about due to the British use of bullets that would expand upon impact. But I am not about to give you a lesson in history.

As to your point, FMJ bullets can expand, if they are thin walled, or they can yaw, or tumble, ( ie boat tailed) and the US currently uses expanding bullets ( M1153 Specials)

It's considered HUMANE because the person shot tends to live rather than die. It's considered more useful than lethal ammo like hollow points because it takes more people to care for the wounded than the dead. It is NATO and UN required for members of those bodies per the Geneva Conventions.

*chuckles* and it's cute you believe the above....go read up on WW1 and the German claims of the British using expanding bullets, or for that matter of the German use of expanding bullets....btw, can you say The Hauge Convention....since that is the Convention where the 109 signatories agreed to the use of non expanding bullet...not the Geneva Convention.

Further, "killing power" is a meaningless phrase since the relevant measurable terms are "energy" and "velocity." You have to use math (I know that's a foreign concept to someone like you) to calculate the amount of impact force the bullet hits the target with. You should note that NOWHERE in those calculations does the term "killing power" appear. It, like the phrase "assault weapon", is a meaningless set of words designed to make you appear knowledgeable while the reality to ANYONE who knows even the slightest bit about guns, is that you're an absolute and complete fucking idiot spewing nothing but bullshit.

*chuckles* look HisArpy is upset, cause "killing power" is not in the official jargon....

Take your crap and begone little fool.

You first......lol

 

[HisArpy]

You really should stick to topics where you have some factual knowledge. Ball Ammunition is any ammunition, military, non military. The term comes from olden day wheel locks. Which shot....gasp...."lead balls". The term you really wanted to use was full metal jacket. The jacket is designed to prevent expansion of the bullet. The "legal" military requirement (The Hague Convention of 1899.)came about due to the British use of bullets that would expand upon impact. But I am not about to give you a lesson in history.

As to your point, FMJ bullets can expand, if they are thin walled, or they can yaw, or tumble, ( ie boat tailed) and the US currently used expanding bullets ( M1153 Specials)

*chuckles* and it's cute you believe the above....go read up on WW1 and the German claims of the British using expanding bullets, or for that matter of the German use of expanding bullets....btw, can you say The Hauge Convention....since that is the Convention where the 109 signatories agreed to the use of non expanding bullet...not the Geneva Convention.

*chuckles* look HisArpy is upset, cause "killing power" is not in the official jargon....

You first......lol

Oh lookie, somebody did some googlefu that COMPLETELY AND TOTALLY FAILED HIM.

Point of fact google guru - NATO AND THE UN didn't exist during WWI nor had the Geneva Conventions been negotiated and signed. Thus, the use of expanding bullets during that conflict is irrelevant to TODAY'S use of Ball ammo by the military.

This is what a lack of knowledge on the subject gets you after you google the fuck out of the internet and copy/paste snippets of irrelevancies to try and make yourself sound like you know something.

You don't.

You never did.

You never will.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Whatever the designer has in mind, that doesn't mean much. A truck was not designed to kill, and some years ago, if you remember, in France terrorists used it to kill dozens of people (sorry if not dozens but maybe ten, don't get me like with the Mexico topic, it doesn't change the idea) in the streets. And an AK-47 for many people (include me!) would be a fantastic decoration at home. Or a toy for some erotic scene. Or give it to the DIY community to recycle and will be used as things I cannot even imagine.

So, even if it was conceived by the designer for an specific purpose, it is just a tool. Like a pickaxe, like handcuffs, like a screwdriver, which can be use for different purposes. And even again, if the AK-47 was designed to kill, and it is used, could be used in self defense or in defense of others. Not to mention that holding it can protect you, even if you are not able to fire it, like myself, who I think I would be petrified before shooting to anyone.

The point was about what the rifle was designed for, IE "best usage" and for the AR-15 platform that was to kill people. It was not, and is not designed as a "hunting rifle". You can go make strawman arguments up as much as you wish. However the point remains, an AR-15 is designed to kill humans. Every screw, grove, spring of that weapon was designed and made with one purpose.... to efficiently kill people.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Oh looking somebody did some googlefu that COMPLETELY AND TOTALLY FAILED HIM.

Point of fact google guru - NATO AND THE UN didn't exist during WWI nor had the Geneva Conventions been negotiated and signed. Thus, the use of expanding bullets during that conflict is irrelevant to TODAY'S use of Ball ammo by the military.

Lol whole E fuck.......you got a fact right, NATO and the UN didn't exists during WW1, but the Hauge convention did. In fact it was in force in prior to WW1.....

This is what a lack of knowledge on the subject gets you after you google the fuck out of the internet and copy/paste snippets of irrelevancies to try and make yourself sound like you know something.

Maybe you should try google, and then you might get some facts right.....*chuckles*...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions


The Geneva Conventions are four treaties, and three additional protocols, that establish international legal standards for humanitarian treatment in war.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hague_Conventions_of_1899_and_1907

The First Hague Conference came from a proposal on 24 August 1898 by Russian Tsar Nicholas II.[7] Nicholas and Count Mikhail Nikolayevich Muravyov, his foreign minister, were instrumental in initiating the conference. The conference opened on 18 May 1899, the Tsar's birthday. The treaties, declarations, and final act of the conference were signed on 29 July of that year, and they entered into force on 4 September 1900. What is referred to as the Hague Convention of 1899 consisted of three main treaties and three additional declarations:

• (IV,3): Declaration concerning the Prohibition of the Use of Bullets which can Easily Expand or Change their Form inside the Human Body such as Bullets with a Hard Covering which does not Completely Cover the Core, or containing Indentations
  This declaration states that, in any war between signatory powers, the parties will abstain from using "bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body". This directly banned soft-point bullets (which had a partial metal jacket and an exposed tip) and "cross-tipped" bullets (which had a cross-shaped incision in their tip to aid in expansion, nicknamed "dum dums" from the Dum Dum Arsenal in India). It was ratified by all major powers, except the United States.[14]

 

[HisArpy]

The point was about what the rifle was designed for, IE "best usage" and for the AR-15 platform that was to kill people. It was not, and is not designed as a "hunting rifle". You can go make strawman arguments up as much as you wish. However the point remains, an AR-15 is designed to kill humans. Every screw, grove, spring of that weapon was designed and made with one purpose.... to efficiently kill people.

EVERY "arm" that's ever been conceived has been produced for 1 purpose. It doesn't matter if it's a gun, a sword, a knife, a spear, an arrow, a club/mace, a rock or anything else, it was conceived for only 1 purpose.

To be a tool to be used by man.

The intent of the user is what determines if that use is offensive or defensive.



You should go have some cool carbon-based water with carbon-based ice in it and contemplate that reality before you come back and prove to the world that not only are you an idiot, you're a persistent idiot on a mission to ensure that not 1 single person on the planet doesn't know how much of an idiot you are.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Yes, but with limitations according by law. Up to caliber 39 is illegal as far as you don't have a permission. Not sure even if for 39 and lower you also need one. Otherwise, it would be illegal.

When define as illegal owning weapons, I mean it is regulated by law. You can say drugs consumption is illegal in the US, don't you? But again, you can say it is not, if you do according to the law (medical prescription and similar) Same with guns: in Mexico it is strongly regulated.

Anyway, even let's say my facts about Mexico are wrong. Still, you will find many countries where the possession of fire arms is strongly regulated and violence is strong, while other countries with less regulation, you perceive as safe. My point is that regulations doesn't help much: the bad guys will always keep their arms, or even without them, they will still be violent.

Limitations are not the same as illegal, and you used the term illegal, which is incorrect.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

EVERY "arm" that's ever been conceived has been produced for 1 purpose. It doesn't matter if it's a gun, a sword, a knife, a spear, an arrow, a club/mace, a rock or anything else, it was conceived for only 1 purpose.

Yes, and the design of an Ar-15 is to kill people. Glad we actually agree

 

[HisArpy]

Lol whole E fuck.......you got a fact right, NATO and the UN didn't exists during WW1, but the Hauge convention did. In fact it was in force in prior to WW1.....

Maybe you should try google, and then you might get some facts right.....*chuckles*...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions


The Geneva Conventions are four treaties, and three additional protocols, that establish international legal standards for humanitarian treatment in war.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hague_Conventions_of_1899_and_1907

The First Hague Conference came from a proposal on 24 August 1898 by Russian Tsar Nicholas II.[7] Nicholas and Count Mikhail Nikolayevich Muravyov, his foreign minister, were instrumental in initiating the conference. The conference opened on 18 May 1899, the Tsar's birthday. The treaties, declarations, and final act of the conference were signed on 29 July of that year, and they entered into force on 4 September 1900. What is referred to as the Hague Convention of 1899 consisted of three main treaties and three additional declarations:

• (IV,1): Declaration concerning the Prohibition of the Discharge of Projectiles and Explosives from Balloons or by Other New Analogous Methods
  This declaration provides that, for a period of five years, in any war between signatory powers, no projectiles or explosives would be launched from balloons, "or by other new methods of a similar nature". The declaration was ratified by all the major powers mentioned above, except the United Kingdom and the United States.[12]

So, the Geneva conventions (all 4 of them under 1 easily understood and researched headline) didn't exist but the Hague did. I'm sure you had to google the fuck out of the internet some more to get that info or you would have said so in your first post. As it stands, you led off with something you now debunk about your own statements. Stupid never seems to get old with you.

Unfortunately, beyond that bit of stupidity, you didn't notice during your frantic googlefest that the US did not use expanding ammo during the conflict. So, whatever the British did in violation of the treaty (which as far as I know wasn't ever "proven") doesn't mean squat to us here in the United States. Nor does it change the fact that the US adheres to the Geneva Conventions which TODAY ban the use of expanding ammo by military forces. An agreement which the British now follow in their military ammo uses.

Nor does any of that address the fact that most ammo used in the AR platform is BALL AMMO which is designed for the purpose of NOT KILLING. A point of dispute brought up by you which you are unable to support despite your attempts to deflect and dodge and permeate the board with more obfuscation and bullshit.



You keep doing this to yourself. You cannot PRETEND to know things you don't know and then try to cover your ass with google search results.

 

[HisArpy]

Yes, and the design of an Ar-15 is to kill people. Glad we actually agree

It's USE can be for such a thing, but it wasn't DESIGNED for that sole purpose.

Words have meanings. You don't understand the words OR the meanings behind them. Instead you just make up bullshit and try to pass that off as knowledge. It isn't. It never was.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

So, the Geneva conventions (all 4 of them under 1 easily understood and researched headline) didn't exist but the Hague did. I'm sure you had to google the fuck out of the internet some more to get that info or you would have said so in your first post. As it stands, you led off with something you now debunk about your own statements. Stupid never seems to get old with you.

Unfortunately, beyond that bit of stupidity, you didn't notice during your frantic googlefest that the US did not use expanding ammo during the conflict. So, whatever the British did in violation of the treaty (which as far as I know wasn't ever "proven") doesn't mean squat to us here in the United States. Nor does it change the fact that the US adheres to the Geneva Conventions which TODAY ban the use of expanding ammo by military forces. An agreement which the British now follow in their military ammo uses.

Nor does any of that address the fact that most ammo used in the AR platform is BALL AMMO which is designed for the purpose of NOT KILLING. A point of dispute brought up by you which you are unable to support despite your attempts to deflect and dodge and permeate the board with more obfuscation and bullshit.



You keep doing this to yourself. You cannot PRETEND to know things you don't know and then try to cover your ass with google search results.

Hey, dummy, I am not the one who was wrong.....you were.....*chuckles* maybe you should try google...but wait, you do need to have some basic knowledge about which your searching....that would be your undoing....*chuckles*

 

[Fuzzy1975]

It's USE can be for such a thing, but it wasn't DESIGNED for that sole purpose.

It was designed to kill people. Are you that ignorant of knowledge, or are just playing the contrarian now?

Here I did a google link for you, so you can read up on the history and military contract for it......

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ArmaLite_AR-15

 

[jaF0]

Firearms were designed for ONE purpose only.

There have been adaptations like starter pistols that were intended for non-violent use, but they can still inflict harm.

 

[Condecito]

Lol, what a maroon.

Military use of modern weapons includes using BALL ammo. Ball Ammo is a solid bullet which is designed to pass through the body, wounding but not killing. It's considered HUMANE because the person shot tends to live rather than die. It's considered more useful than lethal ammo like hollow points because it takes more people to care for the wounded than the dead. It is NATO and UN required for members of those bodies per the Geneva Conventions.

This type of ammo is the most common caliber for the AR platform, although hollow points are available. However, since the cost of hollow points is higher, most people use Ball ammo for practice.

THE most common caliber for AR platform rifles is the .223 and 5.56. THE most common ammo sold/used in those calibers is Ball ammo.

Yet despite these FACTS, you seem to think that "assault rifles" are designed to "kill." Laughable. The truth is the exact opposite where "assault weapons" are small caliber weapons with limited range and "hunting rifles" are large caliber rifles with what can be extremely long range capabilities. The .338 Lapua comes to mind in this regard. It travels at nearly 3000 feet per second (average) and delivers an amazing 4800 ft lbs of energy (avg). It's extremely accurate out to distances of a half mile and beyond. Contrast that with the .223 and it's relatively anemic 3100 ft per second (avg) and 1250 ft lbs of energy (avg) with an accuracy range of around 400-500 yards.

For "hunting people" (which is a disgusting concept only a progressive like you who knows nothing would contemplate and then extrapolate upon in a public forum where even the mention of such a concept SHOULD GET YOU PERMABANNED) the .223/5.56 caliber round is a STUPID choice. Which is why it's not used by snipers or other long distance shooters in competition.

Further, "killing power" is a meaningless phrase since the relevant measurable terms are "energy" and "velocity." You have to use math (I know that's a foreign concept to someone like you) to calculate the amount of impact force the bullet hits the target with. You should note that NOWHERE in those calculations does the term "killing power" appear. It, like the phrase "assault weapon", is a meaningless set of words designed to make you appear knowledgeable while the reality to ANYONE who knows even the slightest bit about guns, is that you're an absolute and complete fucking idiot spewing nothing but bullshit.

Take your crap and begone little fool.

Amen

A trained psycho person with a regular handgun has way more "killing power" than me with a Kalashnikov in each hand. And I will still fight for the freedom to carry guns, even when myself would not.

It was designed to kill people. Are you that ignorant of knowledge, or are just playing the contrarian now?

Here I did a google link for you, so you can read up on the history and military contract for it......

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ArmaLite_AR-15

Man, is it so difficult to understand that one thing is the purpose a designer has and a different one, the applications an individual can give to that item? If you want to say things properly, even, a gun is not decided to kill people, but to throw a projectile of a particular mass and shape, with a particular speed and in a particular trajectory. What you do with such a tool, is your thing. Obviously, serves well to make damage, but can also be used for many different things, besides of the mentioned before, can nr used for sport purposes, can be used for fun, can be used to show off, can be used with minor modifications for different things. Even, it can be used for academic purposes to study ballistics, mechanics, energies, materials...

That's the whole point. Give me a rifle, and I will kill no one. Give a knife "designed to peel potatoes" to a psycho, and you can get a murder.

No strong feelings, no bad words.