Washington Post GSW article

[Glenn E. Meyer]

The issue is cultural. The AR is a weapon of war, used by warriors, used by nuts in games that mimic war and killing of people. The bolt gun is stereotypical for the classic Uncle Dick in his deer stand as stated by Senator Klobuchar . The AWB doesn't affect Uncle Dick which is what the 2nd Amendment is all about. Until Uncle Dick gets on a grassy knoll with a suppressed bolt gun and picks of a crowd of innocents somewhere, they are a simple of some old harmless Fudd. That they have powerful rounds - not really relevant.

However, trying to correct folk that the 223s, 5.56s aren't that powerful as in comic descriptions of them cutting people in half, really won't move the debate. They do damage and the attempts to defend them as not so dangerous or nice guns - as in the modern sporting rifle usage, won't defend the Second Amendment. You can make Joe and Amy look stupid to us but the public won't care with cops stepping over dead kids, shot with an AR. I've said this before.

If the news said that Hale opened fire with a Kel-tec but be aware that Uncle Joe was incorrect that a 9 mm will blow your lungs out and that she was also carrying a Modern Sporting Rifle - would that make a difference?

You have a moral tribal war over gun ownership and these gotcha nuances are not important except for correcting that the civilian guns aren't fully auto. Seeing two old fudds from Guns and Ammo TV holding up a fully auto M4 vs. a semi AR that looks identical and saying please don't ban the AR because it is a sporting toy was ridiculous. Watching folks at carbine matches with ARs - they are not slow guns. Some column, somewhere recently (duh) from a guy from the NRA who became an anti spoke to the incredible rate of fire for the AR. Watching a guy do an IDPA carbine match with a bolt gun - there is a difference even though the bolt guy was good.

It's really simple concept formation about how you describe an object, there is a central usage and some peripheral characteristics. In our times, the bolt gun is for sporting Fudds and the ARs for killer nutsos.

[Suvorov]

So if I fire a 223 from a bolt action is it -1D6 for damage? Or is it +3D6 to damage when fired from an AR14?

[Darth_Uno]

So if I fire a 223 from a bolt action is it -1D6 for damage? Or is it +3D6 to damage when fired from an AR14?

Trick question. No human has ever been shot with a bolt action.

[Nephrology]

What a bunch of tripe.

I think it is funny WaPo sets up this bizarre false dichotomy of "9mm = good for protection, .223 = bad murder machine."

I've seen lots of GSWs, every single one of them was a handgun (one rimfire), never a rifle caliber injury. Probably because they are harder to hide and less frequently used by violent criminals for this reason (yes I know AR pistols have surged in popularity among hood rats).

They should just come out and say "we don't like guns." This weird artifactual dichotomy they set up makes a weird argument that nobody cares about.

You know what also shreds vehicles? Motor vehicle collisions. Blunt trauma arrests have a survival to discharge rate <50% that of penetrating (bullet, knife) trauma arrests at our institution. Maybe we should ban cars too.

[camel]

I doubt anyone writing that article has even thought of taking even a basic emt course. Or understand’s what trauma actually is.

[Borderland]

So if I fire a 223 from a bolt action is it -1D6 for damage? Or is it +3D6 to damage when fired from an AR14?

Good question. Demonizing the cartridge and not the rifle exclusively has me a bit miffed. Some states have declared the .223 as underpowered for medium sized game and illegal for deer. I can't use one in this state.

I have a WaPo sub but didn't read those articles. I have several rifles that use that cartridge, also reload it, so don't need their ballistic experts opinions.

[Borderland]

What a bunch of tripe.

I think it is funny WaPo sets up this bizarre false dichotomy of "9mm = good for protection, .223 = bad murder machine."

I've seen lots of GSWs, every single one of them was a handgun (one rimfire), never a rifle caliber injury. Probably because they are harder to hide and less frequently used by violent criminals for this reason (yes I know AR pistols have surged in popularity among hood rats).

They should just come out and say "we don't like guns." This weird artifactual dichotomy they set up makes a weird argument that nobody cares about.

You know what also shreds vehicles? Motor vehicle collisions. Blunt trauma arrests have a survival to discharge rate <50% that of penetrating (bullet, knife) trauma arrests at our institution. Maybe we should ban cars too.

The AG crowd was on the right track back in the 70's with gun control. Handguns were the demon weapons. Except that now we have so many states trying to deregulate handgun permits (constitutional carry) for self defense the AG crowd would be pissing into the wind using handguns again. So now it looks like the evil weapon is something that hardly anyone gets shot with. Because nobody gets kilt with an AR on da streetz.

Here's a poster from the 70's. I remember it. I put one on my safe so when people asked what's in the safe, I said rifles and shotguns. I'm a hunter. It wasn't a lie. I think at that time I only had one handgun. It was either a P-38 or a S&W 439. I don't remember, but it wasn't in my safe.

[PNWTO]

So if I fire a 223 from a bolt action is it -1D6 for damage? Or is it +3D6 to damage when fired from an AR14?

Since WaPo is fielding an Ork set with an out of date codex… you don’t even get to roll.



To the thread, should we really be surprised at the content of the article when the overwhelming majority of gun owners believes the same shit?

[Borderland]

Will we ever stop hearing about energy dump?

Classic anti-gun hit piece.

Or knock down power? What exactly is that?

[camel]

Or knock down power? What exactly is that?

They pulled some old gun magazines and excluded the 45. And the forty.😂