GUN GRABBERS CLAIM BULLETS ARE DEADLIER WHEN FIRED FROM ASSAULT RIFLES
Let’s get one thing clear, those semi-automatic rifles that liberals think look scary aren’t assault weapons and they aren’t any more lethal than an unscary looking rifle. A round fired from a rifle with a pistol grip or one without are going to do the exact same thing to the target. I know the gun control industry doesn’t deal in facts, but this latest take is just insane. According to a gun control group and the New York Times, rounds fired from assault weapons are somehow deadlier than the exact same round fired from a non-assault weapon.
The Trace is the propaganda arm of billionaire gun-hater Michael Bloomberg’s various gun control groups. Today they tweeted this out:
— The Trace (@teamtrace) June 18, 2017
“Why are assault weapon bullets so destructive?” The Trace asked.
What the f*ck is an assault weapon bullet? Whatever that is, you can bet your ass some democrat is working on a bill to ban them.
The Trace linked to an article by the NY Times that was just as stupid.
Early in my medical training, I learned that it is not the bullet that kills you, but the path the bullet takes. A non-expanding (or full-metal-jacket) bullet often enters the body in a straight line. Like a knife, it damages the organs and tissues directly in its path, and then it either exits the body or, if it is traveling at a slower velocity, is stopped by bone, tissue or skin.
This is in contrast to expanding bullets, especially if shot from an assault rifle, which can discharge bullets much faster than a handgun. Once they enter the body, they fragment and explode, pulverizing bones, tearing blood vessels and liquefying organs.
They make hollow-point rounds for handguns too. In fact I have some that I keep on hand for home protection because I would rather have the round stay inside an intruder than pass through where it might hit someone I don’t want it too.
Along those same lines, I live in California and am not allowed to own “assault weapons.” I do have a Ruger Mini-14 which is California compliant even though it does fire the same rounds as an AR-15 (.223). If I’m reading this correctly, when I fire a round through my ranch rifle it is less deadly than if that same round came out of an AR. How is that possible?
And because this is an anti-gun rant, the stupid kept on coming:
On Wednesday, four people were shot in Northern Virginia, including Representative Steve Scalise of Louisiana, who remains in critical condition from a gunshot wound to the hip. A bullet to the hip is less likely to be deadly than a shot to the head. Unfortunately, the shooter in Virginia reportedly used a semiautomatic assault rifle.
Wait. What? Getting shot in the hip is less deadly than getting shot in the head? That’s the first I’ve heard of this. Also, the gunman who shot Steve Scalise used a Chinese-made SKS which isn’t an assault rifle by any stretch of the imagination. It doesn’t have a pistol grip and it has a fixed magazine. These things are legal even in places like California where assault rifles are banned.
This may be the most gun-grabby thing ever. First, they are putting out that rounds are deadlier when fired through “assault weapons” and then to prove their point they use a non-assault weapon as an example. It’s hard to be that full of shit but the Trace and The NYT pulled it off nicely.
The only differences between what liberals call an assault rifle and one they don’t are cosmetic features that have nothing to do with lethality or how the weapon functions. Things like pistol grips and hand guards made out of plastic are what make hysterical people think that a gun is deadlier. It’s exactly like thinking racing stripes make a car faster, which is to say liberals are idiots.