Something new from an anti-gun advocate

Via email from Drew Rinella we have What I Saw Treating the Victims From Parkland Should Change the Debate on Guns:

On Wednesday night, Rubio said at a town-hall event hosted by CNN that it is impossible to create effective gun regulations because there are too many “loopholes,” and that a “plastic grip” can make the difference between a gun that is legal and one that is illegal. But if we can see the different impacts of high- and low-velocity rounds clinically, then the government can also draw such distinctions.

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. I pray that these are the last such wounds I have to see, and that AR-15-style weapons and high-capacity magazines are banned for use by civilians in the United States, once and for all.

I’m almost pleased the anti-gunners have come up with a new idea. After being involved in this issue for almost 25 years I have never heard this one before and it has become almost boring to slap down the proposals put forth. But, there is a reason this idea has never been openly proposed before.

This idea should work “well”. Almost all centerfire rifles produce velocities which cause the types of wounds she is concerned about. Banning all such rifles would produce an “interesting” response. The millions of hunters who have long thought “They will never come after me because <reasons>” will suddenly be activated, become vocal advocates, and vote with a ferocity we have not seen since the civil war. And if defeated in the political field, well, the ferocity might just continue to rival the previous civil war in other areas where the hunters have a significant advantage over their antagonists.

15 thoughts on “Something new from an anti-gun advocate

  1. First, clinically: I am an Emergency Physician and I have seen bones shattered by revolver bullets. Her clinical premise is partially correct: higher velocity TENDS to produce more damage. I have seen fatalities from slow and small; i.e. 22 Short.
    Second, intellectually: She is either dishonest or unknowing. I am also a combat veteran: ( that means I have faced incoming and killed in combat) not just “been in theatre”); and a current Commissioned and Sworn Police Officer. Despite the media and popular misconception; we who are sworn to uphold the law are also civilians. We just have additional responsibilities. We are not Military.
    Third, politically: She is at best naive; likely worse. Joe’s comments above are pertinent, but she also ignores the reality of criminals, terrorists, and state actors.
    She, and others like her who know little about guns and citizenship would serve the world best by refraining from entering a discussion without having knowledge and data.

  2. Yup; your great, great grand daddy’s 30-06 is far more powerful than the little 5.56 mm (22) caliber round typically used in ARs, and it has a munch longer reach. An infringement based on foot pounds energy, or on velocity, would affect nearly any firearm type, regardless of cosmetic features, rates of fire or magazine capacity.

    Keep in mind also that there were thousand yard shooting matches back when the muzzleloading rifle was state-of-the-art, and that soft lead bullets in the 400 to 500 grain weigh range were the mainstay. If a Little Miss Ignorant is mortified at what a high speed 22 will do, she’d be shocked into paralysis at what a big, soft lead bullet at ~ 1,500 fps will do, yet 2,000 fps + is readily attainable from a black powder muzzleloader using lead round ball. The latter within 100 yards, will tear you up. I hit a deer a few years ago with that load and it took a chunk out of the spine the size of your fist– the backstrap muscle, vertebrae, everything turned to mush. It essentially cut the animal in half. Your great, great, great grand pappy’s big bore lever action rifle will reproduce that and more, but with rapid fire capability.

    My experiments with swaged soft lead hollowpoint bullets (a round ball with a tapered spike jammed into it to form a hollow point) had a 45 caliber, 140 grain lead ball opening up to 75 caliber within an 8 ounce water bottle. That was fired from a pistol, from the 1860s. From a carbine (higher velocity) the ball splatters, causing massive trauma and multiple projectile paths. That’s with a mild charge of 30 grains of black powder (saltpeter, charcoal and suffer). I know people who make their own black powder, but without the suffer. It’s less powerful, so you use more of it for the same effect, the point there being, ANYONE can make this stuff from wood and animal dung.

    Good luck “banning” that stuff, Ignoratti. You don’t want us using the more primitive weapons in the civil war you’re trying to start– you’ll only die harder, and in more shame.

    • A 9 pellet OO buckshot round will cause devastating tissue damage; and likely much more than a .223 round. Her line of “reasoning” is silly or ignorant.

      The radiologist misses the secret about the Second Amendment. It is there, like a canary in the coal mine or a trip wire, to alert patriots. When she or others demand that we disarm, it is getting close to the time to take up arms. Beware.

    • As the late Weaponsman once said, a rifle round is going to have a lot more sand in its pockets than a pistol round. This is why even the venerable .30-30 can drill through most police ‘bulletproof’ vests; they’re simply not designed to take THAT much force. I’ve been told you need to go up to a Class III or IV to tank that kind of hit — and it’ll still hurt.

      Of course, lefties often get confused and start blathering about how rifle rounds will penetrate armor plating, ballistic glass, and steel safe doors, but hey, every village has its idiot.

  3. Given that the principal reason for general civilian possession of arms is to discourage illegitimate imposition of overbearing restrictions, whose agents would use the best tools they can get- a competent logic user would see the folly of using “kinder and gentler” bullets.

  4. This is once more highly indicative of the lack of critical thinking:
    “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.”

    If “most” radiologists will never see those types of injury or trauma, why then should we not ban cars or motorcycles? There are more of those types of injury that most radiologists won’t see in their careers. And “most” in the latter statement is less than “most” in the original statement

  5. This screed is from a Radiologist. In the REAL WORLD a Radiologist sees less than 1% of the patients that enter a hospital. The ONLY time a Radiologist actually sees or speaks to a patient is when they perform a radiographic procedure such as a fluoroscopic exam….an Upper GI for example or an interventional procedure….again usually under fluoroscopy. In larger facilities they have Radiologists who SPECIALIZE in Interventional Radiology and do all of those types of procedures. There are MANY Radiologists who can go WEEKS without setting eyes on an actual patient. They LOOK AT IMAGES ALL DAY. It is the Technologist who actually sees EVERY SINGLE PATIENT. This Radiologist is spouting BS in service to the leftist agenda she subscribes to.

    • Good point. So there’s a substantial probability that the entire article is low quality fiction.
      A different angle (pointed out on Miguel’s blog) is that victims of larger rifle hits are less likely to be still alive and therefore in the ER in the first place. So it’s only hits from small low-powered rounds that are likely to be seen in the ER.

      • I don’t know that there’s hard data on civilian survival rates by caliber but I can speak to the subject anecdotally.

        I have spent 4+ decades in healthcare…..doing imaging exams. I trained in East LA and spent my first 16 years in the LA area. We saw LOTS of GSW’s. And the smaller the caliber the better the odds of making it to the ER alive. Didn’t mean you weren’t going to die….just that smaller calibers usually meant you took longer to die. Saw LOTS of .22, .38, 9mm etc GSW’s. Saw some .45 GSW’s. Saw almost NO rifle GSW’s. For GSW by shotgun…..the size of the shot made ALL THE DIFFERENCE. Lots of birdshot/BB survivors. VERY few buckshot survivors….and those usually were extremity wounds.

  6. Every autumn millions of Americans quietly filter into the woods and fields of our great nation to stalk and kill wild animals with rifles, shotguns, handguns, and bows.

    These are not a people who should be f**ked with lightly.

  7. This is nothing new. The idea of high velocity, tumbling, small diameter bullets doing incredible damage compared to fatter, slower bullets has been around since the Vietnam War. This is just a person who thought of it, again.

  8. Gee! This has been in emergency war surgery handbooks for at least a century. They just noticed?

Comments are closed.