Quote:
Originally Posted by NemesisEnforcer
That is by design. The .223, although lethal, is used by NATO to take 3 enemy soldiers off the battle field instead of one. In other words, the soldier that gets hit does not die and two other soldiers have to help the wounded soldier (screaming in pain) off the field along with their gear. Thus, less enemy soldiers in the fight.
|
Also, the round tumbles inside the body and creates a different kind of havoc than something like 7.62, which is made for max penetration. The .223 doesn't usually go through, but that's one of the reasons it can be even more lethal. This is something OP obviously knows nothing about, and although he's been told how wrong he is by more than few people in this thread who actually understand the differences between rifle rounds, he still will never back off of the point he was awkwardly trying to make -- because that's how those people operate. There's no mental capacity to realize how wrong they are. It's all an emotional argument.
Part of my argument is based on emotion after hearing what the children in that classroom looked like after the massacre, but I know something about guns also. I've always been into guns, although I haven't owned one in a few years -- and I think the second ammendment is a great thing, and no one should have their house raided to take their guns away. But putting a little bit of a stopper on the free flow of guns around our society (especially military style weapons) can't be a bad thing. Making guns much harder to get could keep them out of the hands of a psycho.
We're not going to change human nature, or be able to identify ill people or criminal before they do something shitty. But we can control how many guns are around for them to grab and use on innocent people. We can't NOT try, so I think its great that the prez is taking a firm stance on this. Gun nuts should calm the fuck down because no one is coming for your precious guns.