Posts Made By: Rod Kaufman

The shooter bought an AR 15 type rifle on the same day, in fact a few few hours, before going in and killing his victims:
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/tulsa-gunman-former-patient-targeted-doctor-bought-ar-15-style-rifle-d-rcna31615
No waiting period, no cooling off period, grab and go...
But remember, some states, according to the cons on the AM, say it's illegal to use to shoot deer. Just perfectly fine for killing humans for "home defense"....   

Originally Posted by Mel Maki

Why can't you have your views and also be factual? Not possible? Is it necessary to lie if one holds your views?
A network (MSNBC) lady said nobody could shoot Bambi (her words) with an AR because there would be nothing left of the deer! Errors like this need to be corrected. It is also a fact an AR is on the lower end of rifles suitable to take deer.  Some states do not want hunters to use it. It seems you would rather let her statement stand. Network newscasters can influence opinion. 

As usual, you won't let something like this go. The point is what it does to human being not to deer. My feeling though is that if it rips human tissue and shreds bone, it can do a nasty job on other living things, too. The one citation I  saw on a quick google search was that if it didn't kill the deer it would leave it badly wounded. Humans can and do fare worse, with various victims becoming unrecognizable...

Originally Posted by Jim Moscheck

The point is that they had to take DNA samples from their parents to identify the children. If anti abortionists can show pictures of a three month old fetus to get their point across there should be pictures of the carnage that the AR15 did to those school children.

There you go again with the point, always the point!

Originally Posted by Mel Maki

Jim, the broadcaster I was correcting thought if somebody shot a deer with an AR there would be nothing left of the deer!

Granted it would have been more accurate to state there would be nothing left of the internal organs of the deer: "...the extreme speed of the .223, once that bullet enters the body the amount of damage it does from the concussion alone, is detrimental to the vitals of most animals."
Additionally, "in most states an AR-15 is allowed for hunting big game." So, the so-called notion that you can't hunt deer with an ar15 because it's somehow not potent enough is essentially the same kind of hyperbole that you see from one broadcaster in that its amplified to make a point. Indeed, I see from this article, that deer hunter rarely shoot deer from over 300 yards and the ar15 can kill one at 500 so as the article amply states, "Every state has some sort of restriction on the calibers you can use when hunting different types of game. Many states also have restrictions on how many rounds you are allowed to have in your magazine, or even if you are allowed to hunt with semi-automatic rifles. Although with all the restrictions, in most states an AR-15 is allowed for hunting big game. Most states require hunters to use at least a .22lr, so the ever so slightly larger (but much faster) .223 is also allowed. As with any legal regulation, it is your responsibility to know the laws of your state, which you can find on your state’s DNR website. "
https://omegaoutdoors.blog/ar-15-for-hunting-whitetail/
So, stop feigning the BS echo that the ar15 is somehow inadequate as a semi-auto killing machine that can't kill deer because it's somehow not lethal enough...

Originally Posted by Greg Shaffer

You and that article you mention are as full of shit as a xmas turkey lol.....at 500 yards a .223 has lost so much energy and velocity the bullet would hit over 5 feet lower than at 100 yards. Small, light weight calibers lose energy fast. Around a dozen states do not allow hunting deer with a .223 and a significant number of the ones that do advise against it for anything over 100 yards. 

At 300 yards a .223 drops over 12 inches and loses 2/3 of its energy so no hunter in his right mind would be using it for long distance hunting....at 500 yards it drops over 5 feet and loses 5/6 of its energy. You would be lucky to penetrate enough to hit a vital organ assuming you could aim well enough.

As the article I cited noted, few hunters try a 500 yard shot at a deer so that's likely not a scenario that occurs in the real world. It appears from additional readings that the typical shot is well under 300 yards and probably closer to 100 to 150 yards. From another citation, "Jake Burns, Federal’s rifle ammunition product engineering manager, pointed out that the smaller .223 projectile imparts similar energy at 100 yards as a truly legendary deer cartridge, the .30-30 Winchester. "
https://www.themeateater.com/wired-to-hunt/whitetail-hunting-gear/this-cartridge-doesnt-get-enough-love-from-deer-hunters 

Originally Posted by Mel Maki

But down your page a little...
The smaller lighter bullets don't impart much energy and are susceptible to the wind and do not have the power to impart HYDROSTATIC SHOCK meaning animal DEATHS could be slow.

The wind makes hitting the bullseye tricky and most hunters are all about that. A little off and then they have to find the deer. 

But that's taken out of context and ignores the point of the article that it's still an effective round for deer hunters particularly at the yardages where the hunters typically do their shooting for deer.    

Originally Posted by Greg Shaffer

Maybe you are learning something lol......you are the one putting up articles and claiming the .223 could be used to hunt deer at 500 yards in your 1st post on it.....a laughable claim. 

As for the legendary 30-30.....it is a great round for close range deer hunting ie 100 yards or less, particularly where underbrush may be involved. The heavier and larger round is far less likely to be deflected by brush than the 22 caliber .223.....However at longer range such as 300 yards it is worse than the .223 with a drop of over 2 feet and at 500 it drops over 10 feet. Energy wise at 100 yards the .223 beats the 30-30 by around 300 ft pds....but the 30-30 carries a much heavier shock component as the mass of the bullet is over doubled.

Well, I have to congratulate both you and Mel for (again) successfully diverting the subject of mass murders with the same death machine to the subject of, in hunterspeak, "harvesting" deer with the bullet of choice...

Originally Posted by Greg Shaffer

Stop promoting outrageous bullshit about the AR15 and we will stop lol

No BS: "the AR-15 is the weapon of choice of the worst mass murderers."
The Texas church shooting: "90 percent of the people in there were unrecognizable. You know the blood everywhere, I mean it just covered them from head to toe. They were shot in so many different places that you just couldn't make out who they were." "I've never had the experience, not with any kind of weapon like this. For me to see the damage that it did was unbelievable, it was shattering concrete, I-- you know, you can only imagine what it does to a human body."
"The police estimate that he fired about 450 rounds."
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ar-15-mass-shootings-60-minutes-2022-05-29/
That's essentially the same description of the victims I've read in the other mass shootings...

Originally Posted by Mel Maki

You were not straight about what your omegaoutdoors link said. 

Really, I cited the link for crying out loud! That's a heck of a lot more than you do when you do your typical shtick of "I think I heard the reporter or commentator or speaker say it, more than once without ever citing anything to backup your claim(S). It's that way with you virtually every time and we're all supposed to just sit back and accept whatever it is you state as gospel? You're full of it! 

Originally Posted by Greg Shaffer

Yes, people bleed when they are shot.....bullets do bust concrete yet there are FAR more powerful weapons/calibers that will do FAR worse damage and even kill from the shock alone with no vital organs involved.....All the drama and hype is just that....drama and hype.

Tell that to the families of the deceased...