Gun Control & RKBA

...from which you approached replying. Let me be clear, I always try to remember to use the thing if there is even a hint in what I write. There is none here. An honest thank you for replying because it does show that you are genuinely interested in the topic and expressing an opinion.

The basic purpose of my OP was to ask for accuracy in the discussion. With the sentence "I am sure that all the people who take a .223 round will feel the difference immediately." I understand you are saying that those shot by an AR-15 aren't any less shot. I agree. The person who said that, who was quoted in the linked article, was using the term "high-powered" in to justify an opinion that AR-15s are due some special regulation and consideration BECAUSE they are "high-powered".

The term "high-powered" refers to the ballistic energy inherent in the round for which the firearm is chambered. As an example, the .22LR is quite low at 277 Joules. The .223 used in many ARs is as high as 1807 Joules. The .338 Lapua Magnum used in various sniper rifles is over 6800 Joules. The .50 BMG is extremely high compared to these others exceeding 20,000 Joules. Most people consider the round used in many AK-47 style rifles, the 7.62x39mm, as intermediate power, nearly 2200 Joules. The .30-06 is higher at almost 3000 Joules.

With all these figures in mind arguing that anything acceptable for hunting deer is high powered that may be seen as justified. The energy figures I mentioned above have mostly to do with effective range and penetration. Since even the lowly .22 has been used effectively to kill, references to high-powered have no place. A .22 revolver was used to kill RFK.

What all this means is that the term "high powered" has no place at all in a discussion about gun-control. If I were an uninformed person, I may conclude that certain firearms might be safer if they can be characterized as "low powered". This would also be just as wrong unless BB guns are included in what we consider as "firearms".

And now, on to another issue.
Proliferation: a rapid and often excessive spread or increase.
Propaganda: ideas or statements that are often false or exaggerated and that are spread in order to help a cause, a political leader, a government, etc.

The "propaganda" I want to spread is about the discussion of gun-control and that Propaganda has no place in it. Your implication that what I wrote had any aspects of propaganda is what I call propaganda. Please tell us all how you justify using the that term at all. I think I deserve at least an answer. Repeating canned phrases without facts or logic that support those statements I suppose could be considered propaganda. You did that, not me.

Nothing I say here will increase gun sales anywhere. I can't imagine a more tenuous characterization of my remarks. I think maybe your reply tends to support everything I said in my OP.



I give thought to my posts here. I read what others say. I take time to research information. I'll read anything that anyone may say in reply here. That's out of my respect for other members, the group and admins and all those who use their time to engage in honest discussion.