Rick Santorum: Kids seeking gun control should be 'taking CPR classes' instead

  • Thread starter Thread starter Maxirad
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Lev said:
Neither of you have any qualifications on how the thing was designed.

You are having some trouble admitting that you fell for propaganda. The radiologist involved in the post mortems is quoted as saying "The organ looked like an overripe melon smashed by a sledgehammer, and was bleeding extensively. "

I’m quoting a relevant professional. What is your expert source which denies this?
Click to expand...
I never questioned it was a quote, you said the bullet was designed for something it wasn’t.
 
Theo520 said:
40.png
Lev:
Neither of you have any qualifications on how the thing was designed.

You are having some trouble admitting that you fell for propaganda. The radiologist involved in the post mortems is quoted as saying "The organ looked like an overripe melon smashed by a sledgehammer, and was bleeding extensively. "

I’m quoting a relevant professional. What is your expert source which denies this?
Click to expand...
I never questioned it was a quote, you said the bullet was designed for something it wasn’t.
Click to expand...
It was designed for special ops use and maximum kill efficiency leaving wounds untreatable reducing the need to attend to injured during war conditions.

Here’s another professionals record.

"A bullet with more energy can do more damage. Its total kinetic energy is equal to one-half the mass of the bullet times its velocity squared. The bullet from a handgun is—as absurd as it may sound—slow compared to that from an AR-15. It can be stopped by the thick bone of the upper leg. It might pass through the body, only to become lodged in skin, which is surprisingly elastic.

The bullet from an AR-15 does an entirely different kind of violence to the human body. It’s relatively small, but it leaves the muzzle at three times the speed of a handgun bullet. It has so much energy that it can disintegrate three inches of leg bone. “It would just turn it to dust,” says Donald Jenkins, a trauma surgeon at University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio. If it hits the liver, “the liver looks like a jello mold that’s been dropped on the floor.” And the exit wound can be a nasty, jagged hole the size of an orange."

You have been fed propaganda about the AR15’s design purpose.
 
Lev said:
It was designed for special ops use and maximum kill efficiency leaving wounds untreatable reducing the need to attend to injured during war conditions.

Here’s another professionals record.

"A bullet with more energy can do more damage. Its total kinetic energy is equal to one-half the mass of the bullet times its velocity squared. The bullet from a handgun is—as absurd as it may sound—slow compared to that from an AR-15. It can be stopped by the thick bone of the upper leg. It might pass through the body, only to become lodged in skin, which is surprisingly elastic.

The bullet from an AR-15 does an entirely different kind of violence to the human body. It’s relatively small, but it leaves the muzzle at three times the speed of a handgun bullet. It has so much energy that it can disintegrate three inches of leg bone. “It would just turn it to dust,” says Donald Jenkins, a trauma surgeon at University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio. If it hits the liver, “the liver looks like a jello mold that’s been dropped on the floor.” And the exit wound can be a nasty, jagged hole the size of an orange."

You have been fed propaganda about the AR15’s design purpose.
Click to expand...
Nope, it was designed for standard infantry carry, not as a special ops weapon.

The thinking actually was it was more likely to just wound than kill, which puts a greater burden on the enemy as they have men and resources caring for the wounded.

All rifle bullets are ‘high velocity’ per your understanding, the AR15 cartridge is pretty average for any hunting rifle or military rifle.

In fact, many jurisdictions don’t allow using the AR-15 for hunting deer, elk and moose expressly because it lacks the power to kill with certainty.
 
Last edited:
OK, let’s get back to what Rick Santorum said:
They didn’t take action to say, 'How do I, as an individual, deal with this problem? How am I going to do something about stopping bullying within my own community? What am I going to do to actually help respond to a shooter?,’” he said. “Instead of going and protesting and saying, 'Oh, someone else needs to pass a law to protect me.’
Click to expand...
Someone above said Santorum is an idiot. Well, this is a pretty idiotic statement.

First of all, pressuring our representatives is pretty much the essence of democracy, isn’t it? I mean, that’s what we have legislators for, to pass laws. Communicating with legislators is doing something about the problem.

Second, when Santorum says “Instead of going and protesting. . .,” I’m betting he has a bit of a double standard. Santorum is well known for his strong stance on abortion. Is he telling those who protest against legal abortion, and for more restrictive laws, or even a total ban, on abortion, that they should stop protesting too? I’m betting he’s not.

He also said:
How about kids, instead of looking to someone else to solve their problem, do something about maybe taking CPR classes or trying to deal with situations [so] that when there is a violent shooter, that you can actually respond to that?
Click to expand...
This takes the cake. This is the dumbest thing I’ve heard so far in the gun control debate. It might even be dumber than the loony Red Dawn fantasies of overthrowing our government when it becomes tyrannical (as defined by the gun rights fundamentalists, of course).

So people who ask their legislators to enact laws are “looking to someone else to solve their problem”? Again, I ask, what is a legislature for if not to pass laws that solve problems?

I guess kids in school should just sit back, shut up, accept the status quo, and if they’re so inclined, be ready to administer CPR to a fellow student who’s just taken a bullet or two.

Good Lord. With friend like Rick Santorum, the NRA is surely destined to fail.
 
Theo520 said:
40.png
Lev:
It was designed for special ops use and maximum kill efficiency leaving wounds untreatable reducing the need to attend to injured during war conditions.

Here’s another professionals record.

"A bullet with more energy can do more damage. Its total kinetic energy is equal to one-half the mass of the bullet times its velocity squared. The bullet from a handgun is—as absurd as it may sound—slow compared to that from an AR-15. It can be stopped by the thick bone of the upper leg. It might pass through the body, only to become lodged in skin, which is surprisingly elastic.

The bullet from an AR-15 does an entirely different kind of violence to the human body. It’s relatively small, but it leaves the muzzle at three times the speed of a handgun bullet. It has so much energy that it can disintegrate three inches of leg bone. “It would just turn it to dust,” says Donald Jenkins, a trauma surgeon at University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio. If it hits the liver, “the liver looks like a jello mold that’s been dropped on the floor.” And the exit wound can be a nasty, jagged hole the size of an orange."

You have been fed propaganda about the AR15’s design purpose.
Click to expand...
Nope, it was designed for standard infantry carry, not as a special ops weapon.

The thinking actually was it was more likely to just wound than kill, which puts a greater burden on the enemy as they have men and resources caring for the wounded.

All rifle bullets are ‘high velocity’ per your understanding, the AR15 cartridge is pretty average for any hunting rifle or military rifle.

In fact, many jurisdictions don’t allow using the AR-15 for hunting deer, elk and moose expressly because it lacks the power to kill with certainty.
Click to expand...
Are you saying that the trauma surgeon is lying or spreading fake news? Unbelievable.

The AR-15 was designed to kill humans as easily & efficiently as possible. It wasn’t designed to kill a deer, moose or elk. There is no comparison. Humans are relatively fragile creatures compared to them.

The semi-automatic function and relative velocity of the bullet is absolutely what does so much damage to the victim. That is a fact.
 
Yes, he’s lying if he’s talking about the history of that rifle, not just his emotional impression of it’s effectiveness after treating victims.

Stop claiming things are facts which you don’t understand, you keep trying to shift the goal posts…
 
Theo520 said:
Yes, he’s lying if he’s talking about the history of that rifle, not just his emotional impression of it’s effectiveness after treating victims.

Stop claiming things are facts which you don’t understand, you keep trying to shift the goal posts…
Click to expand...
Please be more discerning about the propaganda sites you are getting your false info from, Theo. It’s just all made up rubbish. Here on the other hand is an exchange between the inventor of the AR15 Eugene Stoner, and a Rep. at the congressional hearing addressing the use of the AR15 (M16) during the Vietnam war.

"Nearly a century before American troops were ordered into Vietnam, weapons designers had made a discovery in the science of “wound ballistics.” The discovery was that a small, fast-traveling bullet often did a great deal more damage than a larger round when fired into human or (for the experiments) animal flesh. A large artillery round might pass straight through a human body, but a small bullet could act like a gouge. During the early stages of the congressional hearing, [Representative Richard] Ichord asked Eugene Stoner, the designer of the original version of the M-16, to explain the apparent paradox of a small bullet’s destructive power. The answer emerged in the following grisly exchange.

“ICHORD: One army boy told me that he had shot a Vietcong near the eye with an M-14 [which uses a substantially heavier bullet] and the bullet did not make too large a hole on exit, but he shot a Vietcong under similar circumstances in the same place with an M-16 and his whole head was reduced to pulp. This would not appear to make sense. You have greater velocity but the bullet is lighter.”

“STONER: There is the advantage that a small or light bullet has over a heavy one when it comes to wound ballistics. … What it amounts to is the fact that bullets are stabilized to fly through the air, and not through water, or a body, which is approximately the same density as the water. And they are stable as long as they are in the air. When they hit something, they immediately go unstable. … If you are talking about .30-caliber [like a bullet used in the Army’s previous M-14], this might remain stable through a human body. … While a little bullet, being it has a low mass, it senses an instability situation faster and reacts much faster. … this is what makes a little bullet pay off so much in wound ballistics.”

www.theatlantic.com

Why the AR-15 Is So Lethal

“The little bullet pays off in wound ballistics.”
www.theatlantic.com www.theatlantic.com
 
Last edited:
I already said it was thought to be better at wounding, read for comprehension please.

Nowhere above does it claim it was designed for special ops to make mush of your organs.
 
Last edited:
Theo520 said:
I already said it was thought to be better at wounding, read for comprehension please.
Click to expand...
He is saying the bullet has greater kill capacity than wound capacity. Read all the articles posted so far and stop getting your fake news from propaganda sites.
 
I have to say that I think Santorum sounded kind of creepy with this statement.
 
Lev said:
He is saying the bullet has greater kill capacity than wound capacity. Read all the articles posted so far and stop getting your fake news from propaganda sites.
Click to expand...
You really don’t understand your topic, stop pretending.

Yea, all rifle bullets are lethal, the AR15 has no significant difference and a medic can tell gruesome stories about the after effects of any weapon.

However, the AR-15 is considered a compromise choice in the military. It’s not as powerful or effective but the ammo is light so you can carry more of it. If your goal is to maximize lethality, then just look at what hunters or snipers choose to use on dangerous game, it’s not AR-15. Ever heard of an ‘elephant gun’, to make my point clear.

Snipers and hunters do not use this caliber because it’s not good enough, they use larger calibers that are proven more effective. Also, all modern rifle bullets have similar velocities, nothing special about the AR15. Anyone who claims it’s ‘high velocity’ is only showing they don’t know the subject.

To be clear, all your arguments about AR-15 are really just about guns in general. , I’m disagreeing with differentiating the AR15 as uniquely lethal, not arguing that guns are not very lethal.
 
Last edited:
Isn’t petitioning your government to correct grievances an action!
 
SuperLuigi said:
Remind again how you’re a conservative?
Click to expand...
Luigi, if I need to blindly support conservatives who say stupid things to remain a conservative myself, well, that’s messed up.

What is Santorum doing now except CNN?
 
Last edited:
Jeanne_S said:
Calling someone an idiot ,really not very charitable.
Click to expand...
Jeanne, I think about these talking heads a little differently from normal people. They are making their money pontificating on the air and in articles about their opinions. They are selling themselves. They are their product.

So, calling Santorum an idiot is really voicing an opinion of his product - himself and his ideas.

But you do bring up an interesting point for discussion at a later date. If someone incessantly lies, is calling them a liar uncharitable? If they spout idiotic ideas, is calling them an idiot uncharitable?

Can you be truthful and uncharitable at the same time?
 
Last edited:
Jeanne_S said:
Somehow I find the word idiot more offensive than liar.
Click to expand...
I can understand that. A liar is a thing you do. An idiot is what your are. They are different accusations.

In the context of our Christian life, I am conflicted about this.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top