- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 26,232
- Reaction score
- 7,045
I already quoted a few accounts from such ERs and how these doctors struggle to treat such wounds, why should I take your word on their experience over theirs?
You're free to do whatever . . .
Relaying accounts from ERs that have to deal with mass shooting victims is hyperbole and ignorance? I think if anything you're the one displaying ignorance and hyperbole.
HOW they're being relayed. Vaporizing bodies . . . . heads, liquifying organs.
Ah don't be dishonest now, that wasn't my point and you know it. The point isn't that firearms cause damage, of course they do. The point is that firearms chambered in rounds like 5.56 cause a significantly higher amount of tissue damage which makes them far harder for doctors to treat and therefore perhaps such arms should be subjected to extra scrutiny.
Where am I being dishonest?
In the case of a close quarters mass shooting just about any round will cause significantly more damage at closer range than long range. Of course a rifle will cause more damage than a pistol the vast majority of the time. 5.56 or not.