Every now and again I’m rendered speechless by the lengths the left will go to in order to scare people into compliance when it comes to their ideas about guns.
MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell took the cake when he suggested that anyone wielding a handgun is no match for someone with a rifle because the bullet from rifle travels faster.
Lawrence: A bullet fired from an AR-15 travels 3x faster than one from a handgun.
And yet the president and the NRA think giving teachers guns will stop a school shooter https://t.co/heze69kRDU
— MSNBC (@MSNBC) February 23, 2018
There is a point where hysterics attempts to tries to form logistical points, and O’Donnell has found it. This is a ridiculous point for anyone with producers and researchers behind him to make, but let’s play along anyway.
While 5.56 ammunition (the standard caliber bullet fired from an AR-15) may travel faster than 9mm (a caliber used in many handguns), unless you’re firing at one another from a range far enough away for it to matter, you’d never know. If you’re hit by a 9mm bullet in close quarters, you’ll likely go down just as quickly as if it were a 5.56.
But the speed of the bullet in these situations matters very little. If two men entered into a building carrying either a pistol or a rifle, the guy who is more likely to win in a firefight is the man with the knowledge and training for the weapon in question. A police officer trained in the use of his handgun is going to be the one you bet on against some idiot with a rifle. The only thing that would carry through idiot rifle guy is blind luck.
But the narrative must be pushed, and despite O’Donnell getting his butt handed to him on social media for that ridiculous suggestion, Sen. Diane Feinstein of California popped up to push the same idea on Monday.
"A handgun [wound] is simply a stabbing with a bullet. It goes in like a nail." With the high-velocity rounds of the AR-15, "it’s as if you shot somebody with a Coke can." https://t.co/xkyw3pEtjn #BanAssaultWeapons
— Sen Dianne Feinstein (@SenFeinstein) February 26, 2018
A handgun is “stabbing with a bullet” and a rifle is shooting someone with a coke can, says a duly elected leader within our nation. Superb.
No matter what bullet you get shot by, if you’re shot in any vital organs, you’re probably going to die. Your heart isn’t going to notice that the round that tore into it was just a handgun bullet, breath a sigh of relief, and keep on pumping like normal. Your liver isn’t going to walk it off because it got stabbed by a bullet a little.
Are rifles more powerful than handguns. For the most part, yes. It is true that 5.56 ammo will do more damage when it hits than a 9mm will based on its kinetic energy. Your chances of survival are higher in the face of lower caliber bullets, depending on where you’re shot. However, not even that’s always the case. A .22 caliber round, weaker than a 9mm, may enter your body and ricochet around a bit, causing even more damage that its more powerful brothers.
Either way, the getting shot is not something you want happening to you in any case, and attempting to scare people away from rifles with ludicrous points about the speed of the bullet isn’t a firm argument to rely on. If you’re in a situation where there is an active shooter, you’re just as likely to succeed in stopping him with a handgun as you are with a rifle. It mostly boils down to training.
(h/t: Town Hall)
The post The Left Thinks Handgun Bullets are Too Slow to Stop People Wielding Rifles appeared first on RedState.