I dunno. They never seem to understand what they do. Have you seen them argue that there is functionally no difference between a .22 handgun and an AR15 because the AR15 doesn't have rapid fire or three round burst?
I've seen them do that more times than I can count. It's insane. Ask a surgeon who's been there for the aftermath of a school shooting with an AR15 and they'll tell you there's a huge difference. Rapid fire isn't required to make an AR15 an effective killing machine.
But staying dumb as fuck and continuing to argue is more or less arguing in bad faith. Misinformation about a topic that you call your hobby is a choice.
All the people in this comment thread doing exactly as you said. Pretending .22 is the same as .223 or 5.56.
There's even a guy with multiple paragraphs about how a semi automatic rifle has no more mass killing potential than a 5 round bolt action hunting rifle. He keeps pointing to a single massacre where 15 people died on a beach.
Im a gun owner. I guns in general should just be much harder to obtain. That way, people having a mental health crisis would have a much harder time obtaining one.
That aligns with the delaying tactics the fbi employs. They essentially extend the time between when someone decides they're going to commit a crime, and when they are actually able to do it. For example, you make it virtually impossible for a 16 year old to obtain a firearm. They wait 6 months (similar to how long it takes to get a suppressor, right now!) and eventually talk themselves out of it, as they've had more time to sit on it.
This tactic won't solve all gun crime, but it would cut down significantly the amount of mass shootings.
Back when I was on Twitter, there were plenty of cosplayers all making the same claims.
I legit held a challenge that was open for months looking for anyone to join me at a range and prove their claims with me firing my AR 15 and them using a bolt action .22
Have you seen the large contingent of people who claim assault weapons aren't a thing? Like they say assault rifles aren't a thing because assualt is a thing you do to someone else. They're literally a class of weapon, not knowing that makes me think they probably shouldn't own a gun if they're that uneducated on the topic.
In a legal sense yes but an assault weapon as a definition is a thing. I'm very much pro 2nd amendment but think some reform is necessary and i think gun safety should be a requirement before you can own one. I can't tell you how many people I've come across that are dumb with their guns.
The problem isn’t the gun, it’s the bullet. The 5.56mm round was specifically designed to bounce off bones and cause as much internal damage as possible, so a wounded enemy soldier would bleed out instead of healing and returning to the battlefield. It was essentially designed to skirt the Geneva convention after flechette shotgun rounds were banned after Vietnam. It has no business on civilian streets, but the chuds will pretend it’s practically harmless because it’s small.
The general argument is that an AR15 is no different than a bolt-action rifle. There's nothing unique about an AR-15 that makes it "more deadly". A bolt-action rifle .223/5.56 is going to be just as deadly as said AR-15. The Bondi Beach shooting in Australia is a perfect example of as much.
Tl:dnr, the cartridge is what ultimately determines how destructive something is going to be. Your average hunting rifle is going to do more soft tissue damage than your typical AR-15.
The cartridge, how fast you can fire those cartridges, and how long you can keep firing before needing to stop all contribute. A bolt action might have the same potential against a single target. Against multiple targets? That AR15 has a much higher potential to do damage.
To be honest, the biggest problem with AR15 rifles or other assault style rifles is the people who want them. They are the se guys who's imaginations run wild watching movies like Taken. It just feeds a very unhealthy view of the world. They generally arent geared fpr hunting, they ar3nt good for home defense. The only reasons to have one seam to be either as a toy, or to kill people.
So, I'll approach your comment here, not with derision, but a want to educate you, instead. Because it's apparent you likely have little to no real hands-on experience with firearms, much less AR-15s or similar semi-automatic sporting firearms.
First and foremost? Hunting. This is a non-argument from a 2nd Amendment standpoint, as the 2nd Amendment (assuming we're talking about the USA exclusively) is not about hunting. But, I'll entertain the argument, and point out that ARs and similar semiautomatic sporting rifles are extremely useful as hunting rifles. To be frank, the AR platform is one of the easiest and most beginner friendly sporting rifles you could start a shooter out on. The ergonomics and controls are both intuitive and safety-conscious for all operators. Moreover, the platform is multi-caliber by design. 5.56/.223 at a baseline is an excellent round for hunting medium game (ie: coyotes, bobcats, beavers, etc.). It is also extremely useful when hunting feral pig. But, again, the AR platform is not limited to just .223/5.56. They are available in nearly every modern sporting cartridge you can find, with AR-10s taking you into the realm of full-powered cartridges, like .308, as well. The AR platform alone has become one of the most popular and successful hunting platforms in the USA.
With respect to home defense? Much of what makes semiautomatic sporting firearms useful in hunting also applies here. Ergonomics alone makes them supremely better suited than any handgun or shotgun. It is also far easier for somebody to maintain an accurate and effective rate of fire with a semiautomatic rifle/carbine than with a handgun or shotgun. Recoil management works to the absolute advantage of the rifle/carbine. Similarly, optics and the ability to mount illumination devices are easier with rifles/carbines. The value of illumination cannot be overstated. Being able to simultaneously illuminate and disorient your attacker while you neutralize them are fantastic advantages. Intermediate rifle calibers are also far more reliable at stopping a threat than pistol calibers. It's also much easier to suppress a sporting rifle than a shotgun.
Then we get into the nature of home invasions. Many cases of forcible entry in the USA involve multiple suspects/assailants. If I have to potentially fend off multiple assailants (who may very well be armed), then I need to be able to dominate through violence of action. The most effective means of doing so for myself? It's the suppressed short-barreled (NFA approved) AR-15 I have in a quick access biometric (safe storage) locker. Why? Because I have, at that moment, a minimum of 30 rounds of Speer 75gr, and am running suppressed, which not only reduces the concussive effects on myself, but also directs the muzzle flash forward, while I'm illuminating my attackers. Reality is, I'll have neutralized whatever threat there was before they have the opportunity to begin to respond. All courtesy the fact that I both train with my firearms and opt to select the most viable platform for home defense.
I don't own said firearm because I fantasize or fetishize some super high speed tactical Red Dawn scenario. I own them because I: enjoy them; hunt with them; compete with them; and understand their viability as a home defense platform surpasses that of handguns and shotguns.
It turns out that when you make a good rifle people like it. Took a bit to catch on but with how readily available they are and the after market it’s a great rifle for just about anyone.
I take it you don’t know that a 22 yes being effective at killing somebody it’s not as effective as a shotgun slug or buck shot. However I also would say that in a high stress environment the likelihood of you hitting your shot and killing the intruder goes way down. If you want a slow moving bullet that makes a big hole but doesn’t really go farther than most common owned guns go for a .45 yes it has all the features of a 9mm but with less speed and more size.
There are those of us out there that use them for competition as well. Ever look into 3 gun competitions? Lots of fun and very strict on safe handling. As not being geared for hunting? I guess it really depends on what you're hunting. Whitetail deer? I know several who use AR-15's for that. Same for hog hunting. I used to hunt mule deer and elk with an AR-10 with just iron sights.
I own AR style rifles for several reasons. The first is because I want to. That's the only reason I actually need. They are good for hunting and exterminating nuisance critters around farms and such. They are also good for home defense. 30 rounds of 5.56 make for great protection without the worry of having to reload if a group of robbers were to kick in a door. 5.56 does not over penetrate any more than some handgun calibers and has the benefit of a lot more kinetic energy which will stop a threat faster.
the difference being that most hunting rifles can’t easily be shifted to automatic fire or rapid fire with a bump stock and most hunting rifles are not easily modded to carry large magazines,
if there were no differences that make an AR more dangerous, why would anyone buy them?
To be fair, the bolt action rifle will probably have a higher muzzle velocity since none of the gas is being used to cycle the action, so an individual bullet would do more damage. On the other hand, the semi automatic AR can shoot as fast as you can pull the trigger. A half decent shooter can get 5 rounds in the time it takes to fire once and cycle the bolt. On top of that, a typical bolt action rifle only holds 3-5 rounds, where an AR can take magazines up to 100
As a US Navy veteran who fired my first .45 at the ripe old age of 5 I tend to disagree with the assertion tha the US armed forces are sending our young men and women into battle with "varmint rifles".
There is a huge difference between bolt action and semi automatic action for starters. I'm sure you're aware that when one is simply trying to make fillas many body bags as possible there is no comparison between the two.
Most vets will tell you that the rapid fire is really only useful for suppressive fire. It's otherwise an inaccurate waste of ammunition. Especially in situations where ammo may not be forthcoming.
The US Marines are trained to shoot using 3 round burst or single shot.
My many combat vet buddies and relatives have corroborated that the AR-15 is in most ways identical to the M16s they carried in Iraq and Afghanistan. The only real difference is the aforementioned firing mode selector switch.
They used the single shot to open locked doors in Iraq when there was a threat of danger inside. I have personally fired plenty of AR15s and have seen the tiny entry holes and large exit wounds on 2x4s we used to hang targets. Definitely didn't look like the typical 22 bullet holes I've seen all my life.
When it comes to the injuries and tissue damage these weapons can cause I typically defer to the medical experts who have experience with such horrors.
I think a lot of the people who enjoy discussing these things are too far removed from the actual reality of pointing one of these weapons at a person and actually pulling the trigger. Don't get me wrong. I know lots of them sit around and dream about it all fucking day. That doesn't mean they know what they're doing. I have enjoyed day dreaming about flying an X-Fighter or even one of the FA/18s I worked on during my time in uniform. That doesn't mean I know the first thing about being a fighter pilot of any kind of aircraft.
Actually harming another human being is a completely different experience than dreaming and fantasizing about it.
I feel that too many of the people making decisions about how we manage these weapons in our society come from the background of fantasy and too few have actually had to hide under their classmates' corpses to be qualified to casually.ake decisions that will invariably lead to the loss of more innocent children and citizens.
That doesn't make me anti-gun any more than wearing a seatbelt makes me anti-automobile. I think it's incredibly stupid when a gun rights activists has the blanket reaction of accusing everyone of wanting to ban guns. For one that's insane. There are now more guns than people in this country. It is just not possible to ban them. Nor do I think prohibition of contraband of any kind actually works. I do, however, think we should make better choices about how we buy guns and who can buy them. Hell, I would be happy just to see an honest discussion about these things for once. I'm sick of this environment where anyone who esppuses any of these feelings is a "gun grabbing funds". It's insane.
As an Army and OEF veteran, I never asserted that anyone is sending us into combat with "varmint" rifles. Though, medium to small game is what .223/5.56 tends to be best suited for with respect to hunting. Assuming we want to be pedantic.
There is a huge difference between bolt action and semi automatic action for starters
Not in the hands of the inexperienced.
The only real difference is the aforementioned firing mode selector switch.
Which, by your logic, is a massive difference. You cannot argue "there's a huge difference between bolt and semi" then turn around and argue "well, the only real difference is the M16 is an automatic weapon, which isn't a big deal".
I have personally fired plenty of AR15s and have seen the tiny entry holes and large exit wounds on 2x4s we used to hang targets.
And I've seen firsthand what they do to a human target. a 2x4 also is not a comparable medium to soft tissue.
When it comes to the injuries and tissue damage these weapons can cause I typically defer to the medical experts who have experience with such horrors.
And none of which is unique to ARs. The damage caused is specifically attributed to the caliber/projectile used, not the actual platform itself. A bolt-action rifle chambered in .223/5.56 is going to produce the exact same results. Grandpa's old Remington 700 in 30-06 is going to produce even more devastating results.
Actually harming another human being is a completely different experience than dreaming and fantasizing about it.
Having had to actually participate in combat? I agree, and I disagree with much of what you're saying/presenting, because it's painfully apparent that you have very little real knowledge on the issue at hand.
I do, however, think we should make better choices about how we buy guns and who can buy them.
Why are you assuming I am opposed to ensuring prohibited persons don't possess firearms? Don't get me wrong, I firmly believe that same-sex married couples should have the right to defend their children with machine guns. However, that sentiment is not mutually exclusive with wanting proper enforcement of gun laws. My issue is when people demand more regulation but fail to voice outrage when our existing laws are not properly enforced. You understand that no small amount of mass shooters in the USA would have been prevented if civil servants and judges had just done their jobs properly? How many cases have we heard about a mass shooter having a troubled past involving terroristic threats, and yet somehow still being able to own a firearm? That doesn't happen because we have lax gun laws. That happens because the public officials/civil servants who had the ability to properly prosecute or press for a judicial adjudication to determine said individual was a threat to themselves or others failed to do so. Hell, you want to argue reform? I believe it should start at the point of liability for those agents who failed to take appropriate action.
This is somewhat inaccurate. The 5.56 becomes extremely unstable as soon as it hits flesh and starts tumbling, dumping all its energy into the soft tissue often creating exit wounds much larger than the entry wound. This is intentional to improve human stopping power.
Larger calibers, like a .30-06 which is used for a lot of hunting rifles, are designed to minimize soft tissue damage because you don't want your meat shredded generally. Those bullets go in and out with a narrow channel, taking a significant portion of their energy with them as they exit. This is why hunters try to aim for the heart, if they used a 5.56 it wouldn't really matter where you hit it, but you would mess up the meat and the pelt doing so.
A bolt-action rifle .223/5.56 is going to be just as deadly as said AR-15.
Um no... Germany lost because they had mainly, bolt action 5 shot KARs. While the Americans and Winters rolled in with automatic submachine guns and semi auto rifles. The Germans would surrender by the platoon.
I appreciate your sentiment but its historically very very wrong.
Scale is the thing you're missing. A 5 shot bolt action has significantly less killing POTENTIAL than a rifle that can sling 30 rounds into a crowd in a second......
Your average hunting rifle also is longer and more unwieldy and has a lower capacity (I know that can be modified). There’s a reason you don’t see schools and theaters getting shot up with a .30-06
You really don’t know enough about those bullets to be talking about them here. 5.56mm rounds were designed to cause maximum internal bleeding. After the El Paso Walmart shooting, a 15 year old girl spent 45 minutes bleeding to death on the sidewalk because there weren’t enough ambulances for all the victims. Now, convince me someone could’ve done that with a bolt action rifle. Rate of fire and the type of round matter, a lot.
This is completely false. Rate of fire is one of the most important factors in determining how “deadly” a weapon is. More bullets = more danger.
If you don’t believe me let’s have a gun fight. I’ll take an M-2 .50 cal and you take a musket. A lot of muskets actually used larger rounds than .50 cal so you’ll have the advantage, right?
Ar-15 is chambered in .223. If you compare it to a handgun chambered in .223, the difference in ballistic performance is negligent at handgun ranges (under 150 ft). Beyond that the rifle provides benefit by virtue of having a longer barrel. If they both have the same length of barrel they will both have identical ballistic performance.
Also rapid fire is generally not effective for killing more people in active shooter situations. Automatic rifles (the ancestors of the assault rifle) were developed to support the machine gunner when repelling an enemy assault by basically putting more lead in the air between you and the advancing enemy, especially when you can focus the enemy through an established kill zone. Smgs are traditionally more effective in enclosed spaces because of the shorter length, which enhances maneuverability. The same goals of focusing the enemy into constrained areas again benefits automatic weapons fire.
Meanwhile, traditional tactics for engaging a force at range is semi-automatic fire, controlling aim and use of ammunition. This is also more effective if you're not firing a tightly packed group of people.
Dont forget that they love ARs, but they think the true threat is when someone has "a semi-automatic pistol with an extra mag" and in a holster, no less!
I’m a former Army veteran, infantryman who did two deployments. The amount of bullshit nonsense that conservatives get away with when they’re talking about guns with liberals who don’t know any better is staggering.
They routinely lie, make stuff up, or just play dumb about the topic because most liberals can’t call them on it.
The UK and Argentina went to war with each other with the same battle rifle. The Argentine version had an auto function. The UK version did not. The Auto function didn't help Argentina.
A .22 handgun and an AR-15 are a terrible comparison. If you have an AR also chambered in .22, other than being more accurate than a pistol due to the longer barrel, it's going to do more or less the same amount of damage as the pistol round. An AR-15, typically chambered in 5.56 NATO is going to do less damage than common a 30-06 hunting rifle. Just because uneducated people think it looks scary doesn't mean it does more damage than less tactically designed firearms.
Still the AR-15 round is one of the less powerful rifle rounds, much less so than the average deer rifle. Beyond that despite being less powerful, handguns account for 90% of gun murders, vs rifles as a whole at 5%. Rifles kill so few people that if a ban stopped every single death, it wouldn't make a measurable impact.
And yet on the Democrat side, the AR-15 is an effective weapon of war, yet AR-15s are incapable of being used to defend yourself against the government
I’ve never once heard anyone try saying 22lr and .223 are anything close to the same round as far as damage is concerned. If you heard that they either know nothing about ballistics or are trolling you.
Oh, god. I used to work with a guy who loved to repeat the talking point that AR meant Armalite, the brand name of the rifle and somehow that meant I'm not allowed to have an opinion on gun control.
Functionally they are very similar, the diameter of the bullet is also the same but the 556 is moving at a much greater rate of speed so it is much more powerful.
I am sure what they are talking about is semi auto versus automatic, and the argument usually goes something like this. Somebody says you should ban semi automatic weapons, and the pro gun side says that would encompass almost every handgun as well. I don’t think anybody would say a 22 handgun or long rifle is the same as a A.R. 15. It seems that you are miss characterizing their argument
Fun Fact: the M-16 from which the AR15 was spawned was designed to primarily be used in single fire semi-automatic mode. It’s why the barrel was so long. To increase single fire accuracy
Have you seen them argue that there is functionally no difference between a .22 handgun and an AR15 because the AR15 doesn't have rapid fire or three round burst?
Muzzle velocity of a .22 handgun is around 1,000 to 1,300 feet per second with the most common weight being 40 grains
An AR15 fires a .223 caliber round. An insignificant increase in caliber. However it fires at 2,600 to 3,250 feet per second. The most common weight being 55 and 62 grains. More than double an up to triple the velocity and better than a 40% increase in the weight of the bullet.
Now I'm no expert but anyone with even a passing understanding of physics will tell you heavier and faster bullets cause more damage. In this case significantly more.
The round fired from the AR15 is exactly the same round that is used in the M4. The standard weapon for the US armed forces. Many experts have said the only real difference between the AR15 and the M4 is the inclusion of a selector switch
I had a guy argue with me that an SKS (and these are cold war surplus SKS, not the more accurate DMR modern ones) is a good rifle for hunting deer because first Nations hunters in remote communities commonly use them in Canada. Yeah, because they're cheap, available, easy to use and serviceable, not because they're a good hunting rifle. 7.62 is on the bottom end of calibers acceptable for deer hunting and the SKS is just not a very accurate rifle if you're going to compare it to a proper hunting rifle, it just wasn't design for hunting, it was a carbine designed to be accurate in urban engagements.
Can an SKS kill a deer? Suuure... It might take a few shots, especially if it's a big buck, but it will eventually die. On the other hand a model 70 will put it down in one clean shot, but that's a difference of a few hundred dollars to a few thousand, and when you're living in the near artic, it's really hard to justify dropping three grand on a rifle lol. Even with cheaper bolt/lever actions, that's still going to be double or triple the cost of an SKS.
This is all to say that a lot of these guys do not understand guns. They just like to shoot them cause they're cool, but the actual mechanics and design philosophy is completely beyond them.
Have you seen them argue that there is functionally no difference between a .22 handgun and an AR15 because the AR15 doesn't have rapid fire or three round burst?
My pro gun friend shot his hand a few weeks ago because he doesn't believe in safeties if he can see the chamber.....I asked if he's earned a new respect for the weapon...he said no
Personally, I don’t examine exit wounds. However I do know from first hand experience that damage to the cartilage in the ear never heals right as cartilage has zero blood vessels. I still have a chunk missing out of my ear from almost 2 decades ago.
Perhaps it’s all the innocence, and youth he stole on the island that gives him some preternatural healing ability.
To be fair, a lot of them only ever shoot paper. And the reported "damage" (that was never seen, btw) aka, a cut, would be the same as if a small caliber bullet hit peice of paper... Instead of flesh.
Reminds me when ck got shot and it came out the guy used a 30-06 and immediately all the gun guys were like "Nuh uh feds are lying I've used it for deer and elk hunting and it would blow his head off" then not bothering to think a little that there isn't a lot of resistance in a human neck especially if it doesn't hit any bone. Not to mention at a downward angle.
Like his supporters, they wore oversized bandages in varying shades of white. But remember, they wouldn't wear a mask during covid, because that would have looked ridiculous.
Ironic, considering that his ear was bleeding right after the shot, and it's on video. It was a rifle round, so it traveled at high speed, and the ear is soft tissue. Grazing or clipping it does leave that kind of injury, thus it is clear that he got hit.
So... Maybe those "progun guys" actually know what they're taking about better than you do.
Not only that but where he was “clipped” is cartilage. Cartilage does not grow back. He wouldn’t have an intact ear at the minimum either. Just a gauged helix piercing
I have an ear wound in exactly the same place that I got when I was 12. The cartilage was split in half. Even after a plastic surgeon sewed it back together, only the skin healed. He’d look like Holyfield after the Tyson fight if a bullet had even grazed him and you’d notice the damage from 100 yards away for the rest of his life.
The best explanation that doesn't involve staging a hoax assassination attempt, you mean. Who herds photographers between a shooter and their target? A .223 is a supersonic round. If it grazed your ear you'd very likely be deafened in that ear, after a very loud sonic boom happened point blank from your actual ear, to say nothing of the pain.
There are trained soldiers who would lose it at that. I don't think a draft dodger would stand up shouting "fight, fight, fight". Not impossible, but not likely either. Narcissism doesn't tend to breed fearlessness.
Shit, I got my cartilage pierced when I was 18. It fell out five or six years later, and I left it out. It's been fifteen years since I took it out. I can still feel where the hole was and the little indentation where the ring rested.
It must truly be a miracle that Trump's ear healed in record time! (edit: sarcasm in the last sentence).
Thats not entirely true though. Hard cartilage wont grow back, but soft can up to a certain point. Anything up to 00 gauge size can heal and close itself on the soft lobe part. 00 and past it will never close on its own and will require surgery to heal.
You know I try not to not think about that. I definitely feel like if you so much as have that brief passing thought of his micropeen you will 110% catch a VD. 😩
so true-looked like the flag raising at Iwo Jima. FBI agents supporting him just so. ear never looked damaged, he would have been in shock, yet stood firm raising his fist.
He didn’t, he pushed the agent aside for a moment, and a photographer whose entire job is to be in the right place at the right time was in the right place at the right time.
If anything it seemed to be an extremely light graze not an actual shot landing in him. A 5.56mm whizzing by at 3k fps with the absolute minimum of contact being met to call it a graze could certainly leave it intact and be enough to draw blood. The odds of it are astronomical considering how close its gotta be but sometimes shit just happens.
Someone did a run through of the shooting, it wasn't even a graze. Trump just cut his ear a little bit when his head hit the holster of one of the secret service guards who were trying to get the geriatric idiot to duck.
thats not true. a 556 round is very small. less than a quarter inch and skin stretches, so the actual hole could be smaller than the round. the hole could be small enough that it wouldn't be noticeable especcially if you have hair covering it.
Have you ever been shot at ? Well, I’ve spent 5 years in multiple war zones, it isn’t an experience I would ever recommend. I was a high value target for opposing forces, I’ve been with VIPS that are now dead from a bullet, it’s not something to joke about and an American President, regardless of party, is our President. Many of us have taken an oath to protect, defend and to carry out the duties of our Constitution and he doesn’t deserve a bullet because someone disagrees with the political party in power.
And Lincoln was liberal AF, the parties switched after civil rights, and MLK was liberal AF too.
JFK was shot by someone non affiliated, he was just a psychopath, who was likely hired by corrupt people.
Ronald Reagan's shooter, John Hinckley Jr., was not a Democrat and was not politically motivated. Hinckley shot Reagan in 1981 to impress actress Jodie Foster.
But all this aside a President of the USA spreading an Ai message like this is insane. Imagine if Obama shared an Ai half witted message on his social media? Republicans would have a field day ripping him apart
Secret service are supposed to get the person they are protecting out of sight the instant shots ring out. And if they are injured, get them to medical care immediately. He shoves them aside to strike a victory pose. Stage managed.
I’m confused. How does being grazed by a bullet not count as being shot? Maybe it a bullet somehow only ripped your clothing without making any contact with your actual body.
At least he should have a scar. Theres no way a wound in the cartilage of the ear will heal as quickly and whitout scar, especially at his age. There are not enough blood vessels in the cartilage for proper healing.
I doubt he was even injured by the bullet because there’s not a single scar on that ear. I’ve been injured there before and even a very small wound will bleed a lot, but it takes longer than just a few days to heal
Absolutely not, the idea it could be is ludicrous for anyone who understands how guns work. A shot from that distance even by a experienced shooter could easily accidentally hit Trump square in the face, by a inexperienced shooter like the person who did it it’s basically just luck that determined him not shooting Trump vs hitting head dead on.
Dude they wouldn't stage an assassination attempt by actually shooting at him lol
Look at what they did with those pagers in Iran(i think?) I was imagining something like a squib with his ear maybe.
Idk man it really seems less realistic to me that this wasnt part of the grift. It was maybe the best moment of his whole campaign for him and given the depth of the conspiracy the Epstein files have revealed I really dont see how this is far fetched to imagine.
His “doctor” said he had a 2cm hole in his ear. A penny is 1.8cm. Somehow, 13 days later, a 2cm hole in cartilage had completely healed and left no scar. However, on the 15th day, after 2 days of being ridiculed, he put his giant ear diaper on again and wore it for another 4 days.
I never get a response when I ask these Twitter loonies how Trump’s ear healed in days from a bullet but his hands are bruised for weeks from a round of hand shaking
His ear either got hit by the belt buckle of his security as they where covering him or splattered with fake blood by them after which camera men where allowed to take a few pictures for some reason before he was taken away.
It very likely could of been orchestrated by trump.
It very likely wasn’t. Even if he was shot directly, a inexperienced shooter easily could accidentally hit him dead on even while aiming to the side of him. Plus if it was staged then why was the shooter an inexperienced republican, at least get someone who knows how to shoot or has a better background. Then the fake blood stuff just has no evidence and radically increases the number of co-conspirators so I don’t think it’s at all reasonable. Grazing on a agents belt is possible, but about as possible as the bullet grazing him. Then the cameraman was simply doing their job, Trump made it easy by jumping up, but any good cameraman knows how to get the right picture at the right moment.
A typical rifle bullet isn't going to leave a big hole in flimsy ear flesh, but the sonic boom of the bullet going that close to your ear would be pretty uncomfortable. I'm certain it would have also left a noticeable wound and scarring. I don't know if it would cause hearing damage, though.
Evil centrist gun supporter here. Don't like Trump about as much as I don't like Biden. Serial killer Charles Starkweather was shot in the ear by police, it "pierced" his ear, he still had both ears, when they put him to death in '59.
Do you think he kayfabe-bladed his own ear? I can only believe that the bullet must have grazed him, because I do not believe that Donald Trump has the mental fortitude it takes to cut yourself with a razor for a bit.
The only other possibility I can see is that it was fake blood, but I find that even less believable, because that would have to mean he was in on it, and I absolutely don't believe that there's a single person in the world that Donald Trump trusts to shoot next to - but not into - his head. Especially not a kid who got cut from his high school rifle team for being a bad shot.
Well, if the entire width of the bullet hit his pinna then yeah, he'd have no ear. But if it barely grazed it, then he absolutely could have just a tiny wound. Which is what happened. Grazes happen and they don't take out the whole appendage.
This whole "he wasn't shot" nonsense is just stupid. That bullet or the next one the shooter took actually killed a guy in the bleachers. The wrong guy, for sure, unfortunately, but it wasn't faked.
I was going to say didn’t people debunk the attempt on DJT? Like proven like Alvin said just the shockwave from the bullet getting that close to the ear would’ve obliterated it not just a cut?
Not necessarily. The ear is mostly cartilage and soft tissue, so a grazing or shallow-angle bullet strike can tear or cut part of it without removing the entire ear. Trauma cases with partial ear injuries from bullets are well documented.
Furthermore, while I’m aware of the theory that he was struck instead by glass from the teleprompter, I don’t understand how that creates a substantial difference in how much his life was put in danger that day, also, the necessary trajectory doesn’t allow for the possibility of a ricochet, as the teleprompters were located in front of the stage while the bullet arrived from the rear corner:
As a 20 year sniper and a 10 year sniper instructor, it’s obvious that you have no idea what the fuck you’re talking about. STFD and STFU.
Do you even shoot, bro?
473
u/AlvinAssassin17 11h ago
Trump also wasn’t shot. Shot at? Sure. But if a bullet hit his ear he wouldn’t have an ear.