Originally Posted by Fedaykin
The only comedy gold is that you think the above is something other than a horrible strawman. Idjit.
Funny, you said .223 AR's should be banned because of a recoil advantage. But it has no advantage over a .22 on recoil. And .22 cals kill far more people every year than AR-15s (or .223's in general)
Pretty realistic looking for a strawman. I'm gonna take "Fed wants it banned because Rachel Madcow Said So" for 500, Alex."
A .223 is a small calibre, but the ROUND is much more powerful than a .22. It's more powerful than just about every pistol/revolver (even a hand cannon like a .44 magnum).
Apparently you think calibre is the end all of the power of a round, eh?
Simple science, Fed. F=ma if you remember back to Intro to Physics. It's true that a .223 cart delivers more velocity than a .22lr. But by upping the acceleration on that (slightly) larger caliber, you deliver even more force to the stock (aka recoil)
Anyway, you say a .223 should be banned even if it's far less powerful than say a .308, only because it has less recoil. Yet you say a .22 should still be legal, even though it has even less (and yet kills more people). Is there some invisible recoil to lethality sweet spot that you're aiming at that none of us know about?