Did I Just See More Dishonest Reporting by 60 Minutes Tonight?

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • calicojack

    American Sporting Rifle
    MDS Supporter
    May 29, 2018
    5,348
    Cuba on the Chesapeake
    So I was in a sports bar that had many flat panels all over the walls. There was no audio, but I THOUGHT I saw a segment from 60 minutes that was trying to insinuate that bullets from an AR 15 causes more damage than other rifles?? Excuse me, but I think a 223 Rem from just about any rifle will give you the same ballistic gel results.

    Or am I mistaken? Maybe it was a segment about how awesome the AR 15 is :rolleyes:

    Or maybe 60 minutes thinks all 223 caliber rifles should be banned??
     
    Last edited:

    Alan3413

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 4, 2013
    16,921
    I always thought they were less likely to fragment compared to the original M16 with the 1:12 twist (less stable) and 20in bbl (faster).
     

    hillbilly grandpa

    Active Member
    Jan 26, 2013
    961
    Arnold
    It was a replay of an earlier broadcast. Cabbage is better the second day, but this story didn't get any better the second time. The only thing it has in common with the cabbage is more gas.
     

    davsco

    Ultimate Member
    Oct 21, 2010
    8,607
    Loudoun, VA
    when 'they' either have to make stuff up, or don't care enough to research and present the facts, pretty clear there is some unfounded hysteria or agenda going on.
     

    WildWeasel

    Active Member
    Mar 31, 2019
    468
    MI>FL>MD
    So I was in a sports bar that had many flat panels all over the walls. There was no audio, but I THOUGHT I saw a segment from 60 minutes that was trying to insinuate that bullets from an AR 15 causes more damage than other rifles?? Excuse me, but I think a 223 Rem from just about any rifle will give you the same ballistic gel results.

    Or am I mistaken? Maybe it was a segment about how awesome the AR 15 is :rolleyes:

    Or maybe 60 minutes thinks all 223 caliber rifles should be banned??

    Pretty standard of Dems and gun grabbers. They don't know anything about firearms 95% of the time. Maryland law is a perfect example. A new AR 15? Illegal. A new AR10? Same laws as a bolt action rifle, magazine aside...
     

    spoon059

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 1, 2018
    5,332
    Pretty standard of Dems and gun grabbers. They don't know anything about firearms 95% of the time. Maryland law is a perfect example. A new AR 15? Illegal. A new AR10? Same laws as a bolt action rifle, magazine aside...

    The AR-15 is an ASSAULT RIFLE and has no place in society. Its deadly and looks MEAN!

    The AR-10 is a hunting rifle, its perfectly fine.

    Duh...
     

    MigraineMan

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 9, 2011
    19,109
    Frederick County
    The AR-15 is an ASSAULT RIFLE and has no place in society. Its deadly and looks MEAN!

    The AR-10 is a hunting rifle, its perfectly fine.

    Duh...

    So, the "AR" in AR-10 stands for "Ahunting Rifle"? And the "10" signifies the maximum number of boolits that fit into the clipazine? Sounds good to me.

    Also, 10 is less than 15 (by a lot!) so it's much more appropriate for civilian ownership.
     

    Some Guy

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Oct 26, 2017
    1,014
    60 Minutes is publishing factually inaccurate information. The 5.56 is not more lethal than other rounds, in fact it can be reasonably argued that the round was selected by the USG because it complies with the Hague convention(s) that are intended to limit "unnecessary" suffering and indiscriminate death during combat. The 5.56 was selected because it is intended to stop a combatant but not necessarily kill the combatant. The 5.56 does not have near the lethality of hollow point rounds and/or heavier and faster rounds that are used for hunting or other purposes, and that may be prevented from use by Hague Convention signatory nations. The 5.56 can be lethal, but it is significantly less lethal than those two kinds of rounds. When media professionals say that the 5.56 is more lethal than other rounds, it is simply not true.

    The Hague Convention(s) provide interesting reading to contextualize these issues. I think the 1899 version was designed to prevent the use of hollow point rounds on the battle field. I believe the 1907 version was designed to govern general conduct of warfare, including the use of weapons that cause unnecessary suffering (among many other things...)

    Anyway, 60 Minutes (and any other source) is not being truthful if they communicate that the 5.56 is more lethal than other rounds. I believe that the opposite is true.

    The more you know.

    http://www.weaponslaw.org/assets/downloads/1899_HD_concerning_expanding_bullets.pdf

    Declaration concerning Expanding Bullets The Hague, 29 July 1899
    The undersigned, Plenipotentiaries of the Powers represented at the International Peace Conference at The Hague, duly authorized to that effect by their Governments, Inspired by the sentiments which found expression in the Declaration of St. Petersburg of 29 November (11 December) 1868, Declare as follows:

    The Contracting Parties agree to abstain from the use of bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core or is pierced with incisions.

    https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hague04.asp

    SECTION II
    HOSTILITIES
    CHAPTER I
    Means of Injuring the Enemy, Sieges, and bombardments
    Art. 22.

    The right of belligerents to adopt means of injuring the enemy is not unlimited.
    Art. 23.

    In addition to the prohibitions provided by special Conventions, it is especially forbidden -

    To employ poison or poisoned weapons;

    To kill or wound treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army;

    To kill or wound an enemy who, having laid down his arms, or having no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion;

    To declare that no quarter will be given;

    To employ arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering;

    To make improper use of a flag of truce, of the national flag or of the military insignia and uniform of the enemy, as well as the distinctive badges of the Geneva Convention;

    To destroy or seize the enemy's property, unless such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war;

    To declare abolished, suspended, or inadmissible in a court of law the rights and actions of the nationals of the hostile party. A belligerent is likewise forbidden to compel the nationals of the hostile party to take part in the operations of war directed against their own country, even if they were in the belligerent's service before the commencement of the war.
     

    Some Guy

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Oct 26, 2017
    1,014
    60 Minutes is publishing factually inaccurate information. The 5.56 is not more lethal than other rounds, in fact it can be reasonably argued that the round was selected by the USG because it complies with the Hague convention(s) that are intended to limit "unnecessary" suffering and indiscriminate death during combat. The 5.56 was selected because it is intended to stop a combatant but not necessarily kill the combatant. The 5.56 does not have near the lethality of hollow point rounds and/or heavier and faster rounds that are used for hunting or other purposes, and that may be prevented from use by Hague Convention signatory nations. The 5.56 can be lethal, but it is significantly less lethal than those two kinds of rounds. When media professionals say that the 5.56 is more lethal than other rounds, it is simply not true.

    The Hague Convention(s) provide interesting reading to contextualize these issues. I think the 1899 version was designed to prevent the use of hollow point rounds on the battle field. I believe the 1907 version was designed to govern general conduct of warfare, including the use of weapons that cause unnecessary suffering (among many other things...)

    Anyway, 60 Minutes (and any other source) is not being truthful if they communicate that the 5.56 is more lethal than other rounds. I believe that the opposite is true.

    The more you know.

    http://www.weaponslaw.org/assets/downloads/1899_HD_concerning_expanding_bullets.pdf

    Declaration concerning Expanding Bullets The Hague, 29 July 1899
    The undersigned, Plenipotentiaries of the Powers represented at the International Peace Conference at The Hague, duly authorized to that effect by their Governments, Inspired by the sentiments which found expression in the Declaration of St. Petersburg of 29 November (11 December) 1868, Declare as follows:

    The Contracting Parties agree to abstain from the use of bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core or is pierced with incisions.

    https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hague04.asp

    SECTION II
    HOSTILITIES
    CHAPTER I
    Means of Injuring the Enemy, Sieges, and bombardments
    Art. 22.

    The right of belligerents to adopt means of injuring the enemy is not unlimited.
    Art. 23.

    In addition to the prohibitions provided by special Conventions, it is especially forbidden -

    To employ poison or poisoned weapons;

    To kill or wound treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army;

    To kill or wound an enemy who, having laid down his arms, or having no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion;

    To declare that no quarter will be given;

    To employ arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering;

    To make improper use of a flag of truce, of the national flag or of the military insignia and uniform of the enemy, as well as the distinctive badges of the Geneva Convention;

    To destroy or seize the enemy's property, unless such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war;

    To declare abolished, suspended, or inadmissible in a court of law the rights and actions of the nationals of the hostile party. A belligerent is likewise forbidden to compel the nationals of the hostile party to take part in the operations of war directed against their own country, even if they were in the belligerent's service before the commencement of the war.

    Sorry, need to correct something here: I previously stated that the 5.56 is not more lethal than other rounds. As we all know, that's not accurate. For example, the 5.56 is certainly more lethal than a .22. But, my point in all of this is that the 5.56 was selected partly because it is LESS lethal than other rounds that were in use during the time of the 5.56 adoption and use in the AR platform. On a "lethality continuum" the 5.56 is A LOT less lethal than many rounds, either in terms of caliber, design (hollow point vs non-hollow point) and function. When a media outlet like 60 Minutes says that the 5.56 round, or AR-15 rifle is more lethal, I think they are being fundamentally and intellectually dishonest. The round was selected by the USG partly because it's a lot less lethal than other rounds and as such it does not inflict unnecessary suffering, relative to rounds that were commonly used in combat during the time that the AR was designed.

    Just wanted to be clear on this point. It is frustrating when media or other sources say that the AR-15 is designed to kill or is entirely lethal when used when in fact it can be argued that the opposite is true.
     

    rascal

    Ultimate Member
    Feb 15, 2013
    1,253
    Well, if you are shooting someone or something aren't you trying to cause damage????

    This is one of the major divergences between the media and modern gun culture.

    The media still seems to think we are out there hunting ducks and if any humans are shot this is some kind of accident with a shotgun or blunderbuss left out by accident. In fact today only a tiny minority of gun owners ever hunt with guns and it keeps falling.

    The vast majority of gun owners own guns because of their lethality to humans, specifically to stop criminals and deter imposition of foreign or domestic tyranny.

    One of the latest areas of "research" bu the gun control lobby and their bought off minions in academia is to grade the lethality of calibers. They are so completely ignorant of modern gun culture that they don't realize the truth of your statement, and probably the major of consumption of this research will be for the half the US that owns guns to choose the most lethal, best stopping power munitions.
     

    rascal

    Ultimate Member
    Feb 15, 2013
    1,253
    60 Minutes is publishing factually inaccurate information. The 5.56 is not more lethal than other rounds, in fact it can be reasonably argued that the round was selected by the USG because it complies with the Hague convention(s) that are intended to limit "unnecessary" suffering and indiscriminate death during combat.

    A 556 fmj to 9mm pistol fmj, or a 556 jhp to a 9mm out of a pistol the 556 is certainly more lethal. The issue with the military round and wounds has to do with fmj or not, and also compared to 308 etc.

    So don't make a self defeating argument that it is not more lethal than common pistol rounds which is what their metric is going to be.

    this has everything to do with an outlet like 60 minutes not understanding it is the power of the round that is of value.
     

    tsulli85

    Member
    May 16, 2019
    13
    This is one of the major divergences between the media and modern gun culture.

    The media still seems to think we are out there hunting ducks and if any humans are shot this is some kind of accident with a shotgun or blunderbuss left out by accident. In fact today only a tiny minority of gun owners ever hunt with guns and it keeps falling.

    The vast majority of gun owners own guns because of their lethality to humans, specifically to stop criminals and deter imposition of foreign or domestic tyranny.

    One of the latest areas of "research" bu the gun control lobby and their bought off minions in academia is to grade the lethality of calibers. They are so completely ignorant of modern gun culture that they don't realize the truth of your statement, and probably the major of consumption of this research will be for the half the US that owns guns to choose the most lethal, best stopping power munitions.

    It's the same attitude of people who think that police shouldn't shoot to kill and should shoot to injure or disable. If you are in a situation where you can shoot to injure you should not be firing a gun in the first place.
     

    Bigsawer

    Ultimate Member
    Dec 22, 2017
    4,508
    Cecil
    Every article or tv show involving the adoption of the AR by the military states the biggest factor of selecting .223 was the increase of ammo, due to weight savings, that a soldier can carry of a caliber adequate to take the adversary out of the fight. Not once over the many years of reading and watching have I ever heard of reference to being swayed by a treaty.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,915
    Messages
    7,258,418
    Members
    33,348
    Latest member
    Eric_Hehl

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom