The investigation into the attempted assassination of former president Donald Trump is in it's early stages but authorities say the weapon used in the attack was an
Yeah, that is the military. The shooter was not prior military. In basic you spend hours every day training and spend time on the range learning to shoot at or beyond 300 yards. Most civilians rarely train to shoot a AR15 and because of cost of ammo now don't put as much down range. And most civilian ranges rarely extend beyond 25 yards. Active military spends most of their time shooting at targets from 50 to 300 yards over iron sights, big difference unless you have optics. Not much is known yet about the weapon or if it had optics, also the shooter wore glasses.
@mikehardin1629 He was a member of his firing range and the gun was his dads. They frequented there. Either way not hard to teach someone from 130yards to hit 9/10 times. All the outdoor firing ranges by my house are about a football field in length and that's in CA too
shoots? Or actually hits 7" steel? I'd like to see that. Or are you talking silhouette full size? With ~1" of wind drift at 140 yards and a 2-3, or even 4 MOA gun (depending on ammo)... At 300 yards, you are talking 6 inches of windage and 6-9" groups, or even 12" from a bench or bipod w/rear bag.
I'm screaming BS! Served in the Marine corps ,hit targets at 500 yards or more with iron sites only! Who is this little girl?? She is poorly educated about this weapon
reminds me of Nancy Pelousy trying to talk about firearms, "we need to ban all guns that have a thingy on them", she actually said that, I'd like to hear the ATF's definition of a "thingy"
No no you don't understand they're cursed and bring dark thoughts of darkness to your mind (unironically I think a lot of people leftward on this actually think holding a weapon is what tempts you)
@@zerekneterval old military lore Weapons are not meant to kill they're meant to incompacitate . Either Geneva or Hzgue mandates that bulkets not be design to infkict unnecessarily damage or suffer. And soldiers don't kill They inflict casualties on enemy personnel
@@shawnganesh2348 The 5.56 was made to injure enemies so they could still talk and be tortured as a pow so they could gather intel on their enemies plan. Of course it can kill in vital areas but wasn’t designed for that purpose.
@@stanb990 potato, potato (saying doesn't work in text) she said injure specifically, you would be charged with attempted mur der if you used anything other than rubber bull ets because anything else is considered a lethal round
no its just an self loading rifle that fires a military round from high capacity magazines with miltary accesorries. Just because the Army doesnt use it doesnt make it less leathal. If clowns in America didnt have access to weapons like this a lot more schoolkids policemen and citizens would be alive today. Get over your dumb 1776 document and enter reality.
@@BenNeal-ih4jo The 223 round and 5.56 round are both made to be a lethal round. Saying otherwise is like saying 9mm and 45 apc is not made to kill. Of course they are.
@Ducttape995 Colt still actually owns the trademark on the "AR-15" brand name. So any copy, derivative, or variant, goes by some other name. The only "real deal" AR-15 is manufactured by Colt, and everything else is technically just "Styled" like one. Despite being exactly the same thing.
The store sales person is so incorrect about the 556/223 rds. It's a 22LR rounds but travels 3,000 ft/sec. with vicious results. It was designed when the round impacts, it countinues to tumble and tearing anything in the way and leaving a big hole when it exits.
She is actually not wrong at all when it comes to a reason they carried it And you are not wrong either you both just didn’t give all the reasons only 1 each. There was many reasons but weight of carry and quantity was definitely a factor. You are right as well the only thing she was wrong about was saying it’s not meant to kill and just injure. The whole interview was actually pretty bad but I think what we should be focused on and be happy with is that unlike usual the media went and got and aired truth about AR15’s for educational reasons even if the presenters weren’t the best at explaining it. This was a good video for the gun community don’t bash a friend bud!
NEWSFLASH:In a stunning move The US Supreme Court has just ruled 6-3 granting that guns have total immunity from prosecution. After extensive research, no precedent was found where a gun had been charged with a crime, except in cartoons and movies!
if anything...the choice of rifle could legit be blamed for the miss. People should be thankful he chose an AR, and not something far more effective - like pretty much any deer rifle.
.223 and more specifically 5.56 (since it's the standard military round) was more designed to maim rather than kill (not that it can't kill if you shoot it right). From what I understand, military doctrine states that they want to kill a certain number of enemies and maim a certain number of enemies. That way the enemy has to bring in personnel and material to remove the wounded. That's at least how it was years ago, I'm not sure if that's how it is now.
Nope its not just you, by saying an ar style type of gun does not say what gun was used. Why don't they take a picture of the gun that was actually used, show the make and model
I'd say that was accurate. There are so many variances of that frame that it's fine to describe it that way. Same as they use the term 1911 style for that pistol type.
@@twelvewingproductions7508 I've never heard anyone say 1911 style. it's a 1911 or it isn't. doesn't make a difference what company makes it. same with AR-15 . it's an AR-15 no matter what outfit made it or not. if it's not an AR it's not a "style" of anything. if the weapon was a Ruger 10/22 with a black folding stock then they need to say that. if they don't know then they should just say it was a rifle and not try to gin up more civil disarmament legislation.
@@joerobo682Guns just have a silhouette to them to where people would designate it as "AR style" especially "assault rifles." I heard some law enforcement say the term "AK style rifle" instead of AK47, even though not many AKs in the US are truly in that designation- Its just identity is what I'm saying, and that rifle is AR style
Any rifle is only accurate out to the range the shooter can reliably hit the target. Whe qualifying in the Army I was about 90 to 95 % out to 200 meters after that is was more like 60 percent.
My notifications were paused for two days after the attempt. Doesn’t matter too much cause 90% of my comments get deleted. Even if someone is insulting me and using derogatory language my comment is deleted and not theirs. Evil platform.
@@kanjo4976FACTS. I can't stand it. They delete mine literally for no reason all the time they put some of us through more strict comment filters just because we don't agree with their dumb ideology
Cameron was actaully spot on and kept it professional. She obviously didnt give the reporter what she needed and they have bring in the other guy who almost gave them something juicy. Thanks Cameron for not falling into the trap!
Lighten up Francis. No she isn’t lying. She is speaking from her knowledge base. Like any rifle, accuracy can vary widely. Ammo and optics can have significant affect on accuracy. Yes, infantry have to qualify out to 600m. Yes, basic military rifles don’t have optics and aren’t sub MOA shooters. She did fine explaining the rifle to the general public.
I mean, of all things to criticize the media for, this isn't one of them. AR style has a meaning, Colt's patent on the AR style rifle expired in the '70s, not every "AR" you see is an "AR" made by Colt or Armalite. Mine is an "SG", but anyone that looks at it would say it's an AR15. Ya know why..? Because it's an AR style rifle.
AR style is accurate, as it isn't mini 14 and it isn't an ak and AR style rifles if made to proper specs will take the same parts. It would be like talking about a heavy duty pickup or mini truck. They are both very specific variations of light duty trucks with multiple companies that make them, but the specs, looks, and function are very close between brands.
This is the most cringeworthy interview I have ever heard. The gun store manager is not educated on the use of sights and other attachments. Hearing her attempt the weapon safety rules was definitely alarming that she couldn't get them down.
Back in the days when the M-16 first came out; It WAS touted as a round that would tend to tumble when it hit a target instead just expanding and it would cause more damage to the enemy thus causing more wounds than the .30-06 in the old M-1s and M-14s. It would then require the enemy to use more resources to carry the wounded soldier away and to care for him in the back lines. So many people forget simple facts of history.
@@alecwhatshisname5170 I appreciate you trying to clarify, but it really doesn't help. A first time shooter can, if they care to, spend a day on the range and make 300 yards with a 2 MOA precision. I just don't buy that she's makking that argument, though, since she stated that it isnt' for killing just injuring. Sales without experience apparently.
@@alecwhatshisname5170 I don't think it is technically true. If the rifle is zero'd, you know the zero and you've had some practice. Sure, maybe someone who has never fired any weapon before and knows literally nothing.. maybe.
I got my training from Marines at Port Hueneme wayyy back in 1970. While they insisted that the M14, with its .308 round packed more punch at longer distances, they never once said that the M16s (military version of the AR rifle) we were training were just for injuring the enemy. They were designed so that the smaller .556 bullet would be quite lethal, albeit with a smaller range and smaller punch than the much heavier .308 round. And in Vietnam, where we were headed, most engagements (if we Seabees were unlucky enough to be in one) would be at ranges no more than a few hundred yards, at most. The M16, with its lighter weight and much lighter rounds made perfect sense where we worked. I guess I was a lucky sailor in Vietnam as I fired my weapon only on training ranges in the year-and-a-half I was there (wandered all over the Mekong Delta in boats, ferries, vehicles and in the air, from the coast on the Gulf of Thailand to Dan Nang up north). M16s and other AR-type rifles are very, very easy to shoot accurately (even with iron sights), almost from the first time you fire one. I qualified for a shooting medal my first time on on the range. So did most trainee shooters around me. The rounds are decidedly designed to kill, not merely "injure."
She said 'a semi automatic which means it chambers another round after being fired' ... which is true, BUT SHE WAS VERY DECEPTIVE AND MADE IT SOUND LIKE IT WAS AUTOMATIC TO PPL WHO DIDNT KNOW BETTER.
All cartridges are meant to destroy whatever it is it hits. All firearms are meant to direct said projectile. It’s the HUMAN who chooses what to destroy.
People are right, a gun has only one purpose....staple gun, paint gun, nerf gun, nail gun, dart gun, firearm......to emit a projectile. Many firearms are made specifically for sporting but of course they still fire a projectile at what the user points it at. They want to remove firearms but seem fine with knives, bats, vehicles, drugs, fists, improvised weapons, etc. We have a people problem and crime problem and still would have even if guns disappeared.
United States Marine Corp veteran here.I went to basic training in 1987 we were issued the M-16A2 rifle. A 20inch government barrel rh 1in7 twist muzzle velocity 3100fps at 52,000 chamber psi. Max effective range at a individual/ point target 550 meters max effective range 800 meters of an area target. We qualified at 200 meters 300 meters and 500 meters all with open sights. Now the civilian armalite (ar-15) is a 16 inch barrel only in semi automatic not capable of the high psi or velocity of the military version so not as effective. But any firearm is dangerous if not trained properly that is why I trained my daughter at an early age. Semper Fi
Lol, lots of folks don't actually know there are several distinctly different mayos. Might want to do some research first or stick to something you know.
@dominiquegobeil5831 ahhh I see this is how you have fun eh, you like to be toxic and then accuse others of the same after stating ignorant things or shoveling out bait huh Lil bud? Decide to grow up. I bet the people around, if there are any, would really appreciate it.
i still havent been told exactly what rifle and what attachments the would-be assassin was using. all reports say "ar-15 style" or "carbine". it really irks me cuz these terms mean nothing
@@ushankaman6143 lol....I am absolutely kidding. From what I understand the only attachment was iron sights. No knowing if they were zeroed, or for what distance.
@@Catgat37 what about the gun? any info as to what gun it was exactly? also little fun fact: apparently he was rejected from a shooting club cuz he was "a bad shot"
@@ushankaman6143 yeah, my wife just told me that this morning lol. And no, it does not appear they are releasing specifics on the gun at this time. Other than it is an "AR style rifle". What I really wonder is what caliber. People are speculating 5.56, but most likely because it is the most common chambering. He apparently bought 50 rounds for it. Not many ammo manufacturers have 50 round boxes of 5.56, although that doesn't mean anything.....because there are a few.
In terms of the philosophy behind the 5.56 NATO I found nothing she said to be incorrect, in fact, I was quite impressed. As for her range numbers, 150 yards is about the limit for a responsable, reliable, kill on a deer for instance. As for the wounding reference, she is absolutely right. Military doctrine states that a wound is superior to a kill because it often makes 3 soldiers combat ineffective rather than just one. Indeed, the wound rather than kill philosophy was one of the things that made the move to small caliber intermediate cartridges acceptable in order to gain the benefits of reduced weapon and ammo weight and reduced recoil. One of the requirements of the 5.56 NATO was that it had to have a wounding ability equal to or greater than the M1 Carbine round, not an impressive cartridge in anybody's book. Give her a break.
"It's not just a military weapon" It literally isn't a military weapon. It's a civilian specific variant that carries the original name of one but not the capabilities of its predecessor.
The lady is correct, the 5.56 was designed for two reasons. #1. To carry more round , my combat load in Iraq was 7 magazines, 30 rounds each 210 rounds total. #2 The 5.56 was created with the idea that every time you wound a soldier it takes two people to carry them out, so you are taking three soldiers out of combat vs taking only one if you kill an enemy combatant. That was the doctrine during the Cold War. Now it does not means that the 5.56 NATO or the 223 are unable to kill someone. A 22Lr round can take a person down.
I can hit the target at 300 meters with open sights, hence i have the expert army bage. 36 out of 40 is reqiured at different distances in a timed scenario. It was a set up hit, Oswald story with a twist. Range cards are common sense grafts of thefeild of veiw outgoing and incoming. Too many open questions. If thats the best the Stupid Service can protect they need to downgrade to parking lot security guards, and i wouldnt leave my vehicle with thenm either.
2:37 You cannot keep an AR15 “on safety” UNLESS there is a round in the chamber (i.e. the hammer must be cocked to effectuate the safety selector) But if there is a round in the chamber, then the rifle is not “unloaded.” Her first two firearm handling recommendations-while generally sound as separate statements-contradict each other in the case of the AR15
The .223 bullet isn't big itself, but it's casing has a decent amount of powder, which makes it powerful. It's also designed to start tumbling once it hits a hard enough target, and thats what makes .223/5.56 lethal
@@gford8551 it's not wrong don't put words in my mouth, just not exactly professional. "Can carry a lot of punch" is just not how you describe muzzle velocity, maximum effective range, and um when has the military designed any projectile just to wound? Also ar-15 is not every single assault rifle or rifle period. She doesn't even sound convinced of what she is saying.
@@nateduquette3134 it's layman speak for "it has more deliverable energy on a target" without getting nerdy. Wildly enough, .308 (7.62×51 NATO) was specifically designed for Military use while .223 (5.56×45 NATO) was designed to be a small game cartridge.
@@Andrewy27 really? is that what that means? No fucking shit dude never did I say I didn't understand what she said all I fucking said was what? That she doesn't represent an expert opinion well.
1:23 Notice the subtle use of propaganda here. The reporter offers part of the definition of “semiautomatic” by describing how the rifle will chamber a second round. What she carefully avoided was the critical part that distinguishes a semiautomatic rifle: you then have to pull the trigger a SECOND time to shoot the second round. The abbreviated piece she described is true for BOTH automatic and semiautomatic fire weapons. The critical distinction is that semiautomatic weapons do not automatically (hence the name) fire the next round. She (or, more likely, her writers) is deliberately avoiding that distinction because doing so still keeps the confusion in the public’s collective mind alive and well. It’s a cheap trick.
@MMcguire85813 propaganda for what? I would rather the news run a story like this that provides people with information on the gun than just say it was the gun's fault. A news segment like this can go a way for calming peoples irrational fears and misconceptions.
The usmc used to shoot out to 500 yds with open sights . The army 300. Now, they both are using ACOG optics with a magnification of 4 or 6 power. Optics help a lot to see your target, but going beyond 300 yds. The atmosphere begins to come into play. The biggest being wind pushing bullet off line.
Most of what that shop girl said was correct. The 5.56 round is very lethal and it is accurate out beyond 600 yards in the hands of a trained shooter. Also, it’s a tool and like any tool it can be used for good or evil. The fault lies with the shooter, not the gun.
Right off the bat spewing that fudd lore that 556 was "not designed to be a lethal round, it was only made to injure" I knew the rest of her interview would be dubious.
I was wondering how many people called bullshit on this girl. I joined the Army in 1976. We only had iron sights. We shot out to 500 yards but was taught the "maximum effective range) was 350 yards. Also, in the 70's and early 80's the Russians tried to get the United Nations to outlaw the 223 and an inhumane round because of how the bullet tumbled inside the human body for maximum damage. We had one soldier in the class ahead of mine at Ft. Bliss who shot himself in the shoulder to get out of the Army, but the bullet hit his shoulder bone and tumbled through his chest cavity and came out at his kidney. He died. This woman reminds me of the gun prop manager on the movie set "Rust" who said I know a lot, I shot with my daddy growing up. The newsperson was taken for a complete bullshit ride.
"2.23 / 5.56 was designed to wound" Do you really think the military would use a cartridge that wasn't effective at killing the enemy? Come on... Also, keep it on safety? seriously? It's SAFE not safety. The way she talks makes it sound like someone tried to teach her about these guns 30 min before the interview and now she's sloppily regurgitating what she heard with the camera rolling. This is embarrassing for her and the store.
