This Gun "Expert" Is Dumb 

Heh found sneaky Brandon in the comment section

Hey brandon!

very sneaky, 6 likes

It's too bad Mr Runkel is Canadian, otherwise we'd have a great pick for President Herrera's ATF Director. After all, in the event we can't get rid of it, the next best thing would be to have it turn its resources towards things that actually matter, like helping folks get their foot in the door with distilling; Learning to safely grow and process their own tobacco; Getting qualified for their local Civil Defense Force; And preparing for a career in veterinary medicine.

Glad to see you here

Kleenex... duct tape... sanitary towels... super glue... 😂

Welding was invented for the purpose of creating warships. Everyone who owns welding equipment is capable of building a warship, and thus is a danger to society.

Don't forget your wristwatch...

And the funniest thing was that the AR 15 wasn’t designed for military use. It was adapted to military use.

Cell phones as well.

Considering how obvious he is about it, and how much he contradicts himself, he's not as smart as he'd like to think, especially since its his job. But apparently going after actual criminals isn't. They're more concerned with how many oil filters backyard mechanics are buying than all the gangbangers on their social media accounts flashing their glocks with the switches.(which should be legal anyways., but my point is they don't even go after the people they're supposedly supposed to, while going after the ones they aren't supposed to).

Exactly.

But, he's still an idiot.

Also, it needs a haircut.

That's because he's speaking in terms of the law. The ATF does what they want without accountability.

@@Loader138 I think you misread what I said. Hell, I'm more of a firearms expert than that ATF agent. I bet you anything he's never made his own ammo. I'd be surprised if he even knows how to clean his own gun.

@@Gottaculat I whole heartedly agree. The ATF, is not concerned with laws. Especially if they disagree with the law. Same goes for judicial decisions. They don't observe the lawful process of rule making, and routinely usurp the authority of Congress. Their enforcement of laws is arbitrary, and is specifically crafted to turn innocent people into felons.

Sounds like he wants to violate our 2nd Amendment and violate the oath and FARK him !

Lol🎉 sad and true

Or anyone else that works in the government, for that matter.

They're not clueless, they're actively deceptive. They know the truth, they're paid to skew it towards their agenda.

Or maybe for some unfathomable reason, after years of obvious malevolence, hidden under a _very_ thin veil of ignorance, you still believe that the government is full of idiots, not highly refined, world class psychopathic actors. They know exactly what they are doing, as they plead ignorance across the board.

nah its worse than that...the idiots enforcing them are the same ones writing them....atf out here just making their own rules and enforcing them....for years now...

Oh yes because we can totally trust the fucking gun industry to regulate itself, you know the guys whose whole purpose is to sell as many varieties of fire arm and other weapons to as many people as possible for as high a price as they can get away with. Those people who are famous for lobbying the US government to pour literal billions upon billions of their government budget into wacky, sometimes unusable technology, and banging the drum for every murderous war that country starts because it makes them a mint. Those people who, if they don't make more money every year than the year they did before, risk getting sacked or bankrupted. Those guys can be trusted to say what kind of firearms should be produced and how many of them should be sold. That won't backfire at all. Please ignore the toxic gun culture the Americans have as a result of letting their gun industry say and do whatever it wants in their media and the chronic daily mass shootings they have as a result of that toxic gun culture. I'm sure that won't happen in Canada, surely, never mind we are the biggest non-american consumers of American media, we're completely immune to the same problems the Americans have.

Incompetence and corruption.

They are the Democrat Gastopo

@@MikeB-ym6bu The KKK was the original Demoncrat gestapo. Now it appears that ALL federal and most other law enforcement have assumed the role of tyrants. NEVER FORGET Cops don’t become psycho’s. Psycho’s become cops!!

​@@MikeB-ym6buIncorrect, they were created and powered by Republicans, and Republicans love the ATF.

@@drdabsmore945​​⁠ I was curious so I just did extensive research on Google. It took me less than five minutes to determine that the history of the ATF is long and complicated and there’s enough corruption on both sides for each side to credibly blame the other if that’s what they want to do. Here’s an oversimplified history of it if you’re interested. If you’re only interested in complaining about my comment being too long, please just don’t read it. It was formed in 1886 under the United States Treasury. It wasn’t called the ATF at that time. It was called the Revenue Laboratory. It was part of the Bureau of Internal Revenue which later became the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). The President was Grover Cleveland, a Democrat. The Senate had a Republican majority and the House had a Democratic majority. It was used in various capacities within the government *(always collecting revenue and interfering with people’s freedom to exercise their constitutional rights).* In 1968 with the passage of the Gun Control Act *(Does that sound like a Republican thing to you? Not to me.)* the name was changed to the Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms division of the IRS. That’s when it was first known as the ATF. In 1972 it became an “independent” *(according to Wikipedia)* bureau under the Department of the Treasury. Its first director was a bloke by the name of Rex D. Davis. If I was to spend time trying to determine his political affiliation, my research would have gone over the allotted five minutes but he was a supporter of the Brady Bill which suggests to me that he was not a Republican. After the attacks of September 11, 2001, President George W. Bush *(Finally, a Republican to blame!)* signed the Homeland Security Act of 2002 which transferred the ATF from the Department of the Treasury to the Department of Justice and changed the name to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) but everyone still calls it the ATF because it rolls off the tongue more easily. I did look at other sources besides Wikipedia but most of what I wrote down here comes from Wikipedia and from my own head. If you want to dismiss everything I said because of my sources, that’s your right but facts are facts regardless of who reports them. If I got any facts wrong, I’m open to correction. My *opinion* is that it’s dishonest and unhelpful to say that the ATF was created and is powered by Republicans and that Republicans love it. It would be equally so to say the same about Democrats. Obviously, everyone can draw their own conclusions and everyone will. I’m drawing the conclusion that if political tribalism and finger pointing is your thing, there is enough corruption in both of the major parties for each to point fingers at the other but in my opinion the Democrats are far worse than the Republicans when it comes to favoring big government and interfering with freedom but the Republicans are far too passive when it comes to advocating for smaller government and more freedom. The ATF was created and is controlled by power hungry and greedy bureaucrats. It has never existed to fight crime and has never done so. It exists solely to harass and control freedom loving people and to collect revenue. It has no legitimate purpose and should therefore be abolished.

😁

Hhahaha

I had a feeling that was the joke

I was wondering what the joke was! That’s a good one. Sad. But good. 😂

27:28 I see in my minds eye what you showed there. Homo nobis canem

Qualified immunity

Because it's 100% a lie. Almost all 5.56 bullets are frangible close to the muzzle, even the FMJs. That's what makes them such good stoppers at close range. The FMJs will only fragment in a thick enough medium (like a torso) but they still have less overpenetration than 00 buckshot, and shit-ton _less_ penetration than a .357, the _best_ handgun caliber for penetration that most people even know exists, let alone can handle! The only handgun calibers that have more penetration than the .357 are the .454 Casull and the ultra-magnums, the .460 and .500 S&W. Even the .44 mag and .50 AE can't beat it. (The 7.62 Tokarev can only penetrate more than .357 with FMJ ammo.)

Home offence is a different matter.

@@Bacteriophagebs The 5.56mm NATO round is not frangible ammunition. It is full metal jacket military ball ammunition. This ammunition does not normally fragment. That claim is an old wives' tale.

​@@Bacteriophagebsoh they are not. Fmj might deform, but green tips will penetrate (what they were designed to do)

FATF and FJB.

Correction: They're holding your child as the shield, while they aim at the dog.

I LOLd

I'd laugh if it wasn't so damned tragic. We would be a hell of a lot safer as a society if we were an armed and informed populace. How much violence would be deterred in these gang violence hotspots if the people in those neighborhoods had access to firearms? These same types of people run around crying about "the black community" but then do all of the things that lead to those communities being a horrible place filled with crime and suffering.

Then you realize they are setting “policy” (which are in design laws) and are putting people in prison. Then you stop laughing and silently weep for our souls

​@flamerollerx01 it's because they want to be perpetual victims and they remain ignorant, living in squalor and poverty, blaming everyone for their problems but themselves, and never wanting to do what is right.

Isn't it funny how he wants to limit our exercise of 2A to 18th century technology, yet he has no problem using modern technology to exercise 1A? As Billy Bob said in Sling Blade, "not HAHA funny."

Maybe not stupid, but smart. He's misrepresenting firearm facts to get paid money by Government prosecutors. That's a helluva gig. He's making over 6 figures a year on this crap

Remember the bite guy?

The certified, licensed and other credentialed do not fill me with security and warmth.

I've had a lot of people tell me how smart they were, and I've met a lot of very smart people, but never at the same time lol

​@riverholmes8727 yeah, that's the Dunning-Kruger Effect. People who lack intelligence or experience tend to overestimate their knowledge, while the more experienced or intelligent tend to downplay their knowledge.

Amen.

Yes indeed … well said !

It reminds me of how polygraphs used to be used. Every real expert knew they are not lie detectors but that's what they were used as .

I find it really hard to understand why an ATF "expert" is recommending that you keep a firearm loaded and off safe in a home with kids. It is dumb to do so without kids. Everyone I know who owns a gun or teaches gun safety has always said, "Keep it unloaded and the ammunition stored separately.

@@ghost8181 i keep a gun loaded, but with safety on and on me. If it's off me it's in a safe.

@@ghost8181 still beaten by some of the police videos on fentanyl It's super dangerous but won't self aerosolize and chase you down a corridor.

Everyone I know who owns a gun or teaches gun safety has always said, _"There's nothing more useless than an unloaded gun..."_

Remember in the latest congressional hearing, the head of the ATF couldn't give a definition of Assault Rifle.

And his opinion on dog ownership.

@@emmw7794 Hell, I couldn't define an 'assault rifle'. Because as far as I know, either ALL firearms are assault firearms, or you're talking some kind of specialized military breaching weapon. Either way, no laws effecting civilians should mention them.

I bet when he hears a dog barking in the distance, he instinctively reaches for his belt to go for a flash bang. RIP old yeller

He can pass for an expert firearms witness in the ATF . . . Especially when the head of the ATF can't define an assault weapon, has no idea when the arm brace is for when attached to a pistol, and doesn't know what a short-barrel rifle is. So, yeah, as far as the ATF goes, he's an expert . . . God help us all.

Right. And what does that mean the police/agents are using them for, if not self-defense? This guy basically just told everyone that the ATF is not a civilian organization and that they don't use guns primarily for self-defense, which means they'd have to be military (making their domestic use violate _posse comitatus)_ and their use of firearms either hunting, sport, or war. Since they use those firearms exclusively against civilians, most U.S. citizens, they would therefore be waging war against the people of the U.S. And not just them, but _all_ law enforcement. And this is something that every cop and anti-gun politician agrees with, or else they wouldn't exclude law enforcement from every one of these laws they pass.

At “up to 500 yards”. Yes genius, in other words 0-500 yards. Manual of arms with a pump shotgun is MORE cumbersome and difficult than a semi auto carbine or pistol for most people, especially smaller people. 9 pellet buck has MORE potential for errant projectiles which absolutely will still penetrate multiple layers of drywall and remain lethal. He’s so worried about people not being able to load a magazine - he’s apparently unaware this is an argument for standard capacity magazines. Take a shotgun class and a carbine class, you will see more people including experienced shooters struggling to keep the shotgun in the fight under stress than the carbine. You’ll see a surprising number of people short stroking pump shotguns under stress, dropping rounds on the ground, loading them in backwards etc. A pump shotgun is better suited to a more experienced shooter, not less experienced. Similarly the j-frame / LCR recommendations are for experienced shooters not novices - j-frames are difficult to shoot. He deliberately compares apples to oranges - why is the AR in his example staged mag out, safety on while the pump shotgun is staged tube loaded safety off? How is running a charging handle more difficult than racking the pump? Why is a safety bad in one case and good in another (and the ARs safety is easier to use with a full firing grip than the 870s). To state the obvious, a Glock 17 or 19 doesn’t magically become more easily concealable because you live in a state that limits mag capacity to 10 (and I bet anything this tyrant is against legal CCW). Thing is this “expert” did not reach a conclusion based on facts. He has a preconceived politically drive opinion, one of civilian disarmament, and he’s trying to fit his extremely limited knowledge of guns (to be fair all gun haters don’t know much about guns, I don’t know much about things I hate either) to fit that political ideology.

@@TacticalStrudel I know, right! The only thing he could be making a good point on was that less-trained individuals may be flustered in accounting for sights on an AR-15, etc. being zeroed for longer distances. The solution is: buy another AR and keep that one zeroed for shorter distances, and one for longer distances. I dunno, he might not agree with that solution.

@@TacticalStrudel He doesn't even mention if this were from a standing, kneeling or prone position, which is quite the disingenuous statement to make without such added context, and even if he suggested from a prone position with a rest point, most people would be hard pressed to hit a target at 300-yards with an AR-15. The average user would be 200 yards tops to being proficient at repeatedly hitting a target, with a scope maybe 300 to 350, to push further than this would require a premium AR-15 and extremely expensive refitting's and additions, let alone mentioning the need for countless hours of training to be proficient at such a range. Such a small munition is easily manipulated by the weather, the slightest breeze would see a 300-yard shot go sour easily, making anything past 300 a toss of a coin if it hits. Now, if you changed the AR-15 into a 7.62mm cartridge, those figures would be a little more practical if it were also with hours of practice and likely a scope minimum (have you ever personally seen what a man-sized target looks like at 300 plus yards, many with decent eye sight might even miss the target popping up on the range proven true by our own military that often miss the 300 yard target springing up during training, and even if they see it pop up they often times miss the shot or fire too late for the hit to register). On the M-16A2, I was one of the few soldiers that could hit the 300-yard target readily without any optics, and that was after hours on the range learning the weapons system, a metric I'm sure this "expert" doesn't even bother offering in his sworn testimony. Regular practice should have made soldiers become more proficient, but we're talking about firearms that are still being used from the Vietnam war being recycled and still used today, also the rounds we fired were piss poor reloads, quite a lot of them not even firing. When it comes to a civilian AR-15 with all the bells and whistles, there still is a significant degradation to hits per target the further targets are out, even the best systems on the market with all the fun stuff added cannot alter a bad pull of the trigger, or how using a rifle instead of an AR-15 would be far more beneficial in anything further than 200 to 300 yards out. For our tests we wouldn't use reloads, but going reloads to newly minted ammunition with a higher grain still didn't seem to help many soldiers' scorings by that change alone, I swear a few of them needed extra time per target, binoculars and a scope to get over a passing number of registered hits.

@@animeiphone8510 Why do people keep bringing up Canada? I've seen that more than once... what does this video have to do with Canada?

So many times I've heard people say that 'The Founders wouldn't have wanted ordinary citizens to own weapons of war.' *Bull.* That's *exactly* what they wanted, because it was the weapons of ordinary citizens that in large part won the Revolutionary War.

Ive never done a competition but my old boss was a firearm instructor and former police officer… during my tenure as an armed security officer for his company I had several range requalifications (handgun and shotgun) for every stage of fire for handgun(25-5yd in 5 yd increments)the qualification standard was starting at low ready and 10 round string of fire for each stage(no reloads necessary unless you had less than 10 round capacity)… I shot every qualification with a 7 round colt 1911 commander… and started every stage from holstered instead of low ready… even with the disadvantage of being holstered and having to reload I usually finished my stage before more than half of the other people at the range(usually 10-20 shooters at a time) and had better scoring than 80%… With the shotgun course of fire was 10 rounds from 3 different distances(2 slugs at 100 yards at basketball sized target… 2 slugs at 50 at basketball sized target and 6 rounds of 9 pellet 00 buckshot from 10 yards at 3 more basketball sized targets(each of the 3 buckshot targets needed 15 of possible 27 pellet impacts to qualify as passing) Some people taking the qualification couldn’t make 9 pellets into the basketball and had to retest 2-3 times to pass. (Some of these qualifications were for armed government contracts and some of these people attempting to qualify were active LEOs trying to certify for part time “laid back”off duty work… and couldn’t qualify first time

Except for Paul Harrel.

Most LEOs do not practice their firearms handling beyond department requirements and few departments are willing to pay for extra training or for specialized training, such as Hogan's Alley scenarios.

​@@jdgoesham5381Paul Harrell wasn't a LEO to my knowledge. He was in the military and I THINK he said his dad was a cop, but I'm pretty sure Paul himself is in the medical industry. I might be remembering wrong though

Sure, that's because civilians pay for their own ammunition, and LEO rounds are limited by their employer.

Wasn't that event the very reason that police departments across America moved to semi-automatic pistols?

@@wilfdarrkinda. They switched to 10mm which at the time only came in automatics. S&W Model 25 comes in 10mm with moon clips, although typically it’s .45 Colt. Newer models like the 610 are dedicated platforms designed for the .40 and the 10mm and are better revolvers for the purpose since the Model 25 weighs half a pound more with a 4” barrel then the Model 610 with the 6.5” barrel.

@@john-paulsilke893 Was the 10mm not developed specifically for self loading firearms? Why did they not switch to .44 magnum or .41 magnum or a downloaded version of those cartridges?

​@@john-paulsilke893now they switched back to the 9mm

@@E_Legal_Alien Only because feds all have amazingly limp wrists.

When that idiot was prosecuting Kyle Rittenhouse he made himself look like a fool to anyone with a brain when talking about ammunition to Kyle.

rgr that!, installing AI run defense turrets in my house!

​@buckcherry2564 just remember HAL 🤔

​@@buckcherry2564No one said anything about AI

@@skeleton_craftGaming I just double checked....it seems I said something about AI.

​@@buckcherry2564yeah, HAL was only able to shut off life support. Imagine if HAL had access to weaponry! Dave Bowman wouldn't have stood a chance!

We local (So Cal) hams went to the city council to petition for sensible antenna rules. It was an extended process. The NIMBYs paid an "expert" (NC) for a report arguing that higher antenna were unnecessary. It was as bad as this. (He cited arguments from *losing* side submissions to the FCC on PRB-1, which requires "reasonable accommodation.) We savaged the report in public discussion. The report said something about our "rolling hills", so I soundly ridiculed the Great Smokies. One of the council members said, "Don't worry. We can see that this is nonsense and we aren't taking it seriously."

Whew. I’m tired and misread that as ‘clown.’

The one problem I see with expert witnesses is that if you search around enough you'll find an expert witness who's willing to agree with you as long as you pay them enough. Expert witnesses that do this should be sanctioned just like lawyers who sign off on cases that never should have been filed.

The Liberal government and their CBC & Co. minions have used such "gun experts" in Canada too, while trying to justify the push for more draconian gun control to the gun-ignorant masses. Look up AJ Somerset.

@@briant7265 having met council members, I’m surprised you had some with enough grey matter to see through that, particularly is socal. Ps have your found Ringway Manchester ‘s channel? It’s fantastic and all about radio stuff with a hreat smattering of numbers stations and other secret squirrel stuff. Great content youd like as a hamm

Damn, I never thought about it that way but you’re totally right. That’s a great comparison!

Shhh don’t give the QI crowd any more stupid ideas..

Paper made from recycled cloth.

There are Democrats that would agree with that interpretation!

Or that the 4th amendment literally only applies to written documents and thus no warrant is needed to look through a computer or phone.

Why doesn't he have to be tested? That half-assed C.V. is good enough to make him an expert in a court of law where people's futures are decided?

As someone with minor knowledge of firearms, the penetration claims made little sense. Of course a 22 round can penetrate a wall. Shape and speed make that obvious.

This guy was in charge of training at the ATF. That should tell you something about the ATF

@@g.davidturnblom5751 it depends on the wall... watch Demolition Ranch to learn more.

@@Elessar_Telcontar Explains the "I'm the only one in this room professional enough to carry a firearm" ATF agent, who then proceeded to shoot himself in the foot.

Thank you!

@@RunkleOfTheBailey Didn't SCOTUS rule that most of the expert witnesses argument was illegal in the bruen decision?

Cheers Trisha and love from Canada. 🇬🇧🇨🇦

72yo ditto!

I’m having a cup of Yorkshire and giggling along in my work truck on the way to my job.

My cat has managed it. But I strongly suspect my cat is smarter than a federal agent.

The second amendment is about allowing citizens to keep guns because mind your own business. Don't give them the ground of needing a reason to own guns.

That's actually a really good point!

The intent of the designers was to sell these weapons to the militaries around the world. However, as you've noted, such weapons were initially rejected on the grounds that "soldiers would waste ammunition." Since no laws existed to permit civilians from purchasing any weapon typically used by military forces (other than personal ownership of a battleship, though equipping a sailing ship used for commercial purposes with cannons or gatling guns was perfectly legal), civilians were quick to adopt weapons which were initially rejected by those responsible for procuring weapons for military forces.

The winners at Little Bighorn agree.

@@john-paulsilke893 Fun fact: Under California law, modern reproductions of 19th century repeating rifles such as the Spencer, Henry, Marlin, and Winchester met the definition of "assault weapon."

​@@gaiustacitus4242nothing to stop you owning a battleship. HMS Belfast in London has active guns, covered by a firearms license.

Obviously, we need to have effective saw control.

Bubba with a bean burrito from taco bell

I think Bubba has more IQ points than an ATF agent imo

Well he's pandering to the govt position on firearms. Namely, that you and I shouldn't have access to them. It's paid propaganda (paid by you and I). Wonder what kind of background the judge has. Haven't Canadian courts been largely populated with liberal snowflakes?

At least Bubba can jerry rig anything onto an sks.

Hey now, thats a pretty high bar

You are doing it wrong: you should find a way to sell the cheese cake community down the river to fund your habit!

@@wilfdarr It's not a habit...it's an absolute pleasure. You're welcome.

😂

@@OvercookedOctopusFeet LOL I hear you: those PC brand 4 flavour cheesecakes with 12 pieces that are supposed to last 2 weeks last about 2 days at our house. And when I make a rhubarb cheese cake (8 inch), it's gone in a day!

Maybe Hamas?

That is actually on my eventual to-get list. Along with a new M1911, as I had gotten rid of my worn out one and well, job went away, then COVID... :/

After no years in any part of the US military, but still being American, there is no rifle I would be more comfortable with than an AR platform. Eugene Stoner was a genius.

@@thegrassisbluer09perfect for large children and small women. Long barrel models are quiet enough without ears and without all the crap I hang on mine. A 20” gun with only a light and red dot, (shake awake) is very light and extremely useful.

Same here, although I only spent 8 yrs in the Army. That was long enough for me to develop a healthy appreciation for the AR15 / M16 platform.

This was out of Colorado

@@cameronjaegeryeah Colorado, Canada

​@@luketarplin😂😂😂

@@luketarplin And BATFE stands for "Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, & Firearms, Eh?"

@@cameronjaegerya it’s kind of hard to miss

Military arsenals absolutely were designing and producing their own firearms throughout the 1800's Your statement is as nonsensical as the statements of the "expert" witness

@ricomock2 In the late 1800s, maybe. In Europe, perhaps. In the US (and Britain, as far as I know) firearms were mostly made and designed by private companies/individuals. Governments sometimes contracted these companies to design new weapons, but the US military was not making weapons, and there was not exclusivity of sale, unless specifically contracted for.

@@RexFuturi Not necessarily exclusivity of sale. However, the Springfield Armory was literally built as a government arsenal, as was the Harper's Ferry Arsenal. Both developed their own firearms for government use, though they were also sold privately, throughout the early 1800s. As for the British, RSF Enfield....is well Royal Small Arms Factory Enfield, it is a government entity for the development and production of firearms. Same for the French Arsenals, and so on. The Germans were less into state arsenals actually. While all of the above is factual information, in no way do I espouse the idiotic views of this 'expert'. The fact that a government would contract for the development and production of weapon systems roundly similar to commercial systems does not make those systems peculiar to the military under the 2nd Amendment. Nor does the government having its own production facilities make weapons similar to what were produced in these facilities exclusive military arms.

@taccovert4 Springfield Armory was one of only 2 (for most of US history) government armories. The rest of firearms were made by private companies and smiths. While the government may have made specific models at the armories for the military, there was nothing preventing private companies from making practically the same rifle (variation for patents) for sale to the public. There was no monopoly of weapons type/style that we would say was exclusive to the military. The point is about the existence military weapons as a category or style in which civilians would not have been allowed to own. Those did not exist until the 20th century. I don't care about the quibbling over specific models. That's aside from the point and irrelevant to the matter. I was going to add the explanation about the armories, but it was not part of the original point, though I see that the point was blurry in the original post. I was indeed referring to exclusivity of styling rather than specific models.

@@RexFuturi You would have been better off making a statement such as " the mechanical distinction between military firearms and civilian firearms in the 19th century and earlier was non-existent", rather than claim that military firearms did not exist, because militaries certainly did design firearms long before governments built arsenals to manufacture them using interchangeable parts. In fact, the cottage industry of firearms production in the 18th century in England absolutely was the source for the bulk of small arms that supplied the British military and those arms all had to meet specific metrics designed by the British military. A military firearm is one used by a military, often, though not always, made to a sets of standards required by a contract. It doesn't matter if they were made by a government owned arsenal or made by a private business.

Also because the 5.56 was lighter, and thus allowed for more ammo to be carried without a commensurate increase in weight.

Alec Baldwin had plenty of time to take careful aim before fully cocking the pistol and pulling the trigger. Only a fool would believe his claims that the gun "just went off" as that is physically impossible for a single-action revolver.

He shoot two people with one bullet. Now that’s what you call effective.

​@@gaiustacitus4242Well, at least impossible for that particular single action revolver.

Too soon?

@@dextercampbell942 It is impossible for any single action revolver that has not been modified to fire a round without first being fully cocked and the trigger intentionally pulled.

In that situation, you might just want to consider Ralph Klein's advice: S.S.S. This is not legal advice, please contact a real lawyer before burying any evidence.

I would only wait for them to stop before calling 911 because I'd hate to be on the phone and miss out on all that twitching.

!lol. Good one.

​@@jimdent351a bit psychopathic, but hey, if it's a home intruder willing to harm you it's fair game.

Always make sure the person breaking in is unable to sue. My home defense is a 700 express double barrel above my mantle in the bedroom. I don’t believe in second chances or rehabilitation. Castle law is a beautiful thing.

And almost zero recoil

They also weren't designed to have a 500+ yard effective range. An expert marksman has a chance at that range, and the remaining velocity is about like a .22 lr. They were designed to be light and easy to manage for close fighting, with the ability to reach longer (200-300) yard ranges in a pinch.

@@briant7265You make a valid point. No military forces except the U.S. Marine Corps widely trains personnel to shoot beyond 300 yards as the modern weapons commonly issued are not designed for effectiveness beyond this range. In contrast, the battle rifles widely used through the Korean War were effective out to 700 yards. Even then, soldiers were rarely trained to shoot targets beyond 500 yards. American military forces had an advantage because the NRA trained shooters with two weeks of range shooting at 600 yards.

Wait until you meet someone who uses the "he bought 300 rounds in one day" talking point as an anti-gun argument. I've met one.

@@tongla9447 Fudds, who don't understand a level 1 match in IPSC etc. take 100 rounds atleast, and level 3 up to 1000. Always the same ppl who say you don't need this or that on a gun because,M'uh safety! I ask them why all cars aren't limited to under 50 hp, you know for everyone's safety...they usually can't or don't want to reply.

@@StanUlch and I tell them: you're either born a excellent marksman who only needs one bullet to take down the threat or you expect everyone else to be one.

This guy knows better, he's being deliberately deceitful

I take exception with your view that all law enforcement is anti 2A. Comes in all flavors like any viewpoint. The issue is more that the pro 2A views are ignored by media. However, even a cursory bit of research you can find many examples of sheriff's, PD's who have gone on record publicly that they will not enforce various gun laws. You can even find LEO'S who advocate for things like teachers who are comfortable doing so, actually CC at school. Blanket statements, especially when there are many examples contrary, tend to have people tune out everything you say unless they already have your POV.

I agree with most of this aside from your use of the word "every". There are many sheriff's across the U.S.A. that are firm 2A absolutists. Who believe the only way to deter violent crime is to allow all citizens to be armed. Some even have the backing of 2A a friendly Prosecutor's office. Who if the case is determined to be a self defense case alot of latitude is given to the self defender...

Not all Law enforcement agencies are Anti-2a. Many of our Chiefs and Sheriffs in Indiana helped push our constitutional carry, with the exception of the big Blue cities and the State police.

I’m sorry I only made it in 24 minutes. Still can’t figure out what this expert is testifying about. It sounds like he was asked a question what is the best firearm for the average homeowner to have for his own self defense? I guess that was the question you just sat there and Babel dawn about every. And, and a bunch of BS because you’re not really addressing what he was hired to consult about. You should’ve started this video a lot differently to put us in a picture, not shooting deer with long rifles, and worrying about penetration and velocity of the bullet, should I choose a short barrel 38 caliber revolver or a long barrel semi automatic so I look cool. I think you need a producer and a director and maybe a script writer. Sorry I just didn’t like your delivery too confusing.

Pretty sure the overlap between American cops, American gun nuts and American white supremacists is very large. Not sure where you're getting your statistics from.

Regardless of their claims to the contrary, law enforcement officers absolutely are civilians. Only active-duty members of a military force are not civilians.

@@gaiustacitus4242 I'm well aware of that, but members of law enforcement are not, as you can see in this guy's writing, and in the minds of anti-gun politicians who say that "weapons of war" are fine for law enforcement but not for (other) civilians, and make laws based on that.

Thanks for making me feel old, Ryan! 😂 My oldest brother was at Aberdeen Proving Grounds during the early development of the 5.56.

​@@Bear-cm1vlso your brother is atleast 80?

@@GoonyMclinux Not all of us are young men. The years pass all too quickly.

No they have not you know nothing about the American government

@@dannyboyincelthe us military one of the single largest employers in the country. It is the biggest public works program in the world. The first thing any country does is make an infantry rifle simple for the 18 year old enlisted men to use. We’ve been iterating on that with the AR platform since the 60s, including training and doctrine. Are you here for a fight or what?

Because he favors the government, and they are also the ones that issue perjury charges… ‘rules for thee, not for me’

Lol something something two tiered justice system.

Just wait for 2035: "McDonalds found guilty of selling assault cheeseburgers to the public for decades, ignoring dangers to human health."

@@joshuarichardson6529 You think it's going to take until 2035? You're an optimist.

Another general consideration is ammo size and weight. You want the smallest lightest round which will do what you need effectively. That way you can carry more of them.

Depends on who is paying, it might be the best $400/hour ever paid. This expert’s soul was sold for a good price

@@shinwang2469yup, money well spent for crooked liars.

Don't forget the additional $1600 per day on top of it.. so about $4k USD per day

Don't forget the additional $1600 per day on top of it.. so about $4k USD per day

The cheaper experts will actually tell the truth. If you want someone to lie you need to pay extra.

Paul is one of the most hilarious gun tubers! I luv that guy

I was at a marksmanship event, and for fun, they divided us into two groups. They stood a 4x4 in front of each group, with a line across it. The first group to saw the top off wins. Almost everybody had .22 lr. They went right through. It didn't take long.

​@@briant7265Yup: I use 4x4x4 blocks as targets and they capture the lead pretty well, but as soon as they are fixed, the lead goes straight through.

Lewis and Clark took with them on their exploration of the Louisiana Purchase a Girandoni air rifle, which had a 20-round magazine, and enough stopping power to drop an elk. The Girandoni was designed in 1779.

@@mhfuzzball In 1860, the Army turned down the first military High Capacity Rifle. It was then sold to civilians.

Funnily enough, British Transport Police _did_ use a soft drink to deal with an armed problem. After spending a while talking to the problem, they ascertained that the problem was getting kind of thirsty, and persuaded him to swap his weapon for the drink. Problem solved without shooting the guide dog of a passenger on the next train to arrive at that station. Also, as far as I'm aware, they've never once had an officer shoot himself in the foot in front of a classroom full of kids.

@@Sableagle Fewer dead dogs, more 'friendly' interviews about your non-criminal 'hate speech.'

Huh ? Who would not expire from .223 wound ?

Weight and capacity. An M14 vs and M16, the M16 could have more than twice as much ammo for the same combined weight, and the raw weight of the rifle is just lighter in general.

@@bobwilson758 The theory goes: at sub-300m range, the bullet has enough energy and instability to 'tumble' reliably in a target, causing significant trauma at closer ranges, but at 300-600m the energy loss is sufficient enough to cause a clean puncture wound, injuring but not killing the target, which creates a burden for apposing forces. That's all based on a 20" barrel, M193 ball ammo, and ideally a 1in12 twist (which all relate to the velocity and stability at those various ranges). Obviously, that concept got lost in the paperwork long ago. A 14.5" barrel, with highly stable M855/SS-109 ammo, and a much tighter twist has resulted in a reputation for anemic military performance for 5.56, as such a combo makes clean puncture wounds at all ranges. All relatively irrelevant for the civilian market with hp or ballistic tip ammo. Although plenty of civies run green tips in compact AR's for defensive purposes ...for some reason.

Wow ! Right - f n crazy ain’t it ?

@@bobwilson758 🍻👍

Dont forget you are a complete dummy with guns and can barlet load one BUT you are a trained marksman and only need one round.

Show me one honest prosecutor. They use their office as a stair step to another political office so they can take more of your money.

And not many females and smaller shewters are comfortable with the recoil

Have the infant work the slide while you're dialing the phone.

But you can buy a full set of "replacement parts" and assemble them yourself.

Those are toys designed for children to use. They are too dangerous for children to use. I speak from personal experience. My brothers actively hunted me with those lawn jarts. They taught me amazing reflexes tho. 😂 😂😂😂

It would be just as bad. . . the general public are tards. Lawyers specialize in one or two topics and outside of that are super tards.

Well said !

I’d agree with you, except on one thing: He’s not an idiot. He knows exactly what he’s saying and knows it’s lies. He’s literally a professional liar on the government’s payroll.

Also keep in mind that the Giradoni was basically a suppressed weapon; much less muzzle report and no white cloud in comparison to your average black powder gun.

All guns with bellows should be banned!

Armalite* Girandoni*

MSNBC: "Anyone who can fly a plane would be useful" 'Expert': "I'm fly... I'm pilot"