SMG 22 airgun is much more lethal in killing multiple unarmed people than the feared AR15

April 14, 2018, 8:32 pm

Agree8 Disagree3

73%
27%

The debate "SMG 22 airgun is much more lethal in killing multiple unarmed people than the feared AR15" was started by Matthew354 on April 14, 2018, 8:32 pm. 8 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 3 people are on the disagree side. People are starting to choose their side. It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.

Matthew354 posted 11 arguments to the agreers part.
Nemiroff posted 6 arguments, historybuff posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.

Matthew354, LiberalsAversion and 6 visitors agree.
3 visitors disagree.

Matthew354
replied to...

With a bit of research on how much force it takes to break the rib cage, your assumption is correct that the SMG22 cannot break the ribs when the required amount of force is about 460J according to University of California scientists.

In conclusion, is the SMG22 a little less or equal to the AR15 when it comes to efficiently killing people? Yes.

Would the SMG22 only bounce off the skin of people with only bruising? Absolutely not!

Are airguns capable in breaking bones and like firearms? Yes, but on some models and circumstances. And maybe some advances in tech would make them equal very soon.

How much of the tech in airguns is equal to firearms? Concerning they are designed to kill like them. Somewhat limited.

Is the post wrong? Yes.

5 months ago
Nemiroff
replied to...

"Yes, limited target area, but not much! I just told you there were multiple major arteries and veins inside all parts of the body (neck, arms, legs, and abdomen below the rib cage) that can make you bleed out very quickly if severed"

severely limited. are you really going to count arms and legs as vitals? major vessels are tiny and deep. it's like history buff said, you have to hit the jugular or something. this isn't a severed limb but some internal bleeding. even with multi hit, they will survive.

when a police chief was asked by a BLM activist why police don't just shoot hands and feet, the chief responded police aren't ninjas. your not gonna direct hit blood vessels 99.9% of the time. except the jugular they are all deep. that's why the jugular is the one everyone knows the name of.

most unaimed shots hit the body, which is why vests are the basic armor. thats 50% bone and 50% fat. great at stopping non piercing force.

5 months ago

"you stated that the airgun is more efficient at mass killings but all you stated was its limited target area which is in no way an efficiency. 90%+ of rapid fire airgun shots will be nonlethal hits making it extremely inefficient."

Yes, limited target area, but not much! I just told you there were multiple major arteries and veins inside all parts of the body (neck, arms, legs, and abdomen below the rib cage) that can make you bleed out very quickly if severed; it might as well be instant death since it takes quite a long time for the ambulance to even get to the location in the hopes they get to you first before other people injured. Places like the skull and organs behind the rib cage are only a small parts of the body that can be hit.

"many people survive with stomach and intestine wounds with treatment"

Did you forget that the SMG22 is full auto? This isn't likely to be a single wound per person being a casualty. You can't cover up multiple wounds of bleeding at once when you can't really identify where the pellets hit, especially since you need special kinds of sheers (Do not use a knife!) that are strong enough to cut open most clothing to see where the bleeding is coming from and to put pressure in the wounds and help save the person's life, like what combat medics have as standard in their trauma kits (You can't force the person to take off their clothes like normal while in agony on the ground, that will only make the person move too much and cause more trauma to the person's wounds). It's certainly a small and negligible difference in how quick a person dies in comparison to a firearm when a person bleeds out faster from multiple points of bleeding, especially If they were hit in the vital blood vessels. At least in the battlefield, the combat medic was more in contact with the soldiers in the frontlines to treat the soldiers wounded than the emergency ambulances roaming the streets to treat the wounded in a mass shooting.

"and please return to single shot airguns that can pierce bone so I can bring singleshot firearms that can pierce walls and kevlar"

Um, no! Did you forget what the main post was about? We are going off in a tangent here by going to different kinds of airguns when the main comparison was between the AR15 and SMG22, I only made such comparison because I did it to prove a point that airguns can pierce through bones. If you really believe everything I been arguing here is too stupid, then we have to argue in other posts.

5 months, 1 week ago
Nemiroff
replied to...

all you did was disingenuously agree that the airgun has a limited lethality area on the body. a firearm can hit soft areas too... and then probably hit the person behind it since soft areas will barely slow it down. it can also pierce the hardest of bone.

you stated that the airgun is more efficient at mass killings but all you stated was its limited target area which is in no way an efficiency. 90%+ of rapid fire airgun shots will be nonlethal hits making it extremely inefficient.

many people survive with stomach and intestine wounds with treatment. it's just bleeding. a bullet through the lungs or heart (all behind the hard ribs and sternum) are fatal. an airgun might give you a concussion and some brain bleeding, but a bullet will go through the skull and destroy the brain. insta death.

and please return to single shot airguns that can pierce bone so I can bring singleshot firearms that can pierce walls and kevlar. I'm losing my ability to take this comparison seriously.

5 months, 1 week ago
Matthew354
replied to...

The SMG-22 piercing the rib cage? You know it doesn't have to right? The SMG22 can still pierce the flesh below the rib cage by getting to vital organs such as intestines, kidneys, descending aorta, inferior vena cabs, and other vital blood vessels in all appendages to make the person bleed to death.

And the SMG22 doesn't have to reach the range of the AR15 in order to kill a crowd of people with about 50 yards, nor does it need to have the same kinetic energy as the bullet of an AR15 to kill those people either, all of that is actually over kill.

Because most gun crimes according to FBI crime reports are less than 46 meters (far below the effective range of an AR15 between 400 to 600 meters), and the SMG22 has enough kinetic energy to pierce flesh, such an airgun is less powerful than the AR15 or other comparable firearms; but the SMG22 is more efficient in killing people.

5 months, 1 week ago

hmm, in theory it might not matter. you could technically load an airgun with a real bullets. if you could get the same amount of force from air as you would from the explosion it shouldn't matter. but can we match the same power as we can we gun powder or whatever we currently use?

5 months, 1 week ago
Nemiroff
replied to...

you brought up the dragon claw to prove that an airgun can pierce the sternum, which likely means the smg22 cant. you were trying to claim that the smg22 is more lethal than the ar 15 which can pierce the sternum and hit many more vitals (heart), making your claim for this thread (between those 2 guns) wrong.

an airgun of similar category will never be as lethal as a firearm. I wouldn't want to take an average airgun in the chest, but with any distance it wont be fatal, especially to a bulky person. firearm will eat thru fat and bone. pellets won't pierce as well. it's no contest.

5 months, 1 week ago
Matthew354
replied to...

You need to stop comparing the Secena Dragon Claw to the AR15, because how I mentioned the Dragon Claw was not intended to compare them. I brought up the Dragon Claw to prove to you that airguns can reach up to the range of AR15 and kill someone, I didn't say the Dragon Claw was in anyway more powerful than an AR15.

5 months, 1 week ago

Yes you assumed, because you just said "I dont think any airgun can do any more than crack the sternum even at point blank range" and I proved you wrong by bringing up the Seneca Dragon Claw air gun.

5 months, 1 week ago
Nemiroff
replied to...

so sure a few of the most powerful airguns can compare in per bullet power of an ar15.... but the ar 15 will launch 30 of those equal power bullets for each 1 those pansy airguns shoot.

yeah totally equal

5 months, 1 week ago
Nemiroff
replied to...

I'm not assuming anything. I agreed that the most powerful airguns can be lethal and should be regulated... however its telling that you have to seek out *the most powerful* airgun to compare to the random gun that just happens to have frequent usuage.

in fact I would say you are the one assuming too much if you think comparing a bolt action to a rapid fire is at all sensible. why don't you compare that dragon claw to a bolt action firearm, like a sniper rifle that can kill a man from farther than the eye can see, through a wall and some kevlar.

5 months, 1 week ago
Matthew354
replied to...

The Seneca Dragon Claw Dual Tank air gun can easily puncture through 3 or more human beings with about 329.59J, you are assuming way too much about air guns.

Not only that, a YouTube channel called IraqVeteran888 already tested the effective range of few of the most powerful airguns are capable of reaching up to 450 meters to kill someone, the effective range similar to the AR15.

5 months, 1 week ago

I'm not arguing that airguns cannot be lethal. I'm certain that the most powerful of airguns is comparable to *some* firearms, but that's it. I dont think any airgun can do any more than crack the sternum even at point blank range, whereas a real gun could pierce the sternum, the heart, the back, and the person behind the first victim.

however, the only thing you convinced me is that some airguns are too powerful and should be regulated.

math is great when real world results aren't available because people forget factors such as piercing capability and aerodynamics of the projectiles which a few sources stated that powerful velocity drops off much faster than a bullet's.

5 months, 1 week ago
Matthew354
replied to...

My math was wrong actually, as it turns out, the kinetic energy of the SMG22 was actually 16.74J because I misplaced the decimal point for the mass (0.001 kg) of the 22lr pellet. There is no way more kinetic energy would come from the SMG22 over the Gamo Urban 22, since the Gamo Urban uses the same pellet with higher velocity of 800 feet per second over the SMG22's 600 feet per second.

However, I found out the velocity of the Daisy Powerline Model 35 was enough to penetrate ballistic gel with a velocity of 625 feet per second with a mass smaller than the 22lr (0.177; 0.0005 kg), with kinetic energy of 9.09J. Less kinetic energy than the SMG22, but still lethal.

5 months, 1 week ago
Matthew354
replied to...

I'm glad you asked, so I will put my knowledge from my college physics class to use in order to determine the lethality of the SMG22. The very equation to calculate the lethality is the kinetic energy equation (KE=(1/2)*m*(v^2)). Where the kinetic energy (KE) is calculated in jouels, m is mass in kilograms, and v is velocity in meters per second.

What I found was that the Gamo Urban 22 airgun is capable in penetrating flesh in the form of simulated flesh called ballistic gel and leather with a calculated kinetic energy of 29.77J (or Joules) as far as 20.32 centimeters into the simulated flesh, while the kinetic energy of the SMG22 in question...

Is calculated to have 31.78J! That amount of kinetic energy is more than a BB gun or a toy, lethal!

5 months, 1 week ago

you find evidence it has lethal force. everything I read about it says you'd have shoot someone with it pressed to their jugular or right through the eye in order to kill someone.

if you want us to believe this thing is more lethal than a AR15 prove it.

5 months, 1 week ago
Matthew354
replied to...

"An airguns probably won't be able to pierce skin" definitely tells me you are ignorant about the capabilities of air guns, as 500 feet per second can go through a car door with an arrow! The SMG22 goes at 600 fps with a 22lr pellet, so you can bleed out if a pellet severs a vital blood vessel.

5 months, 1 week ago
Nemiroff
replied to...

you do not have to hit a vital organ with an ar15 to kill someone. any artery can cause one to bleed out and any shot can cause an infection. an airgun probably wont even pierce skin. I don't think most vital organs will be affected by an airgun unless they are exposed.

shoot someone in the stomach with an airgun and theyll be fine after some pain, ar15, massive blood loss

shoot someone in the heart with an airgun and the ribs will just be bruised, an ar15 will penetrate the entire sternum.

I agree you probably understand the ballistics, but I understand that ideology can overcome logic and reason, even your own logic and reason.

just because its regulated doesn't mean it adds to lethality. when it comes to an enforcement and regulatory agency, stealth is just as nefarious as lethality. that doesn't make them interchangeable.

5 months, 1 week ago
Matthew354
replied to...

The SMG22 is no toy gun, it shoots a pellet the mass of a 22lr at 600 feet per second, that can easily pierce flesh as well as clothing (clearly it doesn't bounce off). And said most gun crimes are done at about 7 yards, while this can shoot at 50 yards and kill someone. You have to hit a vital organ with both the AR15 and SMG22 to kill someone, I understand the ballistics of a 5.56x45 mm shot by the AR15.

And BTW, silence is a factor of lethality, which is why the federal ATF highly regulates them just as much as machine guns.

5 months, 1 week ago

just because it has the ability to be lethal doesn't make it more lethal. the cheapness of its ammo and how quiet it is doesn't change its lethality.

however this is irrelevant. I'm not going to argue about this specific comparison cause you'll just use a different comparison tomorrow. the whole argument is silly.

we can escalate it all the way up to hydrogen bombs are more lethal than atomic bombs therefore atomic bombs should be civilian weapons.... if I just assume everything you said about the airgun is true, then maybe both should be banned.

however I dont think something that needs to hit very specific areas to sometimes be lethal at a very limited distance is comparable to the ar15. sure it's full auto, but if most of the bullets just bounce off and bruise, who cares? we can arrest this guy after the fact.

5 months, 1 week ago
Matthew354
replied to...

No, you can kill someone by aiming it at vital organs at a minimum of 50 yards; and most crimes are committed with a gun at a range of 7 yards (according to FBI crime data).

This is a dedicated killing machine and many ways more lethal than a firearm: a very silent killer in relation to firearms, ammo is much cheaper, ammo is easier to cast and manufacture than conventional firearm ammo, its fully automatic, and pretty much unregulated (every state in the US doesn't mind it being sent your door as if it wasn't a weapon to begin with).

If you looked closely at the weapon, it can penetrate full soda cans just as much as human flesh.

5 months, 1 week ago

I googled this thing. the only way it could kill someone is if you pressed it up against someone's eye. in what way is that deadlier that a dedicated killing machine?

5 months, 1 week ago
Discuss "SMG 22 airgun is much more lethal in killing multiple unarmed people than the feared AR15" politics
Add an argument!
Use the arrow keys to navigate between statements. Press "A" to agree and press "D" to disagree.