Trump about Parkland: I really believe I’d run in there even if I didn’t have a weapon

[Peter King]

During a White House event with the nations governors, POTUS 45 said that he would have run in there without a weapon and would have confronted the shooter.

Now I do not know if he meant to imply that he would do that in this day and age or when he was "younger" but it is a bold statement to say the least from a man who once said:

“I’m not good for medical. In other words, if you cut your finger and there’s blood pouring out, I’m gone,”

Or who said about an event at Mar-a-lago when some person fell of the stage, where he looked away from the man when he started bleeding, saying:

“He was right in front of me and I turned away. I didn’t want to touch him … he’s bleeding all over the place, I felt terrible,” Trump said. “You know, beautiful marble floor, didn’t look like it. It changed color. Became very red.”

So let us talk about this because he has made this a "thing", would a 70+ puffy moderately obese man with no combat training go in and confront a 19 year old young person with an AR-15 while he was shooting it wildly around?

Because I do not believe that is something Trump, a man who got deferred several times on the grounds of bone-spurs would be a person that would run into the path of a AR-15 wielding mad man. How about you?

 

[Peter King]

I will own up myself, I would not and I doubt Donald Trump would confront an AR15 wielding nut job totally unarmed especially not at this age.

 

[Praxas]

Trump would have made history as being the only person to develop bone spurs within seconds of being on the scene and unable to go in at the last minute.

 

[NeverTrump]

During a White House event with the nations governors, POTUS 45 said that he would have run in there without a weapon and would have confronted the shooter.

Now I do not know if he meant to imply that he would do that in this day and age or when he was "younger" but it is a bold statement to say the least from a man who once said:



Or who said about an event at Mar-a-lago when some person fell of the stage, where he looked away from the man when he started bleeding, saying:



So let us talk about this because he has made this a "thing", would a 70+ puffy moderately obese man with no combat training go in and confront a 19 year old young person with an AR-15 while he was shooting it wildly around?

Because I do not believe that is something Trump, a man who got deferred several times on the grounds of bone-spurs would be a person that would run into the path of a AR-15 wielding mad man. How about you?

dang, I chose the wrong one. I meant to say. No. No.

 

[Praxas]

Voted Other: I may or may not have if I had been in the same situation with the same weaponry. I have walked into a burning room and got burnt bad but I have also hesitated going into a neighbors house when a suspected burglar was in there and waited for police to arrive. I simply don't know what I would do in the same situation.

I can say that the job of that resource officer was to go in the building. He didn't, he is alive, he will have to deal with that choice.

I have no doubt in my mind Trump wouldn't do anything and at the most would have ordered someone else to go in.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Yes, I would.

 

[americanwoman]

Other.

If I am at a school, the chances are it'd be my daughter's school and I'd have no choice. Although I would try not to engage or confront any shooter, I would definitely run into the school and do what I could to try to get my daughter even though I'd be scared ****less.

I don't believe Trump would.

 

[Anagram]

If the circumstances were such, as I believe they would be here, that it is overwhelmingly likely that I would die and that no one would be saved, I think it would be unreasonable for me to run at the shooter without a weapon. Even before looking at the value I place I on my own life, that would be an unreasonably low value on my life, considering the people in it who depend on me.

I would like to think I’d take any action where the risk/reward (chance of me dying vs. chance of benefiting others) makes the action worth it. But as I’ve never been in a similar situation I don’t know how accurately I can predict what I can do.

I don’t feel I can reasonably predict what Trump would do, but I don’t think he can reasonably predict what he’d do in the situation either.

 

[jamesrage]

During a White House event with the nations governors, POTUS 45 said that he would have run in there without a weapon and would have confronted the shooter.

Now I do not know if he meant to imply that he would do that in this day and age or when he was "younger" but it is a bold statement to say the least from a man who once said:



Or who said about an event at Mar-a-lago when some person fell of the stage, where he looked away from the man when he started bleeding, saying:



So let us talk about this because he has made this a "thing", would a 70+ puffy moderately obese man with no combat training go in and confront a 19 year old young person with an AR-15 while he was shooting it wildly around?

Because I do not believe that is something Trump, a man who got deferred several times on the grounds of bone-spurs would be a person that would run into the path of a AR-15 wielding mad man. How about you?

It doesn't matter what firearm someone is packing, it is suicide to confront them if you yourself are unarmed.

 

[Peter King]

It doesn't matter what firearm someone is packing, it is suicide to confront them if you yourself are unarmed.

If you are with a few people on the guy only has a revolver which he has already fired a few times, then maybe it is not suicide because then you would have the bad luck of being struck in an spot that could kill you but I have read that an AR15 does much much more damage to a body than a normal lower yield bullet would cause.

 

[jamesrage]

If you are with a few people on the guy only has a revolver which he has already fired a few times, then maybe it is not suicide because then you would have the bad luck of being struck in an spot that could kill you

1.You don't know how proficient he is with a revolver.

2.You don't know if he has speed loaders and how fast he is at using them.

3.He could have a spare gun.Most mass shooters tend to have a spare firearm with them.

4.Revolvers come in different calibers and fire different types of rounds. So the damage could vary. You could be getting hit with something bigger than a .223/5.56 or you might be getting hit with something smaller than a .223/5.56.

but I have read that an AR15 does much much more damage to a body than a normal lower yield bullet would cause.

A lot of that is myth. You are probably thinking about the tumbling effect of the 5.56 full metal jacket round, which is mostly used with M16 assault rifles. The AR15 mostly fire .223 and some can fire both .223 and 5.56 rounds. From what I understand the standard .223 round and 5.56 rounds that are used for hunting are not full metal jacket and are meant to kill. The 5.56 ammo are full metal jacket rounds which from what I understand are designed more to injure than to kill. From what my drill sergeant told us the 5.56 rounds when entering a human body tumble causing injury.This is probably happens by the distribution of the weight of the full metal jacket round and since its not supposed to break up when hitting a target. He explained to us that a injured enemy soldier needs help off the battlefield a dead one doesn't. So by injuring one enemy soldier you remove 2 to 3 enemy soldiers from the battlefield. I think due to some Geneva convention rules you are not supposed to intentionally kill the enemy. This is probably why its illegal to use full metal jacket rounds to hunt with and why they are okay on the battlefield and shooting rangesAlso from what I also understand this tumbling effect is not just with the 5.56 round full metal jacket rounds but other calibers of full metal jacket rounds as well. I am no firearms expert, so I don't know how much of this is accurate. I am sure someone who is a expert will correct me if I or the article is wrong on this.


Myths of military full metal jacket ammunition. - CNN iReport

 

[Peter King]

A lot of that is myth.

That is not what these doctors said.

I was looking at a CT scan of one of the mass-shooting victims from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, who had been brought to the trauma center during my call shift. The organ looked like an overripe melon smashed by a sledgehammer, and was bleeding extensively. How could a gunshot wound have caused this much damage?

The reaction in the emergency room was the same. One of the trauma surgeons opened a young victim in the operating room, and found only shreds of the organ that had been hit by a bullet from an AR-15, a semiautomatic rifle that delivers a devastatingly lethal, high-velocity bullet to the victim. Nothing was left to repair—and utterly, devastatingly, nothing could be done to fix the problem. The injury was fatal.

A year ago, when a gunman opened fire at the Fort Lauderdale airport with a 9 mm semi handgun, hitting 11 people in 90 seconds, I was also on call. It was not until I had diagnosed the third of the six victims who were transported to the trauma center that I realized something out of the ordinary must have happened. The gunshot wounds were the same low-velocity handgun injuries that I diagnose every day; only their rapid succession set them apart. And all six of the victims who arrived at the hospital that day survived.

Routine handgun injuries leave entry and exit wounds and linear tracks through the victim’s body that are roughly the size of the bullet. If the bullet does not directly hit something crucial like the heart or the aorta, and the victim does not bleed to death before being transported to our care at the trauma center, chances are that we can save him. The bullets fired by an AR-15 are different: They travel at a higher velocity and are far more lethal than routine bullets fired from a handgun. The damage they cause is a function of the energy they impart as they pass through the body. A typical AR-15 bullet leaves the barrel traveling almost three times faster than—and imparting more than three times the energy of—a typical 9mm bullet from a handgun. An AR-15 rifle outfitted with a magazine with 50 rounds allows many more lethal bullets to be delivered quickly without reloading.

I have seen a handful of AR-15 injuries in my career. Years ago I saw one from a man shot in the back by a SWAT team. The injury along the path of the bullet from an AR-15 is vastly different from a low-velocity handgun injury. The bullet from an AR-15 passes through the body like a cigarette boat traveling at maximum speed through a tiny canal. The tissue next to the bullet is elastic—moving away from the bullet like waves of water displaced by the boat—and then returns and settles back. This process is called cavitation; it leaves the displaced tissue damaged or killed. The high-velocity bullet causes a swath of tissue damage that extends several inches from its path. It does not have to actually hit an artery to damage it and cause catastrophic bleeding. Exit wounds can be the size of an orange.

With an AR-15, the shooter does not have to be particularly accurate. The victim does not have to be unlucky. If a victim takes a direct hit to the liver from an AR-15, the damage is far graver than that of a simple handgun-shot injury. Handgun injuries to the liver are generally survivable unless the bullet hits the main blood supply to the liver. An AR-15 bullet wound to the middle of the liver would cause so much bleeding that the patient would likely never make it to the trauma center to receive our care.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/02/what-i-saw-treating-the-victims-from-parkland-should-change-the-debate-on-guns/553937/

The AR-15, the semiautomatic rifle used at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in the deadliest high school shooting in U.S. history, uses bullets that can cause softball-sized exit wounds, leaving behind a significantly larger trail of mangled tissue compared to handgun bullets.
For trauma surgeons, the injuries are harder to repair. For victims, the chances of survival are lower.
“We’re surgeons, we’re not gods,” said Dr. Nicholas Namias, the director of Ryder Trauma Center at Jackson Memorial Hospital in Miami, which treats about 400 serious gunshot injuries every year. “If you have an injury from a bullet going through an artery at a low velocity, you repair it and go on your way. If you have a high velocity bullet, now you have a huge cavity. Imagine a cavity the size of your fist where everything that should have been there no longer is. How do you fix that?”

Parkland: AR-15 injuries harder to treat than handgun wounds | Miami Herald

 

[Skeptic Bob]

I don’t know what I would do. I certainly wouldn’t take the assailant head on unarmed. I’m a big dude so if I thought I could tackle him by surprise maybe. Or I might freeze. No clue.

 

[Captain America]

To be fair Trump DID preface with a disclaimer. He said he THINKS he would have ran in there.

Which is kinda funny. But he MIGHT pay someone to do it for him. (And then refuse to pay them as he is known to do.)

If there was EVER a shadow of a doubt in my mind that Trump was not a ****ing idiot, let me say that doubt has been removed.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

During a White House event with the nations governors, POTUS 45 said that he would have run in there without a weapon and would have confronted the shooter.

Now I do not know if he meant to imply that he would do that in this day and age or when he was "younger" but it is a bold statement to say the least from a man who once said:



Or who said about an event at Mar-a-lago when some person fell of the stage, where he looked away from the man when he started bleeding, saying:



So let us talk about this because he has made this a "thing", would a 70+ puffy moderately obese man with no combat training go in and confront a 19 year old young person with an AR-15 while he was shooting it wildly around?

Because I do not believe that is something Trump, a man who got deferred several times on the grounds of bone-spurs would be a person that would run into the path of a AR-15 wielding mad man. How about you?

 

[Hari Seldon]

During a White House event with the nations governors, POTUS 45 said that he would have run in there without a weapon and would have confronted the shooter.

Now I do not know if he meant to imply that he would do that in this day and age or when he was "younger" but it is a bold statement to say the least from a man who once said:



Or who said about an event at Mar-a-lago when some person fell of the stage, where he looked away from the man when he started bleeding, saying:



So let us talk about this because he has made this a "thing", would a 70+ puffy moderately obese man with no combat training go in and confront a 19 year old young person with an AR-15 while he was shooting it wildly around?

Because I do not believe that is something Trump, a man who got deferred several times on the grounds of bone-spurs would be a person that would run into the path of a AR-15 wielding mad man. How about you?

I feel so much safer.

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

 

[justabubba]

no way would this president lie to us in order to burnish his reputation



but as he beagn to make his way into the school, i suspect those old bone spurs would start acting up, much the same way as they were a problem after he graduated from military school, rendering him ineligible to serve in the viet nam era military



but no doubt he would tweet support from the sideline

 

[Fearandloathing]

no way would this president lie to us in order to burnish his reputation



but as he beagn to make his way into the school, i suspect those old bone spurs would start acting up, much the same way as they were a problem after he graduated from military school, rendering him ineligible to serve in the viet nam era military



but no doubt he would tweet support from the sideline

No, he would tweet criticisms of the professionals who were actually trying to do something.

America is in the hands of a madman

 

[Mizzy22]

I don't see him running in there with a huge steaming load in his panties

 

[Grand Mal]

no way would this president lie to us in order to burnish his reputation



but as he beagn to make his way into the school, i suspect those old bone spurs would start acting up, much the same way as they were a problem after he graduated from military school, rendering him ineligible to serve in the viet nam era military



but no doubt he would tweet support from the sideline

He'd run in there faster than anyone ever ran in there before.

 

[Fearandloathing]

During a White House event with the nations governors, POTUS 45 said that he would have run in there without a weapon and would have confronted the shooter.

Now I do not know if he meant to imply that he would do that in this day and age or when he was "younger" but it is a bold statement to say the least from a man who once said:



Or who said about an event at Mar-a-lago when some person fell of the stage, where he looked away from the man when he started bleeding, saying:



So let us talk about this because he has made this a "thing", would a 70+ puffy moderately obese man with no combat training go in and confront a 19 year old young person with an AR-15 while he was shooting it wildly around?

Because I do not believe that is something Trump, a man who got deferred several times on the grounds of bone-spurs would be a person that would run into the path of a AR-15 wielding mad man. How about you?

ah.....

Americans?

You have an a dishonest, lying, idiot moron coward in the White House.

The only fight he's ever been in has been using lawyers, he'd shove his best friend in first if anyone went in at all

 

[Peter King]

ah.....

Americans?

You have an a dishonest, lying, idiot moron coward in the White House.

The only fight he's ever been in has been using lawyers, he'd shove his best friend in first if anyone went in at all

Does the man have actual friends? I am not that sure he knows what true friendship is.

 

[jamesrage]

That is not what these doctors said.

Doctors are not firearms experts. Besides that I am sure you can google hunting rifle wound and see all sorts of different wound sizes depending on the caliber of the round.


Differnet size calibers of rounds cause different size entry and exit holes.

 

[Peter King]

Doctors are not firearms experts.

No, they are just about the ultimate experts on what damage weapons cause in bodies/human living flesh. Those are 2 physicians who clearly state that AR15 and similar leave damage far worse than other firearms.

 

[ttwtt78640]

No, they are just about the ultimate experts on what damage weapons cause in bodies/human living flesh. Those are 2 physicians who clearly state that AR15 and similar leave damage far worse than other firearms.

Meaning any that fire a 5.56mm or .223 rifle round? Oh my, what about those that fire .270, .243 or 7mm rifle rounds?

It stands to reason that the "must be banned" list would expand exponentially if firing bullets that inflict serious and deadly wounds is the new test.