I grew up in the shooting sports - and was a bit of a gun nerd. I got to spend some time (late 60s) with the guys developing rounds in the Waltham Armory, and I can't help but wonder if the kind of round the AR-15 chambers is part of the issue. They were developing rounds intended to produce hydrostatic shock, so damage far out of proportion to the kinetic energy (weight x speed) of the round.

Anyone know if the AR-15 will work (in the sense of operate the gas-operated reload system) with a less lethal load? If it can, maybe it's worth targeting the round as the 'kid-killer' the same way bullets intended to penetrate ballistic vests were dubbed 'cop-killers'.

Without getting into how the NRA has managed to turn the AR-15 into a kind of political third rail - or the NRA's primary mission being one of protecting gun manufacturers.

Great write-up, BTW, although I’m of the opinion that the Founders intent was more about state militias and protecting states from the federal (potentially monarchical) government — and not about individual gun ownership (although I live in the town where most of the original ‘minute men’ that fought at the Concord bridge came from — so having your muzzle-loader close to hand was the expected thing). That State/Federal thing got sorted in the Civil War, IMO, and morphing the 2nd amendment into an individual right to bear comes out of the Supreme Court. We’ve recently been slapped in the face with the reality that anything the SC can decide, they can reverse — if enough of us focus long enough on shifting the court.

Just my $0.02…