Some people claim the AR-15 is useless for self-defense. While I tend to prefer other options for most purposes, I’ve always disagreed about the weapon being “useless” in any way. There are just other options that fit my skillset and needs for most things.

I still have one, though.

However, perhaps one argument for having an AR-15 for self-defense purposes is that of deterrence. After all, we’ve heard some amazing stories of just how deadly these weapons are.

Now, thanks to Kostas Moros, we have one more:

One of the "expert" reports the state filed in Rupp last month is just….wow.

Read it at the link below, but I'll also give you some excerpts. Starting with:https://t.co/zNEZTtQU93 pic.twitter.com/vpmV6oO4HL

— Kostas Moros (@MorosKostas) February 11, 2023

That’s right. A single round can cut a man in twain. (Yes, I wrote it that way because I always wanted to seriously talk about cutting a person “in twain.” Sue me.)

And, as the late-night infomercial guy says, wait, there’s more.

Pistol grips make rifles more lethal! pic.twitter.com/AQycX9vpE1

— Kostas Moros (@MorosKostas) February 11, 2023

Forward grips kill too, and folding stocks are dangerous! pic.twitter.com/Sv6TVx7vZq

— Kostas Moros (@MorosKostas) February 11, 2023

And in this one, it seems the author, retired Col. Craig A. Tucker, argues that his pistol was for defensive use rather than his M-4 which was for offensive use.

This guy was made in a Giffords lab. pic.twitter.com/cjqUm5kDRY

— Kostas Moros (@MorosKostas) February 11, 2023

Never mind the fact that when a base is attacked, troops use their M-4s, not their pistols. Apparently, defensive operations still count as offensive operations. Look, it doesn’t have to make sense. We’re just the peons who have silly ideas about owning dangerous weapons of war. What would we know?

Obviously, Twitter took to dunking on the colonel.

However, the truth of the matter is that whatever Tucker tried to claim is nothing more than fantasy, it’s the “I was in the military so I actually know guns” when no, that’s not necessarily the case. I was in the military, but most of my weapons knowledge came from before or after my time in uniform, not during.

The same is true for a lot of others who served but now try to advance the ideas of gun control.

The truth of the matter is that the 5.56 round doesn’t do that kind of damage. It’s a fantasy gun control advocates have developed in their minds to warrant the banning of such weapons. Yet it’s worth noting that the reason such a round isn’t permitted for deer hunting isn’t that it’s too deadly but because it’s too weak. It may not cleanly kill an animal, thus allowing them to suffer for a long time before dying, often after traveling miles and making recovery of the kill difficult.

Of course, there is a rebuttal to Tucker’s bizarre claims about the AR-15.

Here is the declaration of our expert we brought in to rebut this nonsense. And my favorite bit:https://t.co/0VszuCPJiI pic.twitter.com/7WjTUAmJ34

— Kostas Moros (@MorosKostas) February 11, 2023

The terrifying thing, though, is that such a rebuttal report was even needed. Honestly, on the face of things, this is a claim so bizarre that it shouldn’t even be taken seriously. After all, if that were the case, where’s the footage of enemy soldiers torn in two or decapitated by a single round from an American troop?

After all, after two decades of warfare, the American military shot a lot of people with 5.56, with weapons similar enough to the AR-15 for our purposes here. Where’s the evidence supporting such a claim?

Simply put, all such evidence exists within Tucker’s head.

At the end of the day, though, this is the kind of misinformation we will continue to see and see held up as authoritative. It’s nothing of the sort.

But it is comedy gold, so we at least have that.