|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On April 18 2013 10:00 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2013 09:46 FallDownMarigold wrote:On April 18 2013 09:42 ahswtini wrote:On April 18 2013 09:38 FallDownMarigold wrote:On April 18 2013 09:13 ahswtini wrote:
NRA is [...] comprised of millions of everyday American citizens. Uh... you phrased it in a very loose, open-to-interpretation way, so maybe you had a different definition of "everyday American citizen" in mind. Personally, I'd strongly disagree that its members are "everyday American citizens". On the other hand, if some massive anti-gun organization existed akin to the NRA, I would also disagree that its members would be "everyday American citizens". Yes, the members are also citizens of the US everyday they live here in the US, but they really don't hold neutral views, which I would associate more comfortably with the term "everyday citizen" (one without an agenda or polarized opinion on something). So your idea of an everyday citizen is someone who has no opinion or anything? No, it's one who has an opinion held by most people, on average. I think that the opinion, on average, of NRA members, likely does not align with the opinion, on average, of US citizens as a whole collection. The problem with the average citizen, is that the average citizen knows NOTHING about the issue. If you ask them what an assault weapon is, they'll say a machine gun, or assault rifle. Except that those aren't what an "Assault Weapon" is, and are already strictly regulated. They don't realize that gun deaths are at the lowest they've been since the early 90's. They don't realize more people die from alcohol (even excluding liver failure) and alcohol related accidents. They don't realize there's 300,000,000 guns in the US, but only 300,000 gun crimes a year. Even if EVERY crime was a different gun, that still leaves 299,700,000 guns that weren't involved in a crime. The average citizen shouldn't get to decide, or even really have much say at all, because the average citizen doesn't really know what they're talking about.
You do realize that none of those facts prove that increasing gun control could eventually result in gun violence reduction, as is true for many countries in Europe. That more people die of other causes is an unrelated fact. That gun violence is lower now than previously does not mean that attempting to lower it further is not worthwhile. That there are many more guns in the US than there are gun crimes does not mean much of anything (there are more cars than there are car accidents).
On to "assault weapons". Firstly, there is no clear-cut definition of what an assault weapon is. There have been multiple political definition, for starters. From a hardcore military perspective, armchair enthusiasts will likely argue that for a rifle to be classified as a true "assault rifle", it must have capacity for automatic fire, thus eliminating many popular AR-15 and AK-47 civilian variants from being classified as "assault rifles". Think about it like this, however: In real combat scenarios, in which war fighters outside the wire on combat ops come into contact with enemy combatants, the fact that select-fire is there is meaningless in most cases. A soldier does not spray full automatic fire in these situations as his first choice of action. The way the M4 is used is effectively no different from the way semi-automatic AR-15 rifles are used. Single, accurate shots.
An AR-15 absolutely is an assault weapon for all practical purposes in my opinion. It is a weapon capable of accurately engaging targets easily out to 200M, and much more provided the one pulling the trigger is well trained. It is suited for tactical grip and mobility (unlike long rifles). It accepts detachable 30+ rd magazines. Barring barrel length configurations and select-fire capacity, it is indistinguishable from a military variant AR-15, the M4.
|
Ironicaly the Ar-15 was the original modern rifle. The M-16 is its actual military variant and was then accepted by the military as the main battle rifle.
On the other hand I don't see why you're breaking down the different armchair military practicality of which weapon would cause the most damage and you come up with single shot rifles are the best for this. Even a hunting rifle would be better with its ability to go though multiple people per bullet, go though most cover, and would have much better range at this then any military style rifle. A pistol would be better at close range with how easy it is to hold, shoot, and reload.
Then again the real cause of gun violence in america isn't as scary as "assault weapons" are so there isn't a point for them to try and ban them. The anti gun crowd has been floundering for decades now and the NRA just keeps getting stronger by the day.
|
On April 18 2013 11:28 Sermokala wrote:
Ironicaly the Ar-15 was the original modern rifle. The M-16 is its actual military variant and was then accepted by the military as the main battle rifle.
On the other hand I don't see why you're breaking down the different armchair military practicality of which weapon would cause the most damage and you come up with single shot rifles are the best for this. Even a hunting rifle would be better with its ability to go though multiple people per bullet, go though most cover, and would have much better range at this then any military style rifle. A pistol would be better at close range with how easy it is to hold, shoot, and reload.
Then again the real cause of gun violence in america isn't as scary as "assault weapons" are so there isn't a point for them to try and ban them. The anti gun crowd has been floundering for decades now and the NRA just keeps getting stronger by the day.
I am defining the civilian variant AR-15 as an assault weapon because I believe the poster to which I replied was implying that what many call "assault weapons" aren't actually assault weapons, due to some technicality, such as there being no select-fire.
With regard to your second paragraph, I will respond that I did not ever say a "single shot rifle is more deadly". I said that per military training, shooters opt to fire single shots rather than to spray full automatic. It results in more effective fire power, more ammunition efficiency, and so on. Next point: A hunting rifle would not necessarily inflict more damage than a military-style assault rifle. This is completely off-topic, but I see no reason not to let you hear my understanding now that you've raised the topic: Hunting rifles, while typically chambered for larger bullets than M4/AR15s, are not necessarily better at killing people. The reason is that while the larger round packs a stronger punch, the smaller round travels faster, and actually tumbles to create a large wound cavity, which induces massive tissue damage and subsequent bleed out. In fact, an original 5.56mm round designed for the AR-15 was rejected per Geneva, due to the fact that the wound profile was excessively destructive. I believe this round was the M193 -- a 5.56mm round with a particularly nasty wound profile, which would fragment in addition to the cavitation effects. They actually had to select another 5.56 variant -- one that wouldn't cause as much fragmentation.
And now to address one last point of yours..which is really off topic, so I'll spoiler it so others don't need to waste time
+ Show Spoiler +A pistol is not better for close quarter battle. A rifle is always preferred over a pistol in all circumstances. If a war fighter has access to a functional rifle, he will continue using it and only opt to use a sidearm when it is no longer possible to use the rifle.
|
On April 18 2013 11:05 RCMDVA wrote:
The 12 questions on the ATF form. Answer YES to #1 and NO to all the rest, with some exceptions...and you can get a gun.
1 Are you the buyer of this firearm? (straw purchase question)
2 Are you a felon?
3 Are you under felony indictment?
4 Are you a fugitive? Got a warrant?
5 Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana, or any depressant, stimulant, or narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?
6 Have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective (which includes having been adjudicated incompetent to manage your own affairs) or have you ever been committed to a mental institution?
7 Dishonorable discharge?
8 Any protective orders / restraining orders?
9 Any domestic violence charges?
10 Have you renounced US citizenship?
11 Illegal alien?
12 Non-immigrant alien?
#5 and #6 are the really critical ones. Because to my knowledge almost none of the mass murders I can think of have really lied on their ATF form. I don't think any have been **ADJUDICATED** or **COMITTED** to a mental institution. They may have been batshit crazy..but no court said so in advance.
#5 Some people say Loughner lied on his ATF form because he smoked weed. Well if it is interpreted that way... then looking at the number of admitted pot smokers...and the number of gun owners in the US.... there are many many many millions of felons and/or ineligible buyers of guns then.
They only way to enforce mental health would be to have a psychologist at every gun dealer...with regular 2-3 year mandatory mental health checks for every gun owner. Impossible.
You don't know what is inside someone's head. Intent is the absolute hardest thing to prove in a court of law.
And right now we don't have Tom Cruise and the Department of PreCrime.
The point of this ^^^ is that...the ATF form IS the background check. What else then..that would be effective..can you add to it?
This is not the background check this is the Dealer Record of Sale. The background check is when the dealer calls NICS that is to say the FBI National Instant Criminal Background Check System.
|
On April 18 2013 11:30 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2013 11:28 Sermokala wrote:
Ironicaly the Ar-15 was the original modern rifle. The M-16 is its actual military variant and was then accepted by the military as the main battle rifle.
On the other hand I don't see why you're breaking down the different armchair military practicality of which weapon would cause the most damage and you come up with single shot rifles are the best for this. Even a hunting rifle would be better with its ability to go though multiple people per bullet, go though most cover, and would have much better range at this then any military style rifle. A pistol would be better at close range with how easy it is to hold, shoot, and reload.
Then again the real cause of gun violence in america isn't as scary as "assault weapons" are so there isn't a point for them to try and ban them. The anti gun crowd has been floundering for decades now and the NRA just keeps getting stronger by the day. I am defining the civilian variant AR-15 as an assault weapon because I believe the poster to which I replied was implying that what many call "assault weapons" aren't actually assault weapons, due to some technicality, such as there being no select-fire.
I would say it's more along the lines of: what many call "assault weapons" aren't assault weapons because that's not an actual technical designation and has no actual definition or application as a term outside of political fear-mongering.
If you want to talk assault RIFLES, fine. Assault Weapons aren't real. It's the categorical equivalent of shouting "Nazi" at someone. Emotionally evocative, nonspecific and subjective.
|
On April 18 2013 09:47 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2013 09:38 ahswtini wrote:
Do you really think a background check will have stopped Lanza? I can just imagine what he would've been thinking: "I could shoot my own mother right now with her guns, but that would be illegal because I haven't had a background check to allow me to have her guns!" More like, "Why won't my mommy buy me guns! Waaaaaah!" Who know's right? If it was illegal for her to share guns with her son, maybe she wouldn't have bought them in the first place. It was my understanding the only reason she collected guns was so she could share a hobby with her weird, distant son. Again, doesn't keep a crazy person from trying to do something crazy, but why make it easy?
Requiring someone to have a license to shoot a gun they don't own is a terrible idea lol...
Unless the only option for people to shoot is at a range how could they ever hope to enforce the law... Have a cop sitting in every bush across the US keeping an eye out?
Even if a cop did find some people shooting guns if one person doesn't have a license is he going to be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the unlicensed person was shooting?
|
Which does what? It checks 2-12.
|
On April 18 2013 11:21 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2013 10:00 Millitron wrote:On April 18 2013 09:46 FallDownMarigold wrote:On April 18 2013 09:42 ahswtini wrote:On April 18 2013 09:38 FallDownMarigold wrote:On April 18 2013 09:13 ahswtini wrote:
NRA is [...] comprised of millions of everyday American citizens. Uh... you phrased it in a very loose, open-to-interpretation way, so maybe you had a different definition of "everyday American citizen" in mind. Personally, I'd strongly disagree that its members are "everyday American citizens". On the other hand, if some massive anti-gun organization existed akin to the NRA, I would also disagree that its members would be "everyday American citizens". Yes, the members are also citizens of the US everyday they live here in the US, but they really don't hold neutral views, which I would associate more comfortably with the term "everyday citizen" (one without an agenda or polarized opinion on something). So your idea of an everyday citizen is someone who has no opinion or anything? No, it's one who has an opinion held by most people, on average. I think that the opinion, on average, of NRA members, likely does not align with the opinion, on average, of US citizens as a whole collection. The problem with the average citizen, is that the average citizen knows NOTHING about the issue. If you ask them what an assault weapon is, they'll say a machine gun, or assault rifle. Except that those aren't what an "Assault Weapon" is, and are already strictly regulated. They don't realize that gun deaths are at the lowest they've been since the early 90's. They don't realize more people die from alcohol (even excluding liver failure) and alcohol related accidents. They don't realize there's 300,000,000 guns in the US, but only 300,000 gun crimes a year. Even if EVERY crime was a different gun, that still leaves 299,700,000 guns that weren't involved in a crime. The average citizen shouldn't get to decide, or even really have much say at all, because the average citizen doesn't really know what they're talking about. You do realize that none of those facts prove that increasing gun control could eventually result in gun violence reduction, as is true for many countries in Europe. That more people die of other causes is an unrelated fact. That gun violence is lower now than previously does not mean that attempting to lower it further is not worthwhile. That there are many more guns in the US than there are gun crimes does not mean much of anything (there are more cars than there are car accidents). On to "assault weapons". Firstly, there is no clear-cut definition of what an assault weapon is. There have been multiple political definition, for starters. From a hardcore military perspective, armchair enthusiasts will likely argue that for a rifle to be classified as a true "assault rifle", it must have capacity for automatic fire, thus eliminating many popular AR-15 and AK-47 civilian variants from being classified as "assault rifles". Think about it like this, however: In real combat scenarios, in which war fighters outside the wire on combat ops come into contact with enemy combatants, the fact that select-fire is there is meaningless in most cases. A soldier does not spray full automatic fire in these situations as his first choice of action. The way the M4 is used is effectively no different from the way semi-automatic AR-15 rifles are used. Single, accurate shots. An AR-15 absolutely is an assault weapon for all practical purposes in my opinion. It is a weapon capable of accurately engaging targets easily out to 200M, and much more provided the one pulling the trigger is well trained. It is suited for tactical grip and mobility (unlike long rifles). It accepts detachable 30+ rd magazines. Barring barrel length configurations and select-fire capacity, it is indistinguishable from a military variant AR-15, the M4.
Deaths being caused more frequently by other causes absolutely is relevant, because it shows that gun violence is not some crazy plague. Same with gun violence rates being down. And if the goal is to save lives as gun control advocates claim, why not start trying to fix the most lethal problems first? Why start with the relatively minor causes of death?
The fact that there are so many guns yet so few gun crimes (relatively) shows that guns are not to blame. If guns were actually to blame, there'd be far many more gun crimes.
It doesn't matter how you define an assault weapon; I know it varies state to state. The point is, your average citizen doesn't know the definition, and so their opinion is meaningless.
I never said the AR-15 wasn't an assault weapon. But it doesn't really matter whether it is or isn't. It should be legal either way.
|
On April 18 2013 11:40 Kimaker wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2013 11:30 FallDownMarigold wrote:On April 18 2013 11:28 Sermokala wrote:
Ironicaly the Ar-15 was the original modern rifle. The M-16 is its actual military variant and was then accepted by the military as the main battle rifle.
On the other hand I don't see why you're breaking down the different armchair military practicality of which weapon would cause the most damage and you come up with single shot rifles are the best for this. Even a hunting rifle would be better with its ability to go though multiple people per bullet, go though most cover, and would have much better range at this then any military style rifle. A pistol would be better at close range with how easy it is to hold, shoot, and reload.
Then again the real cause of gun violence in america isn't as scary as "assault weapons" are so there isn't a point for them to try and ban them. The anti gun crowd has been floundering for decades now and the NRA just keeps getting stronger by the day. I am defining the civilian variant AR-15 as an assault weapon because I believe the poster to which I replied was implying that what many call "assault weapons" aren't actually assault weapons, due to some technicality, such as there being no select-fire. I would say it's more along the lines of: what many call "assault weapons" aren't assault weapons because that's not an actual technical designation and has no actual definition or application as a term outside of political fear-mongering. If you want to talk assault RIFLES, fine. Assault Weapons aren't real. It's the categorical equivalent of shouting "Nazi" at someone. Emotionally evocative, nonspecific and subjective.
Oh. Alright, sure. I hereby request that all previous uses of "assault weapon" in my posts be replaced with "assault rifle". There we go.
@Millitron
Ok. Appreciate that clarification. While we're at it... Would you mind outlining your argument for why weapons like AR-15s should remain legal? I'm interested to know more about what these argument are like. Personally, I understand that the AR-15 and similar weapon systems are very enjoyable from my own experiences, but at the same time I've grown to believe that they absolutely should be strictly controlled or illegal -- even if that affects me directly as someone who has used these guns, who may no longer be able to use them if rules change.
Just one other point I wanted to touch... The thing about addressing other more common causes of death rather than firearm death is that many of them are no easier to address than deaths caused by firearms -- in fact most of them are harder to address. Heart disease, Alzheimer's, diabetes, cancer -- sure, these all kill many more people than guns kill, but they are all much harder to address. Indeed, we pour BILLIONS into these diseases, but tangible success is limited by scientific progress, technology, etc. As for car deaths, it seems that there is no way to lower deaths other than to create safer cars and driving conditions -- something surely very difficult to conceive and achieve, much like gun control.
|
On April 18 2013 11:30 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2013 11:28 Sermokala wrote:
Ironicaly the Ar-15 was the original modern rifle. The M-16 is its actual military variant and was then accepted by the military as the main battle rifle.
On the other hand I don't see why you're breaking down the different armchair military practicality of which weapon would cause the most damage and you come up with single shot rifles are the best for this. Even a hunting rifle would be better with its ability to go though multiple people per bullet, go though most cover, and would have much better range at this then any military style rifle. A pistol would be better at close range with how easy it is to hold, shoot, and reload.
Then again the real cause of gun violence in america isn't as scary as "assault weapons" are so there isn't a point for them to try and ban them. The anti gun crowd has been floundering for decades now and the NRA just keeps getting stronger by the day. I am defining the civilian variant AR-15 as an assault weapon because I believe the poster to which I replied was implying that what many call "assault weapons" aren't actually assault weapons, due to some technicality, such as there being no select-fire. With regard to your second paragraph, I will respond that I did not ever say a "single shot rifle is more deadly". I said that per military training, shooters opt to fire single shots rather than to spray full automatic. It results in more effective fire power, more ammunition efficiency, and so on. Next point: A hunting rifle would not necessarily inflict more damage than a military-style assault rifle. This is completely off-topic, but I see no reason not to let you hear my understanding now that you've raised the topic: Hunting rifles, while typically chambered for larger bullets than M4/AR15s, are not necessarily better at killing people. The reason is that while the larger round packs a stronger punch, the smaller round travels faster, and actually tumbles to create a large wound cavity, which induces massive tissue damage and subsequent bleed out. In fact, an original 5.56mm round designed for the AR-15 was rejected per Geneva, due to the fact that the wound profile was excessively destructive. I believe this round was the M193 -- a 5.56mm round with a particularly nasty wound profile, which would fragment in addition to the cavitation effects. They actually had to select another 5.56 variant -- one that wouldn't cause as much fragmentation. And now to address one last point of yours..which is really off topic, so I'll spoiler it so others don't need to waste time + Show Spoiler +A pistol is not better for close quarter battle. A rifle is always preferred over a pistol in all circumstances. If a war fighter has access to a functional rifle, he will continue using it and only opt to use a sidearm when it is no longer possible to use the rifle.
"assault weapon" is a made up term used by gun control advocates to describe guns they think are scary but arn't classified as assault rifles. Assault rifles are just rifles that are fully automatic. there isn't some weird technicality that separates them there's a clear functional difference that separates my uncles hunting rifle from the war from a fully auto m4. Soldiers don't spray and pray when they're at skirmish distance because they aren't assaulting a building where they'd want that automatic fire rocking and rolling. A larger caliber round is better at killing someone because they'll cause more damage to people. They made the rounds smaller on a modern battle rifle to save space for ammo and to cause the target to be wounded and tie up more resources. They banned hollow points because of the massive damage that they caused (police still use them but thats another matter) Full metal jackets are deemed "more humane"
Pistol is better for urban warfare for how easy it is to hide and how fast it is to bring up to shoot. the shorter barrel is also much preferable, as see how popular the new bullpup design (fire the bullet in the stock instead) is getting with the IDF.
Drug dealers would be using rifles for their urban combat to kill the gang members if it was any better then the pistols that they use. Can't argue with real urban warfare statistics for whats better.
|
On April 18 2013 11:57 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2013 11:30 FallDownMarigold wrote:On April 18 2013 11:28 Sermokala wrote:
Ironicaly the Ar-15 was the original modern rifle. The M-16 is its actual military variant and was then accepted by the military as the main battle rifle.
On the other hand I don't see why you're breaking down the different armchair military practicality of which weapon would cause the most damage and you come up with single shot rifles are the best for this. Even a hunting rifle would be better with its ability to go though multiple people per bullet, go though most cover, and would have much better range at this then any military style rifle. A pistol would be better at close range with how easy it is to hold, shoot, and reload.
Then again the real cause of gun violence in america isn't as scary as "assault weapons" are so there isn't a point for them to try and ban them. The anti gun crowd has been floundering for decades now and the NRA just keeps getting stronger by the day. I am defining the civilian variant AR-15 as an assault weapon because I believe the poster to which I replied was implying that what many call "assault weapons" aren't actually assault weapons, due to some technicality, such as there being no select-fire. With regard to your second paragraph, I will respond that I did not ever say a "single shot rifle is more deadly". I said that per military training, shooters opt to fire single shots rather than to spray full automatic. It results in more effective fire power, more ammunition efficiency, and so on. Next point: A hunting rifle would not necessarily inflict more damage than a military-style assault rifle. This is completely off-topic, but I see no reason not to let you hear my understanding now that you've raised the topic: Hunting rifles, while typically chambered for larger bullets than M4/AR15s, are not necessarily better at killing people. The reason is that while the larger round packs a stronger punch, the smaller round travels faster, and actually tumbles to create a large wound cavity, which induces massive tissue damage and subsequent bleed out. In fact, an original 5.56mm round designed for the AR-15 was rejected per Geneva, due to the fact that the wound profile was excessively destructive. I believe this round was the M193 -- a 5.56mm round with a particularly nasty wound profile, which would fragment in addition to the cavitation effects. They actually had to select another 5.56 variant -- one that wouldn't cause as much fragmentation. And now to address one last point of yours..which is really off topic, so I'll spoiler it so others don't need to waste time + Show Spoiler +A pistol is not better for close quarter battle. A rifle is always preferred over a pistol in all circumstances. If a war fighter has access to a functional rifle, he will continue using it and only opt to use a sidearm when it is no longer possible to use the rifle. "assault weapon" is a made up term used by gun control advocates to describe guns they think are scary but arn't classified as assault rifles. Assault rifles are just rifles that are fully automatic. there isn't some weird technicality that separates them there's a clear functional difference that separates my uncles hunting rifle from the war from a fully auto m4. Soldiers don't spray and pray when they're at skirmish distance because they aren't assaulting a building where they'd want that automatic fire rocking and rolling. A larger caliber round is better at killing someone because they'll cause more damage to people. They made the rounds smaller on a modern battle rifle to save space for ammo and to cause the target to be wounded and tie up more resources. They banned hollow points because of the massive damage that they caused (police still use them but thats another matter) Full metal jackets are deemed "more humane" Pistol is better for urban warfare for how easy it is to hide and how fast it is to bring up to shoot. the shorter barrel is also much preferable, as see how popular the new bullpup design (fire the bullet in the stock instead) is getting with the IDF. Drug dealers would be using rifles for their urban combat to kill the gang members if it was any better then the pistols that they use. Can't argue with real urban warfare statistics for whats better.
People who know anything about guns in this thread are few and far between.
You are exactly right in what you say. In this country you cannot, as a private citizen, legally buy a gun that fires more than 1 round for 1 pull of the trigger, unless you can get an ATF license that is extremely hard to obtain. That has been the law since 1934.
Unless illegally modified, no gun that can be sold legally in this country can have burst fire or full auto. Semiautomatic is it.
|
Sermokala, I mean no offense by this, but reading over your last response to me tells me you are far into the theory-crafting side of things right now, especially with regard to your inaccurate descriptions of how soldiers behave in certain scenarios. All the things you said about larger rounds and hunting rifles being more deadly were flat out wrong. The stuff you just said is, for the most part, wrong. I could address each wrong point you raise about the nature of combat and provide you with evidence pointing to the contrary, but it would be completely counter productive.
Let's move on from the technical discussion of what constitutes a deadlier weapon. And let's definitely move on from whether we should be using "weapon" or "rifle" in our "assault _____" term -- we all know what we mean.
@Deep
Automatic fire has little to do with a rifle being an assault rifle, contrary to what Sermokala says. Soldiers with assault rifles capable of select-fire do not engage enemy combatants with full automatic in the first place, in the majority of situations. The way the select-fire M4 is used is effectively no different from the way the AR-15 is used. Sermokala claims a larger round necessarily kills better than a smaller round -- false. A 5.56 is just as deadly as a 7.62 -- they create different wound profiles and vastly different tumbling/yaw cavitation effects, both of which are equally deadly. He claims soldiers don't use full automatic except when they're "storming a building" which is totally false, just ask any combat veteran. Even in cqb situations, it is not instructed that soldiers opt to select-fire. An AR15 is just as deadly as an M4 war fighter's rifle, and thus I do not think they should be available to the public. That the former is not capable of select-fire should mean nothing.
|
On April 18 2013 12:04 FallDownMarigold wrote:
Sermokala, I mean no offense by this, but reading over your last response to me tells me you are far into the theory-crafting side of things right now, especially with regard to your inaccurate descriptions of how soldiers behave in certain scenarios. All the things you said about larger rounds and hunting rifles being more deadly were flat out wrong. The stuff you just said is, for the most part, wrong. I could address each wrong point you raise about the nature of combat and provide you with evidence pointing to the contrary, but it would be completely counter productive.
Let's move on from the technical discussion of what constitutes a deadlier weapon. And let's definitely move on from whether we should be using "weapon" or "rifle" in our "assault _____" term -- we all know what we mean.
But thats the heart of the issue. The voter DOESN'T know what we mean. Hell, many of the lawmakers don't know.
![[image loading]](http://www.gunsandammo.com/files/2013/02/Dianne-feinstein.jpg)
Check it, that's Diane Feinstein, the biggest gun control proponent around. Finger on the trigger, safety off, bolt closed, muzzle pointed in an unsafe direction. She's violating pretty much all of the basic rules of gun safety. You'd think someone in a position of power would've at least learned the basics about the thing she's trying to ban.
|
On April 18 2013 11:42 tokicheese wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2013 09:47 Defacer wrote:On April 18 2013 09:38 ahswtini wrote:
Do you really think a background check will have stopped Lanza? I can just imagine what he would've been thinking: "I could shoot my own mother right now with her guns, but that would be illegal because I haven't had a background check to allow me to have her guns!" More like, "Why won't my mommy buy me guns! Waaaaaah!" Who know's right? If it was illegal for her to share guns with her son, maybe she wouldn't have bought them in the first place. It was my understanding the only reason she collected guns was so she could share a hobby with her weird, distant son. Again, doesn't keep a crazy person from trying to do something crazy, but why make it easy? Requiring someone to have a license to shoot a gun they don't own is a terrible idea lol... Unless the only option for people to shoot is at a range how could they ever hope to enforce the law... Have a cop sitting in every bush across the US keeping an eye out? Even if a cop did find some people shooting guns if one person doesn't have a license is he going to be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the unlicensed person was shooting?
Again, an all-or-nothing argument. All laws are breakable. Should we make abandon rape laws because you can't follow every kid home from school? Or make drunk driving legal because you can't have road checks at every corner?
Come on. Just because there's no law that can be enforceable 100% of the time, or just because you can't prevent crime 100%, doesn't we should give up on improving the law.
Having laws and having stiff penalties for breaking DOES deter crime. Stop being such a cynical hipster.
|
On April 18 2013 11:57 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2013 11:30 FallDownMarigold wrote:On April 18 2013 11:28 Sermokala wrote:
Ironicaly the Ar-15 was the original modern rifle. The M-16 is its actual military variant and was then accepted by the military as the main battle rifle.
On the other hand I don't see why you're breaking down the different armchair military practicality of which weapon would cause the most damage and you come up with single shot rifles are the best for this. Even a hunting rifle would be better with its ability to go though multiple people per bullet, go though most cover, and would have much better range at this then any military style rifle. A pistol would be better at close range with how easy it is to hold, shoot, and reload.
Then again the real cause of gun violence in america isn't as scary as "assault weapons" are so there isn't a point for them to try and ban them. The anti gun crowd has been floundering for decades now and the NRA just keeps getting stronger by the day. I am defining the civilian variant AR-15 as an assault weapon because I believe the poster to which I replied was implying that what many call "assault weapons" aren't actually assault weapons, due to some technicality, such as there being no select-fire. With regard to your second paragraph, I will respond that I did not ever say a "single shot rifle is more deadly". I said that per military training, shooters opt to fire single shots rather than to spray full automatic. It results in more effective fire power, more ammunition efficiency, and so on. Next point: A hunting rifle would not necessarily inflict more damage than a military-style assault rifle. This is completely off-topic, but I see no reason not to let you hear my understanding now that you've raised the topic: Hunting rifles, while typically chambered for larger bullets than M4/AR15s, are not necessarily better at killing people. The reason is that while the larger round packs a stronger punch, the smaller round travels faster, and actually tumbles to create a large wound cavity, which induces massive tissue damage and subsequent bleed out. In fact, an original 5.56mm round designed for the AR-15 was rejected per Geneva, due to the fact that the wound profile was excessively destructive. I believe this round was the M193 -- a 5.56mm round with a particularly nasty wound profile, which would fragment in addition to the cavitation effects. They actually had to select another 5.56 variant -- one that wouldn't cause as much fragmentation. And now to address one last point of yours..which is really off topic, so I'll spoiler it so others don't need to waste time + Show Spoiler +A pistol is not better for close quarter battle. A rifle is always preferred over a pistol in all circumstances. If a war fighter has access to a functional rifle, he will continue using it and only opt to use a sidearm when it is no longer possible to use the rifle. "assault weapon" is a made up term used by gun control advocates to describe guns they think are scary but arn't classified as assault rifles. Assault rifles are just rifles that are fully automatic. there isn't some weird technicality that separates them there's a clear functional difference that separates my uncles hunting rifle from the war from a fully auto m4. Soldiers don't spray and pray when they're at skirmish distance because they aren't assaulting a building where they'd want that automatic fire rocking and rolling. A larger caliber round is better at killing someone because they'll cause more damage to people. They made the rounds smaller on a modern battle rifle to save space for ammo and to cause the target to be wounded and tie up more resources. They banned hollow points because of the massive damage that they caused (police still use them but thats another matter) Full metal jackets are deemed "more humane" Pistol is better for urban warfare for how easy it is to hide and how fast it is to bring up to shoot. the shorter barrel is also much preferable, as see how popular the new bullpup design (fire the bullet in the stock instead) is getting with the IDF. Drug dealers would be using rifles for their urban combat to kill the gang members if it was any better then the pistols that they use. Can't argue with real urban warfare statistics for whats better.
Pistols are used by drug dealers because they are way easier to conceal and dispose of. You can tuck a M1911 inside your pants easily but if your trying to carry around a M4 inside your jacket it's going to be obvious as hell.
Also pistol rounds tend to be designed for stopping power that's why there are so many 9mm and .45 pistols. When your pulling a pistol on someone you want them out of commission as soon as possible. If a little house wife is shooting an intruder in her house she doesn't want to punch a hole clean through him with a small FMJ round she wants to make gaping wound with the hollow points to put as much energy from the round as possible into the target. A drug dealer who pulls a gun on someone doesn't want to wound him he wants to kill him as soon as possible so the other guy doesn't shoot him back.
|
I won't defend her trigger safety, that's for sure. But at the same time, I won't berate her for it either. It's like that in politics in every issue. What about the ultra-right wingers who -- without knowing ANYTHING about developmental biology -- argue strongly against abortion rights? It's all over politics. We really can't single it out, because it's like that in every issue....which is an issue by itself, of course 
|
On April 18 2013 12:14 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2013 11:42 tokicheese wrote:On April 18 2013 09:47 Defacer wrote:On April 18 2013 09:38 ahswtini wrote:
Do you really think a background check will have stopped Lanza? I can just imagine what he would've been thinking: "I could shoot my own mother right now with her guns, but that would be illegal because I haven't had a background check to allow me to have her guns!" More like, "Why won't my mommy buy me guns! Waaaaaah!" Who know's right? If it was illegal for her to share guns with her son, maybe she wouldn't have bought them in the first place. It was my understanding the only reason she collected guns was so she could share a hobby with her weird, distant son. Again, doesn't keep a crazy person from trying to do something crazy, but why make it easy? Requiring someone to have a license to shoot a gun they don't own is a terrible idea lol... Unless the only option for people to shoot is at a range how could they ever hope to enforce the law... Have a cop sitting in every bush across the US keeping an eye out? Even if a cop did find some people shooting guns if one person doesn't have a license is he going to be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the unlicensed person was shooting? Again, an all-or-nothing argument. All laws are breakable. Should we make abandon rape laws because you can't follow every kid home from school? Or make drunk driving legal because you can't have road checks at every corner? Come on. Just because theirs no law that can be enforceable 100% of the time, or just because you can't prevent crime 100%, doesn't we should give up on improving the law. Having laws and having stiff penalties for breaking DOES deter crime. Stop being such a cynical hipster.
Comparing someone shooting a gun without a license which isn't a bad thing any ways to rape is just an appeal to emotion.
What exactly would that law prevent? Everyone who shoots a gun unlicensed is going to go on a shooting spree?
I shot a gun without a license when I was a kid because you can't get a real gun license here until your 19. Holy shit I'm a criminal
|
I love how you decide to ride this intellectual high horse when you are the one who has no fucking clue about guns at all. I use real life examples and solid reasoning, your the one whos so far into theory-crafting that he has no idea why most gun violence is done with pistols.
But sure now that your losing we should move on. We really don't know what anyone means when they use made up terms like "assault weapon" in order to make their arguments better. Better point to "background checks" being an actual thing too to make the other side look bad. Lets also completely ignore actual facts about gun violence in america what cause's it and whos getting killed.
It'll probably be a few more years before anyone even talks about gun control again. Which is really sad because everyone agrees something should be done even if no one agrees on what that is.
|
On April 18 2013 12:04 FallDownMarigold wrote:
Sermokala, I mean no offense by this, but reading over your last response to me tells me you are far into the theory-crafting side of things right now, especially with regard to your inaccurate descriptions of how soldiers behave in certain scenarios. All the things you said about larger rounds and hunting rifles being more deadly were flat out wrong. The stuff you just said is, for the most part, wrong. I could address each wrong point you raise about the nature of combat and provide you with evidence pointing to the contrary, but it would be completely counter productive.
Let's move on from the technical discussion of what constitutes a deadlier weapon. And let's definitely move on from whether we should be using "weapon" or "rifle" in our "assault _____" term -- we all know what we mean.
@Deep
Automatic fire has little to do with a rifle being an assault rifle, contrary to what Sermokala says. Soldiers with assault rifles capable of select-fire do not engage enemy combatants with full automatic in the first place, in the majority of situations. The way the select-fire M4 is used is effectively no different from the way the AR-15 is used. Sermokala claims a larger round necessarily kills better than a smaller round -- false. A 5.56 is just as deadly as a 7.62 -- they create different wound profiles and vastly different tumbling/yaw cavitation effects, both of which are equally deadly. He claims soldiers don't use full automatic except when they're "storming a building" which is totally false, just ask any combat veteran. Even in cqb situations, it is not instructed that soldiers opt to select-fire. An AR15 is just as deadly as an M4 war fighter's rifle, and thus I do not think they should be available to the public. That the former is not capable of select-fire should mean nothing.
Your opinion doesn't matter. The weapon is in common use and arguably unconstitutional to ban.
If you think AR-15s should be banned, where do you set the cut-off point to what should be legal? No matter what you pick, the limit you set is going to be completely arbitrary and the only justification you have for banning one firearm over another is going to be from a fucked up rationalization. Do we ban .308 AR variants because they can accept magazines of a certain size? Do we ban semi-automatic hunting rifles? Do we ban magazine-fed shotguns with pistol grips and stocks because they are easier to use than your standard shotgun for a tactical scenario? Where do you draw the line?
You'd probably have an easier time trying to justify the complete confiscation of firearms because of their "deadliness" than to try and differentiate between various calibers and features. Why? Because trying to show that certain features or slight differences in calibers contribute to the firearm being "more deadly" is going to make you look like a fool.
Also(to the canadian guy): Zero-tolerance approaches on crime along with stiffer penalties does not deter crime. In fact, it can raise crime rate statistics because it makes criminals out of people and removes the element of discretion(more so used for other crimes rather than firearm crimes).
|
Automatic fire has little to do with a rifle being an assault rifle, contrary to what Sermokala says. Soldiers with assault rifles capable of select-fire do not engage enemy combatants with full automatic in the first place, in the majority of situations. The way the select-fire M4 is used is effectively no different from the way the AR-15 is used. Sermokala claims a larger round necessarily kills better than a smaller round -- false. A 5.56 is just as deadly as a 7.62 -- they create different wound profiles and vastly different tumbling/yaw cavitation effects, both of which are equally deadly. He claims soldiers don't use full automatic except when they're "storming a building" which is totally false, just ask any combat veteran. An AR15 is just as deadly as an M4 war fighter's rifle, and thus I do not think they should be available to the public. That the former is not capable of select-fire should mean nothing.
The vast majority of military rifles do not have full auto. They have 3-round burst and semiauto. Special forces and certain assault units do have some soldiers equipped with full auto assault rifles, but the number of those compared with the number who only have burst fire at best is very small.
What you are saying is making no sense, the ability to fire more than 1 round with just one trigger pull makes a gun very much more dangerous than one that is just semiautomatic.
The M4 is not designed to necessarily kill any more than the AR-15 or M-16 is. These weapons, in combat situations, are supposed to wound more than older-generation rifles were.
Simply put, if the AR-15 is so dangerous because it has a similar functionality in combat or civilian situations to the M-4, then a large number, perhaps a majority, of semiautomatic handguns on the market also meet that criteria. I can put 4 Glock 9s in my pockets and have one in each hand and kill just as many if not more people than Adam Lanza did.
The AR-15 looks like a military weapon, so we must somehow stretch its capabilities in the semiautomatic civilian version to transform it into a weapon fit only for the military. Under your criteria, that would include the majority of guns in America, handguns and rifles both. Any firearm with a magazine would. 5 round, 7 round limits? A ten round limit? Bring revolvers with speedloaders then, you'll get plenty of stopping power and be able to reload even faster than the 1-2 seconds (at most) it takes to reload an AR-15 or any kind of handgun that uses a magazine.
You say that Sermokala is theory-crafting as if that discredits his argument. It's also one you could use against me. But it's a terrible argument. Columbine? Sandy Hook? These people planned how to kill as many people as they could. Take away the AR-15 and they will find a different gun. Or series of guns. You can fit a lot of handguns in a hoodie and a coat and some cargo pants. Spree killers think about that these kinds of things. Another word for what they do is... theory-crafting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
