|
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 June 17 2016 18:01 Incognoto wrote:
Cocaine not harmful? Heroine fine?
What seriously? Drugs are harmless? Really?
There are more deaths in the USA due to drugs, alchol and tobacco (basically harmful substances) than total firearm deaths (including suicide) and they're "harmless"?
What kind of mental gymnastics do you go through to arrive to that conclusion?
I don't agree with them, but the basic idea is that things that are legal will be used properly.
If you legalize drugs, the war on drugs will stop and drug dealers will stop shooting people.
If you legalize drugs, people will stop using drugs because the "temptation of the forbidden" is gone.
If you legalize drugs, drug dealers will stop using various tricks to "hook" people to sell their drugs.
As examples people cite the prohibition where outlawing hard alcohol made a lot of things worse and forced the government to revert it and, once alcohol became legal again, the problems disappeared.
While I'm not a big fan of alcohol either, I still think the difference between hard drugs and alcohol is big enough to warrant a ban on hard drugs but not alcohol. Alcohol is dangerous, to the one drinking it and to everyone around him, but used properly and in moderation it's not dangerous to anyone. The only difficulty is finding the line where something becomes dangerous enough to warrant a ban. A few years ago the line was somewhere between alcohol/tobacco and marijuana, now the line was moved beyond marijuana. Whether it's "more correct" there than where it was before or whether it has to be moved further in either direction can be argued forever. Many drugs are not flat out bad or good, e.g. morphine is a strong pain medication but also a very strong and addictive drug, which makes it more difficult to draw a line.
I have to state again, though, that I am against legalizing drugs like cocaine or heroin anywhere in the world.
|
Yeah I'm all for legalization of some lighter drugs, to be quite fair the decriminalization of hard drugs would probably be the best thing in the world when it comes lowering drug use.
Just pointing out that such things are hardly harmless
|
On June 17 2016 18:01 Incognoto wrote:
Cocaine not harmful? Heroine fine?
What seriously? Drugs are harmless? Really?
There are more deaths in the USA due to drugs, alchol and tobacco (basically harmful substances) than total firearm deaths (including suicide) and they're "harmless"?
What kind of mental gymnastics do you go through to arrive to that conclusion?
The worst two substances out there, scientifically and statistically speaking, are sugar and tobacco. One is marketed all over the place, the other one is considered cultured, stylish and classy. Not to mention legal.
I'd rather have a cocaine habit than a doughnut habit. It's much easier to keep under control & a lot more fun 
It's up to the person to decide what they put into their body and why. Some drugs like psychedelic mushrooms or MDMA give insight into the human experience and let you develop a bit of inner meaning so you don't have to constantly get "high" on social approval, consumerism and status whoring. In that sense they can have a lot of value and it becomes a matter of risk/reward/responsibility for the individual, like driving a car (very dangerous) or contact sports.
The most harmful thing about drugs is easily prohibition which directly results in crime, incarceration of non-violents, misinformation on many levels and terrible drug quality :p In fact nearly every country that relaxed its drug laws, from Portugal and Venezuela to Colorado has seen nothing but net positive effects in practice.
|
It's useless talking about people that have been brainwashed and don't want to do the research about drugs.
Literally the only problem with drugs, which makes them harmful, is abuse, caused by socio-economical situation and/or paired with mental problem. Give people information, make them aware of the dangers of overdosing and dependence and you get a population where deaths and addiction are extremely low.
You said deaths related to drugs, alcohol and tobacco.. LOL, alcohol and tobacco, the 2 most marketed drugs (nicotine is an extremely potent psychoactive by the way) out there, are LEGAL. While on the other hand, the illegal drugs, cause only a minority of all the drug related deaths.
Did you know heroin is used in hospitals as a painkiller? Seriously, even it's been so demonized by society because it's associated with such a niche group of society, but have people ever wondered why they become addicted to heroin? (Hint, it's not because of heroin in the first place).
|
I loosely defined "drug" as a harmful and addictive substance, which tobacco and alcohol easily fall under.
I specifically said:
"Just pointing out that such things are hardly harmless" "Yeah I'm all for legalization of some lighter drugs, to be quite fair the decriminalization of hard drugs would probably be the best thing in the world when it comes lowering drug use."
Abuse of said substances can be fatal and given the addictive nature of these substances the associated dangers hardly deserve to be downplayed.
You're also confusing morphine and heroine. Both are extremely addictive and aren't something you can casually use without any consequences. Pretending so is stupid.
I'm just calling out the pretentious people who pretend that these substances (and yes I also include tobacco and alcohol) are harmless. They aren't. Even alcohol is addictive and yes it's harmful. Literally hundreds of thousands die for alcohol abuse every year, but "it's harmless". Of course it's not.
Believing that you need to get high or drunk in order to obtain some form of inner meaning is completely fucking stupid. Stay away from children.
So I'm not sure what you're arguing. Just another couple of arrogant, snide Europeans who think they know better than everyone else. Can't you focus on having a proper discussion? No one gives a fuck if you win the internet argument, if we're discussing things at all it's to make our views and ideas evolve and become more nuanced and informed. Keep the "you're all ignorant", "wow you brainwashed" and "u don't even know this LOL" to yourselves: they don't contribute anything to do the discussion.
|
Zurich15313 Posts
We are getting a bit off topic here.
|
On June 17 2016 20:26 zatic wrote:
We are getting a bit off topic here.
True, but there is something to take away from this.
Why are people so hell-bent on firearms being dangerous to society when, in contrast, drugs, tobacco and alcohol are causing hundreds of thousands of death every year and somehow deemed "harmless"?
Just some fishy double standards which I feel deserve to be pointed out. It might put things into perspective.
But yeh i'll drop it
|
On June 17 2016 20:24 Incognoto wrote:I loosely defined "drug" as a harmful and addictive substance, which tobacco and alcohol easily fall under. I specifically said: Show nested quote +"Yeah I'm all for legalization of some lighter drugs, to be quite fair the decriminalization of hard drugs would probably be the best thing in the world when it comes lowering drug use." Abuse of said substances can be fatal and given the addictive nature of these substances the associated dangers hardly deserve to be downplayed. You're also confusing morphine and heroine. Both are extremely addictive and aren't something you can casually use without any consequences. Pretending so is stupid. I'm just calling out the pretentious people who pretend that these substances (and yes I also include tobacco and alcohol) are harmless. They aren't. Even alcohol is addictive and yes it's harmful. Literally hundreds of thousands die for alcohol abuse every year, but "it's harmless". Of course it's not. Believing that you need to get high or drunk in order to obtain some form of inner meaning is completely fucking stupid. Stay away from children. So I'm not sure what you're arguing. Just another couple of arrogant, snide Europeans who think they know better than everyone else. Can't you focus on having a proper discussion? No one gives a fuck if you win the internet argument, if we're discussing things at all it's to make our views and ideas evolve and become more nuanced and informed. Keep the "you're all ignorant", "wow you brainwashed" and "u don't even know this LOL" to yourselves: they don't contribute anything to do the discussion.
Okay, you're completely right that alcohol and nicotine are harmful drugs. I never said they weren't, I never even talked about them, because I consider them just as potentially harmful as the illegal drugs out there. Secondly, look at this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heroin#Medical_uses, so no, I'm not confusing both. Educate yourself before you talk.
How am I arrogant? The only thing I see is you making obvious mistakes. What, do you think, makes something addictive? Tell me how you view it please, because you don't just take something and poof, become addicted to it.
Believing that you need to get high or drunk in order to obtain some form of inner meaning is completely fucking stupid. Stay away from children. I... I just don't even know what to say to that. Some people seek meaning in it, others don't. You don't get to say what's stupid and not about substance usage and the motivations to use themt. People have freed themselves by taking drugs. People have become better people from taking them. I'm not arguing that some people have become worse, I'm just refuting your argument.
You know why drugs are "harmful"? Misinformation/under edcuation, not knowing what's in the drug, and abuse (taking too much and/or taking too long).
Occasional use of any drug, is hardly harmful, just because we have a liver. Sure, some people can overreact to some substances, yet that doesn't mean we can classify those substances as harmful. We could label every potential allergenic then as harmful.
If you actually knew/could relativize howmany people use whichever drugs all the time, without there being good regulations (and thus not knowing what's actually in it, and believe me, in cocaine, for example, there's so much shit, yet so little cocaine related deaths), you'd not spout stuff like drugs are harmful. It's all about context, and pointing to just one parameter why you see the harmful effects of drugs, is just ignorant.
On June 17 2016 20:33 Incognoto wrote:True, but there is something to take away from this. Why are people so hell-bent on firearms being dangerous to society when, in contrast, drugs, tobacco and alcohol are causing hundreds of thousands of death every year and somehow deemed "harmless"? Just some fishy double standards which I feel deserve to be pointed out. It might put things into perspective. But yeh i'll drop it
How is it a double standard when tobacco and alcohol industries are one of the most heavily marketed / lobbied industries there are, and other, illegal substances, are frowned upond and don't even have some kind of regulation.
Gun regulation necessity is of a completely different issue. You use guns onto your environment, which can potentially harm others. You use drugs onto yourself, which can "only" harm yourself.
Guns is more analogous to cars than drugs.
And it's not completely off topic, since gun related crime is related to the shady drug producing/dealing environments.
|
How many times bring people up this non-argument?
X isn't forbidden, so why should Y be forbidden?
I won't tell you why that is stupid, because its obvious and plenty of people have done so allready alone on the last few pages in this tread, let alone since the beginning.
BTW: Drugs, Alcohol and Tobacco aren't deemed harmless but prohibition does create more problems than it solves and on top of that isn't even working.
|
Zurich15313 Posts
Alright everyone, enough now with the drug policy talk. If you want to continue that, open a new thread of take it to PM.
|
There used to be a thread, but people weren't interested in getting educated about it, so it died out.
I don't know what else to say about gun policy, I've already stated my opinion before in this thread and can't add much more. It's beating a dead horse at this moment, I guess we'll just have to see how people just keep prancing around the same topic that causes alot of the problems.
I just hope some compromises will be made by both parties.
|
On June 17 2016 20:44 zatic wrote:
Alright everyone, enough now with the drug policy talk. If you want to continue that, open a new thread of take it to PM.
oh, sorry. didn't read this and made a post about it
I edited it out because im a good boy
|
On June 17 2016 16:31 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2016 14:06 MoosyDoosy wrote:
Also, don't be so averse to compromise. I see arguments declaring Democrats will soon take it 100 steps further and outlaw all guns, but look at the state of guns in Congress right now. NRA has a complete lock on the issue. You can easily compromise now and lock the issue later as the NRA has already done. Standard background checks and preventing known ISIS supporters from buying guns should be steps taken. You can lock the issue there if you want but no regulation is ridiculous. Many gun owners agree on more stringent regulations on firearms. The problem is that most people who talk about firearms have no fucking clue what they are talking about. Show nested quote +On June 17 2016 14:02 dontforgetosmile wrote:On June 17 2016 13:20 superstartran wrote:On June 17 2016 03:33 dontforgetosmile wrote:On June 16 2016 20:51 Tula wrote:On June 16 2016 12:44 dontforgetosmile wrote:On June 15 2016 12:31 Djzapz wrote:On June 15 2016 09:43 dontforgetosmile wrote:
this is the core of the argument and where we differ. it's not the fact that guns kill people, which is an important (but oft overlooked) distinction, it's that the cons outweigh the benefits for you. but it's obvious that for a lot of people, a gun is the ultimate form of self-defense and deterrence, and is worth much more to them. Even if we think about firearms for self defense, the AR15 is almost always objectively the wrong weapon for the job. Pistols are better in a vast majority of cases although they still have problems, and also many neighbor-conscious people would say shotguns with birdshot or the like are better because of lower penetration, so you're less likely to injure or kill a someone in an adjacent house or a family member through a wall. 223/5.56 will punch through drywall and wood like a mofo. The same thing applies to CCWs or open carry. If you open carry a full size rifle you probably have some sort of issue in your head. i don't think this is true. pistols are much more difficult to fire accurately (not even factoring in stress). birdshot doesn't come close to being considered an effective self-defense round, and any round that is (coming out of a shotgun), is going have much more felt recoil than .223. the only thing i would consider a more optimal self-defense tool would be a pistol caliber carbine and ars can also be chambered in 9mm. the fact that it's easy to shoulder, easy to operate, highly modular, and has relatively light recoil is what makes it popular. given that, i would say that the ar is almost always the right weapon for the job. overpenetration is almost moot point, as any effectively penetrating round is going to penetrate drywall/wood and even then just find one chambered in 9mm and run hp ammo. I am sorry but what? In what world do you live in that a pistol is considered more difficult to fire accurately at close range? A rifle is obviously more accurate in an objective sense, but rifles are constructed for ranges of 25m and more. How exactly are you defending your home that you need (or want) that range? i don't know how you can argue a pistol is easier to fire than a rifle, regardless of range. it's many times easier for someone to shoulder a rifle and put multiple rounds on target at any range than it is to do with a pistol. At 10m or less a pistol is definitely easier to aim and accurate enough. Never mind the fact that most of the points about caliber and overpenetration is wrong as well. Yes a 9mm pistol round can penetrate drywall/wood, but chances are it won't penetrate a 2nd or 3rd. A 5.56 round on the other hand easily can. What are you talking about with effectively penetrating rounds, penetration is not what you are looking for for self or home defense. Stopping power is. you can find ars chambered in 9mm. effective penetration is absolutely critical. otherwise, why not use .22lr? And yes a shotgun has recoil, maybe it has more than an AR-15, but it definitely has more stopping power and is far easier to aim at that range as well. "birdshot" doesn't come close to being considered an effective self-defense round is a laughable statement at best. Without bothering to look up different calibers the 3 different ones I use for hunting are all more than sufficient to grievously wound or kill someone at close range. The lightest caliber (used to hunt rabbits usually) was enough to kill a friend of mine in a hunting accident at 25m. The heaviest (4mm grains) can (and is) be used to kill wild boars.
there are also heavier calibers (though seldom used for hunting mostly because instead of killing the target i'd mince it) if you truly desire more stopping power that is the way to go, not the Assault Rifle option.
what you consider "stopping power" is really just penetration and shot placement. any weapon can kill at any range, the same way i can cut anything with a butter knife. what you want though is something effective. and when something is threatening your life you want something that's easy to use, has sufficient penetration, and the ability to have quick followup shots. the ar excels at this. In close quarters firing a pistol repeatedly in close quarters is far faster and more accurate then trying to shoulder and sight with a rifle, especially in a quick draw type of situation or when there are possible obstacles in the way that may prevent you from moving your rifle around and properly using your sights. there are definitely situations where a pistol may be easier to handle, but in terms of actually firing, i think unless you've trained extensively with it (and even if you have), it's going to be difficult to rapidly put shots on target. whereas with a rifle, you just tuck it into your shoulder and don't stop till the mag is empty. also, that's what sbrs are for :D If we're talking about a semi-automatic non-bolt action rifle then yes a semi-automatic non-bolt action rifle is far more effective in CQB, especially if you fit it at for that purpose. If we're talking about using a .308 semi-automatic bolt action versus a Glock 19, different story. In a CQB scenario ROF is king, thus why a few special forces guys still use SMGs when they are indoors and close quarters. Short, maneuverability, extremely high rate of fire, lower recoil. And before some more damn dumbasses come in here and say that an AR-15 is overkill for self defense, let's talk about a few different things here. A. The AR-15 uses a .223 FMJ round that doesn't even kill small hogs and deer in one shot let alone a human being that is possibly jacked up on drugs or adrenaline and possibly psychotic. The sheer velocity and force of the bullet however will put an intruder on his back if he's within a short distance from you. B. Based on the classes I've taken, when it comes to CQB you want the fastest firing rate weapon with the most amount of stopping power possible. Semi-automatic rifles take the cake here, especially a SBR AR-15. Revolvers come a close 2nd. A shotgun in trained hands is ideal, however shotguns have a shit ton of kick, and sometimes that can be the difference between life and death. Most people aren't trained to shoot a shotgun under duress in a close quarter situation (I sure am not). C. You have more of a chance of over penetrating with a 9mm pistol then you do with an AR-15. Not a joke nor a lie. The .223 round will penetrate the first wall but at that point loses alot of energy, tumbles, and likely will fragment. 9mm will cut through 12 layers of sheetrock like butter. Don't believe me? Have fun reading FBI ballistic tests from like the 80s. There's a reason why by the end of the 90s every single SWAT team in America and the FBI switched from the MP5 to the M4A1 Carbine for their response teams.
Okay that's fine and cool. I won't lie, I'm not a gun expert so I can't talk about such things and those details can be left to experts. But as it is now, all action was stopped by the NRA even inspects from the CDC. (looks like the filibuster in Congress is doing something now tho) When all action is being stopped, no change can occur and people can't discuss the particulars of which guns are dangerous or not and should be available for purchase.
I think we can all agree that some guns have to be put out of market/background checks are absolutely necessary/FBI should be able to prevent ISIS supporters from purchasing guns. The particulars of which guns can be put out of market can be discussed when a compromise that the way we handle guns needs to change.
Again, discussion > preventing anything from happening like the NRA.
Just one point of contention on your post. Although you make it clear that the AR-15 can't kill with one shot, it doesn't really matter once the person is shot and on the ground. If you hear survivor testimonies from the Orlando shooting, the attacker was going around shooting people on the ground again to make sure they were dead.
|
On June 18 2016 09:23 MoosyDoosy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2016 16:31 superstartran wrote:On June 17 2016 14:06 MoosyDoosy wrote:
Also, don't be so averse to compromise. I see arguments declaring Democrats will soon take it 100 steps further and outlaw all guns, but look at the state of guns in Congress right now. NRA has a complete lock on the issue. You can easily compromise now and lock the issue later as the NRA has already done. Standard background checks and preventing known ISIS supporters from buying guns should be steps taken. You can lock the issue there if you want but no regulation is ridiculous. Many gun owners agree on more stringent regulations on firearms. The problem is that most people who talk about firearms have no fucking clue what they are talking about. On June 17 2016 14:02 dontforgetosmile wrote:On June 17 2016 13:20 superstartran wrote:On June 17 2016 03:33 dontforgetosmile wrote:On June 16 2016 20:51 Tula wrote:On June 16 2016 12:44 dontforgetosmile wrote:On June 15 2016 12:31 Djzapz wrote:On June 15 2016 09:43 dontforgetosmile wrote:
this is the core of the argument and where we differ. it's not the fact that guns kill people, which is an important (but oft overlooked) distinction, it's that the cons outweigh the benefits for you. but it's obvious that for a lot of people, a gun is the ultimate form of self-defense and deterrence, and is worth much more to them. Even if we think about firearms for self defense, the AR15 is almost always objectively the wrong weapon for the job. Pistols are better in a vast majority of cases although they still have problems, and also many neighbor-conscious people would say shotguns with birdshot or the like are better because of lower penetration, so you're less likely to injure or kill a someone in an adjacent house or a family member through a wall. 223/5.56 will punch through drywall and wood like a mofo. The same thing applies to CCWs or open carry. If you open carry a full size rifle you probably have some sort of issue in your head. i don't think this is true. pistols are much more difficult to fire accurately (not even factoring in stress). birdshot doesn't come close to being considered an effective self-defense round, and any round that is (coming out of a shotgun), is going have much more felt recoil than .223. the only thing i would consider a more optimal self-defense tool would be a pistol caliber carbine and ars can also be chambered in 9mm. the fact that it's easy to shoulder, easy to operate, highly modular, and has relatively light recoil is what makes it popular. given that, i would say that the ar is almost always the right weapon for the job. overpenetration is almost moot point, as any effectively penetrating round is going to penetrate drywall/wood and even then just find one chambered in 9mm and run hp ammo. I am sorry but what? In what world do you live in that a pistol is considered more difficult to fire accurately at close range? A rifle is obviously more accurate in an objective sense, but rifles are constructed for ranges of 25m and more. How exactly are you defending your home that you need (or want) that range? i don't know how you can argue a pistol is easier to fire than a rifle, regardless of range. it's many times easier for someone to shoulder a rifle and put multiple rounds on target at any range than it is to do with a pistol. At 10m or less a pistol is definitely easier to aim and accurate enough. Never mind the fact that most of the points about caliber and overpenetration is wrong as well. Yes a 9mm pistol round can penetrate drywall/wood, but chances are it won't penetrate a 2nd or 3rd. A 5.56 round on the other hand easily can. What are you talking about with effectively penetrating rounds, penetration is not what you are looking for for self or home defense. Stopping power is. you can find ars chambered in 9mm. effective penetration is absolutely critical. otherwise, why not use .22lr? And yes a shotgun has recoil, maybe it has more than an AR-15, but it definitely has more stopping power and is far easier to aim at that range as well. "birdshot" doesn't come close to being considered an effective self-defense round is a laughable statement at best. Without bothering to look up different calibers the 3 different ones I use for hunting are all more than sufficient to grievously wound or kill someone at close range. The lightest caliber (used to hunt rabbits usually) was enough to kill a friend of mine in a hunting accident at 25m. The heaviest (4mm grains) can (and is) be used to kill wild boars.
there are also heavier calibers (though seldom used for hunting mostly because instead of killing the target i'd mince it) if you truly desire more stopping power that is the way to go, not the Assault Rifle option.
what you consider "stopping power" is really just penetration and shot placement. any weapon can kill at any range, the same way i can cut anything with a butter knife. what you want though is something effective. and when something is threatening your life you want something that's easy to use, has sufficient penetration, and the ability to have quick followup shots. the ar excels at this. In close quarters firing a pistol repeatedly in close quarters is far faster and more accurate then trying to shoulder and sight with a rifle, especially in a quick draw type of situation or when there are possible obstacles in the way that may prevent you from moving your rifle around and properly using your sights. there are definitely situations where a pistol may be easier to handle, but in terms of actually firing, i think unless you've trained extensively with it (and even if you have), it's going to be difficult to rapidly put shots on target. whereas with a rifle, you just tuck it into your shoulder and don't stop till the mag is empty. also, that's what sbrs are for :D If we're talking about a semi-automatic non-bolt action rifle then yes a semi-automatic non-bolt action rifle is far more effective in CQB, especially if you fit it at for that purpose. If we're talking about using a .308 semi-automatic bolt action versus a Glock 19, different story. In a CQB scenario ROF is king, thus why a few special forces guys still use SMGs when they are indoors and close quarters. Short, maneuverability, extremely high rate of fire, lower recoil. And before some more damn dumbasses come in here and say that an AR-15 is overkill for self defense, let's talk about a few different things here. A. The AR-15 uses a .223 FMJ round that doesn't even kill small hogs and deer in one shot let alone a human being that is possibly jacked up on drugs or adrenaline and possibly psychotic. The sheer velocity and force of the bullet however will put an intruder on his back if he's within a short distance from you. B. Based on the classes I've taken, when it comes to CQB you want the fastest firing rate weapon with the most amount of stopping power possible. Semi-automatic rifles take the cake here, especially a SBR AR-15. Revolvers come a close 2nd. A shotgun in trained hands is ideal, however shotguns have a shit ton of kick, and sometimes that can be the difference between life and death. Most people aren't trained to shoot a shotgun under duress in a close quarter situation (I sure am not). C. You have more of a chance of over penetrating with a 9mm pistol then you do with an AR-15. Not a joke nor a lie. The .223 round will penetrate the first wall but at that point loses alot of energy, tumbles, and likely will fragment. 9mm will cut through 12 layers of sheetrock like butter. Don't believe me? Have fun reading FBI ballistic tests from like the 80s. There's a reason why by the end of the 90s every single SWAT team in America and the FBI switched from the MP5 to the M4A1 Carbine for their response teams. Okay that's fine and cool. I won't lie, I'm not a gun expert so I can't talk about such things and those details can be left to experts. But as it is now, all action was stopped by the NRA even inspects from the CDC. (looks like the filibuster in Congress is doing something now tho) When all action is being stopped, no change can occur and people can't discuss the particulars of which guns are dangerous or not and should be available for purchase. I think we can all agree that some guns have to be put out of market/background checks are absolutely necessary/FBI should be able to prevent ISIS supporters from purchasing guns. The particulars of which guns can be put out of market can be discussed when a compromise that the way we handle guns needs to change. Again, discussion > preventing anything from happening like the NRA. Just one point of contention on your post. Although you make it clear that the AR-15 can't kill with one shot, it doesn't really matter once the person is shot and on the ground. If you hear survivor testimonies from the Orlando shooting, the attacker was going around shooting people on the ground again to make sure they were dead.
The point I'm making is that people make stupid arguments in regards to the AR-15 in particular.
The AR-15 is a civilian based rifle that fires a relatively lightweight caliber round. Everyone makes it out to be some high powered monstrosity that will rip through a person in one shot. That is not the case. They make it out to be a weapon that has no real usage, when it is one of the most configurable and affordable weapons platforms for hunting/sport shooting/self defense. People making up shit like the AR-15 will pierce through multiple fucking walls have no fucking clue what they are talking about. People saying there is no actual use for the AR-15 have no fucking clue what they are talking about at all. That it's 'too much power' in the hands of one individual makes no fucking sense.
I'm willing to have an open discussion regarding the legality and particulars of firearms, as I've been on the fence myself regarding certain things such as high capacity magazines, the legality of slide firing mechanisms (that essentially make an AR-15 or semi-automatic AK fully automatic in a legal manner on a technicality), and a few other things. However, people can't make informed comments about firearms in this particular thread and have said some obscenely stupid shit. If you're going to make a comment, please make sure you're informed.
|
The AR-15 is a civilian based rifle that fires a relatively lightweight caliber round. Everyone makes it out to be some high powered monstrosity that will rip through a person in one shot. That is not the case. They make it out to be a weapon that has no real usage, when it is one of the most configurable and affordable weapons platforms for hunting/sport shooting/self defense. People making up shit like the AR-15 will pierce through multiple fucking walls have no fucking clue what they are talking about. People saying there is no actual use for the AR-15 have no fucking clue what they are talking about at all. That it's 'too much power' in the hands of one individual makes no fucking sense.
On the contrary. It's people like you who fuel those debates, because you're lying through your teeth here, without even so much as blushing.
And yes. I'm not suggesting you might be wrong because of misinformation: you're flatout lying. Otherwise you would've backed your "claims". Which you didn't. Want to play a game like "lets use math and physics to determine how powerful a .223 round is compared to a 9mm"? You up for it, or do you just want to give up on that bullshit that you just produced?
|
What does it matter? AR-15s are hardly the only firearms which are lethal; they're all dangerous.
|
...
I don't agree with them, but the basic idea is that things that are legal will be used properly.
...
I find this concept hilarious in the context of this particular thread which is primarily people arguing exactly the opposite in regards to firearms.
If in fact regulation and criminalization of various substances has increased almost all problems related to them, why is it so clear that the opposite is true with firearms.
I mean it's pretty striking how people wander off topic in a gun control thread and argue against control for other things. It's not a directly comparable situation but the basic premises really should apply to both.
|
On June 19 2016 03:20 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +The AR-15 is a civilian based rifle that fires a relatively lightweight caliber round. Everyone makes it out to be some high powered monstrosity that will rip through a person in one shot. That is not the case. They make it out to be a weapon that has no real usage, when it is one of the most configurable and affordable weapons platforms for hunting/sport shooting/self defense. People making up shit like the AR-15 will pierce through multiple fucking walls have no fucking clue what they are talking about. People saying there is no actual use for the AR-15 have no fucking clue what they are talking about at all. That it's 'too much power' in the hands of one individual makes no fucking sense.
On the contrary. It's people like you who fuel those debates, because you're lying through your teeth here, without even so much as blushing. And yes. I'm not suggesting you might be wrong because of misinformation: you're flatout lying. Otherwise you would've backed your "claims". Which you didn't. Want to play a game like "lets use math and physics to determine how powerful a .223 round is compared to a 9mm"? You up for it, or do you just want to give up on that bullshit that you just produced?
Good job showing how ignorant you really are.
http://www.olyarms.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=14&Itemid=26
This is exactly the kind of bullshit nonsense that drives responsible guy owners insane. People who try to talk absolute nonsense without actually being educated on the subject. A 223 round will initially have more energy into its first target however due to the fragile nature of the 223 it will tumble and fragment at the first sign of a hard object. In terms of an urban combat scenario, you are less likely to penetrate multiple walls with a 223 round then with a standard 9mm.
And yes the 223 round is not an extremely high powered round. There's been multiple complaints from members of the armed forces who have complained about the military version of the 223 (5.56) and its lack of stopping power. That's why the m14 was brought back into service as a DMR, and why the 458 socom was developed in the first place.
|
You are hating on the caliber, when in fact, what you should hate is the bullet. The problem the armed forces has with the NATO 5.56 it's due it being too lightweight for short barreled weapons such as m4. You can use heavier ammo such as 64-75 grain, etc, and anyone who does will change their opinion on it. In the US i think that only special forces have access to better rounds, but if you are on the armed forces, don't expect heavier rounds or hollow point rounds. That's why you will hear about combat medics experience with 5.56 so much, and requiring more than one shot to put down someone.
I won't discuss about how useful it is to be able to shoot through walls on a mass murder shooting, because i really don't know, but i would expect stopping power, magazine size, ease on shooting fast to be more "valuable" for that, creepy as it sounds.
Also, from your link.
When the autopsy was performed, the forensic pathologist was amazed at the degree of internal devastation caused b the .223 round. There was a two-inch void of tissue in the chest, with a literal "snowstorm" of bullet fragments and secondary bone fragments throughout the upper left chest area. The round struck the subject 11 inches below the top of his head and inflicted the following wounds:
Penetrated the top of the left lung, left carotid and subclavian arteries.
The collar bone and first rib were broken. Cavity measured 5x6 centimeters.
What is significant about this "instant one-shot stop" was that the round did not strike the subject at the most effective or optimum angle and did not involve any direct contact with the heart or central nervous system. It is doubtful that this type o terminal ballistic performance could have been achieved by any of the police service pistol/SMG rounds currently in use.
The FBI study clearly demonstrates the following: (1) that .223 rounds on average, penetrate less than the hollow point pistol rounds evaluated, (2) concern for over penetration of the .223 round, at close range, has been greatly exaggerated, (3) with the exception of soft ballistic garment penetration, the .223 round appears to be relatively safer for employment in CQB events than the hollow point bullets tested.
Where soft target penetration requirements exist and over penetration concerns are prevalent, police should employ hollow point bullets in this caliber.
Under current pricing, police agencies can realize significant savings by purchasing single-fire carbines instead of select-fire machine guns.
It has been a recently growing trend to see law enforcement departments exchanging their issue shotguns for the police carbine in 9mm, .40 S&W, and .45 ACP. And many departments have found that these carbines do not serve their needs as they expected. However, they are fearful to switch, or in many cases purchase, .223 carbines because "they will go through 10 people and 3 city blocks before they stop!" As you can see, this is not the case, and is in fact, completely the opposite. I hope that this article helps to clear all false truths and misnomers about this very versatile and serviceable cartridge.
Which is again, due to overpenetration most of the time and why i mentioned it before (it wasn't directed at you djazpz). I wanted to ask you this before when i answered on a different page, when you are focusing so much on penetration, is it because you are expecting people to be using some sort of ballistic protection ? Because otherwise it thinks it works against your own argument.
I could continue with the quotations, but maybe i am missing something that you may explain to me if i am reading this wrong, or i didn't understand you right, because thus far i only see my own thoughts validated. The round is perfectly suited for this kind of situations, if not the best is what i read, cheap, good at killing.
|
On June 19 2016 03:53 Atreides wrote:
...
I don't agree with them, but the basic idea is that things that are legal will be used properly.
...
I find this concept hilarious in the context of this particular thread which is primarily people arguing exactly the opposite in regards to firearms.
If in fact regulation and criminalization of various substances has increased almost all problems related to them, why is it so clear that the opposite is true with firearms.
I mean it's pretty striking how people wander off topic in a gun control thread and argue against control for other things. It's not a directly comparable situation but the basic premises really should apply to both.
I will never understand the drug / guns analogy. Drugs are primarily something you do to yourself, weapons are not.. From my ignorant point of view i think that should make a difference big enough to warrant not making that comparison ever.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
