|
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 19 2016 05:50 Godwrath wrote: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. Show nested quote +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.
Show nested quote +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.
Show nested quote +Where soft target penetration requirements exist and over penetration concerns are prevalent, police should employ hollow point bullets in this caliber. Show nested quote +Under current pricing, police agencies can realize significant savings by purchasing single-fire carbines instead of select-fire machine guns. Show nested quote +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.
A. I said that the AR-15 is probably a safer weapon to utilize for home defense then a 9mm pistol. Why? There's significantly less chance of overpenetration of home construction material then there is with a 9mm bullet. It's actually stated in the study that you just read. You're tunnel visioning on your own agenda here. I'm merely pointing out the false pretenses people have about firearms such as the AR-15 being a high powered rifle. It's not. Not even close.
B. The reason why those soft tissue cavity wounds occur is because of the nature of the bullet itself and how the AR-15 is designed. Because it has less twist, along with the way the bullet is designed, the bullet's travel path is inherently unstable. The bullet is essentially supposed to tumble. However, the tumbling effect is way over exaggerated. Also, the comparisons weren't really fair, because if you compare a 9mm HP to .223 FMJ you'll so a marked difference in cavity wounds. The way the bullet is designed has far bigger of an impact on how much soft tissue damage it does then the velocity of the bullet. Mushroom/Expanding bullets do a hell of alot more damage then anything that merely penetrates.
C. A recent study by the army showed that the 5.56 round actually isn't quite as effective as people always try to portray it out to be. In thinner foes that don't wear armor, sometimes due to the high velocity the bullet merely passes through without actually tumbling/yawing or fragmenting.
D. The 5.56/.223 that is the standard round of the AR-15 platform does not overpenetrate nearly as much as made out to be. Please stop saying that. Many marine/army infantry teams carry a highly modified M14 around now for the sole purpose of extra penetration during urban fighting. The FBI study I just posted showed that the .223/5.56 has far less of a chance to penetrate multiple walls in an urban environment.
E. The gunmen would have been better served with an illegally modified submachine gun with hollow point bullets then an AR-15 at the range he was at. That or he could have utilized a high capacity drum along with a slide fire mechanism for maximum damage. We can argue till our faces are blue; it didn't matter what he was using at the range he was at, he was going to kill people. The Virgina Tech shooter killed 32 people with handguns. Are we going to say that we should ban all handguns in America now?
|
On June 19 2016 06:00 Godwrath wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Like... What? Suicides are always included in firearm death counts and are a large part of people's argument.
|
A. I don't know where you find i am saying the oppossite. I don't have an agenda to be honest, i don't care rather if they are banned or not in your country.
B. Yes. Where is the disagreement here ? From your posts, i understood you were saying that the AR-15 due to how it function and its caliber it wasn't really powerful/deadly, whatever. Maybe i misunderstood you. I find a discussion in what category this weapon falls useless, and rather focus on how effective as a weapon is, which is why i was a bit baffled about why you used that link to counter m4ani post.
C. Yes, i said so, but again, the problem is on the lightweight bullets, not the caliber.
D. I didn't say that it did overpenetrate........ i said that the 9mm overpenetrates more than the .223... The link you provided says so itself. Obviously on urban warfare (or warfare in general) having a different array of tools is useful. But maybe i am wrong, but i find how useful penetration is on real warfare irrelevant to the discussion at hand. For the same reason for safe defense it is better to use weapons with less penetration, different tools for different jobs.
E. How so, in the link you provided they said that no SMG/Pistol round would had been as effective. What's your logic behind ?
I am still confused (probably my own fault), but i don't understand why you keep focusing on penetration as something important for a weapon that you would use on a mass murder, rather than actually being able to kill on shot, which .223 is quite capable off, and your link actually says so. Don't know, maybe i am talking past you withouth realizing it.
And again i don't care if they are banned or not. I do care about the missrepresentation of the weapons and rounds, which if you want to educate the pro-ban/regulate crowd, fine by me, but that's why i don't understand why you are focusing so much on penetration, and you gave a link that says that the .223 is one hundred percent operative. Someone also said that the ar-15 doesn't work for hunting deers, which is totally bollocks.
If you want an argument on why i think assault rifles (specially short barreled) are more dangerous, because it is much more easier to accurately put shots on a quick succession even for people with low training, something you can't do with a handgun, or atleast, i didn't see it in one year training rookies on shooting on the army, where obviously since i am from Spain, most people have null experience with weapons. If we also add up that it's more efficient at actually killing people, i think you should try another argument if you want to convince them, instead of trying to downplay how dangerous/powered it is.
|
i think you are confusing two topics. one is effective penetration on target and the other is overpenetration. any ammo that is going to effectively penetrate a target is going to run the risk of overpenetrating, that's just the reality of things flying real fast into other things. modern hp ammo is used, largely, to mitigate this risk.
the initial discussion that brought up the penetration topic was whether there were more effective methods of self-defense other than an ar. i think that discussion has come to the point where we all agree the ar is extremely effective for self-defense and is preferred over many other methods due to flexibility, ease of use, and modularity.
so rather than make this discussion about a moral absolute (that we need to regulate firearms more tightly because any death is bad) we can look at regulating it like we regulate everything else, with proper cost / benefit.
On June 19 2016 07:55 Godwrath wrote:
If you want an argument on why i think assault rifles (specially short barreled) are more dangerous, because it is much more easier to accurately put shots on a quick succession even for people with low training, something you can't do with a handgun, or atleast, i didn't see it in one year training rookies on shooting on the army, where obviously since i am from Spain, most people have null experience with weapons. If we also add up that it's more efficient at actually killing people, i think you should try another argument if you want to convince them, instead of trying to downplay how dangerous/powered it is.
i don't think anyone is trying to downplay it. in fact, most of us are arguing about how effective it is. .223 is, however, not generally considered an overly "powerful" round. not saying it doesn't get suck to get shot by it, not saying you can't die from it, but if you want to look at banning guns with "powerful" rounds, there are bigger fish to fry.
|
On June 19 2016 08:27 dontforgetosmile wrote:
the initial discussion that brought up the penetration topic was whether there were more effective methods of self-defense other than an ar. i think that discussion has come to the point where we all agree the ar is extremely effective for self-defense and is preferred over many other methods due to flexibility, ease of use, and modularity.
Yep. and i agree. Those are also the reasons why it's also the best weapon to commit a mass murder with, specially for untrained people.
About the bigger fish, what do you mean ? what weapons are accessible to the US citizen that are more dangerous than a ar ? About the rounds, it only matter if they are effective enough, not how much effective they are, but obviously that's not the only factor.
|
On June 19 2016 07:55 Godwrath wrote:
A. I don't know where you find i am saying the oppossite. I don't have an agenda to be honest, i don't care rather if they are banned or not in your country.
B. Yes. Where is the disagreement here ? From your posts, i understood you were saying that the AR-15 due to how it function and its caliber it wasn't really powerful/deadly, whatever. Maybe i misunderstood you. I find a discussion in what category this weapon falls useless, and rather focus on how effective as a weapon is, which is why i was a bit baffled about why you used that link to counter m4ani post.
C. Yes, i said so, but again, the problem is on the lightweight bullets, not the caliber.
D. I didn't say that it did overpenetrate........ i said that the 9mm overpenetrates more than the .223... The link you provided says so itself. Obviously on urban warfare (or warfare in general) having a different array of tools is useful. But maybe i am wrong, but i find how useful penetration is on real warfare irrelevant to the discussion at hand. For the same reason for safe defense it is better to use weapons with less penetration, different tools for different jobs.
E. How so, in the link you provided they said that no SMG/Pistol round would had been as effective. What's your logic behind ?
I am still confused (probably my own fault), but i don't understand why you keep focusing on penetration as something important for a weapon that you would use on a mass murder, rather than actually being able to kill on shot, which .223 is quite capable off, and your link actually says so. Don't know, maybe i am talking past you withouth realizing it.
And again i don't care if they are banned or not. I do care about the missrepresentation of the weapons and rounds, which if you want to educate the pro-ban/regulate crowd, fine by me, but that's why i don't understand why you are focusing so much on penetration, and you gave a link that says that the .223 is one hundred percent operative. Someone also said that the ar-15 doesn't work for hunting deers, which is totally bollocks.
If you want an argument on why i think assault rifles (specially short barreled) are more dangerous, because it is much more easier to accurately put shots on a quick succession even for people with low training, something you can't do with a handgun, or atleast, i didn't see it in one year training rookies on shooting on the army, where obviously since i am from Spain, most people have null experience with weapons. If we also add up that it's more efficient at actually killing people, i think you should try another argument if you want to convince them, instead of trying to downplay how dangerous/powered it is.
Rofl. Nevermind, I knew it. Another person that doesn't know what the fuck they are talking about. I'm seriously done with this shit.
On June 19 2016 10:05 Godwrath wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2016 08:27 dontforgetosmile wrote:
the initial discussion that brought up the penetration topic was whether there were more effective methods of self-defense other than an ar. i think that discussion has come to the point where we all agree the ar is extremely effective for self-defense and is preferred over many other methods due to flexibility, ease of use, and modularity.
Yep. and i agree. Those are also the reasons why it's also the best weapon to commit a mass murder with, specially for untrained people. About the bigger fish, what do you mean ? what weapons are accessible to the US citizen that are more dangerous than a ar ? About the rounds, it only matter if they are effective enough, not how much effective they are, but obviously that's not the only factor.
How about the fact that you can purchase a fully automatic AK-47 pre-assault weapon ban? It's 30k USD, but it's still technically legal to buy one. And believe me, an AK-47 is going to absolutely shred whatever it hits. Or the fact that there are existing mechanisms that make weapons fully automatic on a technicality (Bump fire/slide fire)? Or how about we sell .50 caliber sniper rifles to anyone who can buy a normal long rifle? We're not talking about any of those things, but here we are talking about how a semi-automatic AR-15 is a horrible weapon of mass destruction.
|
Good job at saying nothing of value. Of course you are done.
And about the AK47, how much does it cost to get or build an AR-15? Yeah, that's right, what about you stop thinking that the biggest most powerful bullet is the most important thing, and understand that accessibility, reliability, effectivenesss and easiness are king for this shit.
And sure, anyone can shoot a sniper rifle, or commit a mass murder spree with them. Oh for fucks sake.
|
what a shit weapon. it only just killed 50 people and wounded another 40 to 50
User was warned for this post
|
On June 19 2016 07:30 Atreides wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2016 06:00 Godwrath wrote: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. Like... What? Suicides are always included in firearm death counts and are a large part of people's argument.
A few pages back mods asked that we refrain from doing drug discussions, it can get off topic quickly as we can argue about how dangerous drugs are.
That said, saying that they (drugs and firearms) aren't comparable is laughable at best. There are definitely differences between the two, but they are both inherently dangerous activities which absolutely can be compared in certain ways. Of course, many people are full to the brim with confirmation bias and are quick to (groundlessly) discredit arguments which don't serve their own point of view.
It's just very difficult to have an unbiased discussion, whether in this thread or elsewhere. Unfortunately that extends to US policy makers, which is why we don't have proper gun regulation in place over there.
|
On June 19 2016 17:41 Godwrath wrote:
Good job at saying nothing of value. Of course you are done.
And about the AK47, how much does it cost to get or build an AR-15? Yeah, that's right, what about you stop thinking that the biggest most powerful bullet is the most important thing, and understand that accessibility, reliability, effectivenesss and easiness are king for this shit.
And sure, anyone can shoot a sniper rifle, or commit a mass murder spree with them. Oh for fucks sake.
A semi-automatic AK clone is going to be same price, easier to access, easier to put together, easier to maintain, has far more reliability (less prone to jamming and blowing up in your face), and is far more effective at the close range the shooter was at with a lower velocity and a bigger round. Also, considering the fact that a sniper rifle will be fired at bare minimum 300 yards or more, most people won't even hear the shot. Or are we forgetting the D.C. sniper, or Charles Whitman? Were those people trained in how to shoot? Sure. Anyone who has had extensive experience hunting and shooting would be able to do the exactly same thing, with any hunting rifle. Are we going to ban all hunting rifles now because of the the fact that these rifles could potentially not just put civilians at risk, but also law enforcement too (Charles Whitman hit a local sheriff through a 6 inch spacing through a stone column)?
Just keep proving once again you're an armchair critic that has never actually fired a gun once in your life. Alot of people have commented in this thread and have proven that they have no extensive experience with a firearm, ever. They have no actual real knowledge about firearms. It's ok to make claims and statements, it's another to go around spouting off sheer ignorance and then trying to say what you say is right, even though it flys in the face of statistics and everything else that has been researched.
On June 19 2016 18:21 TRAP[yoo] wrote:
what a shit weapon. it only just killed 50 people and wounded another 40 to 50
Omar Mateen utilized a Sig Sauer MCX not an AR-15. Good job though.
|
On June 20 2016 01:10 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2016 17:41 Godwrath wrote:
Good job at saying nothing of value. Of course you are done.
And about the AK47, how much does it cost to get or build an AR-15? Yeah, that's right, what about you stop thinking that the biggest most powerful bullet is the most important thing, and understand that accessibility, reliability, effectivenesss and easiness are king for this shit.
And sure, anyone can shoot a sniper rifle, or commit a mass murder spree with them. Oh for fucks sake.
A semi-automatic AK clone is going to be same price, easier to access, easier to put together, easier to maintain, has far more reliability (less prone to jamming and blowing up in your face), and is far more effective at the close range the shooter was at with a lower velocity and a bigger round. Also, considering the fact that a sniper rifle will be fired at bare minimum 300 yards or more, most people won't even hear the shot. Or are we forgetting the D.C. sniper, or Charles Whitman? Were those people trained in how to shoot? Sure. Anyone who has had extensive experience hunting and shooting would be able to do the exactly same thing, with any hunting rifle. Are we going to ban all hunting rifles now because of the the fact that these rifles could potentially not just put civilians at risk, but also law enforcement too (Charles Whitman hit a local sheriff through a 6 inch spacing through a stone column)? Just keep proving once again you're an armchair critic that has never actually fired a gun once in your life. Alot of people have commented in this thread and have proven that they have no extensive experience with a firearm, ever. They have no actual real knowledge about firearms. It's ok to make claims and statements, it's another to go around spouting off sheer ignorance and then trying to say what you say is right, even though it flys in the face of statistics and everything else that has been researched. Show nested quote +On June 19 2016 18:21 TRAP[yoo] wrote:
what a shit weapon. it only just killed 50 people and wounded another 40 to 50
Omar Mateen utilized a Sig Sauer MCX not an AR-15. Good job though.
Careful, the DC Snipers were using an AR 15.
|
What is the point of this thread?
|
On June 20 2016 06:11 Railgan wrote:
What is the point of this thread?
The point of this thread is to give posters on TL a place to discuss issues surrounding gun control.
|
Charles Whitman was an exmarine, same if he was a veteran hunter. Does that make them easier to use effectively all the sudden ? It's not the same like Omar who bought his weapon barely a week before, practice two days before, and voila.
If it's the same price why did you say before it was 30k ? Of course i don't know the specifities of the US gun market, that's why i asked in the first place. And yes, ak 47 are better if you can find them around the SAME PRICE, there is no discussion to be had there, except, how much does it matter if it's an AK rather than a AR15 (or a Sig Sauer MCX).
I was in the army 2002-2005. Never shot a weapon in my life he says lol... if by saying "you are just ignorant", gives a free card to anything. What's wrong then with what i said ? How hard it is to point it out ? You would actually do something useful instead of argueing with ghosts, because in no way i ever said "X should be banned". For all i care you americans can keep killing each other with weapons to protect your individualism as much as you want The only thing i said was, "why are you posting this link if it actually says that .223 has the perfect penetration for CQ scenarios compared to SMGs or pistol rounds?" And here we are.
|
Northern Ireland22207 Posts
re: the rifle vs pistol, 556 vs 9mm discussion
+ Show Spoiler +
spoilered because there are some graphic nsfw images in the video
|
|
|
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/hnA8X8X.jpg)
This was in my news feed, these stories, back to back.
Proliferating more and more deadlier and deadlier weapons is a stupid fucking idea. End of story. We have more guns than people in this country.
What is more likely? That a gun will be used to save someone's life, or that it will end up shooting somebody that wasn't a threat to the shooter?
The answer is obvious, proven, and always has been. Guns kill people. You want to save yourself from getting shot: try a bulletproof vest, and try to stop guns from being put into the hands of everyone who wants one. Giving everyone a gun is the worst way to prevent yourself from being shot.
It is not to say that guns should be eradicated. I want certain police to have guns, for example. But I do not want people to own guns. Everyday, emotional, self-certain, self-righteous people should not own a gun, because it only takes one instance in a lifetime for a good person to commit murder.
Like myself, for example. And you. Neither of us should have a gun. No one who isn't actively required to respond to actual threats, should own or possess a gun. No guns, no militias, no "necessary security" from people who are more likely to shoot their neighbor than actually protect the Free State. Revoke the ridiculously archaic, nonsense 2nd Amendment. Everything about it has faded into obscurity.
Even the part people DO like about it: "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed." Ummm... where's the lines here? It's "infringement" to ban automatic weapons, but we're all okay with banning high-explosives? Why? Why is an automatic rifle "necessary to the security of a Free State" but high-explosives aren't?
Of course, this all hinges on the Amendment's actual subject: militias. Militias, being necessary to the security of a free State. Well, there's a hell of a presumption. I see a lot of "states", i.e. countries, in the world. A lot of them enjoy, arguably, more freedoms than ever America is comfortable with. They don't need guns. They don't have guns. The Netherlands will let you buy drugs and a prostitute before it lets a person buy a gun. But I think they still have their freedom over there. I don't think modern Europe is staving off their past Monarchs by the threat of militiamen. I think they just realized that people can govern themselves and will demand it. That demand is simply all it takes.
If anything, guns are a threat to self-governance. How is it that America's self-governance is going to be saved by a person with a gun? We're the country that DOES have militias, and the last time I heard from one of these militias in the news, they were taking over public land, aiming guns at public officials working for public institutions that were created by a government that the people voted for.
It is all such nonsense. I am tired of all the weakness on this issue. Set the precedent for the future. Ban guns. Make every gun owner account for every gun they own. Arrest anyone who has a gun that isn't accounted for. No more buying or selling. Tell gun manufacturers to sell to Somalia or find better jobs.
The tragedy isn't mass-shootings. It isn't Orlando. It's the fact that more people are shot all over this country everyday than were shot in that Orlando nightclub. It's neighbors settling domestic disputes between angry couples, who end up getting shot by "responsible gun owners" who simply lost their mind for a moment, as happens to everyone. We are distributing more and more deadlier guns, and who in their right mind can continue to say it's making us safer?
|
On June 20 2016 07:42 Godwrath wrote:
Charles Whitman was an exmarine, same if he was a veteran hunter. Does that make them easier to use effectively all the sudden ? It's not the same like Omar who bought his weapon barely a week before, practice two days before, and voila.
If it's the same price why did you say before it was 30k ? Of course i don't know the specifities of the US gun market, that's why i asked in the first place. And yes, ak 47 are better if you can find them around the SAME PRICE, there is no discussion to be had there, except, how much does it matter if it's an AK rather than a AR15 (or a Sig Sauer MCX).
I was in the army 2002-2005. Never shot a weapon in my life he says lol... if by saying "you are just ignorant", gives a free card to anything. What's wrong then with what i said ? How hard it is to point it out ? You would actually do something useful instead of argueing with ghosts, because in no way i ever said "X should be banned". For all i care you americans can keep killing each other with weapons to protect your individualism as much as you want The only thing i said was, "why are you posting this link if it actually says that .223 has the perfect penetration for CQ scenarios compared to SMGs or pistol rounds?" And here we are.
You clearly misread or misinterpreted then, because I clearly was addressing the concerns that the AR-15/.223 was somehow too high powered of a weapon for home defense, when clearly it's actually less dangerous to utilize in an urban environment then a 9mm pistol. Because lots of dumbasses in this thread and in the media have stated that the AR-15 has too much firepower to be utilize for home defense. The truth is, if you are going to discharge a weapon in a neighborhood or apartment, you want it to be anything that is firing a .223 round because of the way the bullet is designed to fragment, tumble, and yaw after initial penetration of the target.
On June 20 2016 05:32 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2016 01:10 superstartran wrote:On June 19 2016 17:41 Godwrath wrote:
Good job at saying nothing of value. Of course you are done.
And about the AK47, how much does it cost to get or build an AR-15? Yeah, that's right, what about you stop thinking that the biggest most powerful bullet is the most important thing, and understand that accessibility, reliability, effectivenesss and easiness are king for this shit.
And sure, anyone can shoot a sniper rifle, or commit a mass murder spree with them. Oh for fucks sake.
A semi-automatic AK clone is going to be same price, easier to access, easier to put together, easier to maintain, has far more reliability (less prone to jamming and blowing up in your face), and is far more effective at the close range the shooter was at with a lower velocity and a bigger round. Also, considering the fact that a sniper rifle will be fired at bare minimum 300 yards or more, most people won't even hear the shot. Or are we forgetting the D.C. sniper, or Charles Whitman? Were those people trained in how to shoot? Sure. Anyone who has had extensive experience hunting and shooting would be able to do the exactly same thing, with any hunting rifle. Are we going to ban all hunting rifles now because of the the fact that these rifles could potentially not just put civilians at risk, but also law enforcement too (Charles Whitman hit a local sheriff through a 6 inch spacing through a stone column)? Just keep proving once again you're an armchair critic that has never actually fired a gun once in your life. Alot of people have commented in this thread and have proven that they have no extensive experience with a firearm, ever. They have no actual real knowledge about firearms. It's ok to make claims and statements, it's another to go around spouting off sheer ignorance and then trying to say what you say is right, even though it flys in the face of statistics and everything else that has been researched. On June 19 2016 18:21 TRAP[yoo] wrote:
what a shit weapon. it only just killed 50 people and wounded another 40 to 50
Omar Mateen utilized a Sig Sauer MCX not an AR-15. Good job though. Careful, the DC Snipers were using an AR 15.
Forgot to fact check again. Point still standing, are we going to ban hunting rifles because they were used in a mass shooting incident? Or handguns?
On June 21 2016 15:04 Leporello wrote:This was in my news feed, these stories, back to back. Proliferating more and more deadlier and deadlier weapons is a stupid fucking idea. End of story. We have more guns than people in this country. What is more likely? That a gun will be used to save someone's life, or that it will end up shooting somebody that wasn't a threat to the shooter? The answer is obvious, proven, and always has been. Guns kill people. You want to save yourself from getting shot: try a bulletproof vest, and try to stop guns from being put into the hands of everyone who wants one. Giving everyone a gun is the worst way to prevent yourself from being shot. It is not to say that guns should be eradicated. I want certain police to have guns, for example. But I do not want people to own guns. Everyday, emotional, self-certain, self-righteous people should not own a gun, because it only takes one instance in a lifetime for a good person to commit murder. Like myself, for example. And you. Neither of us should have a gun. No one who isn't actively required to respond to actual threats, should own or possess a gun. No guns, no militias, no "necessary security" from people who are more likely to shoot their neighbor than actually protect the Free State. Revoke the ridiculously archaic, nonsense 2nd Amendment. Everything about it has faded into obscurity. Even the part people DO like about it: "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed." Ummm... where's the lines here? It's "infringement" to ban automatic weapons, but we're all okay with banning high-explosives? Why? Why is an automatic rifle "necessary to the security of a Free State" but high-explosives aren't? Of course, this all hinges on the Amendment's actual subject: militias. Militias, being necessary to the security of a free State. Well, there's a hell of a presumption. I see a lot of "states", i.e. countries, in the world. A lot of them enjoy, arguably, more freedoms than ever America is comfortable with. They don't need guns. They don't have guns. The Netherlands will let you buy drugs and a prostitute before it lets a person buy a gun. But I think they still have their freedom over there. I don't think modern Europe is staving off their past Monarchs by the threat of militiamen. I think they just realized that people can govern themselves and will demand it. That demand is simply all it takes. If anything, guns are a threat to self-governance. How is it that America's self-governance is going to be saved by a person with a gun? We're the country that DOES have militias, and the last time I heard from one of these militias in the news, they were taking over public land, aiming guns at public officials working for public institutions that were created by a government that the people voted for. It is all such nonsense. I am tired of all the weakness on this issue. Set the precedent for the future. Ban guns. Make every gun owner account for every gun they own. Arrest anyone who has a gun that isn't accounted for. No more buying or selling. Tell gun manufacturers to sell to Somalia or find better jobs. The tragedy isn't mass-shootings. It isn't Orlando. It's the fact that more people are shot all over this country everyday than were shot in that Orlando nightclub. It's neighbors settling domestic disputes between angry couples, who end up getting shot by "responsible gun owners" who simply lost their mind for a moment, as happens to everyone. We are distributing more and more deadlier guns, and who in their right mind can continue to say it's making us safer?
Every objective statistic and fact has shown that firearm related violence is at an all time low. I'm seriously sick of this shit. It's one thing to discuss with facts and statistics, it's another to just post a giant wall of rhetoric without anything to substantiate your claims.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On June 21 2016 15:04 Leporello wrote:This was in my news feed, these stories, back to back. Proliferating more and more deadlier and deadlier weapons is a stupid fucking idea. End of story. We have more guns than people in this country. What is more likely? That a gun will be used to save someone's life, or that it will end up shooting somebody that wasn't a threat to the shooter? The answer is obvious, proven, and always has been. Guns kill people. You want to save yourself from getting shot: try a bulletproof vest, and try to stop guns from being put into the hands of everyone who wants one. Giving everyone a gun is the worst way to prevent yourself from being shot. It is not to say that guns should be eradicated. I want certain police to have guns, for example. But I do not want people to own guns. Everyday, emotional, self-certain, self-righteous people should not own a gun, because it only takes one instance in a lifetime for a good person to commit murder. Like myself, for example. And you. Neither of us should have a gun. No one who isn't actively required to respond to actual threats, should own or possess a gun. No guns, no militias, no "necessary security" from people who are more likely to shoot their neighbor than actually protect the Free State. Revoke the ridiculously archaic, nonsense 2nd Amendment. Everything about it has faded into obscurity. Even the part people DO like about it: "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed." Ummm... where's the lines here? It's "infringement" to ban automatic weapons, but we're all okay with banning high-explosives? Why? Why is an automatic rifle "necessary to the security of a Free State" but high-explosives aren't? Of course, this all hinges on the Amendment's actual subject: militias. Militias, being necessary to the security of a free State. Well, there's a hell of a presumption. I see a lot of "states", i.e. countries, in the world. A lot of them enjoy, arguably, more freedoms than ever America is comfortable with. They don't need guns. They don't have guns. The Netherlands will let you buy drugs and a prostitute before it lets a person buy a gun. But I think they still have their freedom over there. I don't think modern Europe is staving off their past Monarchs by the threat of militiamen. I think they just realized that people can govern themselves and will demand it. That demand is simply all it takes. If anything, guns are a threat to self-governance. How is it that America's self-governance is going to be saved by a person with a gun? We're the country that DOES have militias, and the last time I heard from one of these militias in the news, they were taking over public land, aiming guns at public officials working for public institutions that were created by a government that the people voted for. It is all such nonsense. I am tired of all the weakness on this issue. Set the precedent for the future. Ban guns. Make every gun owner account for every gun they own. Arrest anyone who has a gun that isn't accounted for. No more buying or selling. Tell gun manufacturers to sell to Somalia or find better jobs. The tragedy isn't mass-shootings. It isn't Orlando. It's the fact that more people are shot all over this country everyday than were shot in that Orlando nightclub. It's neighbors settling domestic disputes between angry couples, who end up getting shot by "responsible gun owners" who simply lost their mind for a moment, as happens to everyone. We are distributing more and more deadlier guns, and who in their right mind can continue to say it's making us safer?
I own 13 guns. None are handguns or "assault rifles" and I use them every year for a variety of activities. I have a shotgun in my bedroom but I've never pointed a gun at a person in my life and don't expect too. Thing is, posts like this (and most of this thread) are just dumb. I don't give one flying fuck if cities restrict guns if their citizens overwhelmingly want them to go for it. Personally, most people I know who carry self defense weapons I think would be safer without them. But guess what this country is very large and not made up solely of urban population centers and the last thing we need is sweeping gun reform from the Feds motivated by people who guns make up zero part of their lives other than seeing them on the news. And yes the only reason lots of people are opposed to some of the more reasonable restrictions proposed is because they don't trust that it will stop there. (Let's be honest neither side thinks it will.)
And most of the people debating efficacy of caliber have clearly not killed much with a firearm. It just sounds stupid when you argue so vehemently based only off stuff you've read on the internet. You can have lots of true points while clearly having no fucking clue what you are talking about.
Edit: I mean there is no way I'm getting sucked in to this shithole argument but come on a .223 while barely legal (in alaska anyways) is quite universally considered a substandard caliber to kill a 150lb black tail deer. It's not a "powerful" round by any standard. It's quite literally the smallest of the "common" center fire rifle rounds. (And don't go spouting obscure shit like .22hornet or the .17s at me). At the same time the last thing you want at close ranges is a tiny bullet going very fast from a theoretical standpoint. This is like the most basic caliber selection criterion ever. ITS JUST ALL IRRELEVANT WHEN YOU ARE SHOOTING A SOFT TARGET 10 FEET AWAY FROM YOU FOR CHRISTS SAKE.
It's like the stupidity about shotguns. Sure you don't even have to be too careful about firing lines in a hunting party when well spread because at enough distance it won't even break the skin. On the other hand I use a .410 (smallest common shotgun) to dispatch hogs and there is zero difference between anything from #8 to a slug when you are holding it against the head.
|
On June 21 2016 16:16 Atreides wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On June 21 2016 15:04 Leporello wrote:This was in my news feed, these stories, back to back. Proliferating more and more deadlier and deadlier weapons is a stupid fucking idea. End of story. We have more guns than people in this country. What is more likely? That a gun will be used to save someone's life, or that it will end up shooting somebody that wasn't a threat to the shooter? The answer is obvious, proven, and always has been. Guns kill people. You want to save yourself from getting shot: try a bulletproof vest, and try to stop guns from being put into the hands of everyone who wants one. Giving everyone a gun is the worst way to prevent yourself from being shot. It is not to say that guns should be eradicated. I want certain police to have guns, for example. But I do not want people to own guns. Everyday, emotional, self-certain, self-righteous people should not own a gun, because it only takes one instance in a lifetime for a good person to commit murder. Like myself, for example. And you. Neither of us should have a gun. No one who isn't actively required to respond to actual threats, should own or possess a gun. No guns, no militias, no "necessary security" from people who are more likely to shoot their neighbor than actually protect the Free State. Revoke the ridiculously archaic, nonsense 2nd Amendment. Everything about it has faded into obscurity. Even the part people DO like about it: "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed." Ummm... where's the lines here? It's "infringement" to ban automatic weapons, but we're all okay with banning high-explosives? Why? Why is an automatic rifle "necessary to the security of a Free State" but high-explosives aren't? Of course, this all hinges on the Amendment's actual subject: militias. Militias, being necessary to the security of a free State. Well, there's a hell of a presumption. I see a lot of "states", i.e. countries, in the world. A lot of them enjoy, arguably, more freedoms than ever America is comfortable with. They don't need guns. They don't have guns. The Netherlands will let you buy drugs and a prostitute before it lets a person buy a gun. But I think they still have their freedom over there. I don't think modern Europe is staving off their past Monarchs by the threat of militiamen. I think they just realized that people can govern themselves and will demand it. That demand is simply all it takes. If anything, guns are a threat to self-governance. How is it that America's self-governance is going to be saved by a person with a gun? We're the country that DOES have militias, and the last time I heard from one of these militias in the news, they were taking over public land, aiming guns at public officials working for public institutions that were created by a government that the people voted for. It is all such nonsense. I am tired of all the weakness on this issue. Set the precedent for the future. Ban guns. Make every gun owner account for every gun they own. Arrest anyone who has a gun that isn't accounted for. No more buying or selling. Tell gun manufacturers to sell to Somalia or find better jobs. The tragedy isn't mass-shootings. It isn't Orlando. It's the fact that more people are shot all over this country everyday than were shot in that Orlando nightclub. It's neighbors settling domestic disputes between angry couples, who end up getting shot by "responsible gun owners" who simply lost their mind for a moment, as happens to everyone. We are distributing more and more deadlier guns, and who in their right mind can continue to say it's making us safer? I own 13 guns. None are handguns or "assault rifles" and I use them every year for a variety of activities. I have a shotgun in my bedroom but I've never pointed a gun at a person in my life and don't expect too. Thing is, posts like this (and most of this thread) are just dumb. I don't give one flying fuck if cities restrict guns if their citizens overwhelmingly want them to go for it. Personally, most people I know who carry self defense weapons I think would be safer without them. But guess what this country is very large and not made up solely of urban population centers and the last thing we need is sweeping gun reform from the Feds motivated by people who guns make up zero part of their lives other than seeing them on the news. And yes the only reason lots of people are opposed to some of the more reasonable restrictions proposed is because they don't trust that it will stop there. (Let's be honest neither side thinks it will.) And most of the people debating efficacy of caliber have clearly not killed much with a firearm. It just sounds stupid when you argue so vehemently based only off stuff you've read on the internet. You can have lots of true points while clearly having no fucking clue what you are talking about. Edit: I mean there is no way I'm getting sucked in to this shithole argument but come on a .223 while barely legal (in alaska anyways) is quite universally considered a substandard caliber to kill a 150lb black tail deer. It's not a "powerful" round by any standard. It's quite literally the smallest of the "common" center fire rifle rounds. (And don't go spouting obscure shit like .22hornet or the .17s at me). At the same time the last thing you want at close ranges is a tiny bullet going very fast from a theoretical standpoint. This is like the most basic caliber selection criterion ever. ITS JUST ALL IRRELEVANT WHEN YOU ARE SHOOTING A SOFT TARGET 10 FEET AWAY FROM YOU FOR CHRISTS SAKE. It's like the stupidity about shotguns. Sure you don't even have to be too careful about firing lines in a hunting party when well spread because at enough distance it won't even break the skin. On the other hand I use a .410 (smallest common shotgun) to dispatch hogs and there is zero difference between anything from #8 to a slug when you are holding it against the head.
"Personally, most people I know who carry self defense weapons I think would be safer without them. But guess what this country is very large and not made up solely of urban population centers and the last thing we need is sweeping gun reform from the Feds motivated by people who guns make up zero part of their lives other than seeing them on the news. And yes the only reason lots of people are opposed to some of the more reasonable restrictions proposed is because they don't trust that it will stop there. (Let's be honest neither side thinks it will.)"
This has been my favorite quote from the entire thread. I apologize to not be adding much content in my post, but I think that this is one of the main things this argument comes down to. This is the more or less the only reason I don't support some additional gun regulation, and people massively overestimate how many US citizens like on these forums die from gun violence. It's so far and in between, and because we have these uneducated people having such strong opinions about guns.
I believe these are the two main pillars for why this conversation has been moving so slowly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
