BF2S Forums Gun politics, firearms ownership, and US 2nd amendment discussion

-Sh1fty- wrote:

Sandy Hook may or may not be BS so I'm not counting that one. There's footage of the cops pulling the AR out of the guy's trunk and he never left the building, also the med examiner was drunk.

jesus wept. just because you got a little poontang doesn't mean you do ALL of your thinking with your little head.



the killing in connecticutt was 2 by pistol, 25 by bushmaster. deal with it.

Teenager Reportedly Used AR-15 to Kill Five in New Mexico

until forensics come back, there may be 5 more in albequrque, but that really isn't the point now is it? such a small percentage compared to the overall number of available firearms what? this 15 year old has a k:d of 5:1, you can't even do that playing the nra's new app for the ipad.

just because you have daddy issues and some fantasy of post-apocalyptic california, doesn't make it okay to parrot fox news talking points out the side of your skinny neck. no one's going to take your guns. if by some miracle and a new war with iran you'll get in the marines and get ahold of an automatic weapon soon enough.

your bloodlust is in direct contradiction to the christian morality you spew on this forum, give it a rest.

Jay wrote:

What part of the following sentence is difficult to comprehend? 'there is nothing special about an assault rifle' It's been said multiple times by multiple people and yet you continue to jump on the bandwagon of ignorance and push this stupid line of thought. It's a semi-automatic rifle. It is the same premise as that which lies behind the semi-automatic handgun, or the revolver. You pull the trigger one time, one bullet fires. The physics behind a handgun and rifle are differentiated by one difference: the rifle has a longer barrel and thus the muzzle velocity is higher. Hand guns compensate for this in many cases by using a larger caliber bullet. The rate of fire between the weapons is roughly even. The stopping power of the weapons is roughly even. The accuracy at close range (25m) is roughly even.

Why do police officers carry handguns instead of rifles? Could it be for the very same reasons that criminals also prefer handguns for over 99% of crimes? Ease of carry, concealment, and the tradeoff in firepower at close ranges is negligible. The ammunition is also smaller and lighter to carry.

Harping on assault rifles is an argument made by stupid people to prey on the ignorant with emotion-based messages that have no real meaning. Frankly, I think so many people on this forum have been taken in by the argument because they've been trained by FPS games to think assault rifles are godlike and handguns are puny things you whip out only when you're out of ammo. It doesn't work that way in real life, sorry.

Stopping power between hanguns and rifles is radically different. The puny .223 has more than triple the energy of a 9mm, and typically delivers far more to the target (comparing FMJ like for like) To get close to .223 power levels you need to go bigger than .44 magnum in a handgun (at the original pressure levels, not current wimp loads) - a child can shoot a .223 accurately all day no problem, a .44 magnum is a challenge for an adult. Is there much difference between 9mm and .44 magnum? You bet. Is there much difference between 9mm and .223? You should know the answer now.
This is why the military carry assault rifles as primary weapons and pistols as last resort defensive weapons.
As for the physics, rifles operate at much higher pressures than handguns, around double to triple the pressure, barrel length is a smaller factor.

Police officers carrry handguns because they're lightweight, convenient, appropriate for the real level of threat and just up to the job of incapaciting people with no more risk to bystanders than necessary, and they don't typically need to take long range shots - but usually they'll have an AR15 in the car too. If there's a higher than normal threat do you see SWAT guys with only their pistols or do they take the biggest assault rifle they can?

Assault rifles pack an incredible punch into a package barely larger than a handgun, are easy to manipulate and very easy to use effectively even by people with minimal or no training. Detachable magazines make for easy reloading even a dribbling idiot can barely mess up.
Obviously when a maniac is shooting kids the difference between dead from a handgun or super-extra-dead from an AR is a bit moot.

My point is the features on the weapons don't matter. A semi-automatic hunting rifle would be equally, if not more, effective compared to the weapons everyone is demonizing. Or, in close quarters, any handgun. There's nothing special about 'assault weapons' except for the fact they look scarier because we've seen photos of military personel carrying them. A ban on them would do nothing except give a false sense of security.

Semi-auto hunting rifles like what? Mini-14s? Most hunting rifles are bolt-actions with fixed magazines and hard to conceal long barrels and stocks.
M4 clones with collapsing stocks just don't compare.
The power level would be similar but an 'assault rifle' is the obvious first pick for a spree shooting for a number of reasons, not just because they appear in video-games.
They can deliver a high number of lethal shots in the time it takes for SWAT to arrive with their ARs, and I think many of them fantasize about shooting it out with SWAT so they need an AR too.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2013-01-21 02:58:19)

Dilbert_X wrote:

Jay wrote:

What part of the following sentence is difficult to comprehend? 'there is nothing special about an assault rifle' It's been said multiple times by multiple people and yet you continue to jump on the bandwagon of ignorance and push this stupid line of thought. It's a semi-automatic rifle. It is the same premise as that which lies behind the semi-automatic handgun, or the revolver. You pull the trigger one time, one bullet fires. The physics behind a handgun and rifle are differentiated by one difference: the rifle has a longer barrel and thus the muzzle velocity is higher. Hand guns compensate for this in many cases by using a larger caliber bullet. The rate of fire between the weapons is roughly even. The stopping power of the weapons is roughly even. The accuracy at close range (25m) is roughly even.

Why do police officers carry handguns instead of rifles? Could it be for the very same reasons that criminals also prefer handguns for over 99% of crimes? Ease of carry, concealment, and the tradeoff in firepower at close ranges is negligible. The ammunition is also smaller and lighter to carry.

Harping on assault rifles is an argument made by stupid people to prey on the ignorant with emotion-based messages that have no real meaning. Frankly, I think so many people on this forum have been taken in by the argument because they've been trained by FPS games to think assault rifles are godlike and handguns are puny things you whip out only when you're out of ammo. It doesn't work that way in real life, sorry.

Stopping power between hanguns and rifles is radically different. The puny .223 has more than triple the energy of a 9mm, and typically delivers far more to the target (comparing FMJ like for like) To get close to .223 power levels you need to go bigger than .44 magnum in a handgun (at the original pressure levels, not current wimp loads) - a child can shoot a .223 accurately all day no problem, a .44 magnum is a challenge for an adult. Is there much difference between 9mm and .44 magnum? You bet. Is there much difference between 9mm and .223? You should know the answer now.
This is why the military carry assault rifles as primary weapons and pistols as last resort defensive weapons.
As for the physics, rifles operate at much higher pressures than handguns, around double to triple the pressure, barrel length is a smaller factor.

Police officers carrry handguns because they're lightweight, convenient, appropriate for the real level of threat and just up to the job of incapaciting people with no more risk to bystanders than necessary, and they don't typically need to take long range shots - but usually they'll have an AR15 in the car too. If there's a higher than normal threat do you see SWAT guys with only their pistols or do they take the biggest assault rifle they can?

Assault rifles pack an incredible punch into a package barely larger than a handgun, are easy to manipulate and very easy to use effectively even by people with minimal or no training. Detachable magazines make for easy reloading even a dribbling idiot can barely mess up.
Obviously when a maniac is shooting kids the difference between dead from a handgun or super-extra-dead from an AR is a bit moot.

My point is the features on the weapons don't matter. A semi-automatic hunting rifle would be equally, if not more, effective compared to the weapons everyone is demonizing. Or, in close quarters, any handgun. There's nothing special about 'assault weapons' except for the fact they look scarier because we've seen photos of military personel carrying them. A ban on them would do nothing except give a false sense of security.

Semi-auto hunting rifles like what? Mini-14s? Most hunting rifles are bolt-actions with fixed magazines and hard to conceal long barrels and stocks.
M4 clones with collapsing stocks just don't compare.
The power level would be similar but an 'assault rifle' is the obvious first pick for a spree shooting for a number of reasons, not just because they appear in video-games.
They can deliver a high number of lethal shots in the time it takes for SWAT to arrive with their ARs, and I think many of them fantasize about shooting it out with SWAT so they need an AR too.

I know that a rifle has a much higher muzzle velocity than a handgun, but I'm talking about stopping power. At close range, a .223 round will require multiple wounds in order to put someone down. At that speed, and with that cross sectional area, the bullet just goes right through the victim. At longer range, the .223 round will cause more grievous wounds because, as the bullet slows, it's more likely to tumble on impact. Ask pretty much anyone that has been in a combat situation and they will tell you that at extreme close quarters, a .45 cal is preferable. That, or a weapon on burst where you get multiple impacts, or fully automatic. A single shot .223 rifle is like trying to use a pipe wrench to disconnect the battery cable on your car, it can be done, but the tool simply isn't meant for the task.

That said, the guy we're all arguing about was killing six year old children. He could've used a single shot derringer and had almost the same impact

i thought fast and furious was us trading guns to mexico for cheap labor

13rin wrote:

Ty wrote:

Please explain though, how exactly would having an AR-15 help in a situation like Katrina? From what I can see all it does is help you play out a Mad Max dystopian future fantasy.

In the aftermath, New Orleans was the picture of Mad Max... Actually, more like Waterworld.

How many people did you kill and why wasn't a handgun suitable for this task?

13rin wrote:

Ty wrote:

Please explain though, how exactly would having an AR-15 help in a situation like Katrina? From what I can see all it does is help you play out a Mad Max dystopian future fantasy.

In the aftermath, New Orleans was the picture of Mad Max... Actually, more like Waterworld.

And? I still can't see any purpose for it short of waving it around and feeling like Mr. Big Dick, perhaps forgetting for a second that all you have strapped to your back is a reason for someone to shoot you.

13rin wrote:

Ty wrote:

Meanwhile, another week, another unbalanced kid gunning down five people with a military-style semi-automatic in the US. I keep thinking, if there's nothing special about these weapons why do they keep turning up?

I blame Holder and operation fast and furious.

Of course, because when an unbalanced 15 year old kid in Albuquerque gets his hands on an assault rifle it's because of a botched gun trafficking operation in Mexico. Nothing to do with the prevalence of guns and gun availability in the US.

15 year old kid. White, middle class, religious, home schooled. Sounds like a fruitcake to me but probably not a Mexican gangster. Either way, the guns he used belongs to his parents. They were kept in the closet because safe storage might mean you can't get to your gun fast enough when a bad guy comes knocking. Want to guess the model of rifle he used or is my self-satisfied smugness too much of a clue?

M.O.A.B wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

13rin wrote:

In the aftermath, New Orleans was the picture of Mad Max... Actually, more like Waterworld.

How many people did you kill and why wasn't a handgun suitable for this task?

My memory's a little fuzzy, but I think there were platoons of PLA in body armour rocking the French Quarter.

Was he "getting fucked up in the ass over here"?

Last edited by Jaekus (2013-01-21 13:20:30)

RAIMIUS wrote:

Dilbert has proved the Violence Policy Center was correct in their use of "assault weapon" to help demonize semi-auto rifles.

What is the difference between an "assault weapon" and a "semi-automatic rifle"? One doesn't even seem to be a euphemism for the other; they are entirely synonymous in my mind. "automatic" is not better than "assault". "weapon" is equal to "rifle".

Beyond this, I don't see how changing the terms helps your case. They both sound like shitty things to me, even if one is more shitty than the other. If you want to hunt, you should be good enough to use one shot, or work a bolt quickly enough to fire a second. If you need a high-powered gun for anything else, I know it isn't a good reason.

RAIMIUS wrote:

1000yd rifle competitions?  I'm far more interested in that than bringing down a 12 point buck.

Well, the big thing is "assault weapons" are not "automatic weapons."  However, if you say something like "high-powered, spray-fire from the hip, high-capacity, assault weapon" pretty much everyone who hasn't read the legal definition is going to think you mean a machine gun.

Why do 1000 yard rifle competitions have to be semi-automatic? Can they not still be timed with a bolt-action? I don't see where this is going. Hobbies are fine, yes, but this isn't asking you to give it up entirely.

Who is stupid enough to conflate semi-automatic with automatic? It sounds to me like you are arguing against a case that nobody has made in...ever.

Jay wrote:

Pochsy wrote:

RAIMIUS wrote:

1000yd rifle competitions?  I'm far more interested in that than bringing down a 12 point buck.

Well, the big thing is "assault weapons" are not "automatic weapons."  However, if you say something like "high-powered, spray-fire from the hip, high-capacity, assault weapon" pretty much everyone who hasn't read the legal definition is going to think you mean a machine gun.

Why do 1000 yard rifle competitions have to be semi-automatic? Can they not still be timed with a bolt-action? I don't see where this is going. Hobbies are fine, yes, but this isn't asking you to give it up entirely.

Who is stupid enough to conflate semi-automatic with automatic? It sounds to me like you are arguing against a case that nobody has made in...ever.

Pretty much all of the people I've talked to that are in favor of gun restrictions/bans don't know the difference between semi-automatic and automatic (in fact, I believe in GB that they call semi-automatic weapons automatic which escalates the confusion), and think they are the same thing. Our left-leaning media does a very good job obscuring the difference between the two while pounding on that fear button. Or you have people like the Australians who read somewhere that 'assault rifles' are easily converted to automatic, nevermind that you need a machine shop to do so, and that if you possessed a machine shop you could fabricate your own automatic weapon without a whole lot of effort...

...what. I don't know anyone that confuses semi-automatic with automatic, and I haven't met any of these Australians that think it is easy to convert a semi into an auto. In fact I would have thought you'd need completely different internals to the point where you may as well have a new gun.

Pochsy wrote:

If you need a high-powered gun for anything else, I know it isn't a good reason.

Yeah?

Adams_BJ wrote:

Jay wrote:

Pochsy wrote:

Why do 1000 yard rifle competitions have to be semi-automatic? Can they not still be timed with a bolt-action? I don't see where this is going. Hobbies are fine, yes, but this isn't asking you to give it up entirely.

Who is stupid enough to conflate semi-automatic with automatic? It sounds to me like you are arguing against a case that nobody has made in...ever.

Pretty much all of the people I've talked to that are in favor of gun restrictions/bans don't know the difference between semi-automatic and automatic (in fact, I believe in GB that they call semi-automatic weapons automatic which escalates the confusion), and think they are the same thing. Our left-leaning media does a very good job obscuring the difference between the two while pounding on that fear button. Or you have people like the Australians who read somewhere that 'assault rifles' are easily converted to automatic, nevermind that you need a machine shop to do so, and that if you possessed a machine shop you could fabricate your own automatic weapon without a whole lot of effort...

...what. I don't know anyone that confuses semi-automatic with automatic, and I haven't met any of these Australians that think it is easy to convert a semi into an auto. In fact I would have thought you'd need completely different internals to the point where you may as well have a new gun.

Congratulations on having educated friends!  I've heard multiple news stories in the US where the "guy off the street" or some media personality says we need to ban automatic weapons. 

Some interesting things from the Violence Policy Center, which advocates a ban.

5. The distinctive "look" of assault weapons is not cosmetic. It is the visual result of specific functional design decisions. Military assault weapons were designed and developed for a specific military purpose—laying down a high volume of fire over a wide killing zone, also known as "hosing down" an area.

6. Civilian assault weapons keep the specific functional design features that make this deadly spray-firing easy. These functional features also distinguish assault weapons from traditional sporting guns.

7. The most significant assault weapon functional design features are: (1) ability to accept a high-capacity ammunition magazine, (2) a rear pistol or thumb-hole grip, and, (3) a forward grip or barrel shroud. Taken together, these are the design features that make possible the deadly and indiscriminate "spray-firing" for which assault weapons are designed. None of them are features of true hunting or sporting guns.

8. "Spray-firing" from the hip, a widely recognized technique for the use of assault weapons in certain combat situations, has no place in civil society. Although assault weapon advocates claim that "spray-firing" and shooting from the hip with such weapons is never done, numerous sources (including photographs and diagrams) show how the functional design features of assault weapons are used specifically for this purpose.