Pochsy
Artifice of Eternity
+702|5753|Toronto

Cybargs wrote:

Pochsy wrote:

Cybargs wrote:


good luck pistoling 60-100 odd people coming into your store.

and the purpose of the second amendment isn't primarily for hunting, self defence etc, it's about the purpose of an armed citizenry to prevent a tyranny, either foreign or domestic.
why can't pistols prevent tyranny? Why can't a semi-automatic pistol* put bullets in people invading a store? You're the worst self-appointed arbiter of all things American ever. Have you ever even been a tourist?
Same reason as why the military uses rifles and not just pistols. derp.
The military needs them because, surprise, they do have to shoot people at long range. You're in an arms race with your own government? HAHAHA and you think a semi-auto rifle is the answer? Don't worry about the drones, bro, we have small arms fire.
The shape of an eye in front of the ocean, digging for stones and throwing them against its window pane. Take it down dreamer, take it down deep. - Other Families
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5568|London, England

Macbeth wrote:

My argument had nothing to do with standards of freedom. I'm saying you gun people are petty and your gun culture is juvenile.
You're telling people to get some perspective and using a foreign issue as the crux of your argument. What do kids starving in Africa have to do with anything in America or how Americans live their lives? "It could be worse" is a terrible position to take. We should always be trying to make things better, not accept whatever bullshit our 'betters' foist on us.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|6926

Pochsy wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

Pochsy wrote:


why can't pistols prevent tyranny? Why can't a semi-automatic pistol* put bullets in people invading a store? You're the worst self-appointed arbiter of all things American ever. Have you ever even been a tourist?
Same reason as why the military uses rifles and not just pistols. derp.
The military needs them because, surprise, they do have to shoot people at long range. You're in an arms race with your own government? HAHAHA and you think a semi-auto rifle is the answer? Don't worry about the drones, bro, we have small arms fire.
Japs got their ass kicked by a bunch of farmers in the aleutian islands.

Yeah America is doing so well in afghanistan against those dumb mooslims with old AK's. Same with those palestianians, theyre up against powerful israel with uber cool high tech shit, they should just roll over and die.

I like your argument, hey lets just die and give up instead of giving ourselves a chance to fight
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5568|London, England

Mutantbear wrote:

Jay wrote:

Mutantbear wrote:

jay shut up and finish your dinner there are kids starving in africa that would love to have your meal
Will you give me a ZJ later if I'm good?
jay shut up and shoot your guns there are kids starving in africa that would love to have your guns
Shit son, they gots better guns than we do!
https://obsidianwings.blogs.com/photos/uncategorized/kiso08.jpg
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Pochsy
Artifice of Eternity
+702|5753|Toronto

Cybargs wrote:

Pochsy wrote:

Cybargs wrote:


Same reason as why the military uses rifles and not just pistols. derp.
The military needs them because, surprise, they do have to shoot people at long range. You're in an arms race with your own government? HAHAHA and you think a semi-auto rifle is the answer? Don't worry about the drones, bro, we have small arms fire.
Japs got their ass kicked by a bunch of farmers in the aleutian islands.

Yeah America is doing so well in afghanistan against those dumb mooslims with old AK's. Same with those palestianians, theyre up against powerful israel with uber cool high tech shit, they should just roll over and die.

I like your argument, hey lets just die and give up instead of giving ourselves a chance to fight
When did that become my argument? I think my conclusion was actually that semi-automatic rifles are not warranted, but we'll roll with it.

Who is the US fighting? You're in an arms race with the government with that mentality...which apparently culminates in semi-auto rifles for the farmers, and "uber cool high tech shit" for the government.

So let's take the advantage of the semi-auto, or why any of the examples given have worked out for the farmers. I'd say, in honesty, it was gorilla warfare, and not the guns type that worked out for them. You know, not looking like the enemy, the element of surprise, using unconventional weapons. Now, a pistol, that's a small weapon. You can carry one of those and not look like the enemy if you choose. Sounds like a step in the right direction.

There's no conclusion to this; you'll make one up for me.
The shape of an eye in front of the ocean, digging for stones and throwing them against its window pane. Take it down dreamer, take it down deep. - Other Families
UnkleRukus
That Guy
+236|5246|Massachusetts, USA
Theirs are full auto too!
If the women don't find ya handsome. They should at least find ya handy.
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,978|6842|949

Macbeth wrote:

I think the NRA president was spot on during his speech about a lot of things and the NRA has lobbied for a few fairly intelligent gun regulations.
Is that right?  NRA lobbying for intelligent gun regulations like what?
Macbeth
Banned
+2,444|5795

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

I think the NRA president was spot on during his speech about a lot of things and the NRA has lobbied for a few fairly intelligent gun regulations.
Is that right?  NRA lobbying for intelligent gun regulations like what?
After Vtech many states starting passing bills making it harder for the "mentally ill" to own guns. NRA supported the move as long as there were several caveats. The main one being that people who are denied gun ownership based off of their confinement, voluntary or otherwise, to a mental health institution could own a weapon as long as a mental state mental health professional validates that they are not are threat to themselves or others.

That is fair. Not everyone who goes to a hospital is insane. Also if people think they are going to lose their rights if they seek treatment then they will not get treated. That hurts them and society at large.
Jaekus
I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose
+957|5388|Sydney

Macbeth wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

I think the NRA president was spot on during his speech about a lot of things and the NRA has lobbied for a few fairly intelligent gun regulations.
Is that right?  NRA lobbying for intelligent gun regulations like what?
After Vtech many states starting passing bills making it harder for the "mentally ill" to own guns. NRA supported the move as long as there were several caveats. The main one being that people who are denied gun ownership based off of their confinement, voluntary or otherwise, to a mental health institution could own a weapon as long as a mental state mental health professional validates that they are not are threat to themselves or others.

That is fair. Not everyone who goes to a hospital is insane. Also if people think they are going to lose their rights if they seek treatment then they will not get treated. That hurts them and society at large.
You have a commensurate chance of being attacked by someone with a mental illness compared to someone who does not have a mental illness. Mentally ill people are at a greater risk to become victims of crimes.

Last edited by Jaekus (2013-01-21 20:24:08)

KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,978|6842|949

Macbeth wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

I think the NRA president was spot on during his speech about a lot of things and the NRA has lobbied for a few fairly intelligent gun regulations.
Is that right?  NRA lobbying for intelligent gun regulations like what?
After Vtech many states starting passing bills making it harder for the "mentally ill" to own guns. NRA supported the move as long as there were several caveats. The main one being that people who are denied gun ownership based off of their confinement, voluntary or otherwise, to a mental health institution could own a weapon as long as a mental state mental health professional validates that they are not are threat to themselves or others.

That is fair. Not everyone who goes to a hospital is insane. Also if people think they are going to lose their rights if they seek treatment then they will not get treated. That hurts them and society at large.
I didn't agree with it 5 years ago and I still don't.

Brin's been calling me anti-gun for 5 years! haha
Macbeth
Banned
+2,444|5795

Jaekus wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:


Is that right?  NRA lobbying for intelligent gun regulations like what?
After Vtech many states starting passing bills making it harder for the "mentally ill" to own guns. NRA supported the move as long as there were several caveats. The main one being that people who are denied gun ownership based off of their confinement, voluntary or otherwise, to a mental health institution could own a weapon as long as a mental state mental health professional validates that they are not are threat to themselves or others.

That is fair. Not everyone who goes to a hospital is insane. Also if people think they are going to lose their rights if they seek treatment then they will not get treated. That hurts them and society at large.
You have a commensurate chance of being attacked by someone with a mental illness compared to someone who does not have a mental illness. Mentally ill people are at a greater risk to become victims of crimes.
It is the one bone that I have to pick with both the left and the right when it comes to the gun issue. It is also why I applauded the NRA president when he said that America has an obsession with violence. It was nice to hear someone with some authority and say on the matter throw the issue back at American society at large rather than a small minority of people.
Jaekus
I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose
+957|5388|Sydney

Macbeth wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

After Vtech many states starting passing bills making it harder for the "mentally ill" to own guns. NRA supported the move as long as there were several caveats. The main one being that people who are denied gun ownership based off of their confinement, voluntary or otherwise, to a mental health institution could own a weapon as long as a mental state mental health professional validates that they are not are threat to themselves or others.

That is fair. Not everyone who goes to a hospital is insane. Also if people think they are going to lose their rights if they seek treatment then they will not get treated. That hurts them and society at large.
You have a commensurate chance of being attacked by someone with a mental illness compared to someone who does not have a mental illness. Mentally ill people are at a greater risk to become victims of crimes.
It is the one bone that I have to pick with both the left and the right when it comes to the gun issue. It is also why I applauded the NRA president when he said that America has an obsession with violence. It was nice to hear someone with some authority and say on the matter throw the issue back at American society at large rather than a small minority of people.
When you look at the statistics for gun homicide, the national average is 3.6 every 100k people.

The world average (and it doesn't deviate very much at all across different continents or cultures) for people with schizophrenia is 1% of population.

This could indicate that for every 10 million people, an average of 3.6 are killed by someone using a gun who has schizophrenia.

I know I'm lumping different data sets together to draw this conclusion so it's not the best method to know for sure, but I would expect it to be somewhere along these lines. To make it a mental health issue for the sake of gun control is demeaning to people with a mental illness. Mental illness should be a greater issue because it affects many more people (average of 20% of people will suffer mental illness at some stage in their life).

Last edited by Jaekus (2013-01-21 21:34:00)

Adams_BJ
Russian warship, go fuck yourself
+2,054|6832|Little Bentcock

Jay wrote:

This is probably what I had in mind when I made my comment:


Plenty of people 'round here are completely ignorant regarding weapons and think AR-15s are fully automatic
Was just wondering, theoretically, how fast can you fire a semi auto weapon?
UnkleRukus
That Guy
+236|5246|Massachusetts, USA
As fast as you can pull the trigger. Will you be accurate if you do that? Probably not.
If the women don't find ya handsome. They should at least find ya handy.
Adams_BJ
Russian warship, go fuck yourself
+2,054|6832|Little Bentcock
but, can't you say that that is (potentially) a high rate of fire? So at least one of his points is sort of correct. Kinda.
Shahter
Zee Ruskie
+295|6985|Moscow, Russia

Pochsy wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

Japs got their ass kicked by a bunch of farmers in the aleutian islands.

Yeah America is doing so well in afghanistan against those dumb mooslims with old AK's. Same with those palestianians, theyre up against powerful israel with uber cool high tech shit, they should just roll over and die.

I like your argument, hey lets just die and give up instead of giving ourselves a chance to fight
When did that become my argument? I think my conclusion was actually that semi-automatic rifles are not warranted, but we'll roll with it.

Who is the US fighting? You're in an arms race with the government with that mentality...which apparently culminates in semi-auto rifles for the farmers, and "uber cool high tech shit" for the government.

So let's take the advantage of the semi-auto, or why any of the examples given have worked out for the farmers. I'd say, in honesty, it was gorilla warfare, and not the guns type that worked out for them. You know, not looking like the enemy, the element of surprise, using unconventional weapons. Now, a pistol, that's a small weapon. You can carry one of those and not look like the enemy if you choose. Sounds like a step in the right direction.

There's no conclusion to this; you'll make one up for me.
zing
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,761|6363|what

I think there was a second shooter behind the grassy knoll.
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,813|6316|eXtreme to the maX

Jay wrote:

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.
Much of that is a quirk of the military mandating a cartridge which can penetrate armour at 600m, for a rifle not really intended for use beyond 300m, both of which are issued to troops for use in urban warfare at ranges rarely above 100m.

I don't know, I see many complaints about the M4 not having the muzzle velocity to be useful and the M16 having too much muzzle velocity.

Comparing like for like in a different way then, and a scenario maybe more likely for a civilian spree shooter who puts a bit of thought into it, 9mm softpoint vs .223 softpoint at point-blank range. The .223 is way ahead. You'd need .44magnum softpoint to be close.

A .223 semi-auto rifle is about as easy to shoot as a super-soaker, has the wallop of a .44 magnum and the capacity and rate of fire of a paintball gun.
Letting 18yr-olds fresh out of homeschool buy something like that no questions asked and no training is madness.
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...
'Semi-automatic' is a relatively new term.
Historically any firearm which rechambers a round has been called an 'Automatic', and fully automatic weapons called 'machine-guns', not just in the UK. For example the 1911 pistol

wiki wrote:

The M1911 is still carried by some U.S. forces. Its formal designation as of 1940 was Automatic Pistol, Caliber .45, M1911 for the original Model of 1911 or Automatic Pistol, Caliber .45, M1911A1 for the M1911A1, adopted in 1924. The designation changed to Pistol, Caliber .45, Automatic, M1911A1
Yo don't need a machine shop, just a file and a few other hand tools and patience if you know what you're doing.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2013-01-22 00:18:42)

Fuck Israel
M.O.A.B
'Light 'em up!'
+1,220|6433|Escea

Dilbert_X wrote:

Jay wrote:

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.
Much of that is a quirk of the military mandating a cartridge which can penetrate armour at 600m, for a rifle not really intended for use beyond 300m, both of which are issued to troops for use in urban warfare at ranges rarely above 100m.

I don't know, I see many complaints about the M4 not having the muzzle velocity to be useful and the M16 having too much muzzle velocity.

Comparing like for like in a different way then, and a scenario maybe more likely for a civilian spree shooter who puts a bit of thought into it, 9mm softpoint vs .223 softpoint at point-blank range. The .223 is way ahead. You'd need .44magnum softpoint to be close.

A .223 semi-auto rifle is about as easy to shoot as a super-soaker, has the wallop of a .44 magnum and the capacity and rate of fire of a paintball gun.
Letting 18yr-olds fresh out of homeschool buy something like that no questions asked and no training is madness.
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...
'Semi-automatic' is a relatively new term.
Historically any firearm which rechambers a round has been called an 'Automatic', and fully automatic weapons called 'machine-guns', not just in the UK. For example the 1911 pistol

wiki wrote:

The M1911 is still carried by some U.S. forces. Its formal designation as of 1940 was Automatic Pistol, Caliber .45, M1911 for the original Model of 1911 or Automatic Pistol, Caliber .45, M1911A1 for the M1911A1, adopted in 1924. The designation changed to Pistol, Caliber .45, Automatic, M1911A1
Yo don't need a machine shop, just a file and a few other hand tools and patience if you know what you're doing.
According to Arrsepedia you could convert an SLR to full auto with a matchstick

Thing is the military trains its soldiers to fire semi-automatic, which makes saying that a semi-auto only weapon is not the same kind of moot. To me an assault weapon is anything that was originally designed for combat, to be used in assaulting a target on the move, your rifles, LMGs, MMGs. Doesn't matter if they were auto, semi or x-burst, they were-and are-still used primarily for attacking targets. I've seen pictures of SF guys carrying MP5s inside the wire, something they'd never take out with them. They use the rifle outside for attacking, the short range weapon inside for self-defence. The only difference between the M4/M16 and the civvie AR-15s is that the former have selective fire used mostly as a last resort. Or do all soldiers go full auto these days?

A weapon for self-defence is something with short range, a pistol. You'd only use one in combat if your enemy were close. I've read up about .50 gunners who had better luck in tight streets with an M9 than using the gun. Now in your everyday civvie environment, with buildings obstructing range, people around, a rifle is absolutely pointless. The only class of weapons people should have for self-defence are handguns and some types of shotgun. Anything else is far beyond anything ever needed unless you're planning an Arlington Road and waiting for HRT to arrive.
-Whiteroom-
Pineapplewhat
+572|6869|BC, Canada
You're argument doesn't matter, bear arms and such.
M.O.A.B
'Light 'em up!'
+1,220|6433|Escea

-Whiteroom- wrote:

You're argument doesn't matter, bear arms and such.
Should go back to what was actually in mind at the time, flintlocks and muskets.

Or the alternate interpretation.

https://cdn.motinetwork.net/demotivationalposters.net/image/demotivational-poster/1011/the-right-to-bear-arms-demotivational-poster-1288917337.jpg
-Whiteroom-
Pineapplewhat
+572|6869|BC, Canada
Just a thought, do you think bears would be hunted to extinction by everyone in America screaming that a ages old piece of paper told them it was their right?
M.O.A.B
'Light 'em up!'
+1,220|6433|Escea

-Whiteroom- wrote:

Just a thought, do you think bears would be hunted to extinction by everyone in America screaming that a ages old piece of paper told them it was their right?
At a guess, I'd say yes. Or at least very close.
-Sh1fty-
plundering yee booty
+510|5683|Ventura, California

Cybargs wrote:

They should ban assault weapons, so only real men use M1 Garands. But wait, that's not the evil gun in the video game, it's grandaddy's good old rifle that killed nazi's and nips.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NelBNtNm8l0
Fuck yeah

Love the M1 Garand. 8 rounds of fight-stopping power, not too long of a gun, great balance in hands, good sights, looks beautiful, great for hunting, fantastic accuracy.

It's just...sexy.

https://i4.ytimg.com/vi/KjJMDYx_Nlo/mqdefault.jpg
And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.
Uzique The Lesser
Banned
+382|4464
yeah objects made to kill people are 'sexy'. though i suppose they are phallic objects...

Last edited by aynrandroolz (2013-01-22 12:41:21)

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard