Be a Supporter!

Gun Control Does Not Work (proof)

  • 44,136 Views
  • 1,772 Replies
New Topic Respond to this Topic
Tony-DarkGrave
Tony-DarkGrave
  • Member since: Jul. 15, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 43
Programmer
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-02-07 10:10:46 Reply

Even In Blue Minnesota, Gun Control Seems A Tough Sell

even my home state is ressilliant to stricter gun laws! and its a all blue state even though we have the voting record of a independent..

Saen
Saen
  • Member since: Feb. 22, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 18
Reader
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-02-07 11:31:28 Reply

At 2/6/13 11:23 AM, Ceratisa wrote:
You seem confused about what the government would be willing to do to citizens on its own soil. The government isn't large enough to control the country without causing extensive economic and industrial damage. You also seem to assume that aerial, and ground forces would be able to function long or well without civilian facilities to use.

But if you want to assume that some civilians will continue to assist the military we must also assume that some of the military will defect.

Exactly why I typed out a biological warfare scenario.

The supreme court only considers restriction necessary when dealing with weapons like previously mentioned. Magazine size for a semi automatic weapon isn't really covered.

I'll get back to you after I finish my exams.

Saen
Saen
  • Member since: Feb. 22, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 18
Reader
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-02-07 11:47:34 Reply

At 2/6/13 07:58 PM, RacistBassist wrote:
Not really. If you're shooting a soft target whether you have 30 rounds straight through semi-automatic, bolt action, or needing to change out magazines every 5 shots is largely irrelevant if you're shooting something that can't shoot back. I'd argue that people using bolt action would be more deadly due to the forced slow down, making people aim better.

So few gun owners are skilled with actual gun shooting. Being accurate does take significant skill, that's why semi auto rifles are such a desirable alternative to bolt action. That said you don't need 20 or 30 rounds of ammo in one cartridge at the range.


And why is that? Why is a guy spending the extra second to reload somehow more of a morally superior and justifiable way to get shot at?

More than a second, seconds, which are crucial for a mass shooter. One of the advantages of extended magazine sizes is an overall increased rate of fire and fewer reloading periods.


It's kind of a big one when talking about the legality of things. People argue that the founders intended muskets, (Even though those weren't the only types of weapons of the time but whatever, and they would allow you to have cannons but whatever) but they completely fail to neglect that it is saying the people have a right to be well armed. A musket is not being well armed by todays standards. I hear absolutely nobody arguing that a ban on the internet does not violate the first amendment.

I've never heard that, people think we should be using muskets because of the 2nd? Certainly not me. I wan't to know what you and other here think how we should define well-armed by today's standards. It is in fact a quantifiable measure, but please tell me.


You think that none of our military would defect, and that those that don't would have zero qualms about just massacring US citizens on US soil? It's easy to try to justify some Afghan in the mountains as collateral damage, it's harder to justify your neighbors kid.

Of course some of the military would defect, I admitted and addressed that issue two posts ago. This entire "government war" scenario rests on the idea that one the government is truly after a certain demographic of the U.S. population and two a significant portion ~50% of citizens would be be willing to go to war against each other.

The notion is ridiculous yes! However it seems most of you have a firm believe that the government want's to kill us all, it's an "issue" I'm trying to address and understand here lol.


Right, because our government would just go and do that shit on our own soil. Makes perfect sense.

It doesn't make any sense I know! The government is not after you or your guns, your wife, dog, pickup truck, flag, I don't know! It's a non-issue I don't know why we have to go so deep into this extremely hypothetical realm.

Saen
Saen
  • Member since: Feb. 22, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 18
Reader
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-02-07 12:23:24 Reply

At 2/6/13 09:33 PM, TheMason wrote:
* A shotgun is the most applicable to home-defense, agreed. However, depending on if you have a responsible home-defense plan (ie: retreat to a strong room) you may have to fire through a heavy wooden door. In this case, the slug or buckshot would lack the penetrating power. You might want something that shoots a fast round like an assault rifle class round...or you would want a high powered rifle.

In that situation I think a rifle will do just fine.

* I know many cattlemen. We're not talking about scald crows, but coyotes and other pack animals which are small and do not require a high powered round such as most bolt-action rifles. A less powerful assault-rifle/military round is just enough power to deal with varmits. Also a lot cheaper.

With coyotes it's really just a matter of personal preference, there will be few situations where you'll have to shoot from a distance compared to that of a scald crow. In either situation you don't need any kind of extended magazine.


* If they are hunting like you say...then:
1) They are hunting illegally. Most people in the rural I live in either shoot at poachers doing this to scare them off...or turn them in. They get arrested and loose everything in their truck.
2) In this case you want them armed with an AK-47. It is big enough to bring down a deer (unlike the AR-15), but does not have the range of high powered rifles.

Nope it's perfectly legal, it's how "hunting" is done in Florida. Load up your dog cage in your half ton, drive out to the woods, let your dogs out into the woods, and sit in the back of your truck wearing an orange vest with a rifle in one hand and a Bud in the other. You do not fucking need an AK-47 to "hunt" deer that is fucking insane.

What really bothers me is what Americans are calling hunting. Hunting requires skill, patience, an a certain amount of risk. None of which is involved when you "hunt" with a heavy assault rifle and don't even fucking venture out into the woods.


* These guns DO NOT fire high calibur bullets.
* If you fire in the shortest period of time...you have most likely missed 90% of what you are shooting at and are out of bullets.
* The AR-15 and AK-47 are no more accurate than any hunting rifle or even .22. This is as silly of an argument as it is erroneous.
* Magazine capacity does not even correlate with a high rate of hitting anyone or body count in mass shootings.
* Typically, when assault rifle clones are used in mass shootings...you see a far less loss of life.

How accurate do you need to be when your targets are 10 ft in front of you in a classroom? There is nothing wrong with hunting rifles and calling the bullet sizes of assault rifles small when compared them to hunting rifles is absurd.


In the case of military style firearms, the .223, 5.56mm, and 7.62x39mm rounds that are common for the AR-15 and AK-47 are some of the least 'badass' rounds out there. Even if you use HP rounds, the AR-15 round travels so fast it has a small chance of mushrooming.

This is exactly why people with fear and no experience with guns CANNOT take you seriously. Technical bullshit such as this when we are talking about the legality of large magazine sizes and assault rifles and their role in mass shootings.


You can buy effective hunting rounds for the AK, but these are cost prohibitive at over $1/rd compared to $0.27 for the far less lethal military round.

Again same point I made above. Taking the humanity and history out of the situation and diving head first into technicalities.


Magazine capacity is, again, not the boogey man you think they are. In fact, with handguns they work against someone since they make the gun more awkward and less able to be concealed.

Then why have Uzi's been banned? It seems the compact, high rate of fire, and large magazine capacity combination has been deemed too deadly of a combination.


The point is it is common misperception that military small arms such as assault rifles, sniper rifles, and pistols are unusually or uncommonly lethal. This is simply not true. As I have said on here ad nauseum, military ammo are prohibited from making death inevitable. This is why, for example, in Somalia we were hitting the militia fighters multiple times and they kept on fighting.

Thus, these firearms are not the killing machine menace that politicians and gun control advocates make them out to be.

What you suggest our military use instead to be "more deadly"?


With all due respect, just because you're a wildlife biology Sophmore/Junior at FSU does not make you an expert on CBRNe. However, being a 3E9X1 serving on a CST...I do have a certain level of professional experience on this topic.

I never made that suggestion. No one here has any professional experience in being involved in a war with our government.

In short:
* A hypothetically tyrannical US Govt would not use nukes domestically. It would bring in outside countries as well as making the land unusable once they are able to pacify the inhabitants.
* Torture along with too heavy of a hand when suppressing a rebellion, historically speaking, tends to actually weaken the Government's support eventually eroding it and resulting in an increased recruitment for the rebels.
* Small arms such as the AK-47 are capable of taking out low flying attack aircraft such as the AH-64 Apache (this has happened in Iraq) and the A-6 Intruder (Vietnam).

I'm not saying that victory for either side would be guaranteed. All I'm saying is that anyone who is convinced of the US military's invincibility when it comes to guerrilla warfare is grossly unaware of the military's capabilities as well as history.

Plenty of other factors involved in this very extreme situation of war with our government. To list only a few, starvation, disease, and lack of medical care. However let's just please end this fucking stupid "war with the government" bullshit.

If you would like to get your point across and be taken seriously by members on the other side of the argument, you all need to let that idea go.

TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-02-07 18:24:33 Reply

At 2/7/13 12:23 PM, Saen wrote: In that situation I think a rifle will do just fine.

I'm sorry, but I've got to slip into technicals (ie: scientific fact) so I'm sorry not to insert something as concrete as 'feelings'...

But a deer rifle still not be able to cut it. Yes, a deer rifle has the velocity (ie: power), but not the composition. A hollow point or soft lead core could be stopped. On the other hand an intermediate round FMJ would have the proper composition.


With coyotes it's really just a matter of personal preference, there will be few situations where you'll have to shoot from a distance compared to that of a scald crow. In either situation you don't need any kind of extended magazine.

An assault rifle does not have that great of a distance.


Nope it's perfectly legal, it's how "hunting" is done in Florida. Load up your dog cage in your half ton, drive out to the woods, let your dogs out into the woods, and sit in the back of your truck wearing an orange vest with a rifle in one hand and a Bud in the other. You do not fucking need an AK-47 to "hunt" deer that is fucking insane.

Um...okay...that's not the way he hunt in Mo. That's considered unethical.

On the other hand, why do you think that using an AK-47 to hunt deer is insane? In fact in a close range situation, the AK would be the safer choice because it has the killing power of a high-powered round at close range...but does not have the range of a high powered rifle. This reduces the chance of hurting someone or damaging property if you miss (it happens) than if you are using a traditional deer rifle. Also, if using a semi-auto you are limited to a five round mag.

So claiming that using an AK is fucking insane...if just ignorance.


What really bothers me is what Americans are calling hunting. Hunting requires skill, patience, an a certain amount of risk. None of which is involved when you "hunt" with a heavy assault rifle and don't even fucking venture out into the woods.

1) Sorry, but what you are talking is not representative of American's hunting attitudes; but of Florida's.
2) The AK is better for hunting in the woods. It is not a high-powered (or 'heavy) rifle...but of limited range. You need a gun that is effective at close-range...not the sniper-like long range of a traditional deer rifle.


How accurate do you need to be when your targets are 10 ft in front of you in a classroom? ...

You need to be more accurate than is possible when you are pulling the trigger as fast as you can. When you do this, your second shot will be higher than the average elementary student is tall and your fourth shot will be higher than the average adult. Anything past that will be in the ceiling. So yeah...you have to be somewhat accurate which people armed with assault rifles tend not to be.

Smaller mags force a shooter to be more economical with his rounds, which forces them into firing aimed shots. This is why mass shooters armed with handguns tend to kill and wound more people than shooters with assault rifles.

This can be seen in Aurora, Co. He opened up with an AR, but the high cap mag failed after less than 30 shots were fired forcing him to his shotgun (which had less than 10 shells) and then his handguns. Of the 70 people hit, I would make an informed guess that 15-20 were hit with AR rounds and the remaining 50-55 were hit with shotgun pellets and handgun ammo. The majority of serious wounds and deaths being from the handguns.



In the case of military style firearms, .. are some of the least 'badass' rounds out there...
This is exactly why people with fear and no experience with guns CANNOT take you seriously. Technical bullshit such as this when we are talking about the legality of large magazine sizes and assault rifles and their role in mass shootings.

You should probably retire from being the spokesperson of your side of the argument. This 'technical bullshit' are scientific facts. Round/bullet characteristics are THE deciding factor in how effective at killing and wounding a firearm are. 'Assault rifles' are cosmetic features of the gun that effects the lethality very little. High capacity magazines do play some role, but not as much as you'd think. The vast majority of shooters using assault rifles in mass shootings spray and pray which means bullets miss their targets and they run out of ammo faster which means more lives saved.

And for me reducing the amount of lives lost and the severity of wounds is seen both in the history of the subject as well as speaks to my humanity on the subject.


Again same point I made above. Taking the humanity and history out of the situation and diving head first into technicalities.

That you want to speak about feelings rather than focusing on what will actually save lives shows that you lack a humane perspective on this subject as well as a lack of knowledge of the history.


Then why have Uzi's been banned? It seems the compact, high rate of fire, and large magazine capacity combination has been deemed too deadly of a combination.

Um...they have not been banned. I own one.

Secondly, full-auto guns were outlawed at the time that the Tommy Gun was representative of them. The gun weighed about 13lbs fully loaded. This made muzzle rise less of an issue than the M-16/AR-15 that weighs 8.8lbs fully loaded or the UZI which is around 4lbs.


Thus, these firearms are not the killing machine menace that politicians and gun control advocates make them out to be.
What you suggest our military use instead to be "more deadly"?

Um...no...I'm pointing out the legal and scientific FACT that the military uses ammo that is LESS than lethal. There are reasons you do not want to kill the other side's soldiers with small arms fire...so I would not suggest arming the military with deadly/lethal ammo.


I never made that suggestion. No one here has any professional experience in being involved in a war with our government.

But I do have the knowledge of history of rebel groups fighting our military, and experience in that military in a time of war with guerilla fighters. ;)


If you would like to get your point across and be taken seriously by members on the other side of the argument, you all need to let that idea go.

This line of argument is less than 5% of my point. The rest of my argument uses facts, logic, and scientific/academic studies to build a coherent public policy opinion. I am speaking to:
* The intent of the second amendment and
* The relevance/applicability/feasibility of that intent today.

The points I make are based upon relevant experience and education, whereas you are making assumptions made upon erroneous suppostions.

... There is nothing wrong with hunting rifles and calling the bullet sizes of assault rifles small when compared them to hunting rifles is absurd.

Not absurd...factually true.

M-16/AR-15:
36-77 grains (weight)
3,000-3,750 f/ps (velocity)
.223" diameter
1,200 ft-lbs (energy)

AK-47
125-154 grains
2,100-2,600 f/ps
.30" diameter
2,000-2,500 ft-lbs

.270 (relatively small deer/game load)
90-150 grains
2,850-3,600 f/ps
.270" diameter
2,600-2,950 ft-lbs

So yeah...assault rifle rounds are NOT heavy/high-powered/big rounds! AK-47 rounds are equivalent to smaller game rounds (antelope/deer)...but do not have near the effective range of tradtional hunting rounds.

Gun Control Does Not Work (proof)


Debunking conspiracy theories for the New World Order since 1995...
" I hereby accuse you attempting to silence me..." --PurePress

BBS Signature
Saen
Saen
  • Member since: Feb. 22, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 18
Reader
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-02-07 18:49:39 Reply

At 2/7/13 06:24 PM, TheMason wrote:
On the other hand, why do you think that using an AK-47 to hunt deer is insane? In fact in a close range situation, the AK would be the safer choice because it has the killing power of a high-powered round at close range...but does not have the range of a high powered rifle. This reduces the chance of hurting someone or damaging property if you miss (it happens) than if you are using a traditional deer rifle. Also, if using a semi-auto you are limited to a five round mag.

So claiming that using an AK is fucking insane...if just ignorance.

It's not hunting I'm sorry! There's absolutely no sport in hunting with an AK-47 and it's certainly something I would ever admit to doing any serious hunter.


You need to be more accurate than is possible when you are pulling the trigger as fast as you can. When you do this, your second shot will be higher than the average elementary student is tall and your fourth shot will be higher than the average adult. Anything past that will be in the ceiling. So yeah...you have to be somewhat accurate which people armed with assault rifles tend not to be.

Smaller mags force a shooter to be more economical with his rounds, which forces them into firing aimed shots. This is why mass shooters armed with handguns tend to kill and wound more people than shooters with assault rifles.

Lmfao if you can explain this with a straight face to the parent victims of mass shooting more power to you! Seriously this is just laughable.


And for me reducing the amount of lives lost and the severity of wounds is seen both in the history of the subject as well as speaks to my humanity on the subject.

Lol ok sure.


That you want to speak about feelings rather than focusing on what will actually save lives shows that you lack a humane perspective on this subject as well as a lack of knowledge of the history.

By that logic handguns and shotguns should be made illegal because they are deadlier at killing 4ft elementary school students and have a recoil rate of +2cm per 20 milliseconds and the bullets are more likely to force the soul out of the victim.


Um...they have not been banned. I own one.

A full auto Uzi? I wouldn't tell anyone else that lol.


Um...no...I'm pointing out the legal and scientific FACT that the military uses ammo that is LESS than lethal. There are reasons you do not want to kill the other side's soldiers with small arms fire...so I would not suggest arming the military with deadly/lethal ammo.

Right, I forgot that the conservative, gun tooting party doesn't want to kill terrorists in the war on terror, my bad.


Not absurd...factually true.

M-16/AR-15:
36-77 grains (weight)
3,000-3,750 f/ps (velocity)
.223" diameter
1,200 ft-lbs (energy)

AK-47
125-154 grains
2,100-2,600 f/ps
.30" diameter
2,000-2,500 ft-lbs

.270 (relatively small deer/game load)
90-150 grains
2,850-3,600 f/ps
.270" diameter
2,600-2,950 ft-lbs

So yeah...assault rifle rounds are NOT heavy/high-powered/big rounds! AK-47 rounds are equivalent to smaller game rounds (antelope/deer)...but do not have near the effective range of tradtional hunting rounds.

And by this same argument and "logic" of yours assault rifles should be deemed more deadly than pistols and shotguns in mass shootings. What's gonna be jack?

RacistBassist
RacistBassist
  • Member since: Jun. 14, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 16
Melancholy
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-02-07 19:42:56 Reply

At 2/7/13 11:47 AM, Saen wrote: So few gun owners are skilled with actual gun shooting. Being accurate does take significant skill, that's why semi auto rifles are such a desirable alternative to bolt action. That said you don't need 20 or 30 rounds of ammo in one cartridge at the range.

It has less to do with skill and what naturally happens when you fire multiple rounds in a row with no reset. Sure, with a semi automatic, you can greatly increase the rate of fire, but that doesn't mean you will be able to hit as many targets with the increased fire, because not everyone can have the skill to do so.

More than a second, seconds, which are crucial for a mass shooter. One of the advantages of extended magazine sizes is an overall increased rate of fire and fewer reloading periods.

Two seconds is barely enough time to grow a massive set of testicles and be able to tackle a shooter, assuming he only has one gun. Sure, if you can hit him from a blindside then yes, but you could do that in the first place. The time it takes to reload hardly affects rate of fire, and that is assuming somebody is just letting them loose as fast as they can, not even bothering with hitting anything except the ceiling.

I've never heard that, people think we should be using muskets because of the 2nd? Certainly not me. I wan't to know what you and other here think how we should define well-armed by today's standards. It is in fact a quantifiable measure, but please tell me.

Yes, quite a few people do actually. I would count well-armed as, cost prohibiting, access to any small arm that isn't explosive ordnance. A handgun is not well armed, and neither is a shotgun. Both have their short comings.

Of course some of the military would defect, I admitted and addressed that issue two posts ago. This entire "government war" scenario rests on the idea that one the government is truly after a certain demographic of the U.S. population and two a significant portion ~50% of citizens would be be willing to go to war against each other.

And people being armed helps prevent exactly this sort of thing from happening.

The notion is ridiculous yes! However it seems most of you have a firm believe that the government want's to kill us all, it's an "issue" I'm trying to address and understand here lol.

It's not an issue of if they currently want to. I do not think my house is going to catch on fire this instant, but that doesn't mean I don't keep a fire extinguisher handy.

It doesn't make any sense I know! The government is not after you or your guns, your wife, dog, pickup truck, flag, I don't know! It's a non-issue I don't know why we have to go so deep into this extremely hypothetical realm.

Except they are after the guns, and depending on where you live certain types of dogs.


All the cool kids have signature text

BBS Signature
theburningliberal
theburningliberal
  • Member since: Jul. 12, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Blank Slate
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-02-07 23:04:12 Reply

So yeah...assault rifle rounds are NOT heavy/high-powered/big rounds! AK-47 rounds are equivalent to smaller game rounds (antelope/deer)...but do not have near the effective range of tradtional hunting rounds.

Just random note here, just occurred to me lol... I have even noticed this in some of the video games I play... For instance, the M82 Assault Rifle used as the default weapon in Killzone 3 is relatively weak compared to some of the LMG's and other weapons our characters have access to.

End random thought.

RacistBassist
RacistBassist
  • Member since: Jun. 14, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 16
Melancholy
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-02-08 02:03:55 Reply

At 2/7/13 06:49 PM, Saen wrote: Lmfao if you can explain this with a straight face to the parent victims of mass shooting more power to you! Seriously this is just laughable.

Is the only thing you have emotional knee jerk BS? I wouldn't start talking about crash impact and the technicalities behind it to somebody who lost someone in a car accident. It's just bad manners. It doesn't make getting hit by a Honda at 20 MPH all of a sudden on par with getting hit by an SUV at 40 MPH though. If they go in a public manner, and start trying to ban something off of aesthetics, let's say "race car style spoilers and fins" after this though, then I will criticize them, their loved ones be damned. They use their dead what have you as a soapbox, and it is no longer off limits.


All the cool kids have signature text

BBS Signature
Saen
Saen
  • Member since: Feb. 22, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 18
Reader
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-02-08 06:16:02 Reply

At 2/7/13 07:42 PM, RacistBassist wrote:
Two seconds is barely enough time to grow a massive set of testicles and be able to tackle a shooter, assuming he only has one gun. Sure, if you can hit him from a blindside then yes, but you could do that in the first place. The time it takes to reload hardly affects rate of fire, and that is assuming somebody is just letting them loose as fast as they can, not even bothering with hitting anything except the ceiling.

So more frequent reloading cannot translate into a higher percent of error when trying to reload? Time to reload hardly effects rate of fire? The shooter would only being firing at the ceiling? Rofl come on let's gently float back down to Earth here please.


Yes, quite a few people do actually. I would count well-armed as, cost prohibiting, access to any small arm that isn't explosive ordnance. A handgun is not well armed, and neither is a shotgun. Both have their short comings.

Lmao so basically well armed is based on a debt percentage? So credit default as a result of purchasing too many firearms would be considered over the top? How about a per-capita measure guns per citizens (of legal age to buy guns) across all industrialized nations? Anything above that measure would be well armed.

Or would well armed be defined in America in terms of gun type? So having a pistol, rifle, and shotgun for example would be considered well armed. Now keep in mind I'm certainly not implying at all that I'd want to limit gun ownership to just these types of guns or just owning one of each type. The U.S. makes waaaaay too much money in tax revenue over gun nuts who are scared of their own shadow.

Saen
Saen
  • Member since: Feb. 22, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 18
Reader
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-02-08 06:31:13 Reply

At 2/8/13 02:03 AM, RacistBassist wrote:
Is the only thing you have emotional knee jerk BS? I wouldn't start talking about crash impact and the technicalities behind it to somebody who lost someone in a car accident. It's just bad manners. It doesn't make getting hit by a Honda at 20 MPH all of a sudden on par with getting hit by an SUV at 40 MPH though. If they go in a public manner, and start trying to ban something off of aesthetics, let's say "race car style spoilers and fins" after this though, then I will criticize them, their loved ones be damned. They use their dead what have you as a soapbox, and it is no longer off limits.

There is a reason why I called it technical bullshit, because it is BULLSHIT. What do you think a shooter is going to do if his recoil rate gets too high, adjust his aim or fire in bursts end of discussion! He's not going to keep firing at the ceiling or get too much gunpowder in his eyes or stop firing and burst into tears.

A mass shooter limited to a 10-round magazine will inevitably spend a much more time reloading and as a result less time shooting people which translates into fewer fatalities. Let's say shooter walks into a classroom with a 30-round magazine and fires at students at a rate of three rounds per second (which is not much at all), you're telling me with a 10 round clip he will spend time aiming and add an entire second just to take one shot as a result of a smaller magazine?

It's bullshit and that's why advocates of gun restriction just cannot take you guys seriously. You know what they would really appreciate though and I'm sure you guys would enjoy doing? A genuine, unbiased education of types of guns, bullets, magazines, history, etc. This would really help both sides of the argument come to a reasonable resolution when it comes to proposing new gun legislation.

TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-02-08 10:01:37 Reply

At 2/7/13 06:49 PM, Saen wrote: It's not hunting I'm sorry! There's absolutely no sport in hunting with an AK-47 and it's certainly something I would ever admit to doing any serious hunter.

I'm sorry, but just because you say it is so...does not make it so. I am part of the hunting community here in Mo, a community that (judging from your description) is much more sporting and ethical than the hunters you know in Florida. And I we talk about what we use. When I'm hunting my field, I use a .270 bolt action. It is much more accurate, scoped, and has a longer range (both in terms of accuracy and killing power). When I am in the woods I do not need/want a scope, nor do I need that powerful of a cartridge. I need a brush gun.

My AK-47 semi-auto clone, loaded with hunting rounds instead of the less effective military ammo in a 5rd mag is perfectly sporting, ethical, and legal for hunting.

See in the 1990s the SKS and AK became more popular for hunting deer, for the following reasons:
* When I got my MAK-90 (Chinese variant) it only cost me $250, about half the cost of a deer rifle.
* I can buy military surplus ammo at about $6/box of 20 at Walmart. Last time I bought in bulk I got it for $0.27/round. So I can practice and spend more time at the range (making me more accurate and thus more safe). I'm looking at about $25/box of 20 rounds for my .270 at Walmart. (Hunting ammo for the AK at Walmart is about $20-25) So I don't shoot my .270 as much because of just how expensive it is.
* When you are hunting in the woods you do not take shots at long range. On my property the longest shot in the woods I'll take is 75 yards. I do not need a scope, nor do I need a high-powered round. The AK round is what's called an 'intermediate' round because it's power is between that of a pistol round and a high-powered round. The AK is accurate out to 150 yards (compared to more than double for a traditional deer round) it also loses energy (ie: killing power) about 200-250 yards (traditional deer rifles can remain lethal over far greater distances).

Either tell me something based in fact why hunting with an AK is 'fucking insane' or STFU...by ignoring facts you are not being a good spokesperson for your side. Instead you are displaying ignorance and closed-mindedness.


Smaller mags force a shooter to be more economical with his rounds, which forces them into firing aimed shots. This is why mass shooters armed with handguns tend to kill and wound more people than shooters with assault rifles.
Lmfao if you can explain this with a straight face to the parent victims of mass shooting more power to you! Seriously this is just laughable.

When you look at mass shootings a few trends appear:
* When the shooter uses assault rifles there are fewer deaths and serious injuries than when handguns are used.
* More people are hit with less rounds expended when the shooter uses a handgun than when he uses an assault rifle.

Part of this is that high capacity mags tend to present the following issues and induce the following behaviors:
* High capacity magazines are prone to failure. This is why we do not issue riflemen in the Army and Marines 100rd drum mags. Even 30rd mags for the M-16 are so problematic that the military has had to re-engineer them.
* While most mass shootings tend to include massive planning, not much research goes into firearm selection. The good thing about people like you perpetrating the myth/error/fallacy that assault rifles and military rounds create maximum damage and that high rates of fire result in high body counts...perpetrates behavior such as pulling the trigger as fast as possible. This means less people get hurt or die.

Here's some examples:
Stockton,Ca:
Man opens up with an AK clone fired 100 rounds onto a playground using spray and pray, only killed five.

Virginia Tech:
Cho stalked from classroom to classroom using a .22 and 9mm pistol. He fired approcimately 99-100 rounds. Killed 32.

N. Hollywood:
Bank robbers had a shoot-out with police using modified to full auto assault rifles. They fired over 3,000 rounds. Hit 17 people...killed no one.

Aurora, Co:
Holmes opened up with his AR using a 100rd drum mag. Not even getting 30 rounds off...the drum failed. He switched to a shotgun (from the reports I think he may have been using birdshot) and when he emptied that low capacity mag he switched to handguns. Therefore, of the 70 people hit in this shooting, once the corner report is released it will most likely show that less people where hit by the AR and the most serious wounds and greater amount of death was caused by the handguns.


That you want to speak about feelings rather than focusing on what will actually save lives shows that you lack a humane perspective on this subject as well as a lack of knowledge of the history.
By that logic handguns and shotguns should be made illegal because they are deadlier at killing 4ft elementary school students and have a recoil rate of +2cm per 20 milliseconds and the bullets are more likely to force the soul out of the victim.

Yes, when you look at the facts any further gun control on assault rifles do not address any issue. Assault rifles, statistically speaking are used in a rate approaching zero. About 0.04% of murders involve an AR or AK clone. Meanwhile, 75-89% of firearm murders use handguns. In studies interveiwing criminals, many who have access to both handguns and assault rifle clones choose the handgun (or shotgun) over the assault rifle because they are better suited to close quarters tactical situation and are more capable of killing a person (ergo...not leaving a witness).



Um...they have not been banned. I own one.
A full auto Uzi? I wouldn't tell anyone else that lol.

* A full auto Uzi is not outlawed. I merely requires a Class III license.
* What I own is a semi-auto Uzi. I can get my Class III, but I see them as ineffective and a waste of money.



Um...no...I'm pointing out the legal and scientific FACT that the military uses ammo that is LESS than lethal. ...
Right, I forgot that the conservative, gun tooting party doesn't want to kill terrorists in the war on terror, my bad.

Um...what does this have to do with anything? According to international law (known as Law Of Armed Conflict), specifically the Hague Convention...the use of non-FMJ ammo is expressly prohibited. The Hague Convention prohibits the use of ammo that will make death inevitable.

The Bush administration did not authorize the use of hunting ammo or self-defense ammo (ie: soft lead core, HP or JHP).

This point, besides avoiding the facts, only shows just how little of basis from which you have to speak.


So yeah...assault rifle rounds are NOT heavy/high-powered/big rounds! AK-47 rounds are equivalent to smaller game rounds (antelope/deer)...but do not have near the effective range of tradtional hunting rounds.
And by this same argument and "logic" of yours assault rifles should be deemed more deadly than pistols and shotguns in mass shootings. What's gonna be jack?

No...because handgun and pistol rounds tend to be even heavier. Also, the physical properties of the bullets make them more deadly. In no way does this run counter or conflicts whith anything I have previously said.


Debunking conspiracy theories for the New World Order since 1995...
" I hereby accuse you attempting to silence me..." --PurePress

BBS Signature
RacistBassist
RacistBassist
  • Member since: Jun. 14, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 16
Melancholy
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-02-08 13:07:37 Reply

At 2/8/13 06:31 AM, Saen wrote: There is a reason why I called it technical bullshit, because it is BULLSHIT. What do you think a shooter is going to do if his recoil rate gets too high, adjust his aim or fire in bursts end of discussion! He's not going to keep firing at the ceiling or get too much gunpowder in his eyes or stop firing and burst into tears.

No, it is not bullshit. Bolt action forces a slow down of shots, meaning that the person becomes more accurate. Now, if they're placing their shots and aiming without spraying, than the gun being semi-automatic doesn't really change much. I honestly don't see what your point is. It's either the shooter keeps missing, or he fires in a manner that limiting magazine size or semi-automatic/automatic a completely moot point to try to mitigate damage.

A mass shooter limited to a 10-round magazine will inevitably spend a much more time reloading and as a result less time shooting people which translates into fewer fatalities. Let's say shooter walks into a classroom with a 30-round magazine and fires at students at a rate of three rounds per second (which is not much at all), you're telling me with a 10 round clip he will spend time aiming and add an entire second just to take one shot as a result of a smaller magazine?

Shooters are hardly on a grand enough time scale where the time lost from reloading equates to fewer casualties. Three rounds per second? He isn't hitting shit, let alone multiple people. What would happen? He walks in, kills the people closest to him. Reloads. Nobody has time to react any differently then if he were to have a 30 round magazine, or 100. I'm saying the magazine limit does nothing to correlate to fewer deaths, not that it forces him to aim more.

It's bullshit and that's why advocates of gun restriction just cannot take you guys seriously. You know what they would really appreciate though and I'm sure you guys would enjoy doing? A genuine, unbiased education of types of guns, bullets, magazines, history, etc. This would really help both sides of the argument come to a reasonable resolution when it comes to proposing new gun legislation.

Please tell me how adding 2 seconds (Not in a row either) onto every 30 rounds fired would effectively curb deaths. Please tell me how having a semi-automatic rifle suddenly makes you more deadly. Please tell me how spray and pray makes you magically hit 3 people a second. To put it quite frankly, gun control advocates are, generally speaking, fucking idiots when it comes to technical details and ballistics. I mean shit, the mere fact that they're pushing for an aesthetic ban speaks volumes about their mentality. They consistently refer to the Ar-15 as military STYLE and a weapon of war, even though no military in the world regularly uses them, and that underneath the hood here is a huge difference between it and a true assault rifle. I can put spoilers and a cool paint job on my shitty ass Honda, but that does not make it a race car.


All the cool kids have signature text

BBS Signature
RacistBassist
RacistBassist
  • Member since: Jun. 14, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 16
Melancholy
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-02-08 13:09:13 Reply

At 2/8/13 06:16 AM, Saen wrote: So more frequent reloading cannot translate into a higher percent of error when trying to reload? Time to reload hardly effects rate of fire? The shooter would only being firing at the ceiling? Rofl come on let's gently float back down to Earth here please.

It can present a higher error rate. Unless you're popping off all of the rounds you can as fast as you can, the reload time is negligible, and if you're firing at speeds where the amount of time it takes to reload greatly affects the amount of shots you're getting off, you aren't hitting much. Empty 10 rounds from any weapon and see the spread. It goes up up and away. The ceiling bit was hyperbole, but you're definitely not adding to your lethality.

Lmao so basically well armed is based on a debt percentage? So credit default as a result of purchasing too many firearms would be considered over the top? How about a per-capita measure guns per citizens (of legal age to buy guns) across all industrialized nations? Anything above that measure would be well armed.

You misinterpreted what I said. Access to any small arm available, including those sooper scary automatic weapons, but if it costs too much then I understand if we can't really get a hold of one.

Or would well armed be defined in America in terms of gun type? So having a pistol, rifle, and shotgun for example would be considered well armed. Now keep in mind I'm certainly not implying at all that I'd want to limit gun ownership to just these types of guns or just owning one of each type. The U.S. makes waaaaay too much money in tax revenue over gun nuts who are scared of their own shadow.

I would count having a carbine as better well armed than 10 handguns. What's wrong with making money off of firearms? People want to buy them, so let them. They do something nefarious with them, then punish them. If I want to own 1000 AR-15s than that's my prerogative. I also don't understand how weapon quantity has anything to do with paranoia. If you have multiple firearms, you're not going to be able to use all of them. And no, people who own firearms are not scared of our own shadows.


All the cool kids have signature text

BBS Signature
TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-02-08 15:24:53 Reply

At 2/8/13 06:31 AM, Saen wrote: It's bullshit and that's why advocates of gun restriction just cannot take you guys seriously. You know what they would really appreciate though and I'm sure you guys would enjoy doing? A genuine, unbiased education of types of guns, bullets, magazines, history, etc. This would really help both sides of the argument come to a reasonable resolution when it comes to proposing new gun legislation.

No Saen, the bullshit here is you.

You are not the arbiter of reason, logic, or sanity. Nor do you speak for advocates of gun control. There are far, far better spokespersons on this BBS than you: Camarohusky, theburningliberal, Feoric, and PoxPower to name a few. These are individuals with whom I have the genuine and unbiased sort of education that you speak of. And we have an actual dialogue where we consider each other's points of view and find some common ground.

You on the other hand, knee-jerk when presented with facts that contradict assumptions that to you, as a firearms layperson, seem reasonable and logical...disregard them as biased and bullshit.

So in the end, what you are really searching for (and here you show your hand) is NOT "A genuine, unbiased education of types of guns, bullets, magazines, history, etc.", but rather someone to give your beliefs a concrete foundation. You are not on a search for truth, but instead you are on a search for someone to tell you that you are right.

====

But in the spirit of that which you articulate:

BULLET TYPES
FMJ
HP (For a discussion of what is and is not acceptable for use in warfare pay attention to this section and here.)
Other types

BULLET POWER
Intermediate power. This also explains where assault rifle rounds fit in relative to the range and muzzle velocity of handgun and full/high-powered rifle rounds.

EFFECTIVENESS OF THE 1994 AWB
* The ban targeted weapons based on features that did not effect the weapons' operation, removing these features allowed versions that were functionally identical but cosmetically different be sold. (pg 1)
* It banned Lg Capacity Magazines (LGMs), but not those already in circulation. 21% of handguns accepted LGMs in 1994.
* The decline in use of 'assault weapons' seen between 1994-2004 were seen in pistols...not rifles. (pg 2)
* Assault rifles were rarely used in crime even before the AWB. (Ibid)
* AWs were rarely used in crime prior to 1994 (2%-5%). (Ibid)
* LCMs contributed more to crime than AWs (14-26% of gun crimes). (Ibid)
* The ban on LCMs was undermined by the amount of LCMs already in circulation. (Ibid)
* 'Assault' pistols outnumbered Assault rifle (clones) in the use of crime by 3:1. (pg 15)
* Assault weapons are not useful in the commission of crime due to difficulty concealing them, and 'assault' pistols tend to be signifcantly more expensive than non-assault pistols. (Ibid)
SOURCE

In reading this study, I come away with the impression that an AWB would not accomplish much. We are targeting a small amount of crime with this. But if we wanted to be somewhat proactive and make some movement towards reasonable, restrictions the following public policy would make the most sense:
* Restricting pistol magazines to 10 rounds.

MY OWN HUMANITY
In 1999 my ex-wife and I took in her brother. Her brother and her came from an abusive home, and were not accepted by my community when they moved there about 8 years earlier. Her little brother seemed to catch the brunt of bullying at school and by 1998 he was exhibiting violent tendencies. My ex and I had moved 40 miles away and took guardianship of him. On moving in, shortly after Columbine, he told me the plan he and his buddy had come up with before Columbine. It was chilling to listen to him describe in detail how he was going to kill students at the school I graduated from...and my mother taught at. We got him out of that situation and thanks to the Mo National Guard's Show-Me Challenge program...we prevented him from throwing away his and other's lives.

So yeah...I take this very seriously and look at this from the perspective of someone who came damn close to be the son of a victim and the brother-in-law of a perp who himself was a victim.

Since then, as I have become more of an academic (earning my Masters in political science and enrolled in a PhD program until I was deployed), I have studied the phenomenon of mass killers and have come up with the following conclusions:

* They are a public ritual for joiners who are rejected by their peers (as opposed to being loners) in which they destroy themselves through a ceremonial suicide that sacrifices innocents (which is why the bullies at Columbine were spared).
* That this ritual fulfills a need for a rite of passage, that is non-existent in white American. This explains why mass shooters are white males and very, very few are black or latino. (Gangs and gang pop culture provide this for those groups.)
* In response to these ceremonies, survivors have counter-ceremonies of revenge/justice or forgiveness/advocacy. These include: asking for the death penalty or multiple life sentences (revenge/justice) or forgiving the shooter and/or advocating for gun control (forgiveness/advocacy). This is why I would be compassionate towards a survivor close to the time of the tragedy because this is a way of mourning. But it does not mean that their ritual and mourning process should effect public policy and/or governance.
* We should look at how school reform by Clinton, Bush, and now Obama makes our schools places of institutional violence that suppresses kids prior to a mass violence event. (IE: zero-tolerance policies, school uniforms, uniformed police, accountability testing, etc).
* Be very careful of how kids are labeled and that we do not overreact and label them.
* We should be very careful of how we treat the mentally ill, scapegoating them will have a chilling effect on people seeking help. A veteran or cop suffering from PTSD may avoid treatment that could prevent him from going off the rails if seeking treatment removes his/her gun rights.
* Shooters have also used bombs and starting to use chemical weapons (Holmes in Aurora used a homemade irritant). While Germany saw mass shooters move to things like axes...our mass shooters will more likely move to more lethal means (substitution effects) in lieu of firearms. Therefore, address the cause is more important than addressing the symptom.


Debunking conspiracy theories for the New World Order since 1995...
" I hereby accuse you attempting to silence me..." --PurePress

BBS Signature
TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-02-08 15:31:47 Reply

[CONT.]

Also, as a social scientist who has studied this I've seen the following data:
* The correlation between gun availability and gun crime is statistically insignificant with a p-value quite often less than the 0.05 threshold for significance.
* The US is not statistically more prone to gun violence than other countries. We are about 0.82 standard deviations from the mean for firearm homicides compared to Canada which is about -0.86. Anything greater than 1 standard deviation from the mean is considered outside normal limits.
* Gun crime's causal factors, as determined by scientific inquiry, are:
1) Economic
2) Education
3) Ethnolinguistic factionalization (ELF) or how diverse a country is along racial and linguistic lines. Especially troublesome are places with a high ELF where minority races are at a social, economic, and/or educational disadvantage.
* If we target any type of firearm for increased control...it should be handguns.

So seeking further gun control will get us nowhere but a place where we feel better that we have done something when in fact we have not only done nothing...we may have behaved counterproductively.

Lastly, my credentials to speak on this subject:
* Competitive Shooter
* Hunter
* Military member (trained in firearms by both the Air Force and Army)
* MS in Political Science

I am very conscious of my personal bias towards guns. But while I have a fondness for them, I have an understanding of them that a researcher who is unfamiliar with the technical side of guns lack. Furthermore, through academic training I am aware of this bias and instead let the data and objective, normal, and accepted social science methodologies lead me to my conclusions. Not emotionally charged descriptive stats that you'll see on the website for the NRA or Handgun control Inc.

SOURCES
Guns-Not the Mentally Ill-Kill People

Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). "FBI's Four-Pronged Assessment Model." Education World. Education World, INC., n.d. Web. 30 Jan 2013.

Iowa Homeland Security (IHS). "The School Shooter: A Quick Reference Guide - Iowa Homeland Security." . Iowa Homeland Security. Web. 30 Jan 2013.

Kalish, Rachel, and Michael Kimmel. "Suicide by mass murder: Masculinity, aggrieved entitlement, and rampage school shootings." Health Sociology Review. 19.4 (2010): 451-464. Print.

Leuschner, Vincenz, Rebecca Bondii, Miriam Schroer-Hippel, Jennifer Panno, Katharina Neumetzler, Sarah Fisch, Johanna Scholl, and Herbert Scheithauer. "Prevention of homicidal violence in schools in Germany: The Berlin Leaking Project and the Networks Against School Shootings Project (NETWASS)." New Directions for Youth Development. Spring.129 (2011): 61-77. Print.

Rubens, R. L. Psychoanalysis and the tragic sense of life. New Issues in Psychology, 1992, 10 (3), 347-362. (Accessed online at: http://www.columbia.edu/~rr322/Tragedy.html)

Warnick,, Bryan, Benjamin Johnson, and Samuel Rocha. "Tragedy and the meaning of school shootings." Educational Theory. 60.3 (2010): 371-390. Print.


Debunking conspiracy theories for the New World Order since 1995...
" I hereby accuse you attempting to silence me..." --PurePress

BBS Signature
TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-02-08 15:55:56 Reply

At 2/7/13 06:49 PM, Saen wrote:
M-16/AR-15:
36-77 grains (weight)
3,000-3,750 f/ps (velocity)
.223" diameter
1,200 ft-lbs (energy)

AK-47
125-154 grains
2,100-2,600 f/ps
.30" diameter
2,000-2,500 ft-lbs

.270 (relatively small deer/game load)
90-150 grains
2,850-3,600 f/ps
.270" diameter
2,600-2,950 ft-lbs
And by this same argument and "logic" of yours assault rifles should be deemed more deadly than pistols and shotguns in mass shootings. What's gonna be jack?

And since I have the time to further destroy/expose your heretofore biased attempts to discredit those who are trying to educate you on the complexities of what makes a gun lethal and or effective:

9mm (small bore pistol cartridge)
115-125 grains
1,200-1,430 f/ps
.355" diameter
400-500 ft-lbs

.45 ACP (large bore pistol cartridge)
185-230 grains
800-1,225 f/ps
.452" diameter
350-616 ft-lbs

.44 Rem Mag (large bore/magnum pistol cartridge...also suitable for hunting deer)
200-340 grain
1,280-1,500 f/ps
.429" diameter
760-1,533 ft-lbs

Now you'll notice a few things:
* Even the small bore pistol round was larger in diameter than the high-power deer rifle round.
* Even the smallest one was comparabe in weight/mass to the largest rifle bullet. Large bore pistol rounds being upwards of over 2x heavier.
* Slower muzzle velocities.
* Less energy when hitting the target.

You'd think the last two would make these weaker and less lethal. But...it actually makes them MORE lethal. See if the bullet is traveling slower, then it has a greater chance of mushrooming if you are firing a HP, JHP, or soft lead core bullet (same thing if you're firing a .69" diameter lead slug from a shotgun). Also, there is more of a chance of the bullet staying in the body, and shredding internal organs as it tumbles and bounces off of bones. Therefore, it inflicts far more internal damage than a military round that just zips right through you in a relatively linear line leaving a wound channel that is just a little wider than the bullet's diameter.

So, Jack...'what's gonna be?'

You totally pwnd is what's gonna be! :)


Debunking conspiracy theories for the New World Order since 1995...
" I hereby accuse you attempting to silence me..." --PurePress

BBS Signature
Saen
Saen
  • Member since: Feb. 22, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 18
Reader
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-02-10 19:34:24 Reply

At 2/8/13 10:01 AM, TheMason wrote:
Either tell me something based in fact why hunting with an AK is 'fucking insane' or STFU...by ignoring facts you are not being a good spokesperson for your side. Instead you are displaying ignorance and closed-mindedness.

The facts of hunting? I'm talking about the sport of it. All I'm saying is I wouldn't go bragging around about how I shoot deer with an AK-47, it's not hunting it's fucking wasteful and retarded.


Here's some examples:
Stockton,Ca:
Man opens up with an AK clone fired 100 rounds onto a playground using spray and pray, only killed five.

A playground is a more open and much larger area than a classroom, higher chance to miss.

Virginia Tech:
Cho stalked from classroom to classroom using a .22 and 9mm pistol. He fired approcimately 99-100 rounds. Killed 32.

N. Hollywood:
Bank robbers had a shoot-out with police using modified to full auto assault rifles. They fired over 3,000 rounds. Hit 17 people...killed no one.

Cover fire, lol don't even try this one.

Aurora, Co:
Holmes opened up with his AR using a 100rd drum mag. Not even getting 30 rounds off...the drum failed. He switched to a shotgun (from the reports I think he may have been using birdshot) and when he emptied that low capacity mag he switched to handguns. Therefore, of the 70 people hit in this shooting, once the corner report is released it will most likely show that less people where hit by the AR and the most serious wounds and greater amount of death was caused by the handguns.

We will see.


Um...what does this have to do with anything? According to international law (known as Law Of Armed Conflict), specifically the Hague Convention...the use of non-FMJ ammo is expressly prohibited. The Hague Convention prohibits the use of ammo that will make death inevitable.

So we're allowed to "defend" ourselves in this country with hollow points, but international law has deemed use of hp's unethical, haha. Either way the discussion was on our military's use of assault rifles, you saying that the are ineffective at killing and me asking which gun would you suggest our military use in ground warfare?

Saen
Saen
  • Member since: Feb. 22, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 18
Reader
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-02-10 19:50:12 Reply

At 2/8/13 03:55 PM, TheMason wrote:
At 2/7/13 06:49 PM, Saen wrote:
M-16/AR-15:
36-77 grains (weight)
3,000-3,750 f/ps (velocity)
.223" diameter
1,200 ft-lbs (energy)

AK-47
125-154 grains
2,100-2,600 f/ps
.30" diameter
2,000-2,500 ft-lbs

.270 (relatively small deer/game load)
90-150 grains
2,850-3,600 f/ps
.270" diameter
2,600-2,950 ft-lbs

And since I have the time to further destroy/expose your heretofore biased attempts to discredit those who are trying to educate you on the complexities of what makes a gun lethal and or effective:

9mm (small bore pistol cartridge)
115-125 grains
1,200-1,430 f/ps
.355" diameter
400-500 ft-lbs

.45 ACP (large bore pistol cartridge)
185-230 grains
800-1,225 f/ps
.452" diameter
350-616 ft-lbs

.44 Rem Mag (large bore/magnum pistol cartridge...also suitable for hunting deer)
200-340 grain
1,280-1,500 f/ps
.429" diameter
760-1,533 ft-lbs

Now you'll notice a few things:
* Even the small bore pistol round was larger in diameter than the high-power deer rifle round.
* Even the smallest one was comparabe in weight/mass to the largest rifle bullet. Large bore pistol rounds being upwards of over 2x heavier.
* Slower muzzle velocities.
* Less energy when hitting the target.

You'd think the last two would make these weaker and less lethal. But...it actually makes them MORE lethal. See if the bullet is traveling slower, then it has a greater chance of mushrooming if you are firing a HP, JHP, or soft lead core bullet (same thing if you're firing a .69" diameter lead slug from a shotgun). Also, there is more of a chance of the bullet staying in the body, and shredding internal organs as it tumbles and bounces off of bones. Therefore, it inflicts far more internal damage than a military round that just zips right through you in a relatively linear line leaving a wound channel that is just a little wider than the bullet's diameter.

So, Jack...'what's gonna be?'

You totally pwnd is what's gonna be! :)

You're definitely right. The higher the force of the bullet the more likely it is to shoot clean through the body and therefore a lesser chance of lethality. However this is more along the lines of long term survival. In order to die instantly from a bullet, you need to be struck in a vital organ/area, so the head, neck, heart, major arteries.

So it really depends on a shooter's strategy, do I shoot each person once or twice with handguns and let them bleed out or do I shoot to kill? We both know high velocity rounds are more effective with a shoot to kill strategy, if you're aiming for vital areas.

Magazine capacity issue has not been resolved over the idea that they jam more frequently. Jam more frequently than what, a revolver or shotgun? If a semi auto rife mag is more likely to jam per bullet than a handgun mag, go ahead and link the data for that.

Saen
Saen
  • Member since: Feb. 22, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 18
Reader
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-02-10 20:22:27 Reply

At 2/8/13 01:07 PM, RacistBassist wrote:
No, it is not bullshit. Bolt action forces a slow down of shots, meaning that the person becomes more accurate.

So a bolt action hunting rifle would be more effective than a semi auto rifle in a classroom shooting now? Fuck a kid could walk out the door by the time the shooter is finished cocking or reloading the damn thing are you kidding me.


Please tell me how adding 2 seconds (Not in a row either) onto every 30 rounds fired would effectively curb deaths. Please tell me how having a semi-automatic rifle suddenly makes you more deadly. Please tell me how spray and pray makes you magically hit 3 people a second. To put it quite frankly, gun control advocates are, generally speaking, fucking idiots when it comes to technical details and ballistics. I mean shit, the mere fact that they're pushing for an aesthetic ban speaks volumes about their mentality. They consistently refer to the Ar-15 as military STYLE and a weapon of war, even though no military in the world regularly uses them, and that underneath the hood here is a huge difference between it and a true assault rifle. I can put spoilers and a cool paint job on my shitty ass Honda, but that does not make it a race car.

So your argument is based on your idea that it only taking 2 seconds to realize you're out of ammo (or god forbid your magazine is jammed rofl..), unclip your magazine, pull out another magazine, load it, and start firing all in a extremely high pressure situation and an uncertain environment? I'd say at the very least 5 seconds and that is a significant amount of time.

Also, you dont have to shoot randomly and as fast as you can to have a high rate of fire, burst fire is incredibly effective at maintaining a high accuracy to fire rate ratio.

Obviously I don't care about how the gun looks, I am concerned about the combined lethality of an accurate, high capacity, legal, semi automatic weapon. When you have accuracy, a high potential rate of fire, and large round capacity combined, that is a combination to be concerned about.

If magazine capacity was limited to 10 rounds in an assault rifle, I would have no problem with the legality of assault rifles. Or high capacity assault rifles were limited to bolt action (which is obviously silly and defeats the purpose of the gun), you understand the point I'm making here about combined lethality? I don't understand why limiting magazine capacity is such an outrageous claim to make.

Ceratisa
Ceratisa
  • Member since: Dec. 8, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 07
Gamer
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-02-11 03:22:27 Reply

Saen, your lack of firearm knowledge becomes more evident with every post. You won't get off the AK thing with mason even though he mentioned it being used as a brush gun. Five rounds oh noez the waste.

Your ideas on how long it takes to change a mag is laughable as well. But we should bring up Lanza, all the damage he did and it was reported he often didn't even use up every round in his AR-15. He often fired only 10-15 rounds, yet he was still able to shoot his victims multiple times.
the .223 (The round the AR-15 uses) is even banned some states because it is not capable of humanely delivering a kill.

thegarbear14
thegarbear14
  • Member since: Jul. 6, 2011
  • Online!
Forum Stats
Member
Level 05
Blank Slate
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-02-11 09:22:09 Reply

The 7.62x39mm ak is a great deer gun saen..

load a 5 round mag to meet legal needs, toss in some cheap WOLF soft points or hollowpoints (like $0.21 per bullet) and you're good to go.

It's around the power of a 30-30 (a very popular lever action deer rifle)
it's about 20% less powerful than the 30-30 but plenty powerful for a deer or hog. It is still an intermediate round weaker than rounds like 7.62x51mm or 7.62x54r or 30-06.

The sks was a popular deer rifle in the 1980's and it shoots the same cartridge and has the same amount of power.

It is making your side look uninformed to keep repeating how it would be "wasteful" to hunt with an ak. An ak would not explode a deer. It would not take more than one shoot unless you missed, and it is fairly accurate if you know how to use it.


BBS Signature
TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-02-11 17:24:22 Reply

At 2/10/13 07:34 PM, Saen wrote:
At 2/8/13 10:01 AM, TheMason wrote:
Either tell me something based in fact why hunting with an AK is 'fucking insane' or STFU...by ignoring facts you are not being a good spokesperson for your side. Instead you are displaying ignorance and closed-mindedness.
The facts of hunting? I'm talking about the sport of it. All I'm saying is I wouldn't go bragging around about how I shoot deer with an AK-47, it's not hunting it's fucking wasteful and retarded.

Even talking about the sport of it...the facts do not support you.

* The AK round requires you to be closer to a deer than traditional deer rounds like the .270 or 30-30.

* Also, I use iron sights when hunting with my AK instead of a scope so I have to be a lot more accurate and have more skill.

Again, you fail to demonstrate why/how it is not hunting but instead 'wasteful' and 'retarded'. At this point, it appears you are only speaking from uninformed assumptions.



Here's some examples:
Stockton,Ca:
A playground is a more open and much larger area than a classroom, higher chance to miss.

It is more about spray and pray than range. That's what made him uneffective...that he did not aim.


N. Hollywood:
Bank robbers had a shoot-out with police using modified to full auto assault rifles. They fired over 3,000 rounds. Hit 17 people...killed no one.
Cover fire, lol don't even try this one.

Um...they peppered responding police officers. There was a component of suppressing fire...but they were allso actively trying to kill the police. They hit 17 afterall.


Aurora, Co:
Holmes opened up with his AR using a 100rd drum mag. Not even getting 30 rounds off...the drum failed. He switched to a shotgun (from the reports I think he may have been using birdshot) and when he emptied that low capacity mag he switched to handguns. Therefore, of the 70 people hit in this shooting, once the corner report is released it will most likely show that less people where hit by the AR and the most serious wounds and greater amount of death was caused by the handguns.
We will see.

Um...there is no 'we will see'...70 people were hit. Less than half that number of rounds came out of his AR-15.



...According to international law (known as Law Of Armed Conflict), specifically the Hague Convention...the use of non-FMJ ammo is expressly prohibited. The Hague Convention prohibits the use of ammo that will make death inevitable.
So we're allowed to "defend" ourselves in this country with hollow points, but international law has deemed use of hp's unethical, haha. Either way the discussion was on our military's use of assault rifles, you saying that the are ineffective at killing and me asking which gun would you suggest our military use in ground warfare?

Yes, according to international law the use of HP, JHP, Soft Lead Core bullets are considered unethical and illegal according to international law. This is fact.

Now...this is the first time you've asked for my suggestion of what gun our military should use in ground warfare. Maybe you asked in reply to someone else...but not to me directly. So let's not obfuscate that you don't know what you're talking about and pretend that I'm ignoring reasonable questions raised by you.

But in answer to your question:

Personally, I would change from the M-16 to AK-47. It is a more reliable assault rifle, and reasonably accurate.

But that is besides the point: I would NOT suggest that we change from FMJ ammo.

* It reduces unnecessary suffering in war.
* If you kill an enemy soldier, you take out one soldier. If you wound a soldier, then his buddies are tied up getting him off the battlefield...so you effectively take out three enemy soldiers.
* If you kill a soldier it costs less and takes less resources to deal with the body than if you merely wound the soldier. This helps drain the enemy's ability to make war faster.

See Saen...this is another example of the ignorance of the majority of gun-control advocates. You think that because it is military and war...the objective of ground war is not necessarily killing the enemy.

on the other hand, when you are hunting the objective is to kill and kill efficiently and quickly. In terms of self-defense, the point is to stop the threat. I'm not going to kill someone who is just trying to steal my TV...but if you're trying to get to me after I've told you I've got a gun...I'm looking at using lethal force.


Debunking conspiracy theories for the New World Order since 1995...
" I hereby accuse you attempting to silence me..." --PurePress

BBS Signature
TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-02-11 17:41:55 Reply

At 2/10/13 08:22 PM, Saen wrote:
Also, you dont have to shoot randomly and as fast as you can to have a high rate of fire, burst fire is incredibly effective at maintaining a high accuracy to fire rate ratio.

Actually, you start making a good point. In Sandy Hook, the shooter appears to have taken aimed shots rather than spray and pray. This allowed him to put more rounds on target. However...there are a few problems with this:

* It took like 6-11 rounds to kill. Whereas someone like Cho could (using the same strategy) be just as effective with 6-11x less ammo.
* Burst fire is not 'incredibly effective' at being more accurate...I've shot on burst fire. I've been trained on it. It is only to be used for supressing fire.

Obviously I don't care about how the gun looks, I am concerned about the combined lethality of an accurate, high capacity, legal, semi automatic weapon. When you have accuracy, a high potential rate of fire, and large round capacity combined, that is a combination to be concerned about.

I'll give it to you that on first blush it is something to be concerned about. But when you look into the technical aspect of it (which tends to be objective rather than subjective)...these concerns dissolve.

* At the ranges we are talking about, the accuracy of an AK vs. a handgun vs. a shotgun vs. deer rifle disappear.
* At a high potential rate of fire...accuracy disappears and you end up with less people hurt and less people killed.
* Studies have shown that LCMs (large capacity magazines) are not a factor in gun crime when talking about assault rifles. There is some evidence to suggest it has an effect when used in pistols. However, in terms of public policy we have to look at whether or not we will have any return on investment spending time and money on LCM ans, AWB bans, or things that actually address the causes of gun crime.


If magazine capacity was limited to 10 rounds in an assault rifle, I would have no problem with the legality of assault rifles. Or high capacity assault rifles were limited to bolt action (which is obviously silly and defeats the purpose of the gun), you understand the point I'm making here about combined lethality? I don't understand why limiting magazine capacity is such an outrageous claim to make.

* COMBINED LETHALITY: I understand the point you are articulating. The problem: while reasonable and logical on the surface...it does not really exist. The combination of accuracy, rate of fire, and magazine capacity do not equal what you think they do. Rate of fire (even burst) eliminates accuracy. It also eliminates anything gained from having a LCM.

If these guns were capable of what you claim them to be capable of (claims you are making to a military member trained on these weapons)...why are they not used in crime?

* It is outrageous because it won't save lives. It will divert money, time, and resources from programs that could actually stop gun crime. LCMs are ubiquitous, easy to make, and virtually impossible to ban at this point. You're tilting at windmills, and yet think you'll be accomplishing something.


Debunking conspiracy theories for the New World Order since 1995...
" I hereby accuse you attempting to silence me..." --PurePress

BBS Signature
Saen
Saen
  • Member since: Feb. 22, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 18
Reader
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-02-11 20:20:44 Reply

At 2/11/13 05:24 PM, TheMason wrote:
Even talking about the sport of it...the facts do not support you.

* The AK round requires you to be closer to a deer than traditional deer rounds like the .270 or 30-30.

* Also, I use iron sights when hunting with my AK instead of a scope so I have to be a lot more accurate and have more skill.

Again, you fail to demonstrate why/how it is not hunting but instead 'wasteful' and 'retarded'. At this point, it appears you are only speaking from uninformed assumptions.

I've seen how people hunt here in Florida, so my opinion of "hunting" and "hunters" in general is pretty low, unless if they use very traditional methods. It's my opinion that using a semi automatic of any kind for hunting takes the sport out of it.


Now...this is the first time you've asked for my suggestion of what gun our military should use in ground warfare. Maybe you asked in reply to someone else...but not to me directly. So let's not obfuscate that you don't know what you're talking about and pretend that I'm ignoring reasonable questions raised by you.

But in answer to your question:

Personally, I would change from the M-16 to AK-47. It is a more reliable assault rifle, and reasonably accurate.

I agree with you here, but God forbid the American military arm themselves with a Russian gun.

But that is besides the point: I would NOT suggest that we change from FMJ ammo.

* It reduces unnecessary suffering in war.
* If you kill an enemy soldier, you take out one soldier. If you wound a soldier, then his buddies are tied up getting him off the battlefield...so you effectively take out three enemy soldiers.
* If you kill a soldier it costs less and takes less resources to deal with the body than if you merely wound the soldier. This helps drain the enemy's ability to make war faster.

Those are all great points.


See Saen...this is another example of the ignorance of the majority of gun-control advocates. You think that because it is military and war...the objective of ground war is not necessarily killing the enemy.

on the other hand, when you are hunting the objective is to kill and kill efficiently and quickly. In terms of self-defense, the point is to stop the threat. I'm not going to kill someone who is just trying to steal my TV...but if you're trying to get to me after I've told you I've got a gun...I'm looking at using lethal force.

So now I'm confused to why mass shooters, robbers, mafia members, etc. would even choose an assault rifle if they aren't effective lethal weapons?

Ceratisa
Ceratisa
  • Member since: Dec. 8, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 07
Gamer
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-02-11 20:52:57 Reply

So now I'm confused to why mass shooters, robbers, mafia members, etc. would even choose an assault rifle if they aren't effective lethal weapons?

? Really? it is called ignorance and incompetence. We are lucky more shooters don't use shotguns honestly.

Demonbrunch
Demonbrunch
  • Member since: Feb. 10, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Blank Slate
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-02-11 21:53:45 Reply

At 2/11/13 08:52 PM, Ceratisa wrote:
So now I'm confused to why mass shooters, robbers, mafia members, etc. would even choose an assault rifle if they aren't effective lethal weapons?
? Really? it is called ignorance and incompetence. We are lucky more shooters don't use shotguns honestly.

So skimming this thread - the popular, moral answer is to perform deeper background checks on those who wish to own guns?

Sorry, I was following the "gun control is right/gun control is stupid" part in the beginning, flashed forward, and now it's about the statistics of a gun's accuracy/cartridge/how effective a killer would be with it?


I can edit my signature at will, but I can't edit my post. The hell, Newgrounds?

Ceratisa
Ceratisa
  • Member since: Dec. 8, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 07
Gamer
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-02-11 23:58:53 Reply

At 2/11/13 09:53 PM, Demonbrunch wrote:
At 2/11/13 08:52 PM, Ceratisa wrote:
So now I'm confused to why mass shooters, robbers, mafia members, etc. would even choose an assault rifle if they aren't effective lethal weapons?
? Really? it is called ignorance and incompetence. We are lucky more shooters don't use shotguns honestly.
So skimming this thread - the popular, moral answer is to perform deeper background checks on those who wish to own guns?

Sorry, I was following the "gun control is right/gun control is stupid" part in the beginning, flashed forward, and now it's about the statistics of a gun's accuracy/cartridge/how effective a killer would be with it?

Derailed by Saen, he generally seems to lack basic understanding of firearms and ammunition.

The real question that is being debated is

Do you actually care about reducing gun violence. OR do you just want to do something quick and easy to make people feel better about weapons they don't even understand.

Statistically, handguns win hands down, so why is the pressure on "Assault Weapons" which account for so little of the violence?

TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-02-12 12:49:16 Reply

At 2/11/13 08:20 PM, Saen wrote: I've seen how people hunt here in Florida, so my opinion of "hunting" and "hunters" in general is pretty low, unless if they use very traditional methods. It's my opinion that using a semi automatic of any kind for hunting takes the sport out of it.

Fair enough. However, the sport does not lie in how you operate the action (ie: bolt, lever, or auto). Instead, with ethical hunting it involves knowing the land and the deer or other game on your land. The skill difference between hunting with a bolt action vs hunting with a semi-auto is really the least significant part of hunting sportsmanship. If anything, it would make it more sporting because semi-autos are less accurate than bolt action rifles (this is why the majority of sniper rifles are bolt action and not semi-auto like the Barret or the Halo sniper rifle). Therefore, it requires the hunter to be a better shot.


on the other hand, when you are hunting the objective is to kill and kill efficiently and quickly. In terms of self-defense, the point is to stop the threat. I'm not going to kill someone who is just trying to steal my TV...but if you're trying to get to me after I've told you I've got a gun...I'm looking at using lethal force.
So now I'm confused to why mass shooters, robbers, mafia members, etc. would even choose an assault rifle if they aren't effective lethal weapons?

Think about it...

In recent posts you were mocking me for putting forth the idea that high rates of fire and military ammo are the least capable of killing out there.

With the possible exception of Adam Lanza, the typical shooter does not know this. So they use 'common sense' and make the assumption that these type of rounds/guns will lead to more deaths. That's why I do not want to see internet ammo sales prohibited. A possible shooter goes on and see's 'mil-spec', 'military surplus', 'military' etc...they get that over HP or other more lethal ammo. Now if they go to the store they get this helpful store clerk who'll help them choose the most effective ammo for 'hunting'. So while they take time to plan out every other detail, since their logic does make sense in the absence of technical knowledge...they do not research it.

As for robbers, mafia members, and other criminals:

They do NOT use assault rifles. I read somewhere that in 2012 the Chicago police confiscated 7,500 guns used in crime. 300, or 0.04%, were assault rifles like the AR-15 or AK-47. Study after study shows that assault rifles are not used in crime. The vast majority of guns used in crime are handguns. In 1998 there was even a study, put out by the FBI I believe, that interveiwed inmates who were convicted of gun crime. Very few used assault rifles. Some even owned assault rifles...but used a hangun because the AK they had was for show or street cred only.

This is the problem with many people who are not versed on guns or the scholarship surrounding this issue. It is not that I think you are stupid or unreasonable. If you were stupid, you wouldn't be studying biology. And your assumptions are rational and reasonable if you lack gun knowledge. You see stuff on the news and come to think that the problem is greater than it is.

Consider this last point:
In the 1990s violent crime decreased by 20%, and yet media coverage increased by 600%. Polls showed that the public mistakenly thought that there was an epidemic of violence when actually the phenomenon was decreasing.


Debunking conspiracy theories for the New World Order since 1995...
" I hereby accuse you attempting to silence me..." --PurePress

BBS Signature
Tony-DarkGrave
Tony-DarkGrave
  • Member since: Jul. 15, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 43
Programmer
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-02-16 10:55:07 Reply

GUN COMPANIES REFUSE SALES TO STATE GOVERNMENTS WITH STRICT GUN LAWS

Six gun companies have announced plans to stop selling any of their products to any government agency (FBI, ATF, the Marshall Service) in states that severely limit the rights of private gun ownership.Disappointed with New York State lawmakers and other jurisdictions around the country who have passed strict gun control legislation, the companies-composed of firearm manufacturers, gunsmiths, and sporting goods retailers-have announced these policies in the past week.
Their various statements emphasize that such laws create a class of government employees with rights and and a class of citizens without rights. Thus, they refuse to aid the enforcement of such inequality.

Source

W00T giving them hell and the best part is Second Amendment activist groups Guns Save Life and Grass Roots North Carolina are currently urging big gun manufacturers Sig Sauer, Smith and Wesson, and Glock to halt their sales to government agencies within states that have clamped down on their residents' right to bear arms.

how do you like that Obama?

Gun Control Does Not Work (proof)