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.
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.
In the case of military style firearms, .. are some of the least 'badass' rounds out there...
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 that the military uses ammo that is . 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.
36-77 grains (weight)
3,000-3,750 f/ps (velocity)
1,200 ft-lbs (energy)
.270 (relatively small deer/game load)
So yeah...assault rifle rounds are 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.