At 8/3/12 06:19 PM, yonokowhat wrote: also someone said (TheMason I think) that wounds from assault rifle bullets are less likely to kill than some shotguns or pistols but I can find countless documentaries of either British or Amercan soldiers getting shot like once and dieing despite having a lot of medical attention nearby.

In a war zone if you get shot you have about a 20% chance of dying from the wounds. But one of the most crucial aspects is not that you've been shot but rather WHERE you got shot. For example if you take a leg wound you have a 90% chance of living (almost 100% if it doesn't hit the femoral artery) but if you take a shot to the heart you've got an 85% chance of death. Samething in the head.

The two wars prove this. Compare death rates for firearm injuries in Iraq vs Afghanistan:
Iraq: 21%
Afghanistan: 15%

Why the difference? Accuracy of Iraqi insurgents vs the accuracy of Afghan insurgents. In Afghanistan they do more of spray & pray while in Iraq you've got snipers. If you get a headshot or heartshot...you're done. Those places it doesn't matter what you got hit with.

Now with armor...this is the only place where armor piercing (AP) rounds are better than hunting rounds or even shotguns. They can get through the kevlar. In helmets it's a little tricky because the shape can give the bullet a glancing blow and deflect it...but a direct hit can go through it if using AP rounds.

The other side is taking multiple GSW (GunShot Wounds), now you've got a lot of bleeding to staunch.

And these soldiers are wearing body armour so they are being hit in places that are less vulnrerable. Although I dont know if all of the taliban use AK47 klashnikov assault rifles as some may use powerful large calibred guns that probably neglect the body armour and can still fuck you up even if it doesnt pierce your body.

See above. The body offers protection...not invincibility. So most of the deaths due to firearms is most likely from armor piercing rounds.

Which armor is a double edged sword. If someone is shot with FMJ or AP and they are not wearing armor they stand a very good chance of surviving with less serious wounds. See the FMJ or AP round is very fast moving and made of hard metal that maintains its shape and therefore only pierces the body with minimal tissue damage.

However if it has to pass through several layers of kevlar then it is significantly slowed to where now it has a chance to 'tumble' inside the body tearing up internal organs making the damage worse. This is really bad if it is a heart or headshot because now your chances of survival are essentially zero.

So you are making an erroneous assumption that the soldiers are getting shot in less 'vulnerable' (I assume you mean less critical organs/parts of the body) and are not figuring in the several other factors that effect a person's chances of survival.

At 8/4/12 07:35 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote:

:stuff

All because its not being passed doesn't mean we dont need it.

At 8/4/12 09:27 PM, PMMurphy wrote:

At 8/4/12 07:35 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: stuff

All because its not being passed doesn't mean we dont need it.

because we don't need it the Current system works fine. when I purchase Firearms of any kind I have to fill out forms show ID go through background checks and depending on what im buying or how many I have to wait a few days, its good enough.

At 8/4/12 10:43 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: because we don't need it the Current system works fine. when I purchase Firearms of any kind I have to fill out forms show ID go through background checks and depending on what im buying or how many I have to wait a few days, its good enough.

What is the definition of insanity.

At 8/5/12 04:12 PM, PMMurphy wrote: What is the definition of insanity.

The one made by Einstein. Not in the dictionary.

At 8/5/12 04:19 PM, PMMurphy wrote:

At 8/5/12 04:12 PM, PMMurphy wrote: What is the definition of insanity.

The one made by Einstein. Not in the dictionary.

doing the same thing over again and expecting a different result.

Passing more gun control would be insanity then.

Claims crime is ridiculously high, passes gun control acts.

No effect.

Gun control acts repealed in some areas.

People want to put them back in place and think they will get a different result.

At 8/5/12 04:33 PM, thegarbear14 wrote: People want to put them back in place and think they will get a different result.

well then we obviously need different laws dont we?

At 8/5/12 04:36 PM, PMMurphy wrote:

At 8/5/12 04:33 PM, thegarbear14 wrote: People want to put them back in place and think they will get a different result.

well then we obviously need different laws dont we?

Yeah different ones (that have nothing to do with guns!) Because guns arent the problem

At 8/5/12 05:49 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote:

At 8/5/12 04:36 PM, PMMurphy wrote:

At 8/5/12 04:33 PM, thegarbear14 wrote: People want to put them back in place and think they will get a different result.

well then we obviously need different laws dont we?

Yeah different ones (that have nothing to do with guns!) Because guns arent the problem

Obviously there is a mental health issue in the united states if mass shootings keep happening. Especially when people mail in letters detailing mass murders and make things online describing mass killings and nobody does anything or reads them until after it happens.

At 7/23/12 08:20 PM, yonokowhat wrote: Im not saying those weapons arent used by criminals, but how many times have people gone on a rampage with a pistol or shotgun killed as many people than rampages conducted with assault rifles or hunting/high powered rifles.

Sometimes I really, really hate being right.

In Wisconsin the guy used a single handgun and it appears that he shot nine people with it. Six dead and three critically injured.

Also...the guy was an Army veteran so he knew weapons and which type of gun was best suited to killing people.

Finally, a few things I forgot to mention earlier about firearm deaths in theater:

* There are more than just assault rifles being fired at US troops. You have sniper rifles which fire the same type of rounds as hunting rifles. Then you have machine guns which are not the same thing as assault rifles. You have light machine guns which fire AR rounds, but medium and heavy machine guns fire high power rounds like hunting ammo and heavy machine guns use really powerful rounds like .50cal.

* You talked about there being medical care close by. Not entirely true. I've had US Army Combat Lifesaver training from my unit's Med NCO, a medic and Iraq veteran. If you can make it to treatment you have a 90-95% chance of surviving a GSW in theater. However, combat operations do not always allow for getting to a Military Treatment Facility (MTF) quick enough which is another factor that is probably just as critical to a person's chances of surviving a GSW than the bullet type. And definately more critical when talking about AR ammo.

At 8/6/12 06:16 PM, TheMason wrote: In Wisconsin the guy used a single handgun and it appears that he shot nine people with it. Six dead and three critically injured.

No one here is arguing that handguns cannot kill people. Everybody here knows any types of gun can kill people. Even such guns and rounds that are supposed to be safe (BB, certain disintegrating range rounds) can be lethal. Ask Brandon Lee about the lethality of blanks.

* There are more than just assault rifles being fired at US troops. You have sniper rifles which fire the same type of rounds as hunting rifles. Then you have machine guns which are not the same thing as assault rifles. You have light machine guns which fire AR rounds, but medium and heavy machine guns fire high power rounds like hunting ammo and heavy machine guns use really powerful rounds like .50cal.

There are numerous reasons as to why assault rifles are singled out, while hunting rifles and handguns are not. While handguns may be more lethal under certain circumstances (don't know the studies, but the slower velocity can cause a massive amount of damage when compared to piercing velocity) the potential for damage that ARs pose is far higher. Secondly, there is no use for ARs that any civilian would ever legitimately need (Not counting collecting and aesthetic, both which do not require a gun to be operational).

While the slower velocity of handguns lends itself to entering the body and remaining in the body, likely causing higher damage, the total potential for damage and harm between ARS and civilian firearms (handguns and rifles) is very different. Handguns have fairly low range, low accuracy, and a low fire-rate. Civilian rifles have great range, great power (though that lends itself to less harmful through and through), and great accuracy, but are offset by the very slow fire rate, and often their small ammunition clip size.

ARs have good range. Better than most pistols on the low end and equivalent to many civilian rifles on the high end.
ARs have good accuracy. Again, better than most pistols on the low end, and equivalent to some civilian rifles on the high end.
ARs have great fire rate. The slower fully auto ARs can release as many round per min as several handguns combined.
ARs have varying power. The low end of the fully automatic spectrum has equivalent power to a pistol, lending itself to the same harmful wounds. The high end of the spectrum has massive piercing power that can cut through otherwise good cover like a warm knife through butter.

So even if fully automatic weapons generally cause less harm per wound than pistols, their ability to shoot more rounds in less time, with decent to great accuracy, up to distances pistols couldn't hope to hit, and their ability to reach through objects via penetration means their potential for damage is extremely high when compared to a pistol.

Perhaps the biggest reason that ARs and other fully auto weapons are targetted is because there is no civilian need or rational use for such a weapon. Handguns are adequate protection from crime. Rifles and shotguns and optimal for hunting. ARs are overkill for both. Any crime that is too hot for a handgun to solve is unlikely to be abated by the presentation or use of a fully automatic weapon. As for hunting, it is just not prudent to bring an AR. Rarely, if ever, does a hunting scenario arise that necessitates the use of a high rate of fire.

Camaro husky, the weapons you discuss have been illegal since 1934.

These assault weapons being discussed are semi automatic rifles that are based off of the military rifles.

They can fire no faster than the handgun used in the sikh temple shooting.

The assault weapon term is meant as a scare word so that the semi auto rifles get mistake for fully autos.
THE WEAPONS WE ARE DISCUSSING HAVE BEEN NAMED "ASSAULT WEAPONS" TO CONFUSE THEM WITH FULLY AUTOMATIC FIREARMS. THEY ARE NOT FULLY AUTOMATIC FIREARMS IT IS SIMPLY A SCARE WORD.

people seem to not understand this. ^

At 8/6/12 06:53 PM, Camarohusky wrote: There are numerous reasons as to why assault rifles are singled out, while hunting rifles and handguns are not. While handguns may be more lethal under certain circumstances (don't know the studies, but the slower velocity can cause a massive amount of damage when compared to piercing velocity) the potential for damage that ARs pose is far higher. Secondly, there is no use for ARs that any civilian would ever legitimately need (Not counting collecting and aesthetic, both which do not require a gun to be operational).

1) The potential for damage has very little to do with the type of gun but rather it's all about the bullet. The bullet that is most commonly fired out of a AR carries by FAR the least potential for damage. This is not up for debate...it is not a matter of opinion. It is ballistics. It is scientific fact.

2) Actually there is. With it's decreased range an AK-47 is actually the perfect deer hunting rifle for where I live. Now you may be seeing some cognitive dissonance with my last paragraph...but you'd be wrong. See...it all comes down to the bullet. Loaded with a soft-lead core hunting round my MAK-90 (Chinese version of the AK) has a rather limited range so if I miss, the bullet will not travel as far. In essence it is the right amount of power for the wooded areas I hunt.

But the real reasons they are singled out:
* They look scarier and more lethal than they really are.
* They make for better press and people's emotions can be manipulated into thinking they are what they are not: the most lethal-killing-machine-of-a-gun out there.

While the slower velocity of handguns lends itself to entering the body and remaining in the body, likely causing higher damage, the total potential for damage and harm between ARS and civilian firearms (handguns and rifles) is very different. Handguns have fairly low range, low accuracy, and a low fire-rate. Civilian rifles have great range, great power (though that lends itself to less harmful through and through), and great accuracy, but are offset by the very slow fire rate, and often their small ammunition clip size.

Where are you getting this?
* People actually hunt with handguns meaning: they have a decent range and accuracy. Fire-rate is a function of the action and handguns can have full and semi-auto actions just like an AR.
* As for high-power in rifles and when you said: "(though that lends itself to less harmful through and through)" this is NOT true. Again...it all comes down to what type of bullet a round is firing. If it is a Full Metal Jacket (FMJ) or Armor Piercing (AP) then yes...it will be less harmful. However, if it is a hunting round like a soft-lead core, hollow point or jacketed hollow point then no...no it will be incredibly destructive.

ARs have good range. Better than most pistols on the low end and equivalent to many civilian rifles on the high end.

Range shouldn't really be much of a consideration here.

ARs have good accuracy. Again, better than most pistols on the low end, and equivalent to some civilian rifles on the high end.

And why is better accuracy something that makes a gun unsuitable for civilian purchase?

ARs have great fire rate. The slower fully auto ARs can release as many round per min as several handguns combined.

Um...you have to have a special license and basically pass a background check equivalent to obtaining a either a secret or top secret clearance to purchase one. Then you are talking about guns which are prohibitively expensive.

If a shooter were able to get ahold of one (North Hollywood Shoot-out), they are incredibly hard to control and will fire high after the first 2 or 3 rounds missing practically everyone.

ARs have varying power. The low end of the fully automatic spectrum has equivalent power to a pistol, lending itself to the same harmful wounds. The high end of the spectrum has massive piercing power that can cut through otherwise good cover like a warm knife through butter.

Um, not really no. The defining characteristic of an AR is it fires a round in between pistol and high powered rifle rounds.

Also, if it has piercing power it's going to be better for the person who gets shot because the wound is going to be less severe than the pistol or rifle bullet that will also cut through the cover.

So even if fully automatic weapons generally cause less harm per wound than pistols, their ability to shoot more rounds in less time, with decent to great accuracy, up to distances pistols couldn't hope to hit, and their ability to reach through objects via penetration means their potential for damage is extremely high when compared to a pistol.

* Fully auto weapons do NOT have DECENT or GREAT accuracy...they have incredibly SHITTY accuracy.

* With a pistol it comes down to the length of the barrel. For the purposes of most criminal acts, including mass shootings, a person can be just as accurate with a pistol as they could an assault rifle unless we're talking about a gunman in the middle of a football stadium or baseball park firing into the upper decks. But any other engagement either inside a building or outside in an urban environment...most likely the range and accuracy of an assault rifle is unnecessary and well within pistol or shotgun limits.

* Already dealt with the piercing power. There is very little cover, in a criminal situation, that an AR would penetrate that a pistol round or deer rifle would not penetrate...and with worse results.

Perhaps the biggest reason that ARs and other fully auto weapons are targetted is because there is no civilian need or rational use for such a weapon. Handguns are adequate protection from crime. Rifles and shotguns and optimal for hunting. ARs are overkill for both. Any crime that is too hot for a handgun to solve is unlikely to be abated by the presentation or use of a fully automatic weapon. As for hunting, it is just not prudent to bring an AR. Rarely, if ever, does a hunting scenario arise that necessitates the use of a high rate of fire.

Who defines rational use? A politician like Mayor Bloomberg or a guy like me who has military, athletic and hunting experience with firearms?

You say that ARs are overkill for hunting. But I use an AK when hunting in densely wooded areas because it is all the power I need. It is illegal to hunt with a semi-auto if you have a magazine (the proper term...not 'clip') larger than 5 rounds. So I use my 30 round mags for target practice, it is nice not to have to reload as much as I can make fuller use of my range time.

I have used my MAK-90 for home defense. In one of the places I've lived my bedroom door was made of solid, dense wood that would stop a 9mm round or shotgun slug (or pellet). Why would piercing power be necessary? I'm not a cowboy. I'm not going to shoot someone just for my TV. So my home-defense plan is to lock myself in a bedroom and warn the intruder by chambering a round and yelling that I'm armed. At that point if he attempts to get into my 'safe room' I can be assured and have a reasonable fear that they are there to do me harm.

I don't want to see them or give them a chance to fire first so I'm going to shoot through the door if they press the issue.

At 8/6/12 06:53 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

*cont*

Finally, everything you've just said runs counter to everything we know and see in crime and the illegitimate use of firearms in the US. The vast majority of crimes are committed with either pistols or shotguns because of their effectiveness. Most mass-shootings are accomplished with pistols and shotguns....not assault rifles. The incidence of rifles of any type, including ARs, being used in crime is extremely low.

If ARs were as effective as you and other 'thought-experimenters' think they are...why are they not used? Why is it when they are used...less people die and the wounds are less severe? In Aurora the guy opened up with his shotgun first, then switched to the AR for spray & pray (using a very ineffective caliber in the .223) and when it jammed he switched to a .40 pistol. When they release the reports the deaths by and large will most likely be attributed to the shotgun and pistol and most of the people shot and survived will probably have .223 wounds.

Why? Because it is not so much about the gun as it is about the bullets. Not range, accuracy or even rate of fire...but bullets. Not magazine capacity...but bullets. That is why arguments based upon the buzz words of 'reason', 'rationality' or 'common sense' fail; it is because they are based upon uninformed thought experiments and not facts.

The main problem is that even without the right to carry guns, there are still people who carry them. The worst part is that there are people who are allowed to carry guns legally.

At 8/7/12 07:02 PM, Artman40 wrote: The main problem is that even without the right to carry guns, there are still people who carry them. The worst part is that there are people who are allowed to carry guns legally.

Are you kidding? The worst part is that there are people who aren't allowed to carry guns, but do it anyways.

I think we should start banning butcher knives, as people with knife skills can slit multiple throats and go on stabbing sprees like in China. And lets ban fertilizer too because it's able to be made into an explosive.

At 8/7/12 07:02 PM, Artman40 wrote: The main problem is that even without the right to carry guns, there are still people who carry them. The worst part is that there are people who are allowed to carry guns legally.

Please clarify what you are saying. Are you saying:

* we need to keep some ppl w/psychosis from legally getting guns?
* it's horrible that anyone may own a gun...period.
* it's horrible that concealed carry is legal?

At 8/6/12 06:53 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Even such guns and rounds that are supposed to be safe (BB, certain disintegrating range rounds) can be lethal. Ask Brandon Lee about the lethality of blanks.

;;;;;
Camarohuskey just an FYI for you & others here...as someone who works in the film industry in Canada. It is literally impossible for the Brandon Lee tradgedy to happen here.

WHat I read & heard from our property Masters who handle guns on our sets, the handgun used by Mr Lee was used earlier with low powered live rounds & a projectile was lodged unknowingly in the barrel. When a full charge blank was fired, it caused the 'stuck' projectile to continue out of the barrel & unfortunately into Mr Lee.

In Canada guns used on a film set cannot fire a live round. They can only fire a blank round & if the 'gun' does not have to fire during a scene... it ( the blank firing gun) cannot be used & a replica instead has to be carried, one that cannot even fire a blank.
I've been shown handguns, automatic weapons & while a blank round will fit into the firing chamber, a live round will not even chamber, because of the modifications.
All guns that need to be fired on set have to be specially fitted so that no projectile can exit the barrel. Generally this means barrels specially designed/built where gases from the gun can exit the front of the barrel to give the muzzle flash, but these gases get there by a circutuous route, so not even small particles (pieces of metal) of the blank cartridge can escape
Also live rounds are not allowed on Set, so they are not allowed in the trucks/Kits of Props Masters period...there are no exceptions.
I have worked on films where all the gun firing was done in Studio with reduced crew on 1 or 2 days. Every instance of guns firing during the actual filming was done without firing the guns, & then close ups of the guns actually firing were done throughout those 'gun days' just to further protect crew & actors from possible harm.

I would like someone to explain to me why damage per bullet is the only factor worth considering when it comes to the deadliness of a weapon. How are 30 bullets fired into a crowd from an assault rifle worth less than 10 from a pistol? You seem to know more about this than I do Mason but the argument that a pistol is more effective than ARs for mass killings in crowded areas just baffles me. Isn't an assault rifle a weapon made purely for the sake of reliably causing human casualties?

just connect the dots will yas.

At 8/12/12 04:43 PM, Iron-Hampster wrote: just connect the dots will yas.

Yeah funny,

Until you realize the sociopath purchased his firearms legally...

At 8/12/12 04:45 PM, naronic wrote:

At 8/12/12 04:43 PM, Iron-Hampster wrote: just connect the dots will yas.

Yeah funny,

Until you realize the sociopath purchased his firearms legally...

lol exactly so how does one purpose more gun control and not fuck over law abidding citizens?

there is none!

At 8/12/12 04:45 PM, naronic wrote:

At 8/12/12 04:43 PM, Iron-Hampster wrote: just connect the dots will yas.

Yeah funny,

Until you realize the sociopath purchased his firearms legally...

they never do. every country in the world has gangs that can find a way to arm themselves with guns. The exception to that might be north korea.

At 8/12/12 05:39 PM, Iron-Hampster wrote:

they never do.

Almost all the mass shooting suspects in the last decade purchased their firearms legally, including the most recent aurora shooting.

That's why this is still an issue.

At 8/12/12 05:49 PM, naronic wrote:

At 8/12/12 05:39 PM, Iron-Hampster wrote:

they never do.

Almost all the mass shooting suspects in the last decade purchased their firearms legally, including the most recent aurora shooting.

That's why this is still an issue.

and are for gun control (can't tell) if so what do you propose?

and are for gun control (can't tell) if so what do you propose?

I'm for a logical compromise,
on both sides.

Almost all the mass shooting suspects in the last decade purchased their firearms legally, including the most recent aurora shooting.
That's why this is still an issue.

And prior to prohibition, booze was purchased legally. What's your point?

Go from iron hampster's post and work your way down again.

At 8/12/12 05:39 PM, Iron-Hampster wrote:

At 8/12/12 04:45 PM, naronic wrote:

At 8/12/12 04:43 PM, Iron-Hampster wrote: just connect the dots will yas.

Yeah funny,

Until you realize the sociopath purchased his firearms legally...

they never do. every country in the world has gangs that can find a way to arm themselves with guns. The exception to that might be north korea.

We're talking about psychopaths not the mafia. Conventional criminals get their guns underground. A man with psychological issues and no criminal record can still purchase guns legally and go on a killing spree. A lot of killing sprees are committed by people with no prior criminal record. And that's why you can't just say that all law abiding citizens can go to a store and buy a gun. It's not that simple.

At 8/12/12 08:07 PM, RightWingGamer wrote:

At 8/12/12 07:15 PM, naronic wrote: I'm for a logical compromise,
on both sides.

And what compromise would that be?

Before you can buy a gun you have to have been screened for any potentially dangerous aspects. Yet time and time again these proven psychopaths with proven psychopathic records unfailingly acquire guns legally.

Obviously a link's not working in this system and firearm banning isn't it, I'll let you put together the rest.

Go from iron hampster's post and work your way down again.

You really don't get it, do you?

My whole point is that it doesn't matter if the bad guys these days buy their guns legally. In fact, it's a good thing since legal guns can be registered and traced. The only thing a gun ban would do is force them to buy these guns illegally, making these weapons infinitely more difficult to trace.

Apparently you don't,
POP QUIZ, DID I SAY I WANTED GUNS BANNED?

Also this statement really, really not well thought out. Yes it is a problem if the crazies buy their guns legally, and no the police are not clairvoyant; they're not going to know to trace a particular gun out of millions back to it's owner until 20 people get shot up at the local Walmart.

At 8/12/12 10:18 PM, naronic wrote: Before you can buy a gun you have to have been screened for any potentially dangerous aspects. Yet time and time again these proven psychopaths with proven psychopathic records unfailingly acquire guns legally.

illegal and unfair how would one be deemed psycopathic and what form? and what about false positives and how is that fair to law abiding citizens like myself?

and how the hell would you be able to get that into legislation without the NRA or other second amendment groups totally shooting it down on the floor of the House?

At 8/12/12 10:38 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote:

At 8/12/12 10:18 PM, naronic wrote: Before you can buy a gun you have to have been screened for any potentially dangerous aspects. Yet time and time again these proven psychopaths with proven psychopathic records unfailingly acquire guns legally.

illegal and unfair how would one be deemed psycopathic and what form? and what about false positives and how is that fair to law abiding citizens like myself?

Simple, for instance if you have a guy whom has been diagnosed with severe anxiety disorder, selective mutism, and major depressive disorder and received a court-ordered psychiatric assessment in college and therapy for articulating how to repeat Columbine in an 8th grade assignment (you know just like Seung Hui Cho) then I think that's cause for concern.
link

and how the hell would you be able to get that into legislation without the NRA or other second amendment groups totally shooting it down on the floor of the House?

Whelp, this is where we come to the crossroads don't we?