teh gunz Ctrl

[Goofball]

Well, it has been a while since I posted anything in the Backroom, so I thought I'd jump back in with this old chestnut:

Resolved: More gun control and fewer guns means less gun violence.

Came across this article that talked about the situation in Australia that I was previously ignorant of:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/20/opinion/donohue-gun-control/index.html?hpt=hp_bn7

The very interesting bit, talking about the results of Australia's major gun control legislation and buy-back program that was instituded in 1996:


The effect was that both gun suicides and homicides (as well as total suicides and homicides) fell. Importantly, while there were 13 mass shootings in Australia during the period of 1979--96, there have been none in the sixteen years since.

So, in order not to ignore the elephant in the room, I ask: Do gun rights advocates deny that if James Holmes had not been allowed to legally purchase an assault weapon with a 100-round drum that either: 1) The most recent massacre might not have happened, or: 2) even if he still attempted it, the results would have been less deadly?

Game on...

[rory_20_uk]

Although I am an advocate of gun control, in the USA homicides have decreased as gun ownership has increased.

I am torn in two directions.

I see no reason why anyone requires a 100-bullet magazine. Bears aren't that much of a problem.
But if this were banned, I would imagine persons would either modify a gun to be belt-fed or make their own magazine. I couldn't, but asuming this is the last act before a lengthly jail sentence or death you've got time to learn.

I was amazed he had done nothing more lethal such as nail bombs / blocking exits / dipping bullets in cyanide (administered dose would be low, but every little helps).

I would personally have rigged something to mix carbon monoxide and Chlorine in the presence of UV light (in a movie theatre, who'd notice?) Phosgine is pretty lethal, but tasteless and colourless.

In conclusion, the rules as they stand make things easier for crazies to kill. But stopping this outlet would most likely have caused a different massacre. And at a population level gun controls do not correlate well with death rates in the same country.

~:smoking:

[Major Robert Dump]

Still would have happened

But would have been less deadly

They are saying now his rifle jammed. In a week or so, we should now how many rounds he fired from the AR15 before having to swtich to the handguns, after they finish all the crime scene work. If it turns out the AR15 jammed early on, then this debate becomes a different animal. It only takes 3 seconds to change magazines in a pistol/rifle, and if someone has multiple pistols there will be less reloading.

** I may also add the bigger factor here was the way he was dressed and the smoke bomb. His outfit made people think it was part of the show or that he was possibly a cop, the smoke made it impossible to counterattack. I am waiting for the call to ban gas masks and smoke bombs now

[PanzerJaeger]

So, in order not to ignore the elephant in the room, I ask: Do gun rights advocates deny that if James Holmes had not been allowed to legally purchase an assault weapon with a 100-round drum that either: 1) The most recent massacre might not have happened, or: 2) even if he still attempted it, the results would have been less deadly?

Game on...

Yes. There are well over 300 million guns in the United States, and just as many high capacity magazines, I would guess. Whether legal or not, purchasing such items will be very easy for years to come.

In general, it is a very bad idea to legislate based on tragedy. The results never reflect the intentions. If someone is hell bent on wreaking havoc, there is not much that legislation can do about it.

'Normal' gun crime has been steadily decreasing while gun ownership has been increasing. Do we want to let James Holmes dictate policy that will affect us all? We've learned what it means to sacrifice freedoms in the wake of a tragedy in this country, and I hope we do not go down that road again.

I, for one, am in no great hurry to outsource my safety to incompetent law enforcement agencies.

[rory_20_uk]

And, of course, guns are the citizenry's last resort against a tyrannical government. Take away the guns and you're damning future generations who may some day have to fend off a government that has become too powerful and corrupt.

Hilarious!

Unless you give the general public access to gunships, SAMS etc etc this is frankly ridiculous.

~:smoking:

[PanzerJaeger]

Hilarious!

Unless you give the general public access to gunships, SAMS etc etc this is frankly ridiculous.

~:smoking:

Syria says different.

[rory_20_uk]

Syria says different.

1) Compare the armed forces in Syria to those in the USA. The fact that the USA outspends the rest of the planet should be a clue.
2) The syrians are receiving weaponry from outside agencies / countries.
3) The progress that the Syrians is making is limited by only having light weaponry. Lybians only won when outside forces bombed all the heavy stuff. Given that the USA has vastly better weaponry means that the populace would also require vastly better weaponry to stand a chance. Such as gunships, SAMs, tank regiments etc.

I'm sorry, but Red Dawn was merely a film.

~:smoking:

[Hooahguy]

Some interesting things I found:

Shotguns and Assault weapons account for fewer deaths than knives. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ushomicidesbyweapon.svg)

Another interesting article about how violent crime is at its lowest since 1973. (http://crimeinamerica.net/2010/10/13/violent-crime-in-america-lowest-levels-since-1973-americans-in-cities-remain-confused/)

A study done from prison inmates. (http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/guns.cfm)

According to the 1997 Survey of State Prison Inmates, among those possessing a gun, the source of the gun was from -

a flea market or gun show for fewer than 2%
a retail store or pawnshop for about 12%
family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source for 80%

[PanzerJaeger]

1) Compare the armed forces in Syria to those in the USA. The fact that the USA outspends the rest of the planet should be a clue.
2) The syrians are receiving weaponry from outside agencies / countries.
3) The progress that the Syrians is making is limited by only having light weaponry. Lybians only won when outside forces bombed all the heavy stuff. Given that the USA has vastly better weaponry means that the populace would also require vastly better weaponry to stand a chance. Such as gunships, SAMs, tank regiments etc.

I'm sorry, but Red Dawn was merely a film.

~:smoking:

Well, try Iraq or Afghanistan.

The United States is also an enormous country with a comparatively tiny military to civilian ratio. If the US military with all of its sophisticated weaponry cannot subdue Afghanistan, there is no way it could subdue the Rocky Mountain region, much less the entire nation - and that's before the possibility of defections/outside assistance/etc. is considered.

Sure, small arms will not allow a direct confrontation, but that is never the way these things work out. Small arms do give you a chance at guerrilla conflict. They give you time and options.

[Montmorency]

Syria says different.

Defections and foreign aid & agents.


You just don't know what you're talking about. All the people I've met who I thought most likely to grab a gun and fight the power were in the damned military. There's more to it than you think, and an angry and armed population is enough to give any government pause--even our own.

Defection from the military to a revolting populace is the most potent weapon against a "tyrannical" government there can be, short of overwhelming foreign intervention. If the military or security forces of a state find the state's activities and directives to be illegitimate, that alone will be enough to bring it down. An armed (segment of the) populace is only useful in 'persuading' cowards and those on the fence.

[HoreTore]

Well, try Iraq or Afghanistan.

The United States is also an enormous country with a comparatively tiny military to civilian ratio. If the US military with all of its sophisticated weaponry cannot subdue Afghanistan, there is no way it could subdue the Rocky Mountain region, much less the entire nation - and that's before the possibility of defections/outside assistance/etc. is considered.

Sure, small arms will not allow a direct confrontation, but that is never the way these things work out. Small arms do give you a chance at guerrilla conflict. They give you time and options.

...and all that means that having a population armed is meaningless. When :daisy: hits the fan, getting guns is no real problem. Having them before that is irreleant.

If you actually meant business with a "fight the power"-stance, you'd be supporting the draft, which will ensure that the vast majority of the population has military training and the army cannot be made up of just one segment of society, thus making it harder to turn on its own population.

[PanzerJaeger]

...and all that means that having a population armed is meaningless. When :daisy: hits the fan, getting guns is no real problem. Having them before that is irreleant.

Can you explain this further?

[Centurion1]

I would say that afghanistan is a superb example of the validity of an armed civilian resistance...

to simply laugh and say you can't fight a modern military without gunships and sams is not right. Modern technology can do quite a bit but it can't eradicate a determined civilian population that easily.

60+ % of the military is from the American South alone. Also where the most gun owners are ironically.

And let's be honest, there would be too many foreign agencies to count willing to help american citizens revolt against a tyrannical federal government for noble or ignoble reasons.

[Lemur]

There is no political will to revisit gun control in the U.S.A. right now. Sorry. It ain't gonna happen, no matter how fervently Bill Moyers and the NRA would like it.

The only high-profile figures currently calling for another go-round are Rupert Murdoch and Mayor Bloomberg (http://www.examiner.com/article/rupert-murdoch-calls-for-tougher-gun-control-agreeing-with-mayor-bloomberg). I can guarantee you than neither Obama nor Romney are going to breathe a word about any new regulations.

So ... a discussion is fine, naturally, but let's be clear on the reality: Ain't gonna happen.

[Centurion1]

...and all that means that having a population armed is meaningless. When :daisy: hits the fan, getting guns is no real problem. Having them before that is irreleant.

If you actually meant business with a "fight the power"-stance, you'd be supporting the draft, which will ensure that the vast majority of the population has military training and the army cannot be made up of just one segment of society, thus making it harder to turn on its own population.

Everyone in Afghanistan has a weapon so that is absolute ****.

It is a proven and accepted fact that a draft would never be effective in 21st century america. Everyone is too flawed to accept without lowering military standards. A draft would be a joke with a nation composed of boys and girls.

[rory_20_uk]

Afghanistan is some of the most rocky and inhospitable terrain there is on the planet. The populace is some of the most irrepressible and hardy peoples on the planet. I doubt Americans - or most other western peoples - would put up with what they do.
The armies of all powers have been fighting with one hand tied behind their back. The population hasn't been rounded up and controlled. The locals are still trusted. Most cases where insurgents have been beaten has involved rounding up the entire populace and concentrating it and throttling the life out of the opposition. Be that the British vs the Boers or the Soviets against Latvians.
The number of soldiers present in Afghanistan in numbers compared to the size of the country is tiny.
The borders are utterly porous with fighters slipping in both directions when beneficial.

There might be several countries willing to help insurgents. However, most would also be rightfully concerned about what happens if the USA government wins. Getting supplies in would be problematic, considering the infrastructure the USA has to monitor borders.

~:smoking:

[Montmorency]

Re: Afhanistan - Let's distinguish between an armed populace resisting its own state, and an armed populace resisting a foreign military & perceived puppet regime.

[Major Robert Dump]

Afghanistan is some of the most rocky and inhospitable terrain there is on the planet. The populace is some of the most irrepressible and hardy peoples on the planet. I doubt Americans - or most other western peoples - would put up with what they do.
The armies of all powers have been fighting with one hand tied behind their back. The population hasn't been rounded up and controlled. The locals are still trusted. Most cases where insurgents have been beaten has involved rounding up the entire populace and concentrating it and throttling the life out of the opposition. Be that the British vs the Boers or the Soviets against Latvians.
The number of soldiers present in Afghanistan in numbers compared to the size of the country is tiny.
The borders are utterly porous with fighters slipping in both directions when beneficial.

There might be several countries willing to help insurgents. However, most would also be rightfully concerned about what happens if the USA government wins. Getting supplies in would be problematic, considering the infrastructure the USA has to monitor borders.

~:smoking:

I think you are still ignoring the level of defection and deserters and "civilian acquisitions of military grade weapons" that would occur in the event of some sort of military control of the civilian population.

It already happens in small doses in relation to operations in foreign lands, with whistleblowers and people who refuse an order on the grounds that it is either unlawful or reckless (This happens far more than people think).

While I was not there personally, my unit had a heavy presence at Katrina. New Orelans police drew down on National Guardsmen at one point, when the Guardsmen tried to bust up some Cops Gone Wild action involving wal mart, a pharmacy and some black folks skulls.

We cannot even get the multiple military branches to agree and cooperate on some of the most straighforward joint missions, thinking that they will suddenly come together to rape and pillage their own country is absured, even more absurd when you consider that at any given time, roughly half of the military will not approve of the current administration.

[rory_20_uk]

So... the best source of up-to-date weaponry is going to be from the state, operated by those that know how to use them. The biggest check against the state against its own people is its own people. Sounds reasonable to me.

In the Civil War, American soldiers did pillage their own country. The ability to do this is probably closer than you might think.

In this case, the populace doesn't need weapons that have any utility in overthrowing the government, merely ornaments to make them make up for their microphallus, or in some areas actually for hunting.

~:smoking:

[Centurion1]

I think you are still ignoring the level of defection and deserters and "civilian acquisitions of military grade weapons" that would occur in the event of some sort of military control of the civilian population.

It already happens in small doses in relation to operations in foreign lands, with whistleblowers and people who refuse an order on the grounds that it is either unlawful or reckless (This happens far more than people think).

While I was not there personally, my unit had a heavy presence at Katrina. New Orelans police drew down on National Guardsmen at one point, when the Guardsmen tried to bust up some Cops Gone Wild action involving wal mart, a pharmacy and some black folks skulls.

We cannot even get the multiple military branches to agree and cooperate on some of the most straighforward joint missions, thinking that they will suddenly come together to rape and pillage their own country is absured, even more absurd when you consider that at any given time, roughly half of the military will not approve of the current administration.

Probably a bit more in favor of republican administrations if we look at the numbers....

[Major Robert Dump]

...and all that means that having a population armed is meaningless. When :daisy: hits the fan, getting guns is no real problem. Having them before that is irreleant.

If you actually meant business with a "fight the power"-stance, you'd be supporting the draft, which will ensure that the vast majority of the population has military training and the army cannot be made up of just one segment of society, thus making it harder to turn on its own population.

Someone has been listening to John Kerry speeches again. This ain't Vietnam, dude (which used the draft, btw, and minorities were over represented due to the college exclusion)

I believe page vii you will find what you don't want to find

http://www.militaryhomefront.dod.mil//12038/Project%20Documents/MilitaryHOMEFRONT/Reports/2010_Demographics_Report.pdf

[Lemur]

Probably a bit more in favor of republican administrations if we look at the numbers....
Absolute hard numbers would be impossible to get, due to privacy laws, but recent studies suggest you're singing from an outdated hymnal (http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/military-less-republican-than-you-think/).

1. The military, and especially its senior officers, are more Republican and conservative than the country as a whole. But the extent of this is grossly exaggerated, because the media naturally focuses on the attitudes of the officer corps, particularly more senior officers.
2. These differences are almost entirely explainable by the demographic makeup of the military, which is self-selected.
3. As with the rest of the country, the younger cohorts of the military—including its officer corps—are less Republican and less conservative. See, for example, the enormous swings in attitudes on gays in the military over the last 20 years.

[Major Robert Dump]

Probably a bit more in favor of republican administrations if we look at the numbers....

In favor is not the same as blind loyalty

There were plenty of detractors in the Bush military
And the Obama military is not on the verge of a coup

@Rory
The Civil War was 150 years ago. If comparisons to Afghanistan will not hold water, then neither will this.

[rory_20_uk]

People haven't altered in what they are like in the last 150 years. The point was that what was inconceivable in 1840 was undertaken in 1864.

~:smoking:

[Ronin]

I´m with Chris Rock on this one...you guys don´t need gun control...you need bullet control.

[Montmorency]

In the Civil War, two states armed their own populaces and set them against each other in conventional military conflict.

[HoreTore]

Someone has been listening to John Kerry speeches again. This ain't Vietnam, dude (which used the draft, btw, and minorities were over represented due to the college exclusion)

I believe page vii you will find what you don't want to find

http://www.militaryhomefront.dod.mil//12038/Project%20Documents/MilitaryHOMEFRONT/Reports/2010_Demographics_Report.pdf

John Kerry? Vietnam?

Bloody hell mrd, I'm a euroweenie, of course my references aren't american. People are able to exclude themselves? Disallow exclusions then.

The reasons why Norwegian males are able to avoid it is because our military is both shrinking in size and moving towards professionalism, so the demand is lower than the annual crop of young males. That shouldn't a problem in the US, if your goal is to prepare the nation for tyrannical oppressors.

Don't worry about people unfit for service gets in; they don't exist. A guy in my battalion was so fat he actually didn't fit through the door of the coms containers. The army still found a use for him, and he was made a corporal as well...

And while such measures may have an effect on getting rid of a tyrant, it also makes it much easier for a would-be tyrant to take control, of course. A fanatical horde of armed and trained men(hello Hitler and Mussolini!) is any demagogoue's wet dream. What the "we must fight the oppressive state"-ideology really is, is a recipe for a protracted civil war in the event of a tyrant? It has no effect on the likelyhood of said tyrant gaining control.

[Major Robert Dump]

Some interesting things I found:

Shotguns and Assault weapons account for fewer deaths than knives. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ushomicidesbyweapon.svg)

Another interesting article about how violent crime is at its lowest since 1973. (http://crimeinamerica.net/2010/10/13/violent-crime-in-america-lowest-levels-since-1973-americans-in-cities-remain-confused/)

A study done from prison inmates. (http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/guns.cfm)

I think your graph is dated.

Looks like AW deaths have increased as of 2010, surpassing knives, page 27


http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf

Actually, looks like your graph conveniently cut off right where the spike started to happen. Not blaming you for this, just pointing this out. I saw the page sourced the BJS so I went there and dug around a bit

[Major Robert Dump]

In the Civil War, two states armed their own populaces and set them against each other in conventional military conflict.

Two states armed hordes of poor, uneducated people whose best source of information was weekly newspapers and guys standing on corners shouting

[HoreTore]

I only just started reading this book (http://www.amazon.com/The-Spirit-Level-Equality-Societies/dp/1608190366) which offers a different perspective on graphy-graphs....

[Centurion1]

Absolute hard numbers would be impossible to get, due to privacy laws, but recent studies suggest you're singing from an outdated hymnal (http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/military-less-republican-than-you-think/).

1. The military, and especially its senior officers, are more Republican and conservative than the country as a whole. But the extent of this is grossly exaggerated, because the media naturally focuses on the attitudes of the officer corps, particularly more senior officers.
2. These differences are almost entirely explainable by the demographic makeup of the military, which is self-selected.
3. As with the rest of the country, the younger cohorts of the military—including its officer corps—are less Republican and less conservative. See, for example, the enormous swings in attitudes on gays in the military over the last 20 years.

Do you read any of your links?

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2010/04/military_poll_advance_041110w/

The men are not becoming any less conservative really they are simply less vocal about it. A good thing in my mind anyway.

Just because they are not registering as republicans does not mean they will vote for a republican. Obama's approval rating is around 25% at the moment.

1. Yes this is very true... your second tid bit which is trying to downgrade the point by saying the officer corp gets superior coverage is irrelevant and merely your attempt o start an argument regarding the poor down trodden enlisted man. Polls don't lie and the media has nothing to do with it. Following your logic every branch of the military is misrepresented besides the marine corps because the corps receives an absurd amount of coverage.

2. Not my problem. Maybe if more damnyankees wanted to protect the country the numbers would be different.... but they aren't. That's not anyone's fault besides the largely liberal north and urban population.

3. This it rue and completely unsurprising, however, they are still more likely to be conservative than anything else. Your point on gays is irrelevant. Look at PJ and I. We are both pretty gosh darn conservative and are firmly pro gay marriage, by the time my generation is in control it will be a completely irrelevant issue.

[Montmorency]

Two states armed hordes of poor, uneducated people whose best source of information was weekly newspapers and guys standing on corners shouting

My point was that placing the ACW in the context of 'armed populaces and the effectiveness of their resistance against oppressive states' makes no sense.

I think a 5-year military draft should be compulsory in place of "high school", to better indoctrinate the young.

[Lemur]

Do you read any of your links?
Yes. Why?


http://www.armytimes.com/news/2010/04/military_poll_advance_041110w/
This is from 2010; the research cited in my link is generally more recent.


The men are not becoming any less conservative really they are simply less vocal about it.
That's not what any of these studies say; rather, there was an abrupt shift away from self-identifying as Republican to self-identifying as independent. Don't know if that holds true two years later.


merely your attempt o start an argument regarding the poor down trodden enlisted man.
I want to respond to this sentence, but it doesn't actually make any sense. The politics of officers and enlisted skew slightly differently; that's an empirical fact. So I'm not quite clear on how me quoting an article that points this out is "starting a fight." Feel free to explain.

Actually, my takeaway from a brief skim of these articles is that if only the military voted, Ron Paul would be President.

[Major Robert Dump]

I only just started reading this book (http://www.amazon.com/The-Spirit-Level-Equality-Societies/dp/1608190366) which offers a different perspective on graphy-graphs....

I have heard of this book and would like to read it. Mainly because I am interested on the benchmark it uses for equality, because as modern times show us, this word has a very subjective meaning

[HoreTore]

I have heard of this book and would like to read it. Mainly because I am interested on the benchmark it uses for equality, because as modern times show us, this word has a very subjective meaning

I can spoil the fun for you, if you want? ~;)

[Major Robert Dump]

Knock yourself out, I am about as likely to read a book as I am to have sex without paying.

Let me guess, in the spirit of things, true equality = assault rifle for every adult??

[HoreTore]

Knock yourself out, I am about as likely to read a book as I am to have sex without paying.

Let me guess, in the spirit of things, true equality = assault rifle for every adult??

Nah, they used the RPG-index...

They used two standards, actually. For international comparisons, they used the difference between the top 20 and the bottom 20 percent in society. For comparisons between the ststes in the US, they used the gini-index. This is because they didn't want to be accused of making their own numbers or using a favourable index, so they used the data available from the UN and the US Census, which uses these methods.

[Major Robert Dump]

NM answered my own question

[ICantSpellDawg]

Guns are good. Keep them highly legal. Make it easier for people to carry them wherever they are unless they have serious mental illness or a violent criminal record. These situations are part of life and I'd rather a life with the odd gun tragedy (approx 2 dozen per year) than a life without guns readily available to law abiding citizens. I'd like the statistics of how many of the sheeple in that place were carrying themselves. Probably not too many, but I'll wait for the data to make a conclusion.

Men and women without weapons are prey, it is smart to arm yourselves at all times to increase your status on the food chain.

[Strike For The South]

Okay, first things first, the American people are entirely to comfortable to revolt. Even if we did the media would marginalize the first patriots terrorists and we would cheer as their brains were splattered all over the street.

An armed resistance against a tyrannical domestic government is the kind of thing Terry Nichols jerks it to and has no basis in reality.

Is there an actual reason for this man to be able to acquire some of things he had on his person? No, there really is not. The weapons he had were for killing lots of people, very quickly. You can't defend ownership of this weapon. Actually you can, but the only argument you have is, it's my right. Which really isn't an argument at all.

Guns should be legal, but lets not be blind to the fact that there are some types of firearms and specs civilians should not be able to own because there only purpose is to inflict death.

[Vuk]

...because there only purpose is to inflict death.
By that logic just about any firearm would be illegal. There are two major reasons why you cannot make assault rifles and high-capacity magazines illegal.
1st: There is no real way to get a solid, unchanging definition of either, and soon the law would be used to ban every type of firearm and magazine on earth.

2nd: Maybe I want a weapon that can kill, but that does not mean that I want it to kill people with, but because I like to collect it and show it off. If I own a claymore (the sword), I would own something designed just to kill, but I obviously would not own it to kill with. I would own it because I think it is really cool, and would like to own it, train with it, and just bloody be able to touch it. It is no different with guns. I would love to own an MG42 and an M60 some day. Not to kill anyone with, but just because they are really cool, and I would love to shoot them, see their effects on a target, and feel what it is like. Did it ever occur to you that people may have motives for buying full auto guns other than killing people?

[Strike For The South]

By that logic just about any firearm would be illegal.

Rifles and shotguns have an obvious other purpose, as do handguns. I would consider both hunting and self defense to be valid reasons for owning a firearm. A automatic rifle fits no logical criteria. I'm sorry but your desires as a hobbyist do not overrule the fact that these are weapons with no real purpose other than to take life in an offensive, undiscerning manner.

The fact of the matter is guns do kill people. The tired old trope about a gun being just a tool is a fallacy.

[PanzerJaeger]

Rifles and shotguns have an obvious other purpose, as do handguns. I would consider both hunting and self defense to be valid reasons for owning a firearm. A automatic rifle fits no logical criteria. I'm sorry but your desires as a hobbyist do not overrule the fact that these are weapons with no real purpose other than to take life in an offensive, undiscerning manner.

The fact of the matter is guns do kill people. The tired old trope about a gun being just a tool is a fallacy.

Where to begin. :wall:

The shooter was not using an automatic rifle. What the shooter did could have been done with any semiautomatic hunting rifle.

Also, it is easy to ban things you have no interest in.

Finally, what kind of gun is this?

https://img46.imageshack.us/img46/5277/buckw308ar02.jpg

[Strike For The South]

It looks like an overpriced rifle that matches with the overpriced camo. I assume you are trying to make a point that this could be banned and this happy woman with her pearly whites will be robbed of her freedom. Let's not go off the deep end sweetie. I believe the assault rifle he used was a class 3? with the extended clip? how is that anything but an offensive weapon?

Everyone points to standing up to a tyrannical government or shooting an irredeemably evil mugger but that never happens. You know what does happen? accidental deaths and school shootings.

I'm not here to take away guns, just looking for compromise. Some people will not be miffed by this shooting or any other for that matter. They claim that a few CHLs in the crowd would have taken care of business. I doubt it. Dark, smoke filled room, 15 feet between you and a moving target, covered in tac gear. That's a heavy order even for the most experienced.
,
I'll admit I have little interest in guns, I shoot with my father and friends occasionally but that's about all these days. Granted I could still out shoot you but that has more to do with Texas than anything else.

[Crazed Rabbit]

It looks like an overpriced rifle that matches with the overpriced camo. I assume you are trying to make a point that this could be banned and this happy woman with her pearly whites will be robbed of her freedom. Let's not go off the deep end sweetie. I believe the assault rifle he used was a class 3? with the extended clip? how is that anything but an offensive weapon?

It wasn't class three. It was a semi auto with, apparently, a 100 round drum magazine, which jammed, as they are wont to do.


Everyone points to standing up to a tyrannical government or shooting an irredeemably evil mugger but that never happens. You know what does happen? accidental deaths and school shootings.

Well gee, since we haven't descended into tyranny yet, let's assume it will never happen.

:rolleyes:

CR

[Strike For The South]

I'll take those odds.

In 60 years when were both on our deathbeds and nothing has happened, I will collect.

[PanzerJaeger]

It looks like an overpriced rifle that matches with the overpriced camo. I assume you are trying to make a point that this could be banned and this happy woman with her pearly whites will be robbed of her freedom. Let's not go off the deep end sweetie. I believe the assault rifle he used was a class 3? with the extended clip? how is that anything but an offensive weapon?

No, it wasn't Class 3. Your position is far easier to understand now, as it is clear that you do not understand anything.


Everyone points to standing up to a tyrannical government or shooting an irredeemably evil mugger but that never happens. You know what does happen? accidental deaths and school shootings.

You're suggesting that people do not defend themselves against assailants with firearms in the US?


I'm not here to take away guns, just looking for compromise. I'll admit I have little interest in guns,

I would suggest that in order to formulate such a compromise, you have to at least understand the basics. Of course this is the backroom, so that is certainly not a requirement. :grin:



Finally, and unrelated to the above, these are the people the gun-grabbers want us to outsource our personal security to. No thanks.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AItgu2Onqg

[Shaka_Khan]

Well, try Iraq or Afghanistan.

The United States is also an enormous country with a comparatively tiny military to civilian ratio. If the US military with all of its sophisticated weaponry cannot subdue Afghanistan, there is no way it could subdue the Rocky Mountain region, much less the entire nation - and that's before the possibility of defections/outside assistance/etc. is considered.

Sure, small arms will not allow a direct confrontation, but that is never the way these things work out. Small arms do give you a chance at guerrilla conflict. They give you time and options.
What made those areas dangerous were mostly IEDs, RPGs and mortars. Guns were a factor too, but not as much as the IED.

[rory_20_uk]

The fact you can go hunting with a truck mounted machine gun doesn't suddenly mean that it should be legalised. I can eat dinner with a combat knife. It does not make it an acceptable thing to do.

Altering definitions to fit the current guns has been done in the past when machine guns were made illegal. The initial definition was something along the lines of a gun that has a continual rate of fire on depression of the trigger. Of course, someone made a weapon that fires the whole magazine on pressing the trigger once. The laws were quickly changed - without banning all guns!

Varying barriers to ownership would be another approach. You want a .22 pistol that holds 6 bullets? Relatively easy to get hold of. A desert eagle .50 with an extended mag? Possibly some more information is needed, starting with "WHY?"

The really lethal things could be allowed only in designated areas under the control of a gun club which in turn is closely monitored. Then those poor individuals who can only get hard after firing a mini-gun have hope.

In muggings, pepper spray / chilli spray or a tazer works, and ensures that some panicked accountant doesn't drill someone 50 metres away because their aim is so poor that they missed the person approaching asking for directions. That the person who is to be mugged draws a weapon faster than the mugger either means they are supernaturally fast or isn't a factor that should be looked at too closely (I assume everyone walks around with a loaded pistol in their hands - just in case.

~:smoking:

[Crazed Rabbit]

I'll take those odds.

In 60 years when were both on our deathbeds and nothing has happened, I will collect.

And that may be because the people have AR-15s and the like and the government is kept fearful.


In muggings, pepper spray / chilli spray or a tazer works, and ensures that some panicked accountant doesn't drill someone 50 metres away because their aim is so poor that they missed the person approaching asking for directions. That the person who is to be mugged draws a weapon faster than the mugger either means they are supernaturally fast or isn't a factor that should be looked at too closely (I assume everyone walks around with a loaded pistol in their hands - just in case.

That's ridiculous. Pepper spray and tasers are very inferior alternatives. Also, civilians hit innocent bystanders ~1/5 as often as police do when shooting.

But I can see this thread is beginning to descend into anti-gun folks positing hypothetical scenarios they know nothing about as arguments for their position.

CR

[PanzerJaeger]

The fact you can go hunting with a truck mounted machine gun doesn't suddenly mean that it should be legalised. I can eat dinner with a combat knife. It does not make it an acceptable thing to do.

Altering definitions to fit the current guns has been done in the past when machine guns were made illegal. The initial definition was something along the lines of a gun that has a continual rate of fire on depression of the trigger. Of course, someone made a weapon that fires the whole magazine on pressing the trigger once. The laws were quickly changed - without banning all guns!

Varying barriers to ownership would be another approach. You want a .22 pistol that holds 6 bullets? Relatively easy to get hold of. A desert eagle .50 with an extended mag? Possibly some more information is needed, starting with "WHY?"

The really lethal things could be allowed only in designated areas under the control of a gun club which in turn is closely monitored. Then those poor individuals who can only get hard after firing a mini-gun have hope.

In muggings, pepper spray / chilli spray or a tazer works, and ensures that some panicked accountant doesn't drill someone 50 metres away because their aim is so poor that they missed the person approaching asking for directions. That the person who is to be mugged draws a weapon faster than the mugger either means they are supernaturally fast or isn't a factor that should be looked at too closely (I assume everyone walks around with a loaded pistol in their hands - just in case.

~:smoking:

Or... and here's a really crazy idea... we don't let the occasional madman dictate our rights. Do you know how often these weapons are actually used in crimes? Your little six round pistol would be a better candidate for confiscation if your goal is really about preventing gun violence.

[rory_20_uk]

Or... and here's a really crazy idea... we don't let the occasional madman dictate our rights. Do you know how often these weapons are actually used in crimes? Your little six round pistol would be a better candidate for confiscation if your goal is really about preventing gun violence.

Yeah! Landmines for all! That should be a right - and as far as I am aware, no one in the USA has died due to one, so allowing everyone to have them is a good idea...

I am capable of having views before a stoner offs a theatre full of people. I'd go as far as to say I couldn't care less that he did. Did this even cause a blip in the average daily deaths? Nope - so what makes them special?

~:smoking:

[Shaka_Khan]

That's not entirely true. The leading causes of death varied from year to year (and AO to AO), usually going back and forth between IEDs and Small Arms.
I know what I'm talking about. My cousin is a ranger who used to serve in Iraq. I'm old enough to remember when the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan. It would've been a walk in the park for the Soviets if the Afghanis only had guns. I've been reading books on both the Iraqi and Afghan situations.

[Ironside]

Guns are good. Keep them highly legal. Make it easier for people to carry them wherever they are unless they have serious mental illness or a violent criminal record. These situations are part of life and I'd rather a life with the odd gun tragedy (approx 2 dozen per year) than a life without guns readily available to law abiding citizens. I'd like the statistics of how many of the sheeple in that place were carrying themselves. Probably not too many, but I'll wait for the data to make a conclusion.

Men and women without weapons are prey, it is smart to arm yourselves at all times to increase your status on the food chain.

You are aware that the food chain is the reason for about every stupid gun crime done by gangs are you? Status is 100% of appearence, not fact (unless this fact is well known). Ergo, your hidden gun will do nothing, unless you display it and show a willingness to use it.

Oh, I'm going to run all political violent scenarios with coup attempts just for the fun of it. Left to right.
Violent commie coup. Lol, no chance of being successful in the US.
Organized social disorder. Large unemployment in urban areas. Some charismatic revolutionary leftie succeed with starting to create a revolutionary militia, that's boosted by the amount of guns. Is either put down by the military, with a golden opportunity to increase suppression (due to civil war) or succeeds with the revolution.
Anarchists. Like above, but without any major organisation. Will fail.
Hippies and pacifists. Ugh right.
Social democrats takes power through democratic elections (real ones. There's no way the power players in the US would support social democracy, so a coup is impossible). A violent minority boosted b plenty of guns opposes them. Get's beaten down. Will either make themself totally aloof or will be beaten down so harshly that the popluation will sympatize with them and influence the next election.
Military coup. Will be trying to get full support from the military and as much of the population as possible. Only feasible if the military is more or less openly willing to beat down parts of their own population.
Libertarian coup. Very unlikely. Would probably break up the US if successful and honest. Othervise it's a Value Coup.
Values coup. A pre-emptiveish (it might happen after an election) strike against those who threatens "the true American values". Depends fully on military support to be successful, in particular since it will always be oppressive (the values needs to be ensured to prevent this again).
Kleptocracy power grab. Group of superrich more or less openly taking power. Would need to have severe unrest during an economic downturn to become violent. Simular to the Organized social disorder, but probably with an expansion of private military firms guarding the gated communities (or the police/military will start to take that roll).
Facist takeover. Facists somehow getting enough popular support.

So it's pretty much the lefties that gain on unregulated guns in case it's needed against the goverment, ironically enough considering the political alignment of those who wants free guns vs the goverment. But it's quite limited in use and there's much better safeguards than the guns, which actually makes it bloodier failures in some scenarios.

Likehood in order for the US IMO:
Social Democracy (well not a full one, but militant dissent vs a democrat president is possible)
Kleptocracy
Values
Organized social disorder

[Fragony]

Yeah! Landmines for all! That should be a right - and as far as I am aware, no one in the USA has died due to one, so allowing everyone to have them is a good idea...

I am capable of having views before a stoner offs a theatre full of people. I'd go as far as to say I couldn't care less that he did. Did this even cause a blip in the average daily deaths? Nope - so what makes them special?

~:smoking:

His intention makes him special. Having guns does 't mean you are out to hurt anyone. I would love amore relaxed policy on ownership it is quite rediculous it's so hard to get your hands on what could save your life. I got a crossbow and a handbow that will absolutely shoot right through you, yet that is allowed

[Major Robert Dump]

:book2: Why would I lie to you?

Unfortunately, the DoD's casualty lists (https://www.dmdc.osd.mil/dcas/pages/main.xhtml) don't break it down by the type of weapon that caused the death/injury, but I can tell you that in my part of Bagdhad in 2008 Small Arms topped the list for awhile. I'd be interested in seeing the hard numbers if anyone can find them.

It is pretty consistently IEDs. In fact, in the numbers I saw while leaving in 2012, we had actually had more suicides than small arms death, but that was just FY quarter 1 and spring hadn't started.

Either way, Afghanistan is not a valid comparison. Neither is the US Civil War.

[Sir Moody]

I am not going to weigh in on the whole "Guns are needed to defend against the Government" debate - frankly recent conflicts have proved that it can be true (I do however doubt we in the West have the kind of "fight" the Arab citizens seem to - I fully suspect we would roll over and play dead after the first Artillery strike...)

I do want to point something out though - a few posters have quoted "violence is dropping while gun ownership is rising", both of these statements are true but evidence from the rest of the western world seems to prove they aren't linked

A recent study which was posted on the BBC website (sorry I cant find the link now) and it showed a steady decline in violence in the UK and in fact the rest of the western world (with occasional spikes from "Serial killers" and Terrorist attacks) for over 2 decades - It has recently hit an all time low in the UK

The study concludes there has been some sort of cultural shift in the "Western" world which has led to a reduction of Violence in general.

Another study showed the FEAR of violence has risen in the last decade - I suspect this is the cause of the increase in gun ownership - the study didn't try to conclude why but my money would be on the Media - specifically the news reports of violence.

As to gun ownership - I have always been in the pro gun control camp, however in the case of school shootings and the recent "shooting spree's" gun control really wouldn't make any difference - these people are unhinged and even if they couldn't buy the guns legally they would have found a way to get what they were after - be it buying the guns illegally or resorting to explosives - Gun control wont stop people like these...

[PanzerJaeger]

Yeah! Landmines for all! That should be a right - and as far as I am aware, no one in the USA has died due to one, so allowing everyone to have them is a good idea...

Reductio ad absurdum, and so soon! I accept your intellectual surrender.



I am capable of having views before a stoner offs a theatre full of people. I'd go as far as to say I couldn't care less that he did. Did this even cause a blip in the average daily deaths? Nope - so what makes them special?

~:smoking:

Your 'views' are the problem, though. You propose making the type of gun used most frequently in crimes the easiest to get, whilst banning the scary looking stuff that rarely ever gets used. This reinforces my belief that the principal factors motivating people with your views are fear and ignorance. :shrug:

[ICantSpellDawg]

Most of the rifles that are available to civilians in the U.S. just look like they have serious teeth. They are generally semi-auto. If it looked like a bunny rabbit and was a semi-auto, people wouldn't think twice, but because it looks like the rifle that "the terrorists" and commies use, it scares people. There are restrictions where I live on automatic weapons. I wish that we could have them, but I understands that, in NY, they don't want everybody to be armed at the level of a SWAT team. I believe that individuals should be armed to the level of a SWAT team, but that's what the democratic process is all about, i guess.

The idea that armed Americans could do nothing to deter a tyrannical government is faulty, btw. Quite a number of you assume that U.S. Troops would just follow orders on the suppression of mass insurrection. If you know any troops, you know how they think. Do you believe that they would side with the government, or their friends and neighbors that they "joined the military to defend"? Add their desertions and sabotage to the mix and an armed civilian populace would be an effective impediment to a Federal steam roller of rights. I'm just saying. A semi-powerful resistance is the best guarantee that desertions occur. You see these things happen in nations around the world. When the resistance is weak or helpless, it would be suicide to desert the regular military. When the resistance is putting up a fight, every desertion makes the government weaker and the resistance stronger.

What I fail to understand is this; Some of you guys know the past Presidents, you know the opinions of your friends and neighbors, your government leadership, business leaders, your media personalities. The idea that some of these people would put themselves is a position of total authority over you if they could should be obvious. That they would enforce horrible laws that deteriorate the rights of human beings should be obvious to us. You are constantly warning us of this, the amalgamation of power through unethical means... yet you do not believe that we should have the right to self defense from all of these forces gradually uniting against us. I'm not saying that it is going to happen, only that there are pressures in and away from that direction in constant flux. THings happen that disrupt that flux in favor of one side or the other, but the struggle never goes away, not with youtube, or your favorite president, or current popular opinion, or disney world. Arm yourselves in any way that you can, with weapons, with various types of education, with strong families and communities, with good leadership. But don't buy the "end of history" nonsense..

[Centurion1]

I know what I'm talking about. My cousin is a ranger who used to serve in Iraq. I'm old enough to remember when the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan. It would've been a walk in the park for the Soviets if the Afghanis only had guns. I've been reading books on both the Iraqi and Afghan situations.

And GC was actually there..... not to mention everyone i know who went over said small arms was a distant second and then the majority of deaths were from IED blasts. Snipers actually cause some casualties with old hunting rifles and the like since the shooters actually aim unlike the wild spraying you get out of the natives if they are given automatics.

[gaelic cowboy]

If the history of the USA is anything to go by then getting troops to open fire on US citizens is not the problem, basically the real problem is paying your troops after society collapses due to a succesful coup.

After all the millitary is usually made of a certain sections of society and often weighted more to certain regions of the Unitied States, so it shouldnt be that hard to spread such an idea among people who generally distrust politicians.

[Lemur]

But don't buy the "end of history" nonsense.
Agreed. If something could be true a hundred years ago, it can be true again. Because war ... war never changes (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2Pt-LnQ2po) ...

I thought someone in this thread wrote about how much better it would have been if the audience had been shooting back, and I was going to counter-post that in darkness and confusion, with untrained shooters, just about anything could happen. But re-reading the thread, I can't find it. So maybe it was written elsewhere, or edited out of here.

Meh. Need moar coffee.

[CountArach]

In general, it is a very bad idea to legislate based on tragedy. The results never reflect the intentions. If someone is hell bent on wreaking havoc, there is not much that legislation can do about it.
Just to pick up on this, the legislation in Australia in the OP was put in place directly after a tragedy and the result demonstrably had the desired effect. The problem isn't legislating based on tragedy, the problem is that the heightened emotions around tragedies can lead to ineffective legislation. That is a problem with legislators, not the idea itself. In this case we had a strong bi-partisan support for gun legislation (despite the fact that the sitting Prime Minister had the support of the pro-gun lobby) and the result that what needed to be done was done.

[Tellos Athenaios]

I would say that afghanistan is a superb example of the validity of an armed civilian resistance...

It's a terrible example. When the USA went in guns blazing, so to speak, the Taliban was practically wiped out. Then the USA decided that they cared about the civilians after all and didn't want to look all mean so they refrained from using real force. Result: "successful" civilian resistance, the kind that kills more of its own through stupidity than any credible threat to the USA forces. It's just that the USA forces don't want to "suppress" the Afghans so the Afghans "get away" with it.

If by contrast the USA took a few leafs out of Assad's rule book, neither the Afghans nor you would stand a chance.

[Vuk]

Agreed. If something could be true a hundred years ago, it can be true again. Because war ... war never changes (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2Pt-LnQ2po) ...

I thought someone in this thread wrote about how much better it would have been if the audience had been shooting back, and I was going to counter-post that in darkness and confusion, with untrained shooters, just about anything could happen. But re-reading the thread, I can't find it. So maybe it was written elsewhere, or edited out of here.

Meh. Need moar coffee.
But that is where you are wrong Lemur. Most people who carry know what they are doing. Gun enthusiasts generally like guns and know them and their use very well. Many have shot since they were children. Also, gun owners are painfully aware of what would happen to them if something went wrong, and of the fact that libs would jump at the chance to prosecute them if someone was accidentally hurt. If you had one brave gun carrier there, the shooter probably would not have made it out alive. People go on as if his 'tactical gear' makes him invincible, but it does not. It will help, but a guy with a 1911 could have taken him out. First of all, his face was unarmoured, as he was wearing a gas mask. Second of all, most body armour covers the abdomen, and leaves the chest mostly vulnerable. Even if someone was only able to shoot him in his armoured abdomen, it would probably have a great enough affect on him, if not to drop him to the ground, at least to stun him and disrupt his aim long enough for someone to tackle and disarm him.


Rifles and shotguns have an obvious other purpose, as do handguns. I would consider both hunting and self defense to be valid reasons for owning a firearm. A automatic rifle fits no logical criteria. I'm sorry but your desires as a hobbyist do not overrule the fact that these are weapons with no real purpose other than to take life in an offensive, undiscerning manner.

The fact of the matter is guns do kill people. The tired old trope about a gun being just a tool is a fallacy.

You realize that an AR15 is a rifle, don't you? You realize that he had 4 weapons total with him: a rifle, a shotgun, and two handguns, don't you? By your definition, nothing that he had should be illegal. Also, his rifle was not automatic BTW. You really do have no idea at all what you are talking about. Also, its only purpose is to take life in an offensive and undiscerning manner? Really? So it is not possible that someone may use it to kill in self-defense, or that they choose who to kill with it? It just goes around killing innocent people all by itself? You crack me up Strike.
It is a fallacy? How so? What is it if not a tool? It is no different than a knife. It is a tool that has both lethal and non-lethal uses. Any weapon is just a tool. One use for such a tool is, of course, killing. That does not mean that it is not a tool, and that it is up to the owner whether to use it, when to use it, and how to use it...just like any other tool. Owning a gun does not make you suddenly want to go kill children in a school.



The fact you can go hunting with a truck mounted machine gun doesn't suddenly mean that it should be legalised. I can eat dinner with a combat knife. It does not make it an acceptable thing to do.

Altering definitions to fit the current guns has been done in the past when machine guns were made illegal. The initial definition was something along the lines of a gun that has a continual rate of fire on depression of the trigger. Of course, someone made a weapon that fires the whole magazine on pressing the trigger once. The laws were quickly changed - without banning all guns!

Varying barriers to ownership would be another approach. You want a .22 pistol that holds 6 bullets? Relatively easy to get hold of. A desert eagle .50 with an extended mag? Possibly some more information is needed, starting with "WHY?"

The really lethal things could be allowed only in designated areas under the control of a gun club which in turn is closely monitored. Then those poor individuals who can only get hard after firing a mini-gun have hope.

In muggings, pepper spray / chilli spray or a tazer works, and ensures that some panicked accountant doesn't drill someone 50 metres away because their aim is so poor that they missed the person approaching asking for directions. That the person who is to be mugged draws a weapon faster than the mugger either means they are supernaturally fast or isn't a factor that should be looked at too closely (I assume everyone walks around with a loaded pistol in their hands - just in case.

~:smoking:
Why is it wrong to eat dinner with a combat knife? I've done it before when I was camping.
Why should I have to give up my privacy to own a desert eagle? If I am not a criminal, why should it be a problem? Whether I have a 9MM beretta or a .50 Desert Eagle, it really makes little difference if I want to murder people. Whether it is a lot of people or one person, both are gonna be able to do the job efficiently. Heck, your .22 with 6 rounds is more than capable of being used to kill. If someone in that crowd was carrying a .50 AE with them at that theatre, those people would not have died.
You see, the good thing is that the bad guys are stupid, ignorant liberals who know nothing about guns, or drugged up gangbangers who are too cool to learn how to use a gun properly 99% of the time. That is why the legal gun owners, who are usually very proficient in their guns use, usually better trained/educated, and often ex-military have a distinct advantage.
The bad guys rarely know what they are doing, which is why one skilled gun owner or the police can usually take care of them so easily. That dude in Norwey is the only guy in recent history I have read about who actually sounded like he had any idea what he was doing.

Someone who knows something about guns knows that large magazines, and esp. drums are very prone to misfeeding and jamming. Also, a skilled gun owner knows that you are gonna do far more damage taking quick, accurate shots with a semi-auto rifle than you will spraying with a full-auto, yet most school shooters, etc. come in spraying with an automatic and generally do very little actually damage to everything but the walls and ceilings.
In the case of this most recent shooter, he would have been much better off with a bunch of thirty round mags, and just practiced reloaded till he could do so very fast under stress. Most shooters don't aim though, don't take care of their guns properly, and try to equip themselves like Rambo.

Then stupid liberals look at that and try to ban the scary looking guns and equipment that the shooters stupidly took with them, even though they do not have nearly the potential to be dangerous as a lot more 'tame' guns.

I am not trying to say that ful auto weapons do not have their uses...they do, but for most shootings, and semi-auto weapon with a level head behind it would be much more effective.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Agreed. If something could be true a hundred years ago, it can be true again. Because war ... war never changes (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2Pt-LnQ2po) ...

I thought someone in this thread wrote about how much better it would have been if the audience had been shooting back, and I was going to counter-post that in darkness and confusion, with untrained shooters, just about anything could happen. But re-reading the thread, I can't find it. So maybe it was written elsewhere, or edited out of here.

Meh. Need moar coffee.

It was me, alluding to the question of how many of the individuals were armed. If there were many armed people and they failed to use their weapons, that would weaken my point. If they were unarmed, it could suggest a somewhat altered outcome should they have been armed and would lead us to question whether casualties would have been higher or lower.

War changes, Lemur. We know that, but some of the fundamentals remain the same or similar. Guns still hurt or kill people and people still call many of the shots. Guns/other weapons still have a somewhat equalizing effect on power relationships.

Also - both suggestions; that less guns are better for freedom or that more guns are better for freedom - may be correct. 20 very different roads can lead to a similar destination. Some might prefer 1 road, others another. The question of how to get there and why are still legitimate. I am of the opinion that freedom to defend ones self is extremely important, others would seek to specialize and outsource their own defense. My decision may have both positive and negative outcomes for myself and others, as will yours. (as you know Lemur, when I say "you" or "your's" i mean "anyone who is reading")

[Vuk]

It was me, alluding to the question of how many of the individuals were armed. If there were many armed people and they failed to use their weapons, that would weaken my point. If they were unarmed, it could suggest a somewhat altered outcome should they have been armed and would lead us to question whether casualties would have been higher or lower.

War changes, Lemur. We know that, but some of the fundamentals remain the same or similar. Guns still hurt or kill people and people still call many of the shots. Guns/other weapons still have a somewhat equalizing effect on power relationships.

Also - both suggestions; that less guns are better for freedom or that more guns are better for freedom - may be correct. 20 very different roads can lead to a similar destination. Some might prefer 1 road, others another. The question of how to get there and why are still legitimate. I am of the opinion that freedom to defend ones self is extremely important, others would seek to specialize and outsource their own defense. My decision may have both positive and negative outcomes for myself and others, as will yours. (as you know Lemur, when I say "you" or "your's" i mean "anyone who is reading")

Being armed is a fundamental part of freedom. The government, a dictator, a crime boss, etc. may allow you to do whatever you want for a long time, but that does not mean you are free. You can do what you want only because you are being allowed to do it. It is a like a 1950's housewife with a husband who allows her to mostly do what she wants. She has no real, concrete rights she can back up, and so her freedom is not real freedom, because it is only had at the mercy of another.

Guns are great equalizers. They give an 80 year old woman in a wheelchair a fighting chance. No, it will never make people completely equal, as a much healthier, most skilled person with a better weapon will have a significant advantage over a physically impaired, less skilled person with a worse weapon. Still though, it is enough of an equalizer to make the more skilled, better armed person serious reconsider attacking, even if they have the advantage.

As liberals are always whining about equality, I find it funny that they do not support the greatest equalizer ever in human history.

It allows nearly anyone to become incredibly dangerous. We will never have equality or a world with very little crime until every individual is extremely dangerous, and every other individual and group thinks twice about depriving them of their rights. In such a world, even the most powerful would fear the least powerful. Good men always outnumber bad men, and a small, wealthy ruling minority would have to be afeared of the individually less powerful but far more numerous majority. Everyone owes it to themselves to be the most dangerous person they can be. (and no, I don't mean more dangerous as in doing bad things or being mentally unhinged, but as in having the potential to do great damage to someone who deprives them of their rights or tries to violate their person) If you are not willing to work for something, you don't really deserve it. If you are not willing to work for a paycheck, you don't deserve the paycheck. If you are not willing to work to safeguard yourself, and instead rely on others, then you have to reap the sometimes tragic consequences of relying on others for your safety.
Liberals are responsible for so many people dying, because they make them think it is wrong to try to be as dangerous as possible, and to try safeguard their own freedom and safety when others are not able to. The blood of those who die as a result stains the hands of all liberals who support things like gun-control.

[Lemur]

War changes, Lemur.
I gots me a Ron Perelman says you're wrong.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2Pt-LnQ2po


As liberals are always whining about equality, I find it funny that they do not support the greatest equalizer ever in human history.
Oh for Pete's sake, it's almost two decades (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban) since there was any serious movement toward gun control in this country, and this latest tragedy isn't going to move the needle.

How long are gun rights advocate allowed to whine about the wicked gun-grabbers when nobody but Rupert Murdoch is talking about it? This is a settled issue for the moment, and indeed, for the foreseeable future.

Although I still maintain that if we're going to have needlessly dangerous things enshrined in law, I'd really like Bundesautobahns (http://gogermany.about.com/od/planyourtrip/p/driving-Germany.htm). It's a small thing to ask for, surely?

[Vuk]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_Trade_Treaty

I wouldn't be surprised if this cowardly bastard did not do this to make people more accepting of gun control and to scare people from seeing TDKR's percievably anti-Obama/occupy wallstreet message and thought he could just get away by faking insanity.

[Lemur]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_Trade_Treaty

As of September 14, 2011, 58 US Senators (45 Republicans and 13 Democrats) have expressed their opposition to an ATT that would limit the Second Amendment rights of US citizens. As this group comprises far more than 1/3 of the Senate, it is sufficient to block ratification of the treaty by the United States if the treaty addresses civilian ownership of firearms.


I wouldn't be surprised if this cowardly bastard did not do this to make people more accepting of gun control and to scare people from seeing TDKR's percievably anti-Obama/occupy wallstreet message and thought he could just get away by faking insanity.
Vuk, friend, you're imputing political motivations to a madman who just killed a whole bunch of people. If the Columbine Massacre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbine_High_School_massacre) couldn't get America talking about gun regulation, why would anyone, even a loon, imagine that a single theater shooting would do it? More, the idiot will have his day in court, so we'll no doubt hear if he has some political game. Willing to bet if he does, it's pure lunacy, as with Brevik (http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-11-29/news/30456570_1_psychiatric-evaluation-insanity-defense-worst-massacre).

Moreover, you're doing a bit of a Rushbo by claiming there's an encoded partisan message in TDKR, which is, uh, so powerful, uh, that the evil libs need to shoot people. Or something.

Have you been hitting the cold medicine a bit much?

[Major Robert Dump]

It might have been me who mentioned people having guns in the theater, but I stated that the outcome probably would have been no different.

In fact, as of this moment, we do not know for sure that no one was carrying. People with guns run away, too.

The only way a gun might have been used without a high probability of incurring friendly casualties, is if the person with the gun was sitting in the front of the theater and managed to shoot this guy in a lethal spot before he got the smoke off. Keep in mind that body armor is not universal, so depending on the gun it may have done nothing or it may have gone straight through. Regardless, no one sitting in the middle, side or rear of the theater would be able to accurately take this guy down with people running for the exits, smoke obscuring views and the shooter inhaling smoke. A small number of humans have a very high tolerence to smoke/CS gas. The chances that someone could have taken this guy on without becoming a snot factory is pretty much nil. In fact, the police radio talk that was released has cops saying they cannot enter until they get gas masks

Also keep in mind that he started with the shotgun, which may have been so he could more easily strike any "heores" who tried to rush or shoot him.

[Papewaio]

My bet is that the only thing that gets banned are costumes at movie theatres.

Gun control does work. We have seen it happen here in Australia. Mind you we have essentially universal healthcare and free university. But our mental health care system is not good enough.

I think that liberty is best started at the poll booth. Luck would have it in Australia we have a great voting system and a high participation rate. Spurred on by compulsory voting, which really is compulsory turn up to the polling station and get your name ticked off (ruled through to be precise) funnily enough most people once they've done that proceed to vote.

Now we can be very technical and point out that guns don't kill people, bullets do. Blah blah snigger blah. The military and SWAT teams do not fight with feather dusters and irony, they use guns because they are a very effective tool in their trade and that is to eliminate a threat. Sure a feather duster could tickle someone to death but a gun is recognized as one of those implements that speeds up the process from a distance. If guns werent effective at killing people we would not see billions of dollars spent on equippIng our armies with them. But there is one thing that is being missed here is that armies also train the end users in how to use a gun, maintenance and warfare. The elite units get even more training.

So if you want the guns fine have fun with them. But if you want a truly effective means to fight an oppressive government you will need a well trained force. Also some technical knowledge in this age would help, after all small arms are not much of a use against drones.

[HoreTore]

Vuk, friend, you're imputing political motivations to a madman who just killed a whole bunch of people. If the Columbine Massacre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbine_High_School_massacre) couldn't get America talking about gun regulation, why would anyone, even a loon, imagine that a single theater shooting would do it? More, the idiot will have his day in court, so we'll no doubt hear if he has some political game. Willing to bet if he does, it's pure lunacy, as with Brevik (http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-11-29/news/30456570_1_psychiatric-evaluation-insanity-defense-worst-massacre).

Moreover, you're doing a bit of a Rushbo by claiming there's an encoded partisan message in TDKR, which is, uh, so powerful, uh, that the evil libs need to shoot people. Or something.

Have you been hitting the cold medicine a bit much?

The jury is still out on ABB, Lemur. The decision will be made on august 14th.

From the footage of the batman-trial, however, he looks a lot more insane. ABB was calm, focused and cold, right from the first hearing. The Joker didn't look like he was aware of his surroundings at all. (Looked like)A clear candidate for psychiatric care.

[Vuk]

The jury is still out on ABB, Lemur. The decision will be made on august 14th.

From the footage of the batman-trial, however, he looks a lot more insane. ABB was calm, focused and cold, right from the first hearing. The Joker didn't look like he was aware of his surroundings at all. A clear candidate for psychiatric care.

Are you guys stupid? I don't mean to be offensive, but really! These are two highly intelligent people who have been planning their attacks for at least a few months. They have research every facet of their plan. They are doing what they are doing, not because they are crazy, but because they are highly motivated and trying to accomplish a specific objective that they feel very strongly about (usually gun control). They are cowards though, who do not want to face the consequences. (which is why he surrendered immediately to the police...this is not a crazy guy, this is a guy who completed his mission and threw down his weapons) They act crazy so that they can help their cause without people martyrs. These guys are great actors, and have to be in order to not draw suspicion and to pull of their attacks in the first place. This guy was a very politically active member of the occupy movement. What he did will greatly help the leftist agenda. You think that is a coincidence? You don't think he considered that?

As to Lemur suggesting that TDKR does not have an anti-socialist (and therefore anti-Obama) theme, all I can think is that he has not seen the movie.

[Lemur]

they are highly motivated and trying to accomplish a specific objective that they feel very strongly about (usually gun control). [...] This guy was a very politically active member of the occupy movement. What he did will greatly help the leftist agenda.
Could you please post a source for all of that? Are you saying that Brevik and the Columbine shooters were trying to advance gun control? Or something? I'm having trouble following your flights of rhetoric.

-edit-

Did a little bit of Googling for your claim that the shooter is an Occupy brat. Appears the sole source of this is Florida private investigator Bill Warner, who does not have anything solid to back this claim up. Here's the originating article (http://www.pibillwarner.com/2012/07/occupy-black-bloc-member-james-holmes.html). Looks like Brian Ross all over again, but with a worse haircut.

You were saying something about people trying to politicize a tragedy?

[HoreTore]

Are you guys stupid? I don't mean to be offensive, but really! These are two highly intelligent people who have been planning their attacks for at least a few months. They have research every facet of their plan. They are doing what they are doing, not because they are crazy, but because they are highly motivated and trying to accomplish a specific objective that they feel very strongly about (usually gun control). They are cowards though, who do not want to face the consequences. (which is why he surrendered immediately to the police...this is not a crazy guy, this is a guy who completed his mission and threw down his weapons) They act crazy so that they can help their cause without people martyrs. These guys are great actors, and have to be in order to not draw suspicion and to pull of their attacks in the first place. This guy was a very politically active member of the occupy movement. What he did will greatly help the leftist agenda. You think that is a coincidence? You don't think he considered that?

As to Lemur suggesting that TDKR does not have an anti-socialist (and therefore anti-Obama) theme, all I can think is that he has not seen the movie.

I stated my source for my statement, which was footage from the trial. I made no bombastic conclusion as I don't have anything near the knowledge to do so, I simply said what it looked like to me.

When I don't have much knowledge of something, I try hard not to draw conclusions. I suggest you do the same, as you have obviously very little knowledge of ABB.

Edit: I edited the last sentence of my previous post, as I concede that it was far more bombastic than it was supposed to. It was supposed to follow onto the two previous "looks", but that wasn't very clear of me.

[Major Robert Dump]

Piddle all you want.

Violent crime in the US is at its lowest since the 1960s. Yet there are far more guns. And the cities in the US who have outright gun bans are absolute trainwrecks.

Would gun violence and accidents and suicides decrease with more gun control. OF COURSE. Just like we would have fewer auto deaths without cars, and fewer poisonings without Draino. This fact is irrelevant in the face of the fact that crime is lower. It just is. Sorry.

Gun control may work in your country, but it would take a long, long time to work in this one, if it ever worked at all. I am not willing to endure a few decades of not having a gun and being at the mercy of scum with guns (cops and thugs) before we eradicated all the guns. And yes, it would take decades, because as soon as we made guns illegal here they would start flowing over the mexican border on the blackmarket tip.

This is why, as Lemur states, gun control is a non issue now. We have the internet. We have the CDC, the FBI and the BJS websites to look at data all by ourselves, without having to rely on HuffPo and the Brady campaign. We can see that there is no armageddon.

[Papewaio]

Isn't there a pop statistics book saying that the decease in crime lagged legalised abortion by a generation. In other words crime decreased when women who could not successfully raise a fully functional member of society aborted the fetus.

Makes sense that if the components that make society are healthy then society is. Schools, families and individuals are the components of society. So preventative mental health for individuals, support for families and/or
The size and distribution of them, and make sure hat schools provide a healthy environment in education, play, food and socialization ir how to make friends 101

[ICantSpellDawg]

Isn't there a pop statistics book saying that the decease in crime lagged legalised abortion by a generation. In other words crime decreased when women who could not successfully raise a fully functional member of society aborted the fetus.


Yes, lets commit homicide of infants from low income families in order to prevent them from possibly becoming violent offenders. This just in; gassing the prison population and legalizing all criminal activity will have an even more marked effect. It was the hacks over at "freakonomics" who discovered that little bit of info.

[HoreTore]

Yes, lets commit homicide of infants from low income families in order to prevent them from possibly becoming violent offenders. This just in; gassing the prison population and legalizing all criminal activity will have an even more marked effect. It was the hacks over at "freakonomics" who discovered that little bit of info.

A fetus is, of course, not a human being.

The difference between having a baby at 17 versus having a baby at 26 is of course low income versus middle class. Allowing the 17-year old to have her baby at 26 instead means less hassle with the kid, as the poorer the family, the more social problems you get.


Yes!! Finally a gunbortion thread!!

[Montmorency]

Yet, as we all know babies are a gift from God, and we should always be creating more and more.

[HoreTore]

Yet, as we all know babies are a gift from God, and we should always be creating more and more.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0kJHQpvgB8


Its only a matter of time before population control becomes a serious issue. It bothers me that you can't have a serious discussion of our options there in this country.

Meh, the number of kids naturally decrease as the wealth goes up, the problem will possibly fix itself.

Even so, I see no reason to make it convenient to have more than one or two kids.

[Major Robert Dump]

Awesome, a gunbortion thread.

I am not familiar with that book, Papeiwo, but to attribute a decrease in crime soley to low income abortion is a little one sided and a little classist. I am sure it has had some sort of an effect on lowering crime. But like I said before, our crime rates are at 1960s levels.

[Xiahou]

Isn't there a pop statistics book saying that the decease in crime lagged legalised abortion by a generation. In other words crime decreased when women who could not successfully raise a fully functional member of society aborted the fetus.Oh trust me, there are plenty of women still having babies with no idea of how to successfully raise them. :yes:

On the OT, using the emotion surrounding a recent tragedy to push through regulation is never a good idea. Gun control aside, I've heard people now talking about how there should be security screenings for theaters and other gatherings now. Really? How many theater rampage shootings have there been? Anyone? And that's compared to how many movie screenings there have been? Is this really good justification for handing over more of our rights to the government? I think not.

[PanzerJaeger]

Just to pick up on this, the legislation in Australia in the OP was put in place directly after a tragedy and the result demonstrably had the desired effect. The problem isn't legislating based on tragedy, the problem is that the heightened emotions around tragedies can lead to ineffective legislation. That is a problem with legislators, not the idea itself. In this case we had a strong bi-partisan support for gun legislation (despite the fact that the sitting Prime Minister had the support of the pro-gun lobby) and the result that what needed to be done was done.

Correlation does not equal causation. Be very careful linking reduced gun violence to gun control, as the factors influencing that violence are numerous and the results of such policies are inconsistent at best. America has seen greatly reduced gun violence as ownership has increased, and the general trend in the West towards reduced violence has already been noted.

Australia certainly makes a strong case for gun control (if one is operating under the assumption that gun violence is statistically significant enough to warrant a reduction in rights), but the only thing truly demonstronstrable about Australian gun control is that Aussies now enjoy less personal freedom than their American counterparts.

[ICantSpellDawg]

A fetus is, of course, not a human being.


Of course it isn't (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human)... because it is, instead, a ______________

[PanzerJaeger]

Please no abortion.... Please! It's just become so trite.

[Montmorency]

When beggars break out the F-word, I can't help but sigh.

It seems a spurious concept to me, best forgotten.

[Major Robert Dump]

The TSA and the MPAA should get together and start doing pat downs. It would also be a good way to stop bootleg concessions from coming into the theater.

In fact.... i smell a conspiracy

[Ironside]

Being armed is a fundamental part of freedom. The government, a dictator, a crime boss, etc. may allow you to do whatever you want for a long time, but that does not mean you are free. You can do what you want only because you are being allowed to do it. It is a like a 1950's housewife with a husband who allows her to mostly do what she wants. She has no real, concrete rights she can back up, and so her freedom is not real freedom, because it is only had at the mercy of another.

Guns are great equalizers. They give an 80 year old woman in a wheelchair a fighting chance. No, it will never make people completely equal, as a much healthier, most skilled person with a better weapon will have a significant advantage over a physically impaired, less skilled person with a worse weapon. Still though, it is enough of an equalizer to make the more skilled, better armed person serious reconsider attacking, even if they have the advantage.

As liberals are always whining about equality, I find it funny that they do not support the greatest equalizer ever in human history.

It allows nearly anyone to become incredibly dangerous. We will never have equality or a world with very little crime until every individual is extremely dangerous, and every other individual and group thinks twice about depriving them of their rights.

The last period in human history with this was called the Middle Ages. The murder rate has dropped 90-99% since then. And no, that's not because of nobility power abuse vs the normal population. That's because letting someone else having the monopoly on violence means that you don't need to pull your gun to defend your honour, show yourself to be dangerous or any other stupid reason violence is used in vain. Oh, and both sides are usually armed in gang murders, yet oddly enough, they're quite common.

The good outnumbers the bad as you said. What does this mean? Are criminals easier to catch? No, because no criminals in a western nations aren't safe because they outgun someone, it's because they can "hide" so to speak. More guns won't change that. It might, if the good old lynchmobs are coming back, but thier accuraccy are usually quite poor.
What the outnumbering does, is giving power to the people against the goverment. That's true. But it's vastly more efficient to use that power to influence those in power and prevent them from using the monopoly of violence against their own population. Can guns help against a dictorship? In some cases, yes. It does only help against the rise of a dictorship in it's final phase though. And it may as well backfire. A small scale rebellion will cement the new goverment's power and the belief that it will be the magic bullet will weaken earlier opposition.
For fun, a modern day peasant rebellion would be a violent underclass city rebellion. Eventually taken down, but forcing the goverment to reduce the burden for that class.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I'm not talking about defending your honour. That is stupid. I'm talking about defending your life and all of the cool stuff that you have.

[ajaxfetish]

The last period in human history with this was called the Middle Ages. The murder rate has dropped 90-99% since then.

I'd be very interested to see your sources for the murder rate in the Middle Ages (and is it supposed to have been constant across those ~1000 years and many regions?). I'd not have thought we had accurate enough population data to establish it with any degree of confidence.

Ajax

[HoreTore]

I'd be very interested to see your sources for the murder rate in the Middle Ages (and is it supposed to have been constant across those ~1000 years and many regions?). I'd not have thought we had accurate enough population data to establish it with any degree of confidence.

Ajax

Actually, we do. Murders are well documented in most european states. This is because of several things, like the belongings of a murderer going to the king. We also have good census data, ranging from a proper census to estimates based on the number of farms(as they pay tax, they're always well documented).

A Harvard professor, whose name I cannot remember atm, recently published a book concluding that the amount of violence in the world has dropped significantly since the middle ages.

Edit: Steven Pinker is is name. Haven't read the book yet though.

[Major Robert Dump]

But does it account for what was-was not considered violent or a crime vs what is today?

In the frontier US, "horse thiefs" were hung in the field on nothing more than hearsay and circumstantial evidence, and the case was closed. I have a hard time accepting crime statistics from periods with completely different social values and law enforcement techniques, even as late as the 1970s (in the US)

I don't doubt crime has gone down since the middle ages, particulalry because a lot of crime probably never got reported

[HoreTore]

But does it account for what was-was not considered violent or a crime vs what is today?

In the frontier US, "horse thiefs" were hung in the field on nothing more than hearsay and circumstantial evidence, and the case was closed. I have a hard time accepting crime statistics from periods with completely different social values and law enforcement techniques, even as late as the 1970s (in the US)

I don't doubt crime has gone down since the middle ages, particulalry because a lot of crime probably never got reported

Can't answer that, as I haven't read the book... I believe he focused on murders though, as that's the most reliable statistic. And it's a fair assumption that an increase or decrease in murders reflects an increase or decrease in overall crime.

[Ironside]

I'm not talking about defending your honour. That is stupid. I'm talking about defending your life and all of the cool stuff that you have.

That is indeed stupid. And humanity stopped being stupid when? A simple example. Gettting drunk when going out. Guns+drunks= lots of stupidity. Guns at door+drunk=better, but still a lot of stupidity. Guns at home+drunk = much less stupidity, but now they will get mugged, since late night drunks are one of those groups that get mugged a lot.


I'd be very interested to see your sources for the murder rate in the Middle Ages (and is it supposed to have been constant across those ~1000 years and many regions?). I'd not have thought we had accurate enough population data to establish it with any degree of confidence.

Ajax

Metastudies. That's why there's a so large range. Page 95 (the pdf starts at 82) and forward got some graphs. (http://soci.ucalgary.ca/brannigan/sites/soci.ucalgary.ca.brannigan/files/long-term-historical-trends-of-violent-crime.pdf) I haven't gone through all of it. Major distortion factors are survival ratio due to medicine and (mostly) female suecide by killing their own child. Due to the immence social stigma on suecide (punished way harder than murder) and the following family shame, this made sense from suecide perspective.


But does it account for what was-was not considered violent or a crime vs what is today?

In the frontier US, "horse thiefs" were hung in the field on nothing more than hearsay and circumstantial evidence, and the case was closed. I have a hard time accepting crime statistics from periods with completely different social values and law enforcement techniques, even as late as the 1970s (in the US)

I don't doubt crime has gone down since the middle ages, particulalry because a lot of crime probably never got reported

That's why the focus is on murder rates. It's hard to forget about the corpses. Now there's a big correlation between murder and assult, but I haven't red enough on that matter.

[Major Robert Dump]

And what about suicides, self defense and disappearences or bodies not found? Just playing devils advocate here.

Again, to make a throw back to my own local history:
With the advent of Interstates and more affordable cars, serial killers in the US increased dramatically in the 1950s, 60s and 70s, because killers could travel between different municipalities and commit multiple murders, knowing that the different counties and cities were likely not sharing information. Some of them were brazen and didn't even try to hide what they were doing, because they could be on an interstate and in another jurisidiction in 10 minutes. So in the 50s, 60s and 70s there was also a rash of "runaways" and we got the whole "kids running off to join cults" thing, when in reality, this was young people hitch hiking, getting picked up and raped and murdered, and their bodies never found. They were often not confirmed dead until a killer spills his guts on his death bed, and by that time the runaways parents were dead or senile, going to the grave thinking their kid ran off.

The above situation was not helped by the lack of national/state identification for citizens and newborns. Social Security numbers were not mandatory until the 80s as I recall. I didnt have one until I was 14. Hell, we still hear from time to time about someone who has had their kid locked in a basement for a decade and nobody ever knew there was a kid

I think it is safe to assume that in the middle ages there were a hell of a lot more murders than accounter for, and there probably a lot of suicides/accidents that were considered murders.

[ajaxfetish]

@ HoreTore & Ironside: Thank you :bow:

Ajax

[Lemur]

@ HoreTore & Ironside: Thank you :bow:
You know, we've got a button for that ...

[Goofball]

Just to pick up on this, the legislation in Australia in the OP was put in place directly after a tragedy and the result demonstrably had the desired effect. The problem isn't legislating based on tragedy, the problem is that the heightened emotions around tragedies can lead to ineffective legislation. That is a problem with legislators, not the idea itself. In this case we had a strong bi-partisan support for gun legislation (despite the fact that the sitting Prime Minister had the support of the pro-gun lobby) and the result that what needed to be done was done.

Exactly. But the other reason it worked is that Australia had no gun industry of its own at the time, and hence, no powerful NRA-like lobby movement that would use massive financial resources to depose any politicians that would try to implement gun control and reduce the profit margins of its contributing members. PJ, you say often that we shouldn't let a few crazies dictate citizens' gun rights, but right now the US is letting the NRA dictate its gun policy. And they NRA doesn't give a crap about rights, or victims, or principles, it cares only about profit for gun manufacturers.

[rvg]

...right now the US is letting the NRA dictate its gun policy.

That's just not true. Many people who have nothing to do with NRA are nonetheless against excessive gun control laws. The people's right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

[Ironside]

And what about suicides, self defense and disappearences or bodies not found? Just playing devils advocate here.


Most murders were of the armed drunk at the tavern type. But I don't think disappearences or bodies not found were that common actually (and possibly counted as murder after a while during some circumstances). Moving a body was much harder in those times. Getting it outside city borders would smack you with a dead human tax (or the tax collectors would check out you wagon and find the body) and simply disappearing from a large house or a village was harder, so both moving the body or saying that someone ran away would be harder. Even with more wilderness, getting deep into it wouldn't be common. And with much less forensics it's less initiative to hide the body.

Self defense cases is probably counted into it (it's still a dead body case and goes up with arnament+crimes). Suecide would probably be "suecide by street brawl". God knows about your suecide, so you still go to hell buddy, even if it's counted as an accident. Accidents as murder or opposite would probably happen yeah.

It's still a metastudy, aka a study of studies. Even if the data isn't correct, it isn't random, so with a large enough studies, you can still get data and draw conclusions. That method is a big reason why you get longer weather prognoses nowadays. Their accuracy has gone up good enough.

Edit:
Goofball, I think you can summarize the US as having an unusually weak social contract for a western democracy, with a bit of backward searching for it's roots. Thus you get tax is theft, protection from both criminals and the state is your buissness, the founding fathers are demigods, your values needs to be heard (or they will die) and those groups who disconnects with the rest of the country.

[Goofball]

That's just not true. Many people who have nothing to do with NRA are nonetheless against excessive gun control laws. The people's right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

It's absolutely true. Polls show that people in the U.S. are split fairly evenly on gun control, as they are on many other issues. The difference is that on other issues, such as abortion, for example, there is no huge lobby group on one side of the issue that makes politicians shy away from taking a contrary position for fear of being crushed in the next election by a massive spending campaign that they can't fight back against. Why do you think that in the aftermath of this tragedy Obama (who was always pro gun control) and Romney (who once said "I don't line up with the NRA") have both been very quick to say that they will not push for further gun control laws? Only the most fervent of gun control supporters in congress have come forward proposing that more measures are needed, with the rest of the legislative body choosing to simply whistle past the graveyard for fear of awakening the wrath of the NRA. If you think the NRA doesn't dictate gun control policy in the U.S., you're living in a dream world.

[ajaxfetish]

You know, we've got a button for that ...

Bah. Kids these days, with their facebooks and their thanks buttons. Back in my day, if we wanted to thank someone, we did it proper. We wrote a thank you post, and by God, we meant it. Hrumph.

Ajax

[HoreTore]

And what about suicides, self defense and disappearences or bodies not found? Just playing devils advocate here.

Again, to make a throw back to my own local history:
With the advent of Interstates and more affordable cars, serial killers in the US increased dramatically in the 1950s, 60s and 70s, because killers could travel between different municipalities and commit multiple murders, knowing that the different counties and cities were likely not sharing information. Some of them were brazen and didn't even try to hide what they were doing, because they could be on an interstate and in another jurisidiction in 10 minutes. So in the 50s, 60s and 70s there was also a rash of "runaways" and we got the whole "kids running off to join cults" thing, when in reality, this was young people hitch hiking, getting picked up and raped and murdered, and their bodies never found. They were often not confirmed dead until a killer spills his guts on his death bed, and by that time the runaways parents were dead or senile, going to the grave thinking their kid ran off.

The above situation was not helped by the lack of national/state identification for citizens and newborns. Social Security numbers were not mandatory until the 80s as I recall. I didnt have one until I was 14. Hell, we still hear from time to time about someone who has had their kid locked in a basement for a decade and nobody ever knew there was a kid

I think it is safe to assume that in the middle ages there were a hell of a lot more murders than accounter for, and there probably a lot of suicides/accidents that were considered murders.

As I haven't read it, I can't really comment on that...

I have followed the debate concerning the book though. I haven't seen the point above being made in the debate, and so the study probably has a counter for it.

Or, MRD might just be smarter than every conservative commentator.

[Major Robert Dump]

If there is one thing I know, its my serial killers and psychopaths. The advent of DNA analysis really put a crimp in my career plans

[Papewaio]

Australia certainly makes a strong case for gun control (if one is operating under the assumption that gun violence is statistically significant enough to warrant a reduction in rights), but the only thing truly demonstronstrable about Australian gun control is that Aussies now enjoy less personal freedom than their American counterparts.

If I want a gun I can join a gun club or own a farm or even hunt foxes in national parks, wild goat culls are still done by rifle.

Mind you in NZ I've seen boar hunters use knives and deer hunters use nets and jump out of helicopters to get live deer. School kids used to shoot & trap possums and skin the pelts.

Freedom is made up of a lot of parts. On most freedom indexes Australia ranks highly.

Whilst I like the idea of defending ones home. I also like the idea of using a fire brigade (free) to fight a house fire, police to fight criminals etc.

I'm happy with universal health care, 'free-ish' Uni education, and a low unemployment rate ~5%. These all contribute to my freedom too.

[PanzerJaeger]

PJ, you say often that we shouldn't let a few crazies dictate citizens' gun rights, but right now the US is letting the NRA dictate its gun policy. And they NRA doesn't give a crap about rights, or victims, or principles, it cares only about profit for gun manufacturers.

That is not true at all. The Clinton years are ample proof that the NRA and the gun manufacturers, while aligned in most cases, are wholly separate entities. Many of the most disputed weapon types have not traditionally been big sellers at all, but gun owners understand that we can either stand together or watch as our rights are eroded piecemeal. The NRA is powerful in American politics because its member base is composed of millions of Americans who share their goals. There is nothing particularly sinister about that.


If I want a gun I can join a gun club or own a farm or even hunt foxes in national parks, wild goat culls are still done by rifle.

That's nice. I can do all that plus shoot my AK clone at reactive targets in my backyard whenever I feel like it, which is highly enjoyable. More seriously, I can legally carry a weapon to defend myself when I deem the situation warrants it, instead of outsourcing my personal safety to police who, even at their best, can only arrive at a crime scene after the crime has taken place.

Those are rights that you simply do not enjoy. :shrug:

And before any more dicks are pulled out, I'm not criticizing Australia. Every nation skews differently on gun control. America is actually not as far away from Australia as most would think. Technically, a case could be made for the legal possession of all sorts of heavy weaponry, including tanks, fighter jets, missiles, etc, base on the Constitution. However, there is no movement for such liberties. In fact, the AK clone I mentioned above is neutered. It was once a true assault rifle, but in my legal position it can be nothing more than a semi-automatic rifle - no more menacing than semi-automatic hunting rifles that have been sold for years and a shooting far less powerful round.

In that sense, the US and Australia are not all that different - just at two similarly located points on a sliding scale. I prefer to live in a nation that leans more toward personal freedom, even if it comes with a (yet to be proven) slightly higher statistical chance that I will fall victim to gun-related violence, especially considering the continually declining rates of such violence.

[Major Robert Dump]

The whole "If I was at that theater with my concealed weapon" talk I am picking up on talk radio is really starting to grate me. People really do think life is a movie, apparently.

[Strike For The South]

The whole "If I was at that theater with my concealed weapon" talk I am picking up on talk radio is really starting to grate me. People really do think life is a movie, apparently.

I know very few people IRL who I could even fathom making a successful shot in that situation.

I only know 1 I would put money on.

2 if PJ ever accepts my invitation for drinks

[Major Robert Dump]

Successful shot? You would have to hit him in the throat, the face or the femoral, through smoke, suffocation, people and general mayhem. Unless you were one of the seventeen paranoid people in the US who carry 5mm class handguns, and then you would still have to get through the smoke, suffocation and the people.

And all of this of course is assuming you hadn't fallen asleep and you didn't have your hands in your dates shirt
and that you were 100% sober

Having a concealed firearm in that theater would do no good to anyone unless they were literally sitting in the front row

I find it incredible how retarded armchair gunslingers are, especially overweight pundits who shoot at paper targets and deer

[Strike For The South]

Um, which is why I placed the odds so low.

Why are you getting indignant when I agree with you?

[Major Robert Dump]

I'm not getting indignant. I am agreeing with and laughing with you. Intent is lost with text, if we were sitting on a bear rug in front of a fire you would understand my intent

Also, Stop using big words.

[Major Robert Dump]

PJ is correct about the NRA not waivering on anything gun related. They use scare tactics of the snowball effect. It is a legitimate concern: the gov chips away and ninjas in on rights. A perfect of example of this is the Patriot Act, which now gives us drones flying through cities, and anti terrorism laws being used against meth manufacturers and people publicly protesting.

However I do find it somewhat disturbing that I would have to jump through more hoops to engage in some monetary, commercial and regular every day transactions than I would in order to buy a firearm at a gunshow. It's stupid.

[Fragony]

PJ is correct about the NRA not waivering on anything gun related. They use scare tactics of the snowball effect. It is a legitimate concern: the gov chips away and ninjas in on rights. A perfect of example of this is the Patriot Act, which now gives us drones flying through cities, and anti terrorism laws being used against meth manufacturers and people publicly protesting.

However I do find it somewhat disturbing that I would have to jump through more hoops to engage in some monetary, commercial and regular every day transactions than I would in order to buy a firearm at a gunshow. It's stupid.

You get checked when you do, I don' find it all that stupid.

[Husar]

PJ is correct about the NRA not waivering on anything gun related. They use scare tactics of the snowball effect. It is a legitimate concern: the gov chips away and ninjas in on rights. A perfect of example of this is the Patriot Act, which now gives us drones flying through cities, and anti terrorism laws being used against meth manufacturers and people publicly protesting.

However I do find it somewhat disturbing that I would have to jump through more hoops to engage in some monetary, commercial and regular every day transactions than I would in order to buy a firearm at a gunshow. It's stupid.

Isn't the funny part of that story that the people who are in favour of gun control, i.e. the pinko librauls, were the ones who criticized the Patriot Act the most while the gun-toting home defender neocon repubs were the ones saying it's necessary to keep the browny terrorists at bay?

That would mean the same people who want their guns to defend their liberties, supported the government that infringed on their liberties as soon as there was an excuse to do so. IMO because the militia attitude often (often does not mean always) comes with an unhealthy dose of xenophobia and a lack of critical thinking.

There's aways a line to be drawn between personal liberties and common good etc. If you want more personal liberties, then open the borders and let Mexicans decide for themselves where to live, no nanny state telling them to stay in Mexico, the market will regulate itself anyway.

If the government turns on the own population, you cannot imply restrictions as in Afghanistan as has been mentioned before, and if half the military joins the population anyway, then there is not much need for the population to have guns prior to that.
The example of Libya wasn't bad, they even had heavy machine guns on pickups, but when Gadaffi sent some tanks the jeeps ran away until NATO bombed the tanks. Surely you can fight and win some guerilla war, might also want to consult the FARC about how much fun that can be.

A much better defense against tyranny is an informed populace but pro-personal liberty often don't like the idea that education is universal and paid for by their taxes but maybe that's just them doing their best to make their guerilla wet dream a reality. ~;)

[HoreTore]

Sheer excellence, Husar! You really should post more ~;)

[Xiahou]

Isn't the funny part of that story that the people who are in favour of gun control, i.e. the pinko librauls, were the ones who criticized the Patriot Act the most while the gun-toting home defender neocon repubs were the ones saying it's necessary to keep the browny terrorists at bay?Thinly veiled racism accusations always make for a stronger argument. :yes:


That would mean the same people who want their guns to defend their liberties, supported the government that infringed on their liberties as soon as there was an excuse to do so. IMO because the militia attitude often (often does not mean always) comes with an unhealthy dose of xenophobia and a lack of critical thinking.Ok, so what can we not do today that we could before because of the PATRIOT ACT? Name something. Go ahead... I'll wait.

Mind you, I wasn't in favor of everything in the act, but to say it's affected my personal liberty in any meaningful way is untrue.

[Major Robert Dump]

It's not that we cannot DO things.

It's that we get spied on wholesale and it is okay, and anti terror laws are used to wiggle those oh so inconvenient laws

Also, IIRC the Patriot Act had pretty strong support amongst the Democrats, and support from Republicans was not 100%

[Major Robert Dump]

You get checked when you do, I don' find it all that stupid.

NO you do not get checked at a gun show

A hillbilly is supposed to check you ID.

A hillbilly does not always check your ID

[gaelic cowboy]

Sorry for the late reply to this but just had to way in here on this old comment by Vuk



As to Lemur suggesting that TDKR does not have an anti-socialist (and therefore anti-Obama) theme, all I can think is that he has not seen the movie.

Actually isnt Bane essentially an anarchist and therefore disdaining of socialism and conservatism so basically the anti theme is of being against mass movements.

[Xiahou]

Successful shot? You would have to hit him in the throat, the face or the femoral, through smoke, suffocation, people and general mayhem. Unless you were one of the seventeen paranoid people in the US who carry 5mm class handguns, and then you would still have to get through the smoke, suffocation and the people.

And all of this of course is assuming you hadn't fallen asleep and you didn't have your hands in your dates shirt
and that you were 100% sober

Having a concealed firearm in that theater would do no good to anyone unless they were literally sitting in the front row

I find it incredible how retarded armchair gunslingers are, especially overweight pundits who shoot at paper targets and deerI agree insofar as anyone who flippantly says "I would've shot him if I was there." is full of it on several levels. It would've taken a lot of guts to draw your weapon and make yourself a target in that situation. It would've taken a miracle for one armed victim to make a difference in this instance. However in different circumstances, one armed victim can defend people from multiple assailants (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t47Y7XH3YJM).

A question about the body armor- has anyone heard any details about what armor he was actually wearing? There's a lot of talk (http://ace.mu.nu/archives/331266.php) about it being just a nylon tactical vest. It won't change what happened no matter what he was wearing- but I wish it was detailed somewhere.

Really, I don't think there's much for people on either side of the gun debate to use. Armed citizens most likely wouldn't have made much difference, nor would tighter gun regulations mattered much in the end....

[Major Robert Dump]

I agree insofar as anyone who flippantly says "I would've shot him if I was there." is full of it on several levels. It would've taken a lot of guts to draw your weapon and make yourself a target in that situation. It would've taken a miracle for one armed victim to make a difference in this instance. However in different circumstances, one armed victim can defend people from multiple assailants (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t47Y7XH3YJM).

A question about the body armor- has anyone heard any details about what armor he was actually wearing? There's a lot of talk (http://ace.mu.nu/archives/331266.php) about it being just a nylon tactical vest. It won't change what happened no matter what he was wearing- but I wish it was detailed somewhere.

Really, I don't think there's much for people on either side of the gun debate to use. Armed citizens most likely wouldn't have made much difference, nor would tighter gun regulations mattered much in the end....


Yes, there are plenty of examples of guns being used successfully to fend off jerks. I am only referring to this example. It is a moot point in this event, but nonetheless tossed out by the armchairs and the pundits. I am not rguing against guns here, just trying to keep the discussion honest. A machete would have been more useful

[ICantSpellDawg]

What is Obama talking about - ak-47's belong in the hands of soldier's, not in the hands of criminals? Anyone who isn't a soldier is a criminal? What about civilians? Are we not allowed to have semi-automatic weapons? Or is he just referring to the selective fire rifles? My concern about this is that a semi-auto was used in the shooting, so what is he trying to do with this statement? Make the scary looking semi-auto's illegal and then target the less scary looking rifles because they can do the same thing? I'm glad that he is starting to talk about this now.

[PanzerJaeger]

What a moronic thing to say. I wonder if he has any clue how many AK47s are actually used in crimes.

[gaelic cowboy]

Eh have you stopped to consider that he might be right on semi auto weapons.

Why the hell does any American need an ak47 do the deer shoot back or something.

[ajaxfetish]

Eh have you stopped to consider that he might be right on semi auto weapons.

Why the hell does any American need an ak47 do the deer shoot back or something.

You don't need an AK47 anymore than you need a sports car. But then it's not about what you need, is it.

Ajax

[HoreTore]

You don't need an AK47 anymore than you need a sports car. But then it's not about what you need, is it.

Ajax

True, it seems to be more about the absolutely hilarious idea that teh gubmintz is somehow afraid if a hillbilly or two has them.

[Xiahou]

What a moronic thing to say. I wonder if he has any clue how many AK47s are actually used in crimes.Last I had heard, we don't issue AK47s to our soldiers... So I'm not sure where Obama was going with that anyway. It is a very common weapon amongst our enemies however.

I know some people think American troops should use AK47s.. maybe that's what he was getting at. ~D

[gaelic cowboy]

You don't need an AK47 anymore than you need a sports car. But then it's not about what you need, is it.

Ajax

Exactly it's not about what we need at all at all rather it about druming fear of the Evilz Gubment.

I will lay 50euro in Paddy Power right nothing comes of this, just like nothing happened after Columbine or the Giffords shootings nothing will happen legally speaking after this one either.

Gun control is not about regulating guns but attacking political opponents ie in actuality democrats as being Un-American.

[rory_20_uk]

Who uses AK-47s any more? There are so many newer versions of the good old AK in circulation. I think the AK-108 would be quite a good choice.

REgarding body armour, unless it was DIY with steel plates, I imagine it is perversely a lot harder to purchase than guns and loads of bullets.

He also said AKs should be in the hands of soldiers, not children.

~:smoking:

[Fragony]

Eh have you stopped to consider that he might be right on semi auto weapons.

Why the hell does any American need an ak47 do the deer shoot back or something.

It's noisy and makes wholes into things, what's not to like about it. I'd love to have one because it's just awesome to have. They aren't very hard to get but I really don't want to get caught with it

[Husar]

Thinly veiled racism accusations always make for a stronger argument. :yes:

Oh really? I didn't notice that I used any stereotypes or exaggerations there, sorry if I did. ~;)


Ok, so what can we not do today that we could before because of the PATRIOT ACT? Name something. Go ahead... I'll wait.

Mind you, I wasn't in favor of everything in the act, but to say it's affected my personal liberty in any meaningful way is untrue.

Yeah, if you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to fear, right? I thought that argument was invalid when it comes to legislation concerning infringements on liberty and privacy.
Also: "I live in North Korea and I haven't had a problem with the government, so what's all the fuss about anyway?"


It's not that we cannot DO things.

It's that we get spied on wholesale and it is okay, and anti terror laws are used to wiggle those oh so inconvenient laws

And this.


Also, IIRC the Patriot Act had pretty strong support amongst the Democrats, and support from Republicans was not 100%

That's not inconsistent with what I said because from a european POV there's at least 49% neocon in every American, democrats included. ~;)


Really, I don't think there's much for people on either side of the gun debate to use. Armed citizens most likely wouldn't have made much difference, nor would tighter gun regulations mattered much in the end....

Agreed, but we're here to tear eachother apart and I know I'm right because I'm a European and Americans are arrogant! :smug:

[a completely inoffensive name]

Agreed, but we're here to tear eachother apart and I know I'm right because I'm a European and Americans are arrogant! :smug:

Since I have become "that guy" in the last two threads I have cared to argue in, I'm going for my third offense and yelling, SOURCE PLEASE!

[Papewaio]

Jeopardy!

Answer:

It's noisy and makes wholes into things, what's not to like about it. I'd love to have one because it's just awesome to have. They aren't very hard to get but I really don't want to get caught with it

Question:
What is a vibrator?

[Husar]

SOURCE PLEASE!

Here you go. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/03/obama-calls-out-european_n_182740.html)

And here (http://www.therightperspective.org/2009/04/05/obama-calls-us-arrogant/) and here (http://startthinkingright.wordpress.com/2009/04/07/obama-goes-to-france-to-call-america-arrogant/) you have arrogant Americans thinking only what he said about America was wrong. :no:

[ICantSpellDawg]

Did you guys hear about the nonmilitary/police/criminal who disarmed the stab crazy knife wielder in some Salt Lake grocery store?

[Crazed Rabbit]

Anti-gun in the US folks love talking up AK-47s because it riles up the ignorant anti-gun masses and sounds scary.

Bloomberg wants more gun laws: http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/aurora-daily-violence-city-streets-gun-control-wait-article-1.1121153

Specifically, requiring background checks for all gun sales, which would effectively outlaw private gun sales.

That persistent scumbag senator Chuck Schumer is pushing for banning all magazines that can hold more than 10 bullets again:
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/240657-cybersecurity-bill-includes-gun-control-measure

I guess we'll see how big this gets. Right now Obama isn't pushing for more laws, though he'd sure like them.

CR

[Fragony]

Successful shot? You would have to hit him in the throat, the face or the femoral, through smoke, suffocation, people and general mayhem. Unless you were one of the seventeen paranoid people in the US who carry 5mm class handguns, and then you would still have to get through the smoke, suffocation and the people.

And all of this of course is assuming you hadn't fallen asleep and you didn't have your hands in your dates shirt
and that you were 100% sober

Having a concealed firearm in that theater would do no good to anyone unless they were literally sitting in the front row

I find it incredible how retarded armchair gunslingers are, especially overweight pundits who shoot at paper targets and deer

Could be retarded, but could also have stopped it. We had a similar shooting here, the guy had enough time to kill 6 people with a .22 and wounded many more. Let's not even begin about what happened in Norway

[PanzerJaeger]

It happened (http://www.abc4.com/content/about_4/bios/story/conceal-and-carry-stabbing-salt-lake-city-smiths/NDNrL1gxeE2rsRhrWCM9dQ.cspx) in April. Similar incidents happen every day, but rarely make headlines.


SALT LAKE CITY (ABC 4 News) - A citizen with a gun stopped a knife wielding man as he began stabbing people Thursday evening at the downtown Salt Lake City Smith's store.

Police say the suspect purchased a knife inside the store and then turned it into a weapon. Smith's employee Dorothy Espinoza says, "He pulled it out and stood outside the Smiths in the foyer. And just started stabbing people and yelling you killed my people. You killed my people."

Espinoza says, the knife wielding man seriously injured two people. "There is blood all over. One got stabbed in the stomach and got stabbed in the head and held his hands and got stabbed all over the arms."

Then, before the suspect could find another victim - a citizen with a gun stopped the madness. "A guy pulled gun on him and told him to drop his weapon or he would shoot him. So, he dropped his weapon and the people from Smith's grabbed him."

By the time officers arrived the suspect had been subdued by employees and shoppers. Police had high praise for gun carrying man who ended the hysteria. Lt. Brian Purvis said, "This was a volatile situation that could have gotten worse. We can only assume from what we saw it could have gotten worse. He was definitely in the right place at the right time."

Dozens of other shoppers, who too could have become victims, are also thankful for the gun carrying man. And many, like Danylle Julian, are still in shock from the experience. "Scary actually. Really scary. Five minutes before I walk out to my car. It could have been me."

Police say right now they have no idea what caused the suspect to go on the dangerous rampage. (We will update as soon as we learn new information.)

So far, police have not released the names of the suspect, the victims or the man who pulled the gun.

[ajaxfetish]

Who uses AK-47s any more? There are so many newer versions of the good old AK in circulation. I think the AK-108 would be quite a good choice.

Maybe people interested in cold-war era military history? The AK-47's had a pretty big cultural impact, and is probably one of the most iconic weapons in the world. Heck, I want to collect replica medieval swords. Who uses those any more? There are certainly newer and more advanced weapons in circulation, but having the newest, most advanced killing machines isn't the only motivation out there for wanting to own weapons.

Ajax

[ICantSpellDawg]

After my wedding in September, I'm planning on a gun buying spree. No time to buy like in the months before a Democratic President's possible second term, when he's just itching to pass new laws against lawful gun ownership. Especially this President, who I've come to realize over the past 4 years is a detestable human being. I'm just glad that all of the warnings and criticisms have been proving themselves to be true about him, almost in a cascade. Better before the election than right after.

[a completely inoffensive name]

After my wedding in September, I'm planning on a gun buying spree. No time to buy like in the months before a Democratic President's possible second term, when he's just itching to pass new laws against lawful gun ownership. Especially this President, who I've come to realize over the past 4 years is a detestable human being. I'm just glad that all of the warnings and criticisms have been proving themselves to be true about him, almost in a cascade. Better before the election than right after.

What has he done to restrict gun owners?

[Tuuvi]

What has he done to restrict gun owners?

We all know he wants too. Just because he won't right now doesn't mean he won't try if he wins a second term and no longer has to worry about re-election. Sure he couldn't actually get anything passed but that was kind of a silly thing to say when we know the man is pro-gun control.

[Major Robert Dump]

Well, he does have a congress to deal with.

Executive orders typically don't wash with Constitutional issues.

Also, ACIN, why does ICantSpellDawg like every single one of your posts 30 seconds after you post it. This has been going on for well over a week now.

[a completely inoffensive name]

We all know he wants too. Just because he won't right now doesn't mean he won't try if he wins a second term and no longer has to worry about re-election. Sure he couldn't actually get anything passed but that was kind of a silly thing to say when we know the man is pro-gun control.

So in other words, "I have no evidence that he will, BUT I JUST KNOW THAT OBAMA IS COMING FOR MY FREEDOMS."


Well, he does have a congress to deal with.

Executive orders typically don't wash with Constitutional issues.

Also, ACIN, why does ICantSpellDawg like every single one of your posts 30 seconds after you post it. This has been going on for well over a week now.

Indeed.

ICantSpellDawg and I came to an agreement that since I make a mockery out of his entire world view so easily that it might as well be taken for granted, ICSD will agree with everything I say and I will reserve my free time on demanding sources from Strike on everything he talks about.

[Tuuvi]

So in other words, "I have no evidence that he will, BUT I JUST KNOW THAT OBAMA IS COMING FOR MY FREEDOMS.

lol No that's not what I said. I said that it's silly to assume that someone who is pro-gun control won't try to get tougher gun laws passed at some point in the future. He might try, he might not, I don't know. But let's not pretend that it's not on his wishlist.

[Major Robert Dump]

I don' believe this.

Someone has 2 IP adresses and 2 computers.

You are padding your like tallies in an effort to score with the chics here.

[a completely inoffensive name]

lol No that's not what I said. I said that it's silly to assume that someone who is pro-gun control won't try to get tougher gun laws passed at some point in the future. He might try, he might not, I don't know. But let's not pretend that it's not on his wishlist.

Gun control is dead. Despite his feelings on the issue he won't touch it with a 10 foot pole. Even after his second election, he still has another midterm to deal with.

[Husar]

I don' believe this.

Someone has 2 IP adresses and 2 computers.

You are padding your like tallies in an effort to score with the chics here.

You are wrong.

And I hope Obama takes all your guns away, and those from Tuuvi and ICSD as well.

And PJ's guns, too, and those of CR, and the ones from Tom in Oklahoma and from Joe in Pittsburgh and...

And then he can go ahead to join the EUSSR!

[GenosseGeneral]

REgarding body armour, unless it was DIY with steel plates, I imagine it is perversely a lot harder to purchase than guns and loads of bullets.

Speaking at least for Germany: No, it is not. I guess that isnt different for the US. You can easily and legally purchase SAPI or eSAPI plates which are used by the US military, if you know where to. They are supposed to offer protection againsteverything up to AK-47 rounds. Military grade softarmour is also available.
http://www.uktactical.com/acatalog/Body_Armour.html
A source for military-grade body armour in the UK.

[Vuk]

lol, When I saw the crazy shite ICPD was spouting, I thought to myself "That has gotta be a gun-control crazy lib trying to make gun owners look insane. Looks like I was probably right...

And can I ask you guys, what is the craze with AKs? Despite what movies tell you, the round actually sucks compared to full power .30 cal rounds, and even the 5.56 at most ranges.

[Major Robert Dump]

lol, When I saw the crazy shite ICPD was spouting, I thought to myself "That has gotta be a gun-control crazy lib trying to make gun owners look insane. Looks like I was probably right...

And can I ask you guys, what is the craze with AKs? Despite what movies tell you, the round actually sucks compared to full power .30 cal rounds, and even the 5.56 at most ranges.

A 5.56 will go through body armor, as will 5mm handgun rounds

And it is a more lethal round when entering a non lethal part of the body

Funny the 556 NATO is supposed to be more humane because it is less likely to leave a person wounded or dying, and more likley to turn their innards to goo. Funny way to define humane

[Vuk]

A 5.56 will go through body armor, as will 5mm handgun rounds

And it is a more lethal round when entering a non lethal part of the body

Funny the 556 NATO is supposed to be more humane because it is less likely to leave a person wounded or dying, and more likley to turn their innards to goo. Funny way to define humane

While I dislike the 556, I wasn't bashing it. I was actually pointing out that the AK round is inferior to the 556 and most other common rifle rounds. I cannot see why people are so afraid of it. I would much, much rather my enemy had a full auto AK47 than a bolt action 30-06 or a semi-auto AR. I think that the people who are so afraid of AKs and fully automatic weapons are mostly the ones who know nothing about guns. In most mass shooting scenarios, the shooting could be pulled off just as easily or more so with a semi-automatic handgun and extended mags (or even without them) than a full auto AK or AR. (assuming that the objective is to kill as efficiently as possible, and not just scare people, cause panic, and make the press have a field day.

[PanzerJaeger]

While I dislike the 556, I wasn't bashing it. I was actually pointing out that the AK round is inferior to the 556 and most other common rifle rounds. I cannot see why people are so afraid of it. I would much, much rather my enemy had a full auto AK47 than a bolt action 30-06 or a semi-auto AR. I think that the people who are so afraid of AKs and fully automatic weapons are mostly the ones who know nothing about guns. In most mass shooting scenarios, the shooting could be pulled off just as easily or more so with a semi-automatic handgun and extended mags (or even without them) than a full auto AK or AR. (assuming that the objective is to kill as efficiently as possible, and not just scare people, cause panic, and make the press have a field day.

I think you go too far. The AK is a bit antiquated at this point, but I cannot envision a scenario in which a pistol with extended mags could be considered more effective.

[Vuk]

I think you go too far. The AK is a bit antiquated at this point, but I cannot envision a scenario in which a pistol with extended mags could be considered more effective.

Pistols are more concealable, easier to use in tight quarters, arguably faster target acquisition, you can hold a lot of ammo for a little weight, and at the range that most shootings happen, there would not be a significant accuracy difference. The only real advantage the AK would have in most situations is a better 'scare factor'.
EDIT: Also, you can much more easily have a spare weapon that uses the same mags with you if you have pistols, just incase your weapon overheats or malfunctions and you don't have time to sort it out.

[PanzerJaeger]

Yes, you get a bit more concealability, but just a bit with 30+ round mags. For that, you give up power, effective range, and accuracy. Also, reliability issues with an AK are minimal, to say the least. I would never call any firearm 100%, but it is pretty close. I would rather carry more mags than a backup.

[Major Robert Dump]

At close range an AK 7.62 round will go through a person and continue to the next, unless it hits someting like the sternum or one of the thick organs. Obviously, a semi is not nearly as effective as an auto at close range, but the AK is very very effective at mowing down a mob of immobile people at close range because of the collateral damage.
I would imagine someone who is a dead eye with a pistol or two could be just as effective

[Vuk]

Yes, you get a bit more concealability, but just a bit with 30+ round mags. For that, you give up power, effective range, and accuracy. Also, reliability issues with an AK are minimal, to say the least. I would never call any firearm 100%, but it is pretty close. I would rather carry more mags than a backup.
More than a bit more concealability. And that can be a very important factor, depending on the shooting.
How do you define power and why is it important? I prefer to look at likely damage potential. As good as an AK round can kill someone unarmoured in very close quarters, there are pistol rounds that could arguably kill better. Also, you could carry more ammo overall. I don't think effective range and accuracy are issues, as most of these mass shootings happen at extremely close ranges. A pistol gives you very fast target acquisition, and the ability to move between targets very fast and shoot instinctively at close ranges. Having two pistols also gives you the ability at extremely close ranges to avoid being mobbed if the crowd attacks you by using two weapons at once. (which is practical at a few feet away if you have multiple people coming at you)
Also, about AKs reliability, they overheat absurdly fast.
Yes, a semi-auto rifle has advantages over pistols in many cases, but a pistol has advantages over a rifle in some cases as well. In most cases the difference between a pistol and an AK would not be that great, assuming the shooter was skilled.



At close range an AK 7.62 round will go through a person and continue to the next, unless it hits someting like the sternum or one of the thick organs. Obviously, a semi is not nearly as effective as an auto at close range, but the AK is very very effective at mowing down a mob of immobile people at close range because of the collateral damage.
I would imagine someone who is a dead eye with a pistol or two could be just as effective

The problem with full auto in many cases is that there are too many obstacles in the way or people are too far apart for your full auto spray to kill as quickly as fast, accurate, well-aimed semi-auto fire. Also, with full auto you reload a lot more frequently and deplete your total ammo very quickly for much less results.
With pistol or rifle I can snap out accurate shots to a silhouette and move to the next one almost as fast as I can press the trigger again. With practice, you can take out more targets in less time in most situations if you keep your head with semi-auto than with auto. Against unarmed people, a very skilled shooter with two pistols could probably do the same damage, if in a slightly smaller amount of time (accounting for more frequent reloads).

I guess my point is that it is not the weapon, but the operator that really matters. There is no logical reason for people to be so afeard of the legendary and totally scary assault rifle. In most close quarters scenarios, the chances of a skilled shooter killing you with an assault rifle are no higher than if they were using a pistol. And depending on the situation, you may have a much better chance of surviving if they are using a full auto weapon than if they are using a semi-auto weapon.

[PanzerJaeger]

I must have misread your post to which I responded. I thought you were speaking more generally about the utility of an AK versus a pistol with extended mags, not specifically about the event in Colorado. While I believe you are operating under old information (new 7.62x39 ammunition such as Barnes Triple Shock eliminates the yaw and fragmentation issues associated with the old Eastern Bloc surplus stuff), I am not comfortable continuing a discussion about the best weapon to use in a mass shooting. I cede the point.

[Vuk]

I must have misread your post to which I responded. I thought you were speaking more generally about the utility of an AK versus a pistol with extended mags, not specifically about the event in Colorado. While I believe you are operating under old information (new 7.62x39 ammunition such as Barnes Triple Shock eliminates the yaw and fragmentation issues associated with the old Eastern Bloc surplus stuff), I am not comfortable continuing a discussion about the best weapon to use in a mass shooting. I cede the point.

My point wasn't do discuss how best to carry out a school shooting, but to point out that the AK is overhyped in these events. People are so, so afraid of it, like it is this all-powerfull weapon, when there is really no basis for that fear.

[Major Robert Dump]

Moar arguing pls

[PanzerJaeger]

I was finally able to pick up my latest acquisition yesterday. It took seven months... seven freaking months... to get ATF approval, not to mention the incredible invasion of my privacy plus an extra couple of benjamins just for the stamp. Why was I made to wait so long? What makes this weapon so menacing? The barrel is 8", less than the legally required 16". That's it. No auto, no grenade launcher, and it's going to take another seven months and even more cash to get it suppressed.

And they say America doesn't have gun control. :wall:

https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y104/panzerjaeger/PSD.jpg

[Vuk]

I was finally able to pick up my latest acquisition yesterday. It took seven months... seven freaking months... to get ATF approval, not to mention the incredible invasion of my privacy plus an extra couple of benjamins just for the stamp. Why was I made to wait so long? What makes this weapon so menacing? The barrel is 8", less than the legally required 16". That's it. No auto, no grenade launcher, and it's going to take another seven months and even more cash to get it suppressed.

And they say America doesn't have gun control. :wall:

https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y104/panzerjaeger/PSD.jpg

lol PJ! You're just a little boy! I always thought you were older. :P

[Vuk]

See, that is something I have never understood. Why the minimum barrel length? The gun will be less powerful and less accurate. You could make the overall length almost just as short by getting a bullpup with a 16" barrel! Also, if they are worried about people concealing weapons, they should be banning pistols! What is more easily concealed, the gun you just bought, or a 1911 pistol?

[a completely inoffensive name]

I was finally able to pick up my latest acquisition yesterday. It took seven months... seven freaking months... to get ATF approval, not to mention the incredible invasion of my privacy plus an extra couple of benjamins just for the stamp. Why was I made to wait so long? What makes this weapon so menacing? The barrel is 8", less than the legally required 16". That's it. No auto, no grenade launcher, and it's going to take another seven months and even more cash to get it suppressed.

And they say America doesn't have gun control. :wall:

https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y104/panzerjaeger/PSD.jpg

God damn PJ is attractive.

[PanzerJaeger]

It's a hobby, and like most, you either really enjoy it or think it's a big waste of money.

[Centurion1]

God damn PJ is attractive.

I'd stick it in and tell my friends after

[Major Robert Dump]

Thats not PJ, that's one of his handlers.

[Fragony]

It's a hobby, and like most, you either really enjoy it or think it's a big waste of money.

Sure is something I would be willing to spend money on. EXPENSIVE hobby though

Love these factoids on ammo by they way, I always assumed that the bigger the bullet the deadlier it is

[Vuk]

Sure is something I would be willing to spend money on. EXPENSIVE hobby though

Love these factoids on ammo by they way, I always assumed that the bigger the bullet the deadlier it is
It is a lot more complicated than that. There are lots of ways a bullet can damage something, and many, many theories concerning them. People actually argue a lot about what is most effective for a given situation. Larger calibers generally (assuming they are full power) are more accurate, have more range, and better penetration. Penetration is actually really important, because some expanding rounds expand or fragment in surface tissues without a lot of blood vessels, and then if anything reaches organs with a lot of blood flow, it is just small pieces. The advantage to traditional .30 cal, full power rounds is that they are a lot more reliable. There is no if they do this or if they do that, or maybe it will fragment at this range. For the most part, you can count on a deep, wide blood channel and a sure incapacitation. At almost all ranges that militaries engage with small arms at, a full power .30 cal round will be able to reach the vital organs of an unarmoured man, resulting in a very fast, and sure blood loss.

The paradox of the 556 is that it has the potential at close range to fragment and cause a lot of shock damage and surface tissue, but at longer ranges does have the velocity necassary to fragment. At close range they have the potential to creat a very nasty wound, but at longer ranges they will probably just put a traditional wound on your foe...but a much smaller one. Therefore the 556 is arguably more effective at close range, but much less so at medium and long ranges. (and of course we could get the best of both worlds by using .30 cals that are designed to fragment like some countries do, but our military seems to think it is not worth it, and that it would not outweigh the advantages of being able to carry more ammo).

The funny thing is that nearly everyone I have talked to who have served (esp those who have served more than one tour) prefers .30 cal to 556, but a bunch of armchair idiots and people who have never shot a rifle before joining and have been indoctrinated in the military like the 556, so we probably will not be changing any time soon.

[Centurion1]

It is a lot more complicated than that. There are lots of ways a bullet can damage something, and many, many theories concerning them. People actually argue a lot about what is most effective for a given situation. Larger calibers generally (assuming they are full power) are more accurate, have more range, and better penetration. Penetration is actually really important, because some expanding rounds expand or fragment in surface tissues without a lot of blood vessels, and then if anything reaches organs with a lot of blood flow, it is just small pieces. The advantage to traditional .30 cal, full power rounds is that they are a lot more reliable. There is no if they do this or if they do that, or maybe it will fragment at this range. For the most part, you can count on a deep, wide blood channel and a sure incapacitation. At almost all ranges that militaries engage with small arms at, a full power .30 cal round will be able to reach the vital organs of an unarmoured man, resulting in a very fast, and sure blood loss.

The paradox of the 556 is that it has the potential at close range to fragment and cause a lot of shock damage and surface tissue, but at longer ranges does have the velocity necassary to fragment. At close range they have the potential to creat a very nasty wound, but at longer ranges they will probably just put a traditional wound on your foe...but a much smaller one. Therefore the 556 is arguably more effective at close range, but much less so at medium and long ranges. (and of course we could get the best of both worlds by using .30 cals that are designed to fragment like some countries do, but our military seems to think it is not worth it, and that it would not outweigh the advantages of being able to carry more ammo).

The funny thing is that nearly everyone I have talked to who have served (esp those who have served more than one tour) prefers .30 cal to 556, but a bunch of armchair idiots and people who have never shot a rifle before joining and have been indoctrinated in the military like the 556, so we probably will not be changing any time soon.

Except every blooded military vet on this website and most of the other shooters.

THE PLOT THICKENS

[Major Robert Dump]

The funny thing is that nearly everyone I have talked to who have served (esp those who have served more than one tour) prefers .30 cal to 556, but a bunch of armchair idiots and people who have never shot a rifle before joining and have been indoctrinated in the military like the 556, so we probably will not be changing any time soon.

Kind of harsh, don't you think?

#1: You say " most people you know who have served (esp those who have served more than one tour) prefers.... " Hmmm, could this be a stab at people at the org? Also, are you aware than 90% of people "who served" never left a FOB in the combat zone, and of those that did many never get into a real fight? Are you aware that most of them don't care about what round we use?

#2: You say " but a bunch of armchair idiots and people who have never shot a rifle before joining and have been indoctrinated in the military like the 556.." This completely contradicts your first sentence, as obviously you do not know these people who had never fired a rifle, so how do you know how they feel on the issue or even that they never fired a rifle? Do you know them or not?

#3: It is very clear that you know a bit about guns and ballistics. It is also very clear that you have no F****ng idea how military equipment procurement goes, and somehow want to blame the soldiers for fielding gear that you think is subpar. If you want to whine about the 556, then start with the Secretary of Defense and the Congressional Armed Forces Committees. Because the soldiers whining about using the less effective form of body armor certainly did no good, just ask all the soldiers who bought their own, died in a bomb, and their families got stiffed on the insurance because they were not wearing "proper gear." Just ask all the National Guard and reservists who were welding extra armor on humvees at the request of all the other units in their AO, because we were still driving around soft skinned humvees 3 years into the war and it tooked Donald Rumsfield being humiliated on national television to get the ball rolling; and then ask the soldiers who had to ride in the piss-poorly desinged up armored humvess which had so little room in them (due to veh armor and all the stupid shit soldiers have to wear) that in order to dismount the vehicle you literally had to grab the outside of the truck and lift yourself out because you were stuck, and in the event of a rollover just kiss you ass goodby; And ask the soldiers why we didnt start getting MRAPS in Afghanistan until late 2009 even though they had been available for several years, and in one case even Robert Gates admitted he didnt order more MRAPS because he had never heard about them until he read a USA TODAY story on how awesome they were, and nevermind that there had been European contries making bomb proof SUVs since year 2 of the war (The Bulletproof Salesman, watch it ) and we were driving aorund with our thumbs up our asses; and ask the soldiers why they still had to drive MATVs on patrols until mid 2011 even though they were proven on patrols to have such terrible armor breaches that something as simple as a stock RPG could kill all occupants (including my friends) if fired from the right angle and we knew this was the case since may of 2010, yet these trucks were still driven on missions until the press finally got wind of it in mid 2011 and then suddenly they did an immediate recall to -- guess what -- add more armor, make them more top heavy and less roomy inside, just like they did the humvees yay, oh and did i mention the Division Commander's wife is a high ranking member of Mantech, the company that refits these vehicles wow convenient!!!

The vast majority of our gear is crap, Vuk. They pile 70 pounds worth of garbage on us. Every company that sells us a weapon or piece of equipment, upsells a gazillion cool guy gear items to come with the equipment (Did you know MRAPS come with their very own ergonamic fold up streatchers that cost $500 a piece? Guess standard issue army litters arent good enough) , and they set it up as such that the DOD has to hire company employees to teach people. The logisitcal platform for moving armies - TCAIMS - failed before it was released, no one liked it, but we use it anyway. The Osprey should have been canned and it only took, what, 15 years and 30 marines lives? IWasnt there a crash last month? The SOD kills weapons programs and the Senate committee brings them back because it creates jobs in the committees states, nevermind soldiers dont want or dont need the weapons. That is going on right now with one of our fighter jets and recently happened with a bulky, retarded artillery p[latform that did the same thing a battery of 105s could do. The first generation sights (CCOs) were grbage and everyone knew it, and PAS14s were garbage as well, , meanwhile ACOGs have been available the whole time but we were not using those (ACOGS do what the cco and pas14 and surefires do together... this is why you sometimes see M4s on soldiers that look like something from Sanford and Son, with a bunch of crap tied to it around the barrell area, adding an extra few pounds and losing all calibration if dropped).... we got a new grenade launcher that looked cool an sounded cool but was garbage, and we told them it was garbage, and it took soldier after soldier blowing their hand off and collateral damage after collateral damage before they pulled them.

#4: Apparently you think the only peoples whose opinions are valid are those that shot guns before joining. I won't even address this because I am tired of typing.

I already told you in another post how the move to 5.56 happened, and how it was political. But you insist on blaming the soldiers. I will go one step further and explain that most soldiers really, deep down inside, don't care what round we use because
a- most of them will never fight and
b- we make the best with what we have because our focus is the mission and survival, not whining like a little bitch about a bullet and
c- we have other weapons to make up for what is lost by not having a different round, which is integral into the entire makeup of an infantry rifle company and platoon, and changing the rounds would mean the infantry would have to reorganize its people and weapons, and if theres one thing the infantry hates, the infantry hates to think, so forget about it

This is why people get mad at you, you throw these subtle swipes in at others when you could just state your opinion and leave it at that.

** I would also like to edit and say that if these "friends" you have who "served" are the same ones who gave you information about Bayonets and why the bayonet program was killed, I strongly suggest you get new friends

[Papewaio]

MRD I love it when you get serious :bow:

Metsuke 4, Tavern Patron 0

[Vuk]

Kind of harsh, don't you think?

#1: You say " most people you know who have served (esp those who have served more than one tour) prefers.... " Hmmm, could this be a stab at people at the org? Also, are you aware than 90% of people "who served" never left a FOB in the combat zone, and of those that did many never get into a real fight? Are you aware that most of them don't care about what round we use?

#2: You say " but a bunch of armchair idiots and people who have never shot a rifle before joining and have been indoctrinated in the military like the 556.." This completely contradicts your first sentence, as obviously you do not know these people who had never fired a rifle, so how do you know how they feel on the issue or even that they never fired a rifle? Do you know them or not?

#3: It is very clear that you know a bit about guns and ballistics. It is also very clear that you have no F****ng idea how military equipment procurement goes, and somehow want to blame the soldiers for fielding gear that you think is subpar. If you want to whine about the 556, then start with the Secretary of Defense and the Congressional Armed Forces Committees. Because the soldiers whining about using the less effective form of body armor certainly did no good, just ask all the soldiers who bought their own, died in a bomb, and their families got stiffed on the insurance because they were not wearing "proper gear." Just ask all the National Guard and reservists who were welding extra armor on humvees at the request of all the other units in their AO, because we were still driving around soft skinned humvees 3 years into the war and it tooked Donald Rumsfield being humiliated on national television to get the ball rolling; and then ask the soldiers who had to ride in the piss-poorly desinged up armored humvess which had so little room in them (due to veh armor and all the stupid shit soldiers have to wear) that in order to dismount the vehicle you literally had to grab the outside of the truck and lift yourself out because you were stuck, and in the event of a rollover just kiss you ass goodby; And ask the soldiers why we didnt start getting MRAPS in Afghanistan until late 2009 even though they had been available for several years, and in one case even Robert Gates admitted he didnt order more MRAPS because he had never heard about them until he read a USA TODAY story on how awesome they were, and nevermind that there had been European contries making bomb proof SUVs since year 2 of the war (The Bulletproof Salesman, watch it ) and we were driving aorund with our thumbs up our asses; and ask the soldiers why they still had to drive MATVs on patrols until mid 2011 even though they were proven on patrols to have such terrible armor breaches that something as simple as a stock RPG could kill all occupants (including my friends) if fired from the right angle and we knew this was the case since may of 2010, yet these trucks were still driven on missions until the press finally got wind of it in mid 2011 and then suddenly they did an immediate recall to -- guess what -- add more armor, make them more top heavy and less roomy inside, just like they did the humvees yay, oh and did i mention the Division Commander's wife is a high ranking member of Mantech, the company that refits these vehicles wow convenient!!!

The vast majority of our gear is crap, Vuk. They pile 70 pounds worth of garbage on us. Every company that sells us a weapon or piece of equipment, upsells a gazillion cool guy gear items to come with the equipment (Did you know MRAPS come with their very own ergonamic fold up streatchers that cost $500 a piece? Guess standard issue army litters arent good enough) , and they set it up as such that the DOD has to hire company employees to teach people. The logisitcal platform for moving armies - TCAIMS - failed before it was released, no one liked it, but we use it anyway. The Osprey should have been canned and it only took, what, 15 years and 30 marines lives? IWasnt there a crash last month? The SOD kills weapons programs and the Senate committee brings them back because it creates jobs in the committees states, nevermind soldiers dont want or dont need the weapons. That is going on right now with one of our fighter jets and recently happened with a bulky, retarded artillery p[latform that did the same thing a battery of 105s could do. The first generation sights (CCOs) were grbage and everyone knew it, and PAS14s were garbage as well, , meanwhile ACOGs have been available the whole time but we were not using those (ACOGS do what the cco and pas14 and surefires do together... this is why you sometimes see M4s on soldiers that look like something from Sanford and Son, with a bunch of crap tied to it around the barrell area, adding an extra few pounds and losing all calibration if dropped).... we got a new grenade launcher that looked cool an sounded cool but was garbage, and we told them it was garbage, and it took soldier after soldier blowing their hand off and collateral damage after collateral damage before they pulled them.

#4: Apparently you think the only peoples whose opinions are valid are those that shot guns before joining. I won't even address this because I am tired of typing.

I already told you in another post how the move to 5.56 happened, and how it was political. But you insist on blaming the soldiers. I will go one step further and explain that most soldiers really, deep down inside, don't care what round we use because
a- most of them will never fight and
b- we make the best with what we have because our focus is the mission and survival, not whining like a little bitch about a bullet and
c- we have other weapons to make up for what is lost by not having a different round, which is integral into the entire makeup of an infantry rifle company and platoon, and changing the rounds would mean the infantry would have to reorganize its people and weapons, and if theres one thing the infantry hates, the infantry hates to think, so forget about it

This is why people get mad at you, you throw these subtle swipes in at others when you could just state your opinion and leave it at that.

** I would also like to edit and say that if these "friends" you have who "served" are the same ones who gave you information about Bayonets and why the bayonet program was killed, I strongly suggest you get new friends

I never blamed the switch to the 556 on soldiers MRD, so I have no idea why you are getting so anal. I said that the few soldiers I knew who prefered it were usually the ones who knew very little about guns and mostly didn't use them before joining up. My point was that most people who have used guns a lot who I know prefer .30 cal rifles to 556 rifles. Whenever you argue about the need to switch to a different caliber, you have a bunch of people who support the 556 come swooping down and telling you that you are an idiot for not preferring it and that all science and experience supports their beliefs. And in case you haven't noticed, people use any time a soldier says something positive about it to bolster their argument about why it is effective. The people in charge are not going to start changing things until enough people make a big enough stink about it. It is damaging to efforts to get support to replace it when you have people who don't know much about guns praising it because of what they have been told about, when they have very little real life experience with guns.

And the truth is MRD, that almost every gun enthusiast and ex-military person I know does prefer .30 cal weapons to the 556.

[Montmorency]

Well, like you said before MRD, the best way to handle this is for you to get Vuk pregnant.

[Major Robert Dump]

You did blame the soldiers. You said the ones who never fired guns were indoctriniated, and so we should not expect anything to change. You even threw out the thing about people who deployed more than once. Conveniently a few posts after GC says he never fired a gun before or after the army.

I don't know how many ex military people you know. I really don't care, to be honest. What is amazing is that all of the ex military people you know have also fired 30 cals and know enough about them to prefer them to the 556. Which brings me back to my previous point that most of us don't care. Maybe we have guns. Maybe we don't. I know just as many combat arms men who came from the suburbs as I do who grew up in the sticks shooting guns. It's all relative. In fact, the better marksmen with M4s and M16s are routinely people who were taught by the army to shoot, not kids who were weened shooting critters for mee-maw. I fired a 30 caliber a few times, and do you know what? I don't remember a thing about it, other than it made a hole in the target. And when I was done I went about my day, because even though I like guns and carry a gun both professionally and privately, I don't pine over what round the army uses because I cannot change a thing.

I'm not disagreeing with you on the 30 cal. It probably would make the US Army uber-er, solve world hunger and defeat the Taliban. I do not, however, value or care for the opinions of your army mates just like they would not value or care from mine, as their arguments and your relaying of their arguments hold no place whatsoever in the debate.

And, I don't care what "gun enthusiasts" think because there is more to being in the military, a war, and a firefight than the velocity and size of your bullet. You put this in the context of war and the armed forces, not me.

[Major Robert Dump]

Well, like you said before MRD, the best way to handle this is for you to get Vuk pregnant.

Well, I tried. Problem is he does not put out on the 1st through 7th dates, and after date 7 I just could not try anymore because all he ever wanted to do was go shooting and wrestle.

[Centurion1]

Well, I tried. Problem is he does not put out on the 1st through 7th dates, and after date 7 I just could not try anymore because all he ever wanted to do was go shooting and wrestle.

Did he encourage you to begin a farm based workout plan. It is good for your glutes.

[Major Robert Dump]

Did he encourage you to begin a farm based workout plan. It is good for your glutes.

You are killing me dude

I am trying to be nice here. It is completely obvious he was taking a stab at members of this board, devaluing their opinions and making it sound like they are not working hard enough to affect change, in which case I will devalue the opinions of his military friends "who served".

If he has something to say, he should just come out and say it, instead of subtley burying it under inside a complex run on sentence.

The acquisition process is so incredibly complicated, ambiguous and utterly corrupt, and there were so many politics behind changing to the 556, this is an issue only to be discussed in passing in regards to actual soldiers. It has zero to do with the military, zero to do with the war, and zero to do with who got sent to fight. None of that even belongs in the argument. Our military has a history of getting screwed by the people who manufacture and acquire our gear, going all the way back to Custer, so suck it up and deal.

[Papewaio]

Do the special ops have more choice?

If they can chose, what do they use?

Also are their engagements similar enough to make a comparison?

[Centurion1]

It is obvious I will have to hammer in the last nail in Vuk's XXLarge coffin. I will do my best to slap around this insolent 300 pound whelp sir.

Right after work.

[Centurion1]

Do the special ops have more choice?

If they can chose, what do they use?

Also are their engagements similar enough to make a comparison?

Spec ops are like pro athletes. They are often sponsored by weapons manufacturers to wear their gear.

Many especially navy seals still use an M4A1 Colt. Then they use SOPMOD's which are sweet accessory kits with all sorts neat gizmos My cousin was a Ranger (its not spec ops but rather elite infantry) and he always used an M4. I expected them to all be running around with like freaking SCARS and other crazy crap but guess what they don't necessarily....

It makes ammo sharing easier. Alot of sidearms and specialty wepaons are hardcore though like tac shotguns, subs, pistols.

[Centurion1]

I remember the EOD dudes that were with us in Iraq got issued their gear through the state department, instead of the department of defense. They had all kinds of cool stuff. Two Barret .50 cal Sniper Rifles, Glocks instead of Berettas, some kind of AK variant, and other stuff.

emphasis on ALL KINDS

[Major Robert Dump]

Do the special ops have more choice?

If they can chose, what do they use?

Also are their engagements similar enough to make a comparison?

Yes. They are rockstars. They get sponsored. They get experimental weapons (which isnt always a good thing)

They stole a 4 wheeler off a pallet destined for me, right in view of the ADACG yard personnel at Bagram, and no one could do a thing about it.

Their engagements are far more prolonged, high tempo and kinetic than most others. The things Spec Ops does not have to contend with in MOST cases (not all) are IEDs, so they are not wearing as much turtle gear as someone in a convoy. ODA flies most everywhere they go and they walk the rest. They also tend to do more urban fighting in Afghanistan because they tend to live in the communities where they are operating. I have seen ODA guys with multiple versions of MP5s, all sorts of other silenced sub machine guns, revolvers as side arms and operating in actual combat without a lick of protective gear.

I have also seen ODA (In Jahni Kheyl, Paktya Province) mount some sort of uber gatling gun into the back of one of the ANA Ranger trucks, only to have it flip the truck on its side when fired, cause the firing mechanism to get stuck, and fire through all the ammo without a stop, this melting the barrels. Anyone with half a brain could have seen that coming by mounting it in a light pickup truck, so while ODA are typically the best of the best, they have their tards too. I seem to recall a Laura Logan special news show where she rolled with ODA for a few missions, and some of these guys were total buffoons.

[Major Robert Dump]

And before anyone accuses me of being a poser or pretending to hang out with Special Forces people..... I was around them because we were:

Giving physicals to their donkeys, horses and dogs
And providing them farming text books to take back to their villages
Yes, ODA rides Donkeys

[Husar]

As an armchair not-really-wannabe-soldier I want to thank you guys for sharing all those thoughts and stories, some of them really cracked me up.

The issue of bad gear really stinks though, a defense official who has no clue about the gear available is hilarious and shocking at the same time. So would you guys say the problem is mostly about politics and if so, where in politics? Because honestly, if a politician does some good that's bad for his reelection purposes, then he will not get reelected and be replaced by someone who panders to the local interests again and screws the soldiers. As such the blame would lie on the overall population caring more about their jobs etc. than the well-being of those their elected officials sent to war.

Or could one say that a large part of this problem is too much private interest and snake oil salesmen as well as career-politicians who have no real clue of the subject being involved in the procurement process? Or maybe a combination of both?

Similar discussions exist in European armies as well, apparently. There's never enough gear and if there is, it's not good enough or the gear is really expensive but not suited to the tasks etc. For example our army ordered the new Eurocopter Tigers without the nose guns like the french models have, instead ours are meant to use fixed gunpods under the wings. Of course our military personnel know that makes them almost useless to fight insurgents with but the higher ups apparently wanted a tank-killer(it can only mount anti-tank missiles and rocket pods as well) and then send it to Afghanistan to fight insurgents with.

The Eurofighter has also been brought up as a huge waste of money etc. so I'm wondering why these major screw ups always happen.
As you said, MRD, it wasn't much better in the past, but I think it's a valid question why the problem hasn't really been tackled at all by now, unlike hunger, lack of TVs and other "issues" of the past.

[PanzerJaeger]

The funny thing is that nearly everyone I have talked to who have served (esp those who have served more than one tour) prefers .30 cal to 556, but a bunch of armchair idiots and people who have never shot a rifle before joining and have been indoctrinated in the military like the 556, so we probably will not be changing any time soon.

Interestingly, this armchair idiot has noticed the opposite. It is those that have not served, or, more accurately, have not fought, that often make the bigger=better assumption. According to an Army weapons assessment (http://militec1.com/swat.pdf) in Iraq: "The majority of the soldiers interviewed that voiced or desired “better knock-down power” or a larger caliber bullet did not have actual close engagements. Those that had close engagements and applied Close Quarters Battle (CQB) tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs) – controlled pairs in the lethal areas: chest and head and good shot placement, defeated the target without issue."

Without rehashing your old thread, the simple truth is that the 5.56 is better suited to both the combat and logistical situations modern militaries encounter. Within normal combat ranges, it is more effective than the .308. That is why the Russians, Chinese, and most modern militaries have moved to small caliber, high velocity rounds.

[Major Robert Dump]

As an armchair not-really-wannabe-soldier I want to thank you guys for sharing all those thoughts and stories, some of them really cracked me up.

The issue of bad gear really stinks though, a defense official who has no clue about the gear available is hilarious and shocking at the same time. So would you guys say the problem is mostly about politics and if so, where in politics? Because honestly, if a politician does some good that's bad for his reelection purposes, then he will not get reelected and be replaced by someone who panders to the local interests again and screws the soldiers. As such the blame would lie on the overall population caring more about their jobs etc. than the well-being of those their elected officials sent to war.

Or could one say that a large part of this problem is too much private interest and snake oil salesmen as well as career-politicians who have no real clue of the subject being involved in the procurement process? Or maybe a combination of both?

Similar discussions exist in European armies as well, apparently. There's never enough gear and if there is, it's not good enough or the gear is really expensive but not suited to the tasks etc. For example our army ordered the new Eurocopter Tigers without the nose guns like the french models have, instead ours are meant to use fixed gunpods under the wings. Of course our military personnel know that makes them almost useless to fight insurgents with but the higher ups apparently wanted a tank-killer(it can only mount anti-tank missiles and rocket pods as well) and then send it to Afghanistan to fight insurgents with.

The Eurofighter has also been brought up as a huge waste of money etc. so I'm wondering why these major screw ups always happen.
As you said, MRD, it wasn't much better in the past, but I think it's a valid question why the problem hasn't really been tackled at all by now, unlike hunger, lack of TVs and other "issues" of the past.

Money and votes, man.

Congress is balls deep in self interest in large, too-big-to-fail companies like Boeing, Lockheed etc. Occasionally you get someone who seems to shake things up, like when Fluor took all of Haliburtons life support contracts, and then you find out who really wons Fluor and how much money they spend lobbying. Up until about 2 years ago, all US contracting companies in Afghanistan got dam near free life support from the US bases: free meals, free quarters, free facilities. They still get a pretty sweet deal all things considered.

In the artillery piece I referred to earlier, the Representatives who were pushing it (and revived it after Rumsfield axed it) had a lot of votes riding on it, to include massive community development (apartments, stores) in the town where the factory would be built (Elgin, Oklahoma). These Reps had also bought up land in the surrouunding area and had invested in these development matters, because according to the loose federal laws (which are a joke compaered to wall street trading laws), it was not a conflict of interest. It is also worth noting that those to Reps did not seek re-election and stepped down

[drone]

The solution is obvious, the basic infantryman needs to be equipped with the M82.

[Major Robert Dump]

I was kind of partial to the MK19 but they really don't work for close encounters.

the M302 prototype grenade launcher was good on paper, and looked really sexy when you wielded it, especially as double pistols, but it was garbage and the barrel was not long enough

[Vuk]

It is obvious I will have to hammer in the last nail in Vuk's XXLarge coffin. I will do my best to slap around this insolent 300 pound whelp sir.

Right after work.

Don't pull a muscle. ~;)


Interestingly, this armchair idiot has noticed the opposite. It is those that have not served, or, more accurately, have not fought, that often make the bigger=better assumption. According to an Army weapons assessment (http://militec1.com/swat.pdf) in Iraq: "The majority of the soldiers interviewed that voiced or desired “better knock-down power” or a larger caliber bullet did not have actual close engagements. Those that had close engagements and applied Close Quarters Battle (CQB) tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs) – controlled pairs in the lethal areas: chest and head and good shot placement, defeated the target without issue."

Without rehashing your old thread, the simple truth is that the 5.56 is better suited to both the combat and logistical situations modern militaries encounter. Within normal combat ranges, it is more effective than the .308. That is why the Russians, Chinese, and most modern militaries have moved to small caliber, high velocity rounds.

Yeah, people who had close engagements were able to defeat the target without issue. I was not arguing that a 556 round or two could not kill at close range. What I was saying is that the .30 cal has the advantage of being more reliable, in that it can kill at close, medium, and long range effectively. It is also more accurate and has longer range, making it more versatile. Also, it can defeat body armour. We have been lucky since WWII to not be fighting a bunch of guys with body armour, but we are in or on the brink of several conflicts that have the potential to boil over into world wars. What happens when we fight guys with body armour? It is great that the 556 fragments, but that is not going to work to our advantage when our foes are wearing armour!
Point being, the 556 is arguably an effective close range round against unarmoured targets, but many .30 cal rounds are far more reliable and versatile, as they can be used to effectively kill an opponent in all circumstances that a 556 can, and many more.

[Vuk]

You did blame the soldiers. You said the ones who never fired guns were indoctriniated, and so we should not expect anything to change. You even threw out the thing about people who deployed more than once. Conveniently a few posts after GC says he never fired a gun before or after the army.

I don't know how many ex military people you know. I really don't care, to be honest. What is amazing is that all of the ex military people you know have also fired 30 cals and know enough about them to prefer them to the 556. Which brings me back to my previous point that most of us don't care. Maybe we have guns. Maybe we don't. I know just as many combat arms men who came from the suburbs as I do who grew up in the sticks shooting guns. It's all relative. In fact, the better marksmen with M4s and M16s are routinely people who were taught by the army to shoot, not kids who were weened shooting critters for mee-maw. I fired a 30 caliber a few times, and do you know what? I don't remember a thing about it, other than it made a hole in the target. And when I was done I went about my day, because even though I like guns and carry a gun both professionally and privately, I don't pine over what round the army uses because I cannot change a thing.

I'm not disagreeing with you on the 30 cal. It probably would make the US Army uber-er, solve world hunger and defeat the Taliban. I do not, however, value or care for the opinions of your army mates just like they would not value or care from mine, as their arguments and your relaying of their arguments hold no place whatsoever in the debate.

And, I don't care what "gun enthusiasts" think because there is more to being in the military, a war, and a firefight than the velocity and size of your bullet. You put this in the context of war and the armed forces, not me.

I'm sorry I offended you MRD, but my post really did not have the sinister meaning you interpreted. I refering specifically to a few people I know, and not anyone who likes the 556. And yes, of course there are some very experienced people who like it, sportsmen and military personnel alike. I am referring in particular to people like a hunting buddy of mine, who uses a 556 rifle to hunt. Despite my and my brother's 8mm Mausers always inflicted far worse wounds (though not always as impressive looking from the outside), and killing our game much faster, and him failing to be able to track down his deer often times, because they get so far away onto other people's property, he always stubbornly defends the 556 as a superior round. He had hunted with his dad once as a kid, but other than that, that was the only experience he ever had with guns till he joined the army.
Now he is just like PJ, citing military studies from the 60's all the time to back up his beliefs, even when his experience shows otherwise. I call that indoctrination.
And yeah, it really annoys me. Maybe I should have worded my post a little differently, so it did not seem all-inclusive.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I'm sorry I offended you MRD, but my post really did not have the sinister meaning you interpreted. I refering specifically to a few people I know, and not anyone who likes the 556. And yes, of course there are some very experienced people who like it, sportsmen and military personnel alike. I am referring in particular to people like a hunting buddy of mine, who uses a 556 rifle to hunt. Despite my and my brother's 8mm Mausers always inflicted far worse wounds (though not always as impressive looking from the outside), and killing our game much faster, and him failing to be able to track down his deer often times, because they get so far away onto other people's property, he always stubbornly defends the 556 as a superior round. He had hunted with his dad once as a kid, but other than that, that was the only experience he ever had with guns till he joined the army.
Now he is just like PJ, citing military studies from the 60's all the time to back up his beliefs, even when his experience shows otherwise. I call that indoctrination.
And yeah, it really annoys me. Maybe I should have worded my post a little differently, so it did not seem all-inclusive.

My face when I realized there is a whole family of Vuk's.

https://i.imgur.com/kG1Hi.gif

[Vuk]

My face when I realized there is a whole family of Vuk's.

https://i.imgur.com/kG1Hi.gif

8 of us, my tiny little toilet. You are outnumbered. ~;)

[a completely inoffensive name]

8 of us bitch-boy! Bow down. ~;)


Do you all play Russian Roulette with your individual caliber of choice?

[Vuk]

Do you all play Russian Roulette with your individual caliber of choice?

We only play with your mom...we take turns with her. Don't worry though, she only screams like that because she really likes it. ~;)

[a completely inoffensive name]

We only play with your mom...we take turns with her. Don't worry though, she only screams like that because she really likes it. ~;)

Sorry Vuk. She is a bare knuckle boxer who was raised and trained on a farm by the best of the late 1800s. You would have your weak triple chin shattered before you could even pull out your bayonet.

[Vuk]

Sorry Vuk. She is a bare knuckle boxer who was raised and trained on a farm by the best of the late 1800s. You would have your weak triple chin shattered before you could even pull out your bayonet.

That's ok, I like old broads who play hard to get. ~;) (and BTW, your ma was pretty impressed by my bayonet)

[a completely inoffensive name]

That's ok, I like old broads who play hard to get. ~;)

That's funny because your mom is the exact opposite. Pretty sure Frag could drive his old boat up in there, if you catch my drift.

[Vuk]

That's funny because your mom is the exact opposite. Pretty sure Frag could drive his old boat up in there, if you catch my drift.

lol, trust me, if you saw my mom, you would not say things like that. I know you are desperate, but I doubt you are that desperate. I mean, surely this is a sheep around that hasn't rejected you yet?

[a completely inoffensive name]

lol, trust me, if you saw my mom, you would not say things like that.

As with all your arguments, the problem is you assume a great deal of things you shouldn't.

[Lemur]

https://i.imgur.com/ipKak.png

[Vuk]

As with all your arguments, the problem is you assume a great deal of things you shouldn't.

lol my little boy, you should just come to grips with the fact that your minuscule little brain is no match for my superior intelligence. Well...ok, maybe that is a lie, but I've had many years more experience trash talking than you have, sonny, so your efforts are and will remain futile at best. Save yourself some embarrasment and drop out while you are behind. Anyway, I just may be too drunk to stay up much later. :P

[a completely inoffensive name]

lol my little boy, you should just come to grips with the fact that your minuscule little brain is no match for my superior intelligence. Well...ok, maybe that is a lie, but I've had many years more experience trash talking than you have, sonny, so your efforts are and will remain futile at best. Save yourself some embarrasment and drop out while you are behind. Anyway, I just may be too drunk to stay up much later. :P

I didn't hear a comeback. Your mind is as sharp as MRD's bayonet.

[a completely inoffensive name]

https://i.imgur.com/ipKak.png

The satellite must have been over Vuk's mom on a weekday.

[Vuk]

I didn't hear a comeback. Your mind is as sharp as MRD's bayonet.

lol, make it worth my time by using your imagination and turning on that little brain of yours...if you can.

[Vuk]

The satellite must have been over Vuk's mom on a weekday.

Couldn't have been your house, because those are people...not goats.

[a completely inoffensive name]

lol, make it worth my time by using your imagination and turning on that little brain of yours...if you can.

kk, you have given up. Imma play more Fallout: New Vegas for the achievements.

[Vuk]

kk, you have given up. Imma play more Fallout: New Vegas for the achievements.
A suitable pursuit for your intellectual abilities.

[Strike For The South]

Best
Thread
Ever

[Centurion1]

I'm insulted acin didn't you see where i remarked on his fat inbred brothers in the thread wher ei realized the superiority of farm training.

[Vuk]

I'm insulted acin didn't you see where i remarked on his fat inbred brothers in the thread wher ei realized the superiority of farm training.

lol, do you really think that anyone pays any attention to your drivel? You value your own opinions too highly my friend.

[PanzerJaeger]

Yeah, people who had close engagements were able to defeat the target without issue. I was not arguing that a 556 round or two could not kill at close range. What I was saying is that the .30 cal has the advantage of being more reliable, in that it can kill at close, medium, and long range effectively. It is also more accurate and has longer range, making it more versatile.

This is such outdated thinking. In developing their own intermediate cartridge during the Second World War, the German military conducted studies on actual infantry engagements. These studies revealed that most combat engagements occurred at less than 300 meters, with the majority less than 200 meters. Studies by other major militaries during and after the war confirmed those findings. Infantry engagements have only gotten closer in recent times - even in Afghanistan. The effective range of the M4 is 500 meters, with reliable fragmentation out to 300 meters. There is absolutely no reason a non-designated rifleman/sniper/heavy weapons infantryman should be taking potshots at enemies beyond 500 meters for several reasons. That is not the way modern infantry tactics are designed, there are weapons more suited for long range engagements, and he likely will not hit his target (especially without magnification).


Also, it can defeat body armour. We have been lucky since WWII to not be fighting a bunch of guys with body armour, but we are in or on the brink of several conflicts that have the potential to boil over into world wars. What happens when we fight guys with body armour? It is great that the 556 fragments, but that is not going to work to our advantage when our foes are wearing armour!

M995 5.56 will defeat all forms of body armor currently in existence. Look it up.


Point being, the 556 is arguably an effective close range round against unarmoured targets, but many .30 cal rounds are far more reliable and versatile, as they can be used to effectively kill an opponent in all circumstances that a 556 can, and many more.

Those circumstances exist only in the minds online operators. Actual combat experience demonstrates that the lighter, smaller, and more damaging 5.56 is preferable to the .308 both during firefights and during all that time in between when soldiers have to walk around carrying 70+ pounds of gear.


And yes, of course there are some very experienced people who like it, sportsmen and military personnel alike. I am referring in particular to people like a hunting buddy of mine, who uses a 556 rifle to hunt. Despite my and my brother's 8mm Mausers always inflicted far worse wounds (though not always as impressive looking from the outside), and killing our game much faster, and him failing to be able to track down his deer often times, because they get so far away onto other people's property, he always stubbornly defends the 556 as a superior round. He had hunted with his dad once as a kid, but other than that, that was the only experience he ever had with guns till he joined the army.

Combat is not deer hunting. :wall:


Now he is just like PJ, citing military studies from the 60's all the time to back up his beliefs, even when his experience shows otherwise. I call that indoctrination.
And yeah, it really annoys me. Maybe I should have worded my post a little differently, so it did not seem all-inclusive.

The study I posted above was conducted in 2003. And if I remember correctly from our last discussion on the subject, you posted nothing to support your position. :shrug:

[Vuk]

This is such outdated thinking. In developing their own intermediate cartridge during the Second World War, the German military conducted studies on actual infantry engagements. These studies revealed that most combat engagements occurred at less than 300 meters, with the majority less than 200 meters. Infantry engagements have only gotten closer in recent times - even in Afghanistan. The effective range of the M4 is 500 meters, with reliable fragmentation out to 300 meters. There is absolutely no reason a non-designated rifleman/sniper/heavy weapons infantryman should be taking potshots at enemies beyond 500 meters for several reasons. That is not the way modern infantry tactics are designed, there are weapons more suited for long range engagements, and he likely will not hit his target (especially without magnification).

Really? Reliable fragmentation out to 300 meters?
Certainly not with the M855, which has been what we have been using for a long time, and what the debate has centered around for a long time.
http://ammo.ar15.com/ammo/project/term_m855yaw.html

This wounding problem has been cited in incidents beginning in the first Gulf war, Somalia, and in the current conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. In recent lab testing of M855, it has been shown that the bullets do not fragment reliably or consistently from round-to-round, displaying widely variable performance. In several cases, yawing did not begin until 7–10 in of penetration. This was with all rounds coming from the same manufacturer. This lack of wounding capacity typically becomes an increasingly significant issue as range increases (e.g., ranges over 50 m when using an M4 or 200 m when using an M16) or when penetrating heavy clothing, but this problem is compounded in shorter-barreled weapons. The 14.5 inches (37 cm) barrel of the U.S. military's M4 carbine generates considerably less initial velocity than the longer 20" barrel found on the M16, and terminal performance can be a particular problem with the M4.


Though early M855 experiments showed the round fragments well in the lab, more recent testing has been showing inconsistent fragmentation. Partially because of the complex construction of the round, M855 has widely-variable yaw performance, often not yawing at all through 7-8" or even 10" of tissue. Testing has shown large batch-to-batch differences in yaw performance even from the same manufacturer, and given the number of plants manufacturing SS-109-type bullets, fragmentation performance is very difficult to predict. This is complicated by the low velocity implicit in using M855 out of the short barreled M4 platform.

Interesting, few of these reports seem to be coming from troops 20" or SAW platforms. It would seem that the additional velocity from the longer barrel provides adequate usable fragmentation range for M855 in the majority of cases. From shorter barrels, such as the M4's 14.5" barrel, M855's fragmentation range varies from as much as 90m to as little as 10m, which frequently isn't enough range.

From Dr. Roberts:

"Combat operations the past few months have again highlighted terminal performance deficiencies with 5.56x45mm 62 gr. M855 FMJ. These problems have primarily been manifested as inadequate incapacitation of enemy forces despite their being hit multiple times by M855 bullets. These failures appear to be associated with the bullets exiting the body of the enemy soldier without yawing or fragmenting. This failure to yaw and fragment can be caused by reduced impact velocities as when fired from short barrel weapons or when the range increases. It can also occur when the bullets pass through only minimal tissue, such as a limb or the chest of a thin, malnourished individual, as the bullet may exit the body before it has a chance to yaw and fragment. In addition, bullets of the SS109/M855 type are manufactured by many countries in numerous production plants. Although all SS109/M855 types must be 62 gr. FMJ bullets constructed with a steel penetrator in the nose, the composition, thickness, and relative weights of the jackets, penetrators, and cores are quite variable, as are the types and position of the cannelures. Because of the significant differences in construction between bullets within the SS109/M855 category, terminal performance is quite variable—with differences noted in yaw, fragmentation, and penetration depths. Luke Haag’s papers in the AFTE Journal (33(1):11-28, Winter 2001) describe this problem."


This doesn't seem to back up your ascertions.

I am not even sure if you really believe what you are saying. So what if majority of engagements are at close range? (though that is in large part to the limitations of our weapons and those of our enemies, but that is another matter) You should still be capable of dealing with engagements at longer distances. What you are saying is like saying that since most soldiers will not be shot during their deployment, we should not give them body armour. Also, I don't care what you say, an M4 is not capable of engaging targets accurately and effectively at distances of 200 to 300 meters. When you factor in higher winds and such, your chances of hitting with an M4 become much lower than of hitting with a .30 cal rifle at those ranges.

Doesn't it make more sense to use a round that you will have better accuracy, more reliability, and the ability to kill targets at close, medium, and long range?




M995 5.56 will defeat all forms of body armor currently in existence. Look it up.

Yes, it can defeat combat armour, but if you use that, then you have a round that does not fragment, and that leaves a traditional wound like a .30 cal, only much smaller and with less potential for penetration. If you are gonna do that, why not just use the .30 cal?

Those circumstances exist only in the minds online operators. Actual combat experience demonstrates that the lighter, smaller, and more damaging 5.56 is preferable to the .308 both during firefights and during all that time in between when soldiers have to walk around carrying 70+ pounds of gear.

Yes, it may be harder to carry around more gear, but I think that most troops who think about it would rather carry more weight, but have something that will actually keep them alive. You realize that if we remove their combat armour they will have to carry less weight too, don't you?

The study I posted above was conducted in 2003. And if I remember correctly from our last discussion on the subject, you posted nothing to support your position. :shrug:

Then you remember wrong.

[Vuk]

Combat is not deer hunting. :wall:




I never said it was. The comparison is, however, useful for knowing how well each round can kill a mammal of similar size to a human. Sure, a human body is different, and of a different size, but it is similar enough to be a useful comparison.

[Strike For The South]

Just like shooting a pig with an assualt rifle

Anyone else remember that gem?

[Vuk]

Just like shooting a pig with an assualt rifle

Anyone else remember that gem?

Don't worry Strike, I am not gonna shoot you. ~;)

[PanzerJaeger]

Sigh... we have been all over this before.

The M855 was designed to penetrate then-standard Soviet era body armor. An M193-type 55gr 5.56 would have been more optimal in the Iraq/Afghanistan conflicts, considering the enemy. Poor suppliers were also a problem in earlier years of the wars, leading to some yaw/frag issues. Military decisions on the composition and procurement of the round have no bearing on the validity of the cartridge.

Despite that, the M855 has been found time and again to have performed well by people (http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2010armament/WednesdayLandmarkBPerArvidsson.pdf) whose job it is to study such things. Dr. Roberts study is well known for its use of anecdotal information to feed into the anti-5.56 hysteria of the internet operators.

The Army's M855A1 and Navy's SOST rounds currently in use offer much improved performance beyond the .308 - not sure why you are discussing the outdated M855.

We also discussed the limitations of the .308 in modern combat, which can be summed up with one word: M14. You need to understand how modern combat actually unfolds to understand the advantages of the 5.56 over the .308. The opportunity to get rested up and nail some unsuspecting bad guy at 800 meters simply does not present itself to the average line infantryman in numbers even remotely high enough to justify all the downsides that come with that extra power at range - not that he could hit him if they did. Take a look at the above linked powerpoint. I know it is highly condensed, but you can begin to decipher the factors that actually impact combat effectiveness (hint: caliber is not one of them, weight and encumberment are). Lethality is a function of marksmanship more than it is caliber. I'm sorry that I cannot find the full presentation on youtube.

Also, I am far from 'indoctrinated' on the 5.56. The 6.8 would probably be a step forward. Returning to the .308, however, would be a step back.

[Centurion1]

Damn Panzer, that's some smart shizz. You're 100% correct, too. The armor I had to wear in Iraq was by far the biggest factor in how I was feeling at any given time. If it was fully loaded with ammo, with 3 different weapons hanging off me, with all the various extra bits like shoulder armor, side plates, throat protector, etc. and completely soaked in nasty ass sweat from walking around the 110 degree heat, then I was in a bad mood. I never met anyone who didn't like the idea of taking it all off, but the higher-ups were very strict about it.

but, but you look like a bamf and intimidate the malnutritioned natives.

[Major Robert Dump]

I took mine off all the time and used it as a wall to shield little kids who were pinned in with us when we were taking fire, like a little portable body armor cubicle. You could fit half a dozen inside my armor because they are so skinny and I wear the XXL.

Battalion commander told me SGLI would not pay benefits to my family if I died without armor on. I told him my family didn't need the money. The he told me I would get UCMJ if I was injured while not wearing it and I told him the press would be fascinated with a story of a soldier being punished for protecting kids. It was never really an issue again, but in all honesty, I was never presented with the opportunity to do it again after the above incident.

IOTVs were the worst idea ever. So bulky. The Plate Carriers were started fielding in 2010 literally wiehged 10 pounts less and allowed for better range of motion. When I departed in March 2012, there were still bloked all over wearing IOTVs.

The only people who should wear IOTVs are Fobbits and Gunners: people less likely to get into fights and who need less mobility.

To be fair, though, I do know of a couple of situations where something irritating like the groin guard, or the neck guard, absorbed a potentially deadly peace of shrapnel. My roommate here at BAMC was saved my a neck guard actually. And my friend from OCS, Damon http://www.leehanfamilyfund.com/ , was killed inside a vehicle when hit with a bomb, he was not wearing his body armor, and his insides were jellified by the shockwave, while no one else in the vehicle were hurt (although 2 doors were blown off)

So it is a matter of mobility vs survivability. I don't really have anything to add to the debate. I don't have kids, and my family doesnt need the money. So I personally would rather go without, and die comfortably, than roll around in an IOTV. A plate carrier is very manageable tho

[Crazed Rabbit]

I must have misread your post to which I responded. I thought you were speaking more generally about the utility of an AK versus a pistol with extended mags, not specifically about the event in Colorado. While I believe you are operating under old information (new 7.62x39 ammunition such as Barnes Triple Shock eliminates the yaw and fragmentation issues associated with the old Eastern Bloc surplus stuff), I am not comfortable continuing a discussion about the best weapon to use in a mass shooting. I cede the point.

I've got a vz 58. Where can I find out more about this new types of ammunition?

Thanks,
CR

PS - Guys, don't make Vuk angry or we'll have to deal with a fearsome army of Wisconsinites raised as farmers, trained in 1800s bare knuckle boxing, and equipped with M14s rolling down from the north like the vikings of old.

[Strike For The South]

I love it when we all agree

[Centurion1]

I love it when we all agree

can we cuddle? i know your soft gym trained body will be more comfortable than Vuk's rock hard 300 pound farm trained body

[PanzerJaeger]

I've got a vz 58. Where can I find out more about this new types of ammunition?

Thanks,
CR

PS - Guys, don't make Vuk angry or we'll have to deal with a fearsome army of Wisconsinites raised as farmers, trained in 1800s bare knuckle boxing, and equipped with M14s rolling down from the north like the vikings of old.

You did your homework. Here (http://demigodllc.com/articles/7.62x39-improving-the-military-standard/)'s a decent write-up from a few years ago. There are some even better rounds out these days like the Barnes stuff. Basically the round got a bad rep because the only kind available was Soviet milsurp crap because the only people shooting AKs were looking for the maximum bang for their bucks. These days, AKs have developed a fairly decent following and ammo manufacturers have applied modern technology to the 7.62x39, improving performance greatly.

[Montmorency]

Is it true that the bullet begins to spin like a top ten feet out of the barrel?

[a completely inoffensive name]

Is it true that the bullet begins to spin like a top ten feet out of the barrel?

I thought bullets rotate through the air perpendicular to their direction the moment they leave the barrel because of the rifling.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I've got a vz 58. Where can I find out more about this new types of ammunition?

Thanks,
CR

PS - Guys, don't make Vuk angry or we'll have to deal with a fearsome army of Wisconsinites raised as farmers, trained in 1800s bare knuckle boxing, and equipped with M14s rolling down from the north like the vikings of old.

CR - i am always forgetting that you are a Long Islander. Do you have your sportsman's license as well?

[Crazed Rabbit]

I've never been in New York. I'm in Washington. We don't need no stinkin' licenses!

CR

[ICantSpellDawg]

Speaking of gun control... I gave in and went to the gun store/shooting range today and had a field day. Despite the urge to buy something crazy, I came away with a more practical little S&W .38.

I like it a lot. Something about snub-nosed revolvers just makes me happy. :sweatdrop: Mine has a slightly longer barrel than that one, and a slightly larger grip.

It was incredibly easy to buy, the whole process took about 30 minutes. Small peas when you consider I spent the previous 2 hours just having fun at the range.

Congrats! I'm going to get my first soon. I've got the license and everything

[ICantSpellDawg]

Ohhh that was Gawain of Orkney. Sorry bout that

[PanzerJaeger]

Speaking of gun control... I gave in and went to the gun store/shooting range today and had a field day. Despite the urge to buy something crazy, I came away with a more practical little S&W .38.

http://www.slickguns.com/sites/default/files/26306.jpg

I like it a lot. Something about snub-nosed revolvers just makes me happy. :sweatdrop: Mine has a slightly longer barrel than that one, and a slightly larger grip.

It was incredibly easy to buy, the whole process took about 30 minutes. Small peas when you consider I spent the previous 2 hours just having fun at the range.

Congratulations! I told you it was a blast! You will never run out of new and interesting ways to challenge yourself.

[Sigurd]

Is it true that the bullet begins to spin like a top ten feet out of the barrel?
I thought bullets rotate through the air perpendicular to their direction the moment they leave the barrel because of the rifling.
Yes, the projectile starts spinning as soon as the it leaves the cartridge inside the barrel if it is rifled.
The best layman analogy would be the American football. Its aerodynamic shape works best if you spin it in its trajectory as you throw it to a team mate.

I am not so worried about people owning guns or have access to guns. What worries me is that they might not have the knowledge to respect these weapons. I am all for licenses if it involves getting an understanding of the dangers.
At least they should know the very basic gun rules ala: (some are more important when considering rifles/assault guns)

Never handle a gun, your own or others without first making sure if it is loaded or not.
Never leave a loaded gun. (you shouldn't even take your hand off a loaded gun).
Never aim at a person loaded gun or not.
Don't treat a loaded gun with the safety on as if it was not loaded.
There is absolutely no excuse for accidental shots (remember the projectile can kill up to 3-4 km away from you).

I know the US Armed forces has similar rules, all though a bit more "tailored" for combat areas. :sneaky:

[rory_20_uk]

We have driving licenses which ensure a basic level of skill and understanding.

I am aware that cars can easily kill people, but with guns one can do it far more easily without intending to.

~:smoking:

[drone]

The problem with licensing is the paper trail. While required competency training would be wonderful, any legislation requiring it will get shouted down because it creates a database of gun owners. Doesn't seem to bother the CC types though. :shrug:

[Major Robert Dump]

That's what I do not get. We give ground on CC, why not in other areas?

[drone]

The ideal solution would be mandatory gun competency training for everyone. That way the list gets you nowhere, anyone could be hiding an arsenal to overthrow teh government!

[Major Robert Dump]

But mandatory training would never work for the constitutional fundies. I see both sides of the argument.

[Papewaio]

I thought it said a well trained militia is required for the security of the state. So couldn't it be spun that it is a US citizens requirement to do so.

In NZ at boy scouts we did clay pigeon shooting as 13 yr olds. Also our school had a shooting team. The guns were stored off site of the school. So why not having a safe shooting course at high school?

If you really want the ability to overthrow a modern government then give them tactical training. It might actually save some lives the next time a kid or two decides to shoot up their school. If the kids know what to do like run, stay in cover and always have another exit.

[Memnon]

But mandatory training would never work for the constitutional fundies. I see both sides of the argument.

I see more of a problem with the overprotective liberals (aka, my side, except on gun control) thinking "Oh no! They're going to teach our children to be killers!" Then again, no one really listens to these people except in some parts of the Northeast and California, so it should be fine.

I like the idea of mandatory training for all citizens, would improve practical knowledge and could prevent so many accidents (Boot camp could also help the nation's waistline). Alas, barring a disaster in the near future this will remain impossible. (Just no zombie outbreak, please):on_scared:

[Hooahguy]

What I think we should do is institute a mandatory one year of service for 18 year olds, whether it be helping build infrastructure, helping clean up areas, whatever. But it would also have a one month "boot camp" as Memmon said during which they learn basic firearm safety as well as the trade they will work in for the coming year.
Plus it would create jobs!

Plus people going into college will be more well-rounded individuals, and will probably not be as idiotic as they are now.

[ICantSpellDawg]

What I think we should do is institute a mandatory one year of service for 18 year olds, whether it be helping build infrastructure, helping clean up areas, whatever. But it would also have a one month "boot camp" as Memmon said during which they learn basic firearm safety as well as the trade they will work in for the coming year.
Plus it would create jobs!

Plus people going into college will be more well-rounded individuals, and will probably not be as idiotic as they are now.


If the wait for handgun license is about 6 months in NY, they should make it 3 if you take a State safety course. The state can suck it if it thinks they can enforce unpaid labor on kids. Not all of us live in the apartheid state of Israel, which thinks it can force it's people and others to do whatever it likes. This is 'Merica where we don't even need gun safety courses to get a license. Unless you live under the tin-pot dictator Bloomberg.

[Hooahguy]

Who said anything about unpaid? Give them 50% off of college tuition. Give back to them for giving to their country. Also it would help our crumbling infrastructure. Have them fill potholes, or repave streets. Help farmers tend to their crops, or help fix up low-income housing.
Anyhow, we already have the selective service so I dont know what you are so butthurt over.

And not trying to derail the thread, I wouldnt call Israel an apartheid state. It definitely has racist aspects of it, but I wouldnt put it at the apartheid level. At least not until they ban arabs from government. And besides, the draft in Israel is done out of necessity. If they had a "professional" army then it would be a tiny force and not at all sufficient for their security needs.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Who said anything about unpaid? Give them 50% off of college tuition. Give back to them for giving to their country. Also it would help our crumbling infrastructure. Have them fill potholes, or repave streets. Help farmers tend to their crops, or help fix up low-income housing.
Anyhow, we already have the selective service so I dont know what you are so butthurt over.

And not trying to derail the thread, I wouldnt call Israel an apartheid state. It definitely has racist aspects of it, but I wouldnt put it at the apartheid level. At least not until they ban arabs from government. And besides, the draft in Israel is done out of necessity. If they had a "professional" army then it would be a tiny force and not at all sufficient for their security needs.

In the United States we don't force kids into unpaid service for the communal good. I won't apologize for that. We have the selective service, we used to execute people for treason, we used to commit genocide against native peoples. We do things differently these days and going back to a time when Americans forced other Americans to work without payment are long gone.

Offering kids college tuition for service is one thing, but I remember reading "mandatory" in your post. Purchasing service in an exchange is one thing, mandate is another. But I guess now the government can just tax kids to compel them into service, so maybe you have a point. So you'd prefer a "mandatory" but paid service. I call bull on that. Make the offer good enough and you won't have to mandate anything for the vast majority.

BTW, Israel is an apartheid state. It may be less terrible than South Africa, but there are different levels of "dictatorships" as well. and "democracies". Just because Assad is a terrible dictator, it doesn't mean that King Abdullah is not a dictator. Jewish Americans should be embarrassed everyday by that vile government and should work against the idea that anyone living in a state who doesn't follow a certain religion somehow does not have a right to be full and equal members of society. The minute Israel renounces the idea that the state is Jewish and adheres to an equal concept of justice, then they will stand out as an ally worth defending. As of now, they are just allies who pay lip service to the west and have fancier technologies than the barbarian hordes that surround them. But they are still a backwards state.

Anyway, guns - rifles - handguns. Back on track.

[Montmorency]

going back to a time when Americans forced other Americans to work without payment are long gone.

Internship? Unpaid overtime?

[Centurion1]

In the United States we don't force kids into unpaid service for the communal good. I won't apologize for that. We have the selective service, we used to execute people for treason, we used to commit genocide against native peoples. We do things differently these days and going back to a time when Americans forced other Americans to work without payment are long gone.

Offering kids college tuition for service is one thing, but I remember reading "mandatory" in your post. Purchasing service in an exchange is one thing, mandate is another. But I guess now the government can just tax kids to compel them into service, so maybe you have a point. So you'd prefer a "mandatory" but paid service. I call bull on that. Make the offer good enough and you won't have to mandate anything for the vast majority.

BTW, Israel is an apartheid state. It may be less terrible than South Africa, but there are different levels of "dictatorships" as well. and "democracies". Just because Assad is a terrible dictator, it doesn't mean that King Abdullah is not a dictator. Jewish Americans should be embarrassed everyday by that vile government and should work against the idea that anyone living in a state who doesn't follow a certain religion somehow does not have a right to be full and equal members of society. The minute Israel renounces the idea that the state is Jewish and adheres to an equal concept of justice, then they will stand out as an ally worth defending. As of now, they are just allies who pay lip service to the west and have fancier technologies than the barbarian hordes that surround them. But they are still a backwards state.

Anyway, guns - rifles - handguns. Back on track.

We had a draft genius.

[ICantSpellDawg]

We had a draft genius.

Really? I was unaware. I thought we merely had the selective service as I had mentioned above. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_Service_System)


Internship? Unpaid overtime?

No one forces internships and "unpaid overtime" is not unpaid, you're merely working harder the same pay. Both are choices, usually with a personal benefit of some value.

[ICantSpellDawg]

double

[Montmorency]

No one forces internships and "unpaid overtime" is not unpaid, you're merely working harder the same pay. Both are choices, usually with a benefit of some value.

Just as it is your choice to defy the state and face the consequences....

[ICantSpellDawg]

Just as it is your choice to defy the state and face the consequences....

Hahaha. You have an alluring idea of our road to prosperity. I am intrigued, please tell us more.