NRA: We're prepared "to help make sure this never happens again"

page: 2
8
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 07:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Carreau
 


ya most people dont understand the civilian versions of these guns. I think thats where most of these issues are coming from, but i think people are too polarized right now about being anti-gun to let little things like facts get in the way.




posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 07:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Carreau
reply to post by LarryLove
 


You do know that the weapon in question (Bushmaster AR15 is a SEMI-auto rifle just like a "hunting rifle" you say is ok to own?

Do you just not like it because it RESEMBLES a military weapon?


So some people actually use semi-automatic rifles for hunting? These people must be lousy shots.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 07:46 PM
link   
reply to post by cripmeister
 


What weapons do you use to hunt with?



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 07:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by CALGARIAN

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

What good is a right if you compromise it?


Things change.

Do you think if the founding fathers of the USA had Assault Weapons that can shoot in excess of 150 rounds a minute, they'd write the 2nd amendment word for word as it's shown on the constitution?


As a matter of fact, I do.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 07:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Carreau
 


But is something that fires up to 45 rounds per minute a necessity for hunting? That sounds fairly military to me.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 07:56 PM
link   
reply to post by roaland
 


I am not anti-gun per se, but I don't see the need for weapons designed for war to be in the hands of civilians.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 07:56 PM
link   
reply to post by LarryLove
 


Do you understand what SEMI-auto means. 1 trigger pull=1round fired. Thats the same as a AR15, any semi-auto handgun and the same as a revolver, 1 trigger pull, 1 round fired. there is NOTHING military about a semi-auto.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 07:57 PM
link   
reply to post by LarryLove
 


None of the weapons being reported used are "designed for war" where are you getting this idea from?



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 07:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Carreau
 


But isn't the rapid rate of fire and magazine capacity the issue here. And from what I can tell the damage on impact due to the barrel length is greater than that from a hand gun.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 07:59 PM
link   
reply to post by LarryLove
 


anyone actually going to war would only use a civilian version gun as a last resort.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 08:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by cripmeister

Originally posted by Carreau
reply to post by LarryLove
 


You do know that the weapon in question (Bushmaster AR15 is a SEMI-auto rifle just like a "hunting rifle" you say is ok to own?

Do you just not like it because it RESEMBLES a military weapon?


So some people actually use semi-automatic rifles for hunting? These people must be lousy shots.


Most people use semi-automatic weapons.
Bolt action rifles exist, but aren't nearly as useful if you need another round to fire at something.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 08:02 PM
link   
reply to post by LarryLove
 


I'll say it once again. SEMI-auto 1 trigger pull=1 round fired. The "rate of fire" depends on the person with the weapon. So now you have a problem not with the weapon but with the magazine? What size magazine would be ok?



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 08:03 PM
link   
reply to post by LarryLove
 


barrel length is for range when firing at things from a distance, barrel length to my understanding has nothing to do with the impact of a bullet, that would be the grain of the gunpowered within the round and the type of slug within the casing.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 08:05 PM
link   
reply to post by LarryLove
 


Barrel length has nothing whats so ever to do with "damage", again where are you getting this insane incorrect information. Barrel length contributes to accuracy and effect range ie distance. Caliber, muzzle velocity (grain count) contribute to "damage".



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 08:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by LarryLove
reply to post by Carreau
 


But isn't the rapid rate of fire and magazine capacity the issue here. And from what I can tell the damage on impact due to the barrel length is greater than that from a hand gun.


The kids at Columbine, Nadal Hassan, and Adam Lanza.

You know what they all had in common?

Pistols.

If you limit the magazine capacity then you're just going to increase magazine sales.
You can also make homemade magazines. Not hard.
Or you can duct-tape them together suicide style.

Limiting the weapons, types of weapons, amount of ammunition; none of these things will do you any good when you're dealing with people like this.

I don't understand why people are so afraid of gun when chemicals are far more dangerous.

I don't need a gun to kill hundreds or thousands of people.

All you need is know-how and the right chemicals and you can make home made weapons of mass destruction, or chemical weapons far more deadly and destructive than any handgun.

In Russia, where they also banned guns, people just made there own.
Prisoners make guns, knives, and crossbows with material available to them.

The problem isn't the tool, it's the person using the tool.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 08:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Carreau
 

this country doesnt need gun regulation, it needs a national gun training class to better inform people as to what a gun actually does lol



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 08:12 PM
link   
I am a gun advocate, but barrel length does in fact allow for increased burn time while in the barrel more time under pressure = more velocity = more damage down range



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 08:13 PM
link   
Jesus I knew more about weapons at the age of 10 than most of these anti-gun posters on ATS. It's incredible. I don't know anything about Alpine skiing so I'm certainly not going to post replies on a thread about skiing the Alps. What is wrong with people?



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 08:16 PM
link   
reply to post by geocom
 


ya but thats velocity, meant to increase as the bullet travels towards the target over a distance, gets greater as teh distance increases. this is short range, not gonna make that big of difference with that short of travel time. sad to say, i hate to even think of anyone doing this to kids, but these things need to be talked about so people understand its not the weapon, its the idiot behind the weapon.

notice i said weapon, not gun, because anything can be used as a weapon.
edit on 18-12-2012 by roaland because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 08:18 PM
link   
reply to post by roaland
 


True the AR-15 in particular doesn't even reach its full velocity for 60 yards after leaving the muzzle

Just saying higher velocity does equal a higher terminal ballistic at least from everything I've read


And I totally agree I don't understand how anyone could do this to children with any weapon
It's just sickening
edit on 12/18/2012 by geocom because: (no reason given)
edit on 12/18/2012 by geocom because: (no reason given)





top topics
 
8
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join