Lethal weapon: This is the gun that is killing America

EarthCitizen07

kingofyo1

Semi auto is most definitely going to cause MORE damage than a fully auto gun. spraying and praying is not the way to go when shooting. It was said previously in this thread, "One Shot, One Kill" not "30 Shots and Hope For the Best"

Thats pretty absurd. If full-auto has less potential than semi-auto the military would never bother giving soldiers the option of selection on their rifles.

Sure completly incompetant shooters could miss a lot, but its still a strawman argument in favor of allowing automatic guns to be available to the public.

There is no marksmanship instructor, any one in the military, who teaches "spray and pray." The US Military (and then many other militaries) went to a burst mode exactly because of the inefficiency of F/A on a rifle.

Beltfed, crew served, weapons are used extensively and still are wasteful, but the underlying tactical purpose is suppression of the enemy while the rifleman can maneuver to engage.

To say that FA must be banned because "it is so much more deadly" is also a strawman position and not founded upon any sort of understanding how these weapons work.

reply to post by NavyDoc


Doc, this is the point I was trying to get across exactly! The Air Force refuses to allow trainees to go full auto anymore, period in qual. The only time its allowed is on a purpose built machine gun, and by trained Security Forces members. Besides suppression, there really is no reason to go into automatic on a m-16, and even then thats only AFTER your belt fed breaks and you have no other choice

Snarl
They're tools. Not much different than a surgeon's scalpel. The scalpel does not heal, it cuts.

Does the scalpel cut you 300 metres away?

Also, can it cut 2 or more people open a second?

Also, can it cut straight through 4 or 5 skulls in succession, at once, or through 4 or more car doors?

Awesome comparison.

Doc Gator
That is the definition of an assault rifle. If it isn't capable of full auto or burst fire, it is not an assault rifle. It's that simple.

You can call a horse an automobile because they both carry goods and people over distances, but a horse is clearly not an automobile no matter how many times someone says it is.

O'Reilly?

So the M1 Garand isn't an assault rifle?

Laughing my ass off right now.

Pejeu

Snarl
They're tools. Not much different than a surgeon's scalpel. The scalpel does not heal, it cuts.

Does the scalpel cut you 300 metres away?

Also, can it cut 2 or more people open a second?

Also, can it cut straight through 4 or 5 skulls in succession, at once, or through 4 or more car doors?

Awesome comparison.

edit on 2013/11/5 by Pejeu because: (no reason given)

I doubt if I gave you a rifle, you could hit anything 300 meters away, much less a person.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


Except the AK 47 rounds don't break apart and tumble.

NavyDoc
I doubt if I gave you a rifle, you could hit anything 300 meters away, much less a person.

It seems to be eluding you that a gun nut out to cause mayhem and massacre people may not care whether he hits other people than those he is aiming at.

Nor, I posit, does it matter if the people getting that shot are actually the ones he's aiming for.

Why does it matter to you?

reply to post by Pejeu


To be fair, its two different tools, for two different jobs. Also, the effective range of a 16" barrelled AR-15 is 600 yards with a 3-5 MOA if you want to get technical (google ninja FTW) But once again, can an AR-15 be as precise of a weapon as a scalpel? of course not! you'd be ignorant to consider it so. Can the AR be more damaging? well yeah, especially if you've got high velocity rounds at short range. If you're good at throwing knives, you might can achieve 50 yards... at best, and certainly not with the velocity of a rifle. Apples and oranges though. Two different tools for two different jobs.

kingofyo1
reply to post by Pejeu

 

To be fair, its two different tools, for two different jobs. Also, the effective range of a 16" barrelled AR-15 is 600 yards with a 3-5 MOA if you want to get technical (google ninja FTW) But once again, can an AR-15 be as precise of a weapon as a scalpel? of course not! you'd be ignorant to consider it so. Can the AR be more damaging? well yeah, especially if you've got high velocity rounds at short range. If you're good at throwing knives, you might can achieve 50 yards... at best, and certainly not with the velocity of a rifle. Apples and oranges though. Two different tools for two different jobs.

What?

Also, how very arrogant of you to assume I wouldn't know what minutes of angle means.

Also, scalpels don't cut you open through tree trunks and light masonry.

Then again, your homes are made of plywood.

reply to post by Pejeu


You'd be ignorant to consider an M1 an assault rifle. BY DEFINITION: "An assault rifle is a selective fire (selective between semi-automatic, automatic and/or burst fire) rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine"

An AR-15 is NOT an assault rifle, as it does not have the selector for 3 rd burst, or full auto. An m-16 on the other hand, is an assault rifle for the same reason.The M1 is an air-cooled, gas-operated, CLIP-fed, semi-automatic, shoulder-fired weapon. If you managed to get an M1 to go full auto, you'd get 8 rounds before having to switch clips. At 40-50 rounds per minute on semi auto, I'd say that switching clips every ten seconds(give or take) is enough

reply to post by Pejeu


Yeah, well a a coconut won't splatter when you throw it at a bad comedian. But they are both still vegetative in origin.

Bottom line: a scalpel is a tool, just like a gun. You can draw all the comparisons against them that you want. At the end you will only prove that a scalpel and a gun are not the same object. Which is not being disputed. The dispute is that they are both tools.

reply to post by AlphaHawk




PTB know that inside the US there is no way to get rid of the guns unless something of an epic nature happens. People would have to be starving.



This progressive propaganda is for the rest of the world. They want to keep you in line using fear. This is the cold hard truth and if you buy into this crap guess what PTB have your mind. America is the last hold out in the world and thankfully we have a strong constitution and conservative minded people in mass still.




And yes eventually even the US will fail to the progressive filth scum bags. And when they do kiss you freedom of speech goodbye rest of the world.

reply to post by Pejeu


How is it arrogant of me to assume that one who is attempting to troll their way into a technical gun discussion would not have knowledge of weapon terms? I used the term with that assumption, and being the case that you rattled back off to me what the acronym was you obviously know at least what google tells you about it.

reply to post by Pejeu




When you have no idea what you are talking about it is better to remain silent. Both the AR and the AK can kill people. Tumbling rounds and all the jazz is fools talk.

overratedpatriotism
If you are okay with my ranch rifle you should be okay with the ArmaLite...

Civs should only be allowed to own bolt-action rifles and break action shotguns, if that.

SubTruth
When you have no idea what you are talking about it is better to remain silent. Both the AR and the AK can kill people. Tumbling rounds and all the jazz is fools talk.

Which is exactly why civilians shouldn't be allowed to own either.

Or any other semi-auto rifle for that matter.

kingofyo1
reply to post by Pejeu

 

You'd be ignorant to consider an M1 an assault rifle. BY DEFINITION: "An assault rifle is a selective fire (selective between semi-automatic, automatic and/or burst fire) rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine"

By whose definition?

Kindly state the source for your definition.

Pejeu

kingofyo1
reply to post by Pejeu

 

To be fair, its two different tools, for two different jobs. Also, the effective range of a 16" barrelled AR-15 is 600 yards with a 3-5 MOA if you want to get technical (google ninja FTW) But once again, can an AR-15 be as precise of a weapon as a scalpel? of course not! you'd be ignorant to consider it so. Can the AR be more damaging? well yeah, especially if you've got high velocity rounds at short range. If you're good at throwing knives, you might can achieve 50 yards... at best, and certainly not with the velocity of a rifle. Apples and oranges though. Two different tools for two different jobs.

What?

Also, how very arrogant of you to assume I wouldn't know what minutes of angle means.

Also, scalpels don't cut you open through tree trunks and light masonry.

Then again, your homes are made of plywood.

Normal rounds cant penetrate tree trunks and bricks afaik. Even armor piercing ones would have a hard time.

But going through a plywood wall seems very likely.

And especially hollow points will not go through anything at all. People wearing winter jackets have survived bullet penetration with .22lr up to .32acp jhp.

bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by Pejeu

 

Yeah, well a a coconut won't splatter when you throw it at a bad comedian. But they are both still vegetative in origin.

Bottom line: a scalpel is a tool, just like a gun. You can draw all the comparisons against them that you want. At the end you will only prove that a scalpel and a gun are not the same object. Which is not being disputed. The dispute is that they are both tools.

A gun is a tool specifically designed for killing or maiming from a distance.

You're the ones drawing comparisons. And they are utter failures.

Pejeu

Doc Gator
That is the definition of an assault rifle. If it isn't capable of full auto or burst fire, it is not an assault rifle. It's that simple.

You can call a horse an automobile because they both carry goods and people over distances, but a horse is clearly not an automobile no matter how many times someone says it is.

O'Reilly?

So the M1 Garand isn't an assault rifle?

Laughing my ass off right now.

It is not an assault rifle. It is a main battle rifle and an obsolete one at that. The first assault rifle was the STG 44.

Here are some definitions for the ignorant.

[1] Assault rifles are the standard service rifles in most modern armies. Note the difference between the assault rifle and the battle rifle. Assault rifles use smaller cartridges and are used at closer ranges than battle rifles


The term assault rifle is a translation of the German word Sturmgewehr (literally "storm rifle", "storm" as in "military attack"). The name was coined by Adolf Hitler[4] as a new name for the Maschinenpistole 43,[nb 1] subsequently known as the Sturmgewehr 44, the firearm generally considered the first assault rifle that served to popularize the concept and form the basis for today's modern assault rifles.

(snip)

The translation assault rifle gradually became the common term for similar firearms sharing the same technical definition as the StG 44. In a strict definition, a firearm must have at least the following characteristics to be considered an assault rifle:[5][6][7]

It must be an individual weapon with provision to fire from the shoulder (i.e. a buttstock);
It must be capable of selective fire;
It must have an intermediate-power cartridge: more power than a pistol but less than a standard rifle or battle rifle;
Its ammunition must be supplied from a detachable magazine rather than a feed-belt.
And it should at least have a firing range of 300 metres (980 feet)
Rifles that meet most of these criteria, but not all, are technically not assault rifles despite frequently being considered as such. For example, semi-automatic-only rifles like the AR-15 (on which the M16 rifle is based) that share parts or design characteristics with assault rifles are not assault rifles, as they are not capable of switching to automatic fire and thus are not selective-fire capable. Belt-fed weapons or rifles with fixed magazines are likewise not assault rifles because they do not have detachable box magazines.

The term "assault rifle" is often more loosely used for commercial or political reasons to include other types of arms, particularly arms that fall under a strict definition of the battle rifle, or semi-automatic variant of military rifles such as AR-15s.

The U.S. Army defines assault rifles as "short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachinegun and rifle cartridges

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Mondragón rifle
SIG 510
H&K G3
FN FAL
U.S. M14
Japanese Howa Type 64
Beretta BM59 This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (December 2009)

A battle rifle is a select fire or semi-automatic military service rifle that fires a full power rifle cartridge, such as 7.62x51mm NATO. While the designation of battle rifle is usually given to post-World War II select fire infantry rifles such as the H&K G3, the FN FAL, or the M14,[1] this term can also apply to older military semi-automatic rifles such as the M1 Garand.

The term 'battle rifle' as a distinct class of firearms was coined largely out of a need to differentiate the true intermediate-caliber assault rifles (such as the M16 or SA80) from their immediate service predecessors (such as the M14 rifle or FAL). These older rifle designs were still chambered in full-power calibers, but otherwise shared many novel assault rifle-type features with their replacements, such as select fire capability and removable box magazines. Despite the demise of their role as a general infantry rifle, the type has endured due to the continuing manufacture of battle rifles for various specialty roles (such as the squad designated marksman) in which their superior range and power can be best utilized.

An M1 Garand is not an assault rifle because it fires a full sized 30.06 cartridge that is effective out to 1000 yards, does not have a detachable magazine, and is not selective fire.

An Ar15 is not an assault rifle because it is not selective fire.

An M16 is an assault rifle because it fires a much smaller cartridge, about 1/2 way between a pistol round and full power rifle round, that is effective to about 300-400 yards, is select fire, and has a detachable magazine.

You really, really, really don't have a clue what you are talking about.

reply to post by Pejeu


My definition for Assault rifle comes straight from wikipedia, which comes from encyclopedia brittanica 2010 edition.

Source for Definition

EarthCitizen07
Normal rounds cant penetrate tree trunks and bricks afaik. Even armor piercing ones would have a hard time.

But going through a plywood wall seems very likely.

And especially hollow points will not go through anything at all. People wearing winter jackets have survived bullet penetration with .22lr up to .32acp jhp.

Take a look at this dude shooting through, what? 8 or 10 centimetres of reinforced concrete?



Granted, the round breaks apart and there isn't much energy left in the fragments. Still, they pushed the next block a few centimetres back.

Clearly, a few brick would have only dropped the round down to handgun energy levels.

reply to post by Pejeu


This entire debate is pie in the sky. A fools errand if you will.




How many people own guns in the US ? Are those people at this point in time willing to give them up ? All the rest is hearing yourself talk.



Vigilance is what Americans need do not let the progressive mindset into your house and do not let them brainwash your children at school. It clearly is a disease of the mind and soul. Keep your own backyard in order and the rest will work itself out. And to all the I know what is best for everyone else crowd remember one thing when the guns inside the US fall it will drag freedom of speech with it..........Fools.