How do you feel about guns?

[Wingnut]

Originally Posted by Whatever

Different war, different circumstances. The US millitary dropped fully automatic fire due to the fact that soldiers would simply hold their guns over their heads and empty their magazines "blind firiing" if they panicked in Vietnam. They would frag their own squadmates, at times, doing that.

When you "frag" someone, you wound or kill them with a fragmentation grenade. Thus the term "frag".

They dropped down to 3 round burst, as the troops were taught to only fire 3 round bursts even on full-auto. However, even in the millitary today, many soldiers use the three round burst setting for sweeping buildings and supression fire.

Complete bullcrap.

Three round burst has no use in CQB. The emphasis is on accuracy and double tapping. Taking well aimed shots with two rounds fired semi-automatically. Semi-auto firing, even if "double tapping" a target allows you to make aiming adjustments which a 3 round burst just doesn't allow. A 3 round burst fired from a M16/M4 is almost worthless as a means of suppressive fire, because the rise of the muzzle spreads the rounds over a considerable distance resulting in a ****-poor beaten zone. I've never been in a tactical situation in which an automatic machine gun designed for suppressive fire wasn't available.

The modern US millitary is also better trained than the draftees we sent to war in 'nam. You're also dealing with jungle warfare vs. desert warfare. In the jungle, it was much easier for the enemy to hide and get into close quarters, where auto/burst fire is an advantage, because of the dense foliage of the jungle. In the desert, firefights tend to take place over longer ranges, where the increased accuracy of semi-auto is more important.

Again, complete bullcrap. Iraq was in the desert, but the combat was concentrated in urbanized areas. Not the wide open desert! Afghanistan is mountainous, it isn't a desert.

In the current combat environments faced by our soldiers today, the enemy isn't wearing a uniform. In an urban environment in which the enemy isn't wearing uniforms, they can walk right up to you before they detonate themselves.

When you send four men into a room to clear it during CQB operations the increased accuracy of semi-auto is more important than the highly inaccurate burst fire.

You don't have a clue. You don't even have a grid co-ordinate to find a clue. You're just annoying me now.

You can argue the intended use of the civilian model AR-15's in circles forever. It is ultimately an opinion. Your opinion is that it is designed for combat, mine is that it isn't. However, the rub when it comes to talk of banning the AR-15 is doing so is based on your opinion. You're proposing a legislation that takes something enjoyable away from hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of law abiding citizens, when there is emperical proof that pretty much all experts agree upon that banning it and other similar weapons has absolutely no affect on violent crime rates in this country on way or another. Not only that, but you're going to put a lot of people who have jobs manufacturing them out of a job

Let's see your empirical proof.

And if you can buy an "assault rifle" during a gun show while an "assault rifle" ban is in effect, is there really an "assualt rifle" ban?

I've never owned an "assault rifle" and I've gotten plenty of enjoyment from guns. Colt won't go out of business if they can't sell them.

This isn't even a quandary of gun owner's rights vs. public safety, as statistics show that the legislation doesn't do anything to make people safer. What it comes down to is your opinion that people should not be able to own AR-15's, and if that's all you have, then that's not a reason to pass a law that limits the freedoms of others. So, I simply agree to disagree with your opinion.

If statistics show that legislation doesn't work, then why do we have any laws at all?

When was the last time someone was killed with an automatic weapon in this country? And why is that? Is it because the restrictions work?

[Wingnut]

Originally Posted by Whatever

You are the one who wants changes made to current legislation, which means the burden of proof falls upon you and other like minded individuals to demonstrate how it will be beneficial to American society. Studies analyzed by experts by no means scientifically prove anything, however, they are much more qualified to make statements about the topic than you are. When dealing with human social behavior, it is impossible to use the scientific method to prove anything with a large subject group. All you can do is map trends and predict what will happen MOST of the time.

And seriously, we're going with fallacies here? You're entire argument is based around your fallacy of composition that because the modern AR-15 is based off of, but different than, a weapon of war, that it is itself a weapon of war. The fact that many studies on the topic have been carried on laws passed at the city, state, and national level and experts are in agreement that there is no correlation between assault weapon bans and violent crime also finds you guilty of the slothful induction fallacy. Slothful induction revolves around somebody denies an argument it's proper conclusion despite strong evidence for inference, which you are more than certainly doing in this case to attempt to keep this discussion goig.

Your the one citing "studies" and "empirical evidence" in one breath and with the other stating it is "impossible to use the scientific method to prove anything" and "studies analyzed by experts by no means scientifically prove anything."

Talk about your logical fallicies.

[Wingnut]

Originally Posted by Sher Khan

Yeah, we could do without that one about freedom of speech stuff. That's way outdated.

You voluntarily surrendered your right to free speech on this website.

[Wingnut]

Originally Posted by WhoDeyJon

I was crystal clear.

The point is that I can load, shoot, and reload a single shot quickly. However, it isn't ideal, especially in a highly intense home defense situation. What if I am in a place where I can't get to the ammo? What if adrenaline takes over? What if the bad guy has a semi-auto? You are missing many, many variable here.

No tactical situation is ideal.

If you can't get to the ammo, then the size of the magazine really doesn't matter. Does it? You might only get one shot. If adrenaline takes over you'll be more likely to hit your target with a shotgun than a semi-auto with a high capacity magazine. If the bad guy has a semi-auto he theoretically has a higher rate of fire, but only one projectile per trigger squeeze. If you have a shotgun with 00 buck you'll have multiple projectiles spread over a pattern with each trigger squeeze thus increasing your probablity of a hit even if you don't have the time to take a well aimed shot.

I'm more familiar with the variables than you are.

When did the word liberal become such a bad word? Fred called me a conservative. Should I go cry about that. Most liberals are proud of their liberalness. I'm not 100% certain, but I think Fred himself referred to himself as a liberal in the past. Perhaps you should just let Fred argue his points for himself.

Are you denying you used it as a perjorative? Be careful. God is watching.

Originally Posted by WhoDeyJon

Her guns were stolen, she has no responsibility here.

the personal responsibility lies with lawbreakers.

She has no responsibility to secure her own weapons? LOL

Do you leave your doors to your house unlocked? Do you leave your car unattended with the keys in the ignition?

She taught her son with behavioral problems how to operate firearms and let him have access to them. And you're claiming she doesn't bear any personal responsibility?

So I guess if one of your children accidentally shoots themselves with one of your firearms you don't bear any responsibility because you didn't secure your firearm and ammo?

Unbelievable.

Originally Posted by WhoDeyJon

Your sin, my sin, is no different than another's sin. The consequences are different.

Tell a lie, it may only hurt one person. Cheat on your wife, could hurt a whole family. Shoot up a school, it hurts many. The fact is all of us are accountable.

Except the mother he didn't lock up her firearms. Right?

Lying doesn't make you a killer, but it does make you a sinner and an enemy of God. But that's for another thread.

I wasn't talking about lying. I was talking about killing. I guess that one went over your head. Specifically, about soldiers killing and how the clergy justifies it to us.

And Zeus spoke to me in a dream and told me he is okay with me lying as long as I sacrifice a ram once a year. My government taught me to kill and told me when it was okay to do it. The chaplains explained why it was okay with God despite his commandment.

Originally Posted by WhoDeyJon

Are you serious? LOL

One is in the constitution and is a clear violation of it, the other is a private entity.

Really? This one kind of made my day? I guess I should also be able to walk into any store naked.

You have a Constitutional right to a 10 round magazine?

If nakedness was good enough for Adam and Eve, why isn't it good enough for you? If they were created naked in God's image, does God wear clothes? Who is his fashion designer?

It's kinda messed up when it is a crime to walk down the street naked, but legal to carry an AR 15 down one.

[Wingnut]

Originally Posted by BengalsFan024

This WINS!!! Thread over.

You're right. It is a winner.

Because if a person can shoot that fast, they don't need a high capacity magazine.

Thus there shouldn't be any issue with high capacity magazines at all because they're unnecessary.

I guess it just takes some people a little longer to get there.

I knew you all would eventually figure it out.

[silenetwolf]

Originally Posted by Benton

Agreed, I was just disagreeing with the point that the Second is all about people shooting skeet or squirrels.



Voting and impeachment are tools of continuation. You don't vote out a dictator. You don't impeach an oligarchy. You tell them no. And sometimes when you tell people with armies no, they disagree and blow up your house.

As far as updating the amendments, I disagree. They weren't designed for how people try to weigh actions or inactions on every syllable. They were designed to be a general framework of basic principles making sure the government stayed free of outside influences and the people weren't controlled by the government.

Is the U.S. run by a dictatorship? No it isn't.
Can you show me a link that mentions an automatic musket?
You said it right their, BASIC framework.
In the 1700's we did not have the same framework as today, because the population was a lot smaller and the believes were a lot different.

[silenetwolf]

Originally Posted by Wingnut

You're right. It is a winner.

Because if a person can shoot that fast, they don't need a high capacity magazine.

Thus there shouldn't be any issue with high capacity magazines at all because they're unnecessary.

I guess it just takes some people a little longer to get there.

I knew you all would eventually figure it out.

We would take two 30 round banana clips and tape them together, thus giving us 60 rounds that we could fire quickly. it was just a matter of releasing the clip and switching it over. As far as full auto with the M16 A1 or A2 it was useless for two reasons. It is highly inaccurate and secondly, the weapon would jam before the clip was even emptied. Majority of the time the weapon was fired with a single shot, however a 3 round burst was occasionally used as suppressive fire if your position was being over run.

[silenetwolf]

Originally Posted by Wingnut

There is no "worldwide standard".



So if we remove the 3 round burst from the M16A2 or the M4, you're okay with them being available for civilian purchase since they are no longer classifiable as an assault rifle?

An AR 15 can be converted to automatic fire with a little know how and less than 15 minutes.

What do you call a M16A2 without the 3 round burst? An AR 15.

What do you classify an AR 14 chambered for .308 which is essentially a 7.62 round? Basically, the same as a M14.




Show me the studies. I'm a nerd like that.

The reduced recoil of the AR 15/M16/M4 is due to the buffer assembly and spring. Not the size of the round.

What is the rate of fire and the round of the AK 47?


The trigger mechanism is easily modified for full automatic fire, but in a rifle such as the M16/M4/AR 15 automatic fire and 3 round burst fire are highly inaccurate and the only time I ever saw them used was at the range.

AR 15s are available for purchase in .308, essentially the same as a M14.


Have you ever heard of the US Army? The M16A2 and M4 both fire semi-auto, both fire 5.56 rounds which is essentially the same as .223.



This picture has both 5.56 NATO and .223 civilian.

Can you tell me which is which?

Yeah, I didn't think so. Because they are essentially the same. That's what essentially the same means.

Even though they are still the same caliber, they are at the same time different. The NATO 5.56x45mm is a devastating round. When the high velocity round hits tissue it fragments, causing extreme damage.
That is where you need to be careful when talking about the rounds. NATO rounds even though they may be the same caliber are still different, and do not belong in the hands of civilians.

[silenetwolf]

Originally Posted by Lolli

If only there was some historic evidence to support this argument.

Russians

Germans

North Koreans

You left out the Vietnamese.

[silenetwolf]

OK here is what it comes down too. First off even though the 2nd amendment is not about hunting, it is the only purpose for owning a weapon today. Back when it was adopted the country was young and the government was fragile at best. The British were still a threat and if they managed to take over, then it would be necessary to use force to remove them.
Today that is no longer a problem. There are the National Guard, the regular military, and the reserves. There is no real threat from any country to take over the U.S.
That being the case, why is there a need to own an assault weapon? The only reason I can see for owning a weapon is if you enjoy hunting, and that is not done with assault weapons.

Secondly there was a discussion about the AR14, AR15 and the M16A1 and A2. You could quite easily buy a selector switch and install it in the 14 or the 15 and you would have a version of the M16. I say a version because, and this brings out the 3rd issue; that even though the rounds have the same caliber they are different. The true M16 fires what is considered a 5.56 NATO round, which is different than the .223 round. The difference being that with the NATO round, once it hits tissue the round actually fragments causing massive damage.

The same goes with the M14, yes it is a 7.62 round which is roughly equivalent to a .308, but again the M14 uses NATO rounds. The M14 is no longer used by the regular military, however special ops do continue to use them. The reason the regular army stopped using the M14 was because they were highly uncontrollable when put on auto.

Before the M14 the military primarily used the M1 and M1 garand which saw action from WWII all the way up to the Vietnam conflict. This was the predecessor of the M14. It was a semi automatic rifle that fired a .30 caliber round.

The bottom line is that these types of weapons should not be allowed in the hands of the civilian population, because they serve no real purpose other than the enjoyment of shooting them. If that is the case, join the military you will get plenty of time not only firing these weapons, but you will learn about them as well. One of the things we learned to do was too disassemble an M16 and put it back together in less than 5 minutes and this was in the dark.

One more thing the AK47 also fires a 7.62 x 39 round, and does not equal the M16 as far as range is concerned. AK47 is about 2500 yards max and we would shoot the M16 at 3000 yard max.

[Lolli]

I want to clarify an argument regarding the 2nd amendment. I have no interest in trying to find the post again, but somebody was poking at the absurdity of the firearms being used for defense vs. the government. They pointed out that the military has superior weaponry (tanks, planes, bombs, etc...) and that the military, being made up of volunteers, would be unlikely to turn against the civilian population anyway.

I agree that the scenario of civilians defending themselves against a military, that for some reason, began attacking the civilian population is highly unlikely. I believe there is a more likely situation that could occur where it is the civilians that rise up against the government. It can / will get to a point where our collective conscious can't take it anymore. You march on Washington and tell them to GTFO. Then hit the reboot button and form a more perfect union.

[Bonnie Bengal]

Originally Posted by 68Firebird

The real problem, in my opinion, is that there is no enforced treatment for the mentally ill. Many disturbed people are allowed to go around free as a bird until they snap. There's no forced institutionalization, no forced medicinal checks and balances, and authorities are allowed to do NOTHING if called about someone who seems dangerous unless they are actively working towards something dangerous and, even then, their rights at this point are that they aren't to be investigated as thoroughly as people would think they should.

If nature has dictated that someone has become mentally unstable, I feel bad for them and feel like they need help. Unfortunately, a lot of people aren't able or willing to help themselves and I think that people right in the head need to be able to work to help the mentally ill, even if it's through forced and regular treatment.

My brother in law works with the mentally ill for the state of Ohio. He said he gets calls ALL THE TIME from family members, friends, etc. of mentally unstable people who say that they are potentially a danger to themselves or others. He is NOT allowed to act upon this or call the police unless they give specific details and threats. Even then, he was told by the police that legally they cannot invade someone's privacy unless when they show up they are given a reason to be alarmed. Like, someone's waving a gun around or something.

It's all very sad on both sides of the coin. Until we make some drastic changes to our laws and regulations regarding the mentally ill, this stuff will not stop. If it's not a gun, it will be a knife. If not that, they will crash vehicles into buildings. if not that, they will assault folks, And on and on. Point being: These people will act out in violent ways.... BECAUSE THEY ARE CRAZY.

Agree. The inability to stop the violent and mentally ill is the larger problem. This article is eye opening. It's about a mom whose young mentally ill son regularly threatens to kill her, but nothing is done. She calls it I Am Adam Lanza's Mother because she feels she is in the same situation Lanza's mother was and is screaming for help but not getting it. http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/...enough-667485/

[silenetwolf]

You know what is really sad? The fact you can go to jail longer for cheating on your income tax than for shooting someone.
That is the rub right there. The laws need to be a lot stiffer.

[silenetwolf]

BTW a gun is not an M16 or any other type of assault weapon. A gun is a howitzer or some other type of artillery piece . You call an M16 a gun and you will have to pay hell for doing it.

[Benton]

Originally Posted by silenetwolf

Is the U.S. run by a dictatorship? No it isn't.
Can you show me a link that mentions an automatic musket?
You said it right their, BASIC framework.
In the 1700's we did not have the same framework as today, because the population was a lot smaller and the believes were a lot different.

First question. No, it isn't. Could it be? Sure. There exists that possiblity in any form of government, that leadership could manipulate the system. There wasn't even a term limit for the President until the last 60ish years.

Second, I'm not sure what you're talking about. Dry out and clarify.

Last, framework is framework. The basic doesn't change. If it does... it's not the same. I'm not lumping all the other stuff in there— DOMA, FEMA, SCOTUS opinions, etc. Just talking about the basic principles— freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom to be judged by your peers— should not be adjusted. Why? Cause they're basic. It's the basics that offer basic protection for both the people and the government.

The problem with touching those should be apparent. At different times, for different reasons,it's been easy to coax a majority of the people into temporarily supporting the suspension of those freedoms in the name of one cause or another. In retrospect, they were almost all really dumb ideas, from the U.S. detainment camps in WW II all the way up to the modern Patriot Act.

I support gun restrictions to a degree, but not gun bans. Just like I support tweaks to the Bill of Rights, but not just hacking away in fear.

[silenetwolf]

Originally Posted by Benton

First question. No, it isn't. Could it be? Sure. There exists that possiblity in any form of government, that leadership could manipulate the system. There wasn't even a term limit for the President until the last 60ish years.

Second, I'm not sure what you're talking about. Dry out and clarify.

Last, framework is framework. The basic doesn't change. If it does... it's not the same. I'm not lumping all the other stuff in there— DOMA, FEMA, SCOTUS opinions, etc. Just talking about the basic principles— freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom to be judged by your peers— should not be adjusted. Why? Cause they're basic. It's the basics that offer basic protection for both the people and the government.

The problem with touching those should be apparent. At different times, for different reasons,it's been easy to coax a majority of the people into temporarily supporting the suspension of those freedoms in the name of one cause or another. In retrospect, they were almost all really dumb ideas, from the U.S. detainment camps in WW II all the way up to the modern Patriot Act.

I support gun restrictions to a degree, but not gun bans. Just like I support tweaks to the Bill of Rights, but not just hacking away in fear.

1st point. The second amendment was adopted in 1791 which was right after the Revolutionary War. The country was young and was subject to being over run.

2nd point. There were no automatic weapons in 1791.

3rd You give me one good reason for a civilian to own an automatic weapon. Just one. This country is well protected by the military. Automatic weapons are owned by people just because they think it is cool to own one. That is the only valid reason, and again if you get off shooting those weapons join the military.

You can hardly expect an amendment that was adapted in 1791 to still remain the same. Don't get me wrong I fully support the 2nd amendment, but I fired enough automatic weapons in the military, there is no need for them in the civilian population.

[Wingnut]

Originally Posted by silenetwolf

We would take two 30 round banana clips and tape them together, thus giving us 60 rounds that we could fire quickly. it was just a matter of releasing the clip and switching it over. As far as full auto with the M16 A1 or A2 it was useless for two reasons. It is highly inaccurate and secondly, the weapon would jam before the clip was even emptied. Majority of the time the weapon was fired with a single shot, however a 3 round burst was occasionally used as suppressive fire if your position was being over run.

Taping your magazines together like that allows the one facing downward to get filled with debris which leads to stoppages.

You're the first veteran I've ever seen call a magazine a "clip."

Originally Posted by silenetwolf

Even though they are still the same caliber, they are at the same time different. The NATO 5.56x45mm is a devastating round. When the high velocity round hits tissue it fragments, causing extreme damage.
That is where you need to be careful when talking about the rounds. NATO rounds even though they may be the same caliber are still different, and do not belong in the hands of civilians.

That's why I didn't use the term "identical." I used the term "essentially the same" instead because the two calibers have very small differences.

I've already covered 5.56 round fragmentation in another thread...

http://boards.bengals.com/showpost.p...4&postcount=39

Civilian .223 is available in rounds which will also fragment.

http://www.hornady.com/store/223-Rem-55-gr-V-MAX

Originally Posted by silenetwolf

One more thing the AK47 also fires a 7.62 x 39 round, and does not equal the M16 as far as range is concerned. AK47 is about 2500 yards max and we would shoot the M16 at 3000 yard max.

You never fired a M16 at a 3000m target. Max effective range for a point target (a man) is 550m, for an area target (a house) is 800m which is approx. 1/2 mile away. Three thousand meters is almost 2 miles. You didn't shoot at a target almost 2 miles away with a M16 unless your target was the Earth. The max effective range of a M107 Barrett 50 cal sniper rifle is 2000m.

Originally Posted by silenetwolf

BTW a gun is not an M16 or any other type of assault weapon. A gun is a howitzer or some other type of artillery piece . You call an M16 a gun and you will have to pay hell for doing it.

What about calling a magazine a "clip"?

[Wingnut]

Originally Posted by Lolli

I can take that coin, put it in a potato gun, and kill somebody. Should we outlaw PVC, compressed air (or aerosol) and coins?

Originally Posted by Lolli

But the more threatened I feel that someone will restrict my right to purchase a gun, the more I want to own one.

Why?

You can kill someone with a coin, MacGyver.

Imagine what you can do with a roll of quarters.

[yellowxdiscipline]

Originally Posted by x_Bengals_x

With mass shootings getting more and more common have they changed your stance on guns one way or the other? I've always wanted a gun thinking it was important for the home, I carry one just about every day at work but was never able to convince my wife to let us have one. She has changed her stance on guns and I was wondering if anyone else has as well.

I see a lot of people are turning in and getting rid of guns now but this has made us ready to go buy one.

Thats funny because they really arent. Its sad how when a tragedy like this occurs people want to put the focus on guns, when the focus should be on the person weilding the weapons. Guns are a scapegoat, but the real problem is mental illness, recognizing the signs and treating it. Legislation banning semi automatic weapons isnt a solution to the problem. If a mentally ill person wants to go out and get an uzi or AR-15, they will ban or no ban. Its just that simple. Banning firearms will be as about as effective as making narcotics illegal. Yea they may be illegal, but they'll still be obtainable.

[Benton]

Originally Posted by silenetwolf

1st point. The second amendment was adopted in 1791 which was right after the Revolutionary War. The country was young and was subject to being over run.

2nd point. There were no automatic weapons in 1791.

3rd You give me one good reason for a civilian to own an automatic weapon. Just one. This country is well protected by the military. Automatic weapons are owned by people just because they think it is cool to own one. That is the only valid reason, and again if you get off shooting those weapons join the military.

You can hardly expect an amendment that was adapted in 1791 to still remain the same. Don't get me wrong I fully support the 2nd amendment, but I fired enough automatic weapons in the military, there is no need for them in the civilian population.

A, Correct. Although that has nothing to do with the possibility of a military coup, changes to allow for 'presidents for life,' or other ways people lose representative government. Swing again?

B, Really? Go on.

C, Two words: Red Dawn.

Another word: equality. The last decade or so has people in fear— terrorists, cops who sometimes show up at the wrong house in riot gear and shoot the wrong people, roving packs of illegal alien drug lords bent on decapitating female virgins. Things get exploited ridiculously and, for some, having a semiautomatic firearm is more of a comfort than your automusket. Whatever that is.

But yeah, I do expect those fundamentals to stay the same. They're not like comerce laws or torts. They're the basics to make sure people don't have to be afraid of being oppressed.

The problem is in keeping people safe while ensuring those basic measures are kept intact. Like the difference in freedom of speech and yelling fire in a theater. There's a balance in the second and owning landmines, it's just finding it.

[silenetwolf]

Originally Posted by Benton

A, Correct. Although that has nothing to do with the possibility of a military coup, changes to allow for 'presidents for life,' or other ways people lose representative government. Swing again?

B, Really? Go on.

C, Two words: Red Dawn.

Another word: equality. The last decade or so has people in fear— terrorists, cops who sometimes show up at the wrong house in riot gear and shoot the wrong people, roving packs of illegal alien drug lords bent on decapitating female virgins. Things get exploited ridiculously and, for some, having a semiautomatic firearm is more of a comfort than your automusket. Whatever that is.

But yeah, I do expect those fundamentals to stay the same. They're not like comerce laws or torts. They're the basics to make sure people don't have to be afraid of being oppressed.

The problem is in keeping people safe while ensuring those basic measures are kept intact. Like the difference in freedom of speech and yelling fire in a theater. There's a balance in the second and owning landmines, it's just finding it.

Red Dawn? Are you serious? You are going to use a fictional movie to back up your claim.? Wow, not even going to comment on that other than to say that they used 30.06 and .308 along with bows. The Soviet Union no longer exists, it is now Russia, and they have their hands full just trying to settle things down over there, than to worry about us. You don't bite the hand that feeds you.

In 1791 there were no such things as automatic weapons, so why would the forefathers put into the amendment something that did not exist. As I said, I fully support the 2nd amendment, but automatic weapons in the hands of civilians is a bomb waiting to explode. All I am saying is to revamp the 2nd amendment to keep these types of weapons out of civilian hands.

[WhoDeyJon]

No tactical situation is ideal.

If you can't get to the ammo, then the size of the magazine really doesn't matter. Does it? You might only get one shot. If adrenaline takes over you'll be more likely to hit your target with a shotgun than a semi-auto with a high capacity magazine. If the bad guy has a semi-auto he theoretically has a higher rate of fire, but only one projectile per trigger squeeze. If you have a shotgun with 00 buck you'll have multiple projectiles spread over a pattern with each trigger squeeze thus increasing your probablity of a hit even if you don't have the time to take a well aimed shot.

I'm more familiar with the variables than you are.

The size of the magazine WOULD matter. If I have 10 in the mag compared to one in the barrel..............I'll let you do the math. It's greater than 8, less than 10. Agreed, IF I only had one shot, then yes I would want the shotgun. But that's not what I am discussing. I am discussing a loaded 10 round mag verse a single shot.

Are you denying you used it as a perjorative? Be careful. God is watching.

I used it how I used it. Liberals are antigun typically, and Fred revealed he was in large part as well. If you don't like the word liberal, don't be one.

She has no responsibility to secure her own weapons? LOL

Do you leave your doors to your house unlocked? Do you leave your car unattended with the keys in the ignition?

She taught her son with behavioral problems how to operate firearms and let him have access to them. And you're claiming she doesn't bear any personal responsibility?

So I guess if one of your children accidentally shoots themselves with one of your firearms you don't bear any responsibility because you didn't secure your firearm and ammo?

Unbelievable.

She obtained her guns legally. They were secured in her home. "Behavioral problems"....the man had Asperger's. Even so-called experts in this field said there is no evidence whatsoever of a link between Asperger's and behavior such as this. We have a goo friend who has Asperger's who we would feel 100% safe with shooting a gun. Let's stop blaming this horrific event on Asperger's.

If I had not taught my children how to handle a firearm, or let them take it out in the woods at 10 years ld with their buddies, then yes I would share responsibility. But if my 20 year old son stole them from my house, that's an entirely different story. What's unbelievable is how you don't get this.

Except the mother he didn't lock up her firearms. Right?

Huh?

I wasn't talking about lying. I was talking about killing. I guess that one went over your head. Specifically, about soldiers killing and how the clergy justifies it to us.

And Zeus spoke to me in a dream and told me he is okay with me lying as long as I sacrifice a ram once a year. My government taught me to kill and told me when it was okay to do it. The chaplains explained why it was okay with God despite his commandment.

So you're arguing that killing a person in war is unjustifiable? Why did you join the military with this view??????

You have a Constitutional right to a 10 round magazine?

If nakedness was good enough for Adam and Eve, why isn't it good enough for you? If they were created naked in God's image, does God wear clothes? Who is his fashion designer?

It's kinda messed up when it is a crime to walk down the street naked, but legal to carry an AR 15 down one.

My constitutional right in regards to the 2nd amendment is not limited. You want to limit it.

You know that sin entered into the world and Adam and Ever hid themselves, and God provided skin for clothing, right? Take it up with God.

[RhythmicGeek]

Originally Posted by silenetwolf

You know what is really sad? The fact you can go to jail longer for cheating on your income tax than for shooting someone.
That is the rub right there. The laws need to be a lot stiffer.

I'm for the old way of doing things, where jail was nothing more than where you were held awaiting trial. None of this prison system crap. You stole? You get a T branded into your hand. You steal enough, rape, kill, etc? Death.

[silenetwolf]

Originally Posted by Wingnut

Taping your magazines together like that allows the one facing downward to get filled with debris which leads to stoppages.

You're the first veteran I've ever seen call a magazine a "clip."


That's why I didn't use the term "identical." I used the term "essentially the same" instead because the two calibers have very small differences.

I've already covered 5.56 round fragmentation in another thread...

http://boards.bengals.com/showpost.p...4&postcount=39

Civilian .223 is available in rounds which will also fragment.



http://www.hornady.com/store/223-Rem-55-gr-V-MAX


You never fired a M16 at a 3000m target. Max effective range for a point target (a man) is 550m, for an area target (a house) is 800m which is approx. 1/2 mile away. Three thousand meters is almost 2 miles. You didn't shoot at a target almost 2 miles away with a M16 unless your target was the Earth. The max effective range of a M107 Barrett 50 cal sniper rifle is 2000m.


What about calling a magazine a "clip"?

28
Describe the ranges for the M16/A2 Rifle.

• Maximum Range - 3,600 meters
• Max Effective Range for a Point Target - 550 meters
• Max Effective Range for an Area Target - 800 meters

http://www.armystudyguide.com/conten...dy-guide.shtml




The 20 round was called a magazine.
The 30 round was called a banana clip.

And yes we did fire at 3,000 meters.

[Bengalzona]

Originally Posted by silenetwolf

28
Describe the ranges for the M16/A2 Rifle.

• Maximum Range - 3,600 meters
• Max Effective Range for a Point Target - 550 meters
• Max Effective Range for an Area Target - 800 meters

http://www.armystudyguide.com/conten...dy-guide.shtml




The 20 round was called a magazine.
The 30 round was called a banana clip.

And yes we did fire at 3,000 meters.

Were you in the Marines, Silent?