Jump to content

Assault Rifle

TahoeHorn

By TahoeHorn
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

BabaYaga

BabaYaga 15209

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

My point is clearly thought out and supportable

Ban....regulate.....ban....regulate.....ban.....regulate

Your 'point' is an intractable refusal to see any other points beyond confiscations and bans.  You want to ban all semi-auto platforms.  We get it.  Won't work.  Impossible to enforce.  Impossible to pass.  But by all means, please have that be your platform.  Funny how those stats about "overwhelming support" for "common sense" laws break down when you get down to specifics.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BabaYaga

BabaYaga 15209

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

You're a fucking moron.

You're a fucking moron.

  • “While 13 gun massacres (the killing of 4 or more people at one time) occurred in Australia in the 18 years before the NFA, resulting in more than one hundred deaths, in the 14 following years (and up to the present), there were no gun massacres.”
  • “In the seven years before the NFA (1989-1995), the average annual firearm suicide death rate per 100,000 was 2.6 (with a yearly range of 2.2 to 2.9); in the seven years after the buyback was fully implemented (1998-2004), the average annual firearm suicide rate was 1.1 (yearly range 0.8 to 1.4).”
  • “In the seven years before the NFA, the average annual firearm homicide rate per 100,000 was .43 (range .27 to .60) while for the seven years post NFA, the average annual firearm homicide rate was .25 (range .16 to .33).”
  • “[T]he drop in firearm deaths was largest among the type of firearms most affected by the buyback.”

I bolded the important one for you. Weird that they haven't had a single mass shooting since they enacted the NFA. Weird.

Please, tell me more:

 

Australia has seen a rise in gun crime over the past decade despite imposing an outright ban on many firearms in the late 1990s.

Charges for crimes involving firearms have increased dramatically across the island nation’s localities in the past decade according to an analysis of government statistics conducted by The New Daily. It found that gun crimes have spiked dramatically in the Australian states of Victoria, New South Wales, South Australia, and Tasmania. In Victoria, pistol-related offenses doubled over the last decade. In New South Wales, they tripled. The other states saw smaller but still significant increases.

Experts said that the country’s 1996 ban on most semi-automatic firearms has actually driven criminals to those guns. “The ban on semi-automatics created demand by criminals for other types of guns,” professor Philip Alpers of the University of Sydney told The New Daily. “The criminal’s gun of choice today is the semi-automatic pistol.”

[…]Regardless of the reasons for the jump in gun crime, the numbers reveal the true size of Australia’s illegal gun market. “Taken together, the data suggests that despite our tough anti-gun laws, thousands of weapons are either being stolen or entering the country illegally,” The New Daily said. “The fourfold rise in handgun-related charges in NSW in the past decade points to the existence of a big illegal market for concealable firearms that seems to have been underestimated in the past.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anastasis

Anastasis 23393

Posted
Posted
Just now, Brian Fantana said:

Well we might as well do nothing because nothing will work. Fuck a few kid's lives amirite

There are some steps that we can take that will have the support of the vast majority of gun owners, but people want to talk about Australia instead. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nivek

Nivek 16853

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, BabaYaga said:

You are wrong.  Flat wrong.  Again, it was designed as a small game varmint round.  This isn't a debatable topic.  

 

Dig a little on the history of the .222/.223 family.  Then on hunting regulation in place today on it's usage hunting.  Then get back to us.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.56×45mm_NATO

The development of the cartridge that eventually became the .223 Remington (from which 5.56mm NATO would eventually be developed) would be intrinsically linked to the development of a new lightweight combat rifle. The cartridge and rifle were developed as one unit by Fairchild Industries, Remington Arms, and several engineers working toward a goal developed by U.S. Continental Army Command (CONARC). Early development work began in 1957. A project to create a small-calibre, high-velocity (SCHV) firearm was created. Eugene Stoner of Armalite was invited to scale down the AR-10 (7.62mm) design. Winchester was also invited to participate.[9][4] The parameters that were requested by CONARC were:

  • .22 Caliber
  • Bullet exceeding supersonic speed at 500 yards[9][4]
  • Rifle weight of 6 lb
  • Magazine capacity of 20 rounds
  • Select fire for both semi-automatic and fully automatic use
  • Penetration of US steel helmet through one side at 500 yards
  • Penetration of .135-inch steel plate at 500 yards
  • Accuracy and ballistics equal to M2 ball ammunition (.30-06 Garand)
  • Wounding ability equal to M1 Carbine [4]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
BabaYaga

BabaYaga 15209

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Nivek said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.56×45mm_NATO

The development of the cartridge that eventually became the .223 Remington (from which 5.56mm NATO would eventually be developed) would be intrinsically linked to the development of a new lightweight combat rifle. The cartridge and rifle were developed as one unit by Fairchild Industries, Remington Arms, and several engineers working toward a goal developed by U.S. Continental Army Command (CONARC). Early development work began in 1957. A project to create a small-calibre, high-velocity (SCHV) firearm was created. Eugene Stoner of Armalite was invited to scale down the AR-10 (7.62mm) design. Winchester was also invited to participate.[9][4] The parameters that were requested by CONARC were:

  • .22 Caliber
  • Bullet exceeding supersonic speed at 500 yards[9][4]
  • Rifle weight of 6 lb
  • Magazine capacity of 20 rounds
  • Select fire for both semi-automatic and fully automatic use
  • Penetration of US steel helmet through one side at 500 yards
  • Penetration of .135-inch steel plate at 500 yards
  • Accuracy and ballistics equal to M2 ball ammunition (.30-06 Garand)
  • Wounding ability equal to M1 Carbine [4]

Last part should give you pause:  wounding equal to the M1 carbine.  The same carbine oft maligned through three wars as being woefully underwhelming.  And as not stated, was the round was and still is a small varmint round.  Intended for small, thin skinned game.  And as stated, it is such a small round many states make it illegal to hunt larger game with it.  Soldiers hate it.  It's a small, crap little round.  It's deadly.  Most rounds can be.  But it's long overdue for a replacement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TahoeHorn

TahoeHorn 107

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
57 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

...  Let's ban outright every AR platform in the country. ...

The whole point of the thread is to find out what that means.  I have no idea (seriously) what that means.  The last time we tried to do this it was a joke.  The manufacturers made tiny modifications to their models and kept right on selling.  They actually sold more because people were scared.

What is an "AR platform"?

And how specifically do you buy back the inventory?  Do you pay above or below market value?  One of the problems with gun buy backs is that people sell guns worth less than the buy back price.  A dealer will buy crap guns and take them to the buy back.  How will you prevent buying all the broken guns in Afghanistan, the Congo, Russia and China?  If you're paying $500 you will get lots of crap from Africa but not my brother's guns.  I've got a semi-auto .22 I'd love to sell for $500.

 

 

Edited by TahoeHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
FUBAR

FUBAR 4

Posted
Posted

Well, if we want to save lives, let’s ban alcohol, cars, knives, guns, axes, machetes, rope, etc.  These are the same dipshits who demanded that we limit the speed limit to 55 mph to save lives and gas.  Fools

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 45546

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

The whole point of the thread is to find out what that means.  I have no idea (seriously) what that means.  The last time we tried to do this it was a joke.  The manufacturers made tiny modifications to their models and kept right on selling.  They actually sold more because people were scared.

What is an "AR platform"?

And how specifically do you buy back the inventory?  Do you pay above or below market value?  One of the problems with gun buy backs is that people sell guns worth less than the buy back price.  A dealer will buy crap guns and take them to the buy back.  How will you prevent buying all the broken guns in Afghanistan, the Congo, Russia and China?  If you're paying $500 you will get lots of crap from Africa but not my brother's guns.  I've got a semi-auto .22 I'd love to sell for $500.

 

 

I didn't say that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 45546

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, FUBAR said:

Well, if we want to save lives, let’s ban alcohol, cars, knives, guns, axes, machetes, rope, etc.  These are the same dipshits who demanded that we limit the speed limit to 55 mph to save lives and gas.  Fools

Uh, the 55 mph speed limit saved gas and lives.  You have it exactly wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 45546

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Last part should give you pause:  wounding equal to the M1 carbine.  The same carbine oft maligned through three wars as being woefully underwhelming.  And as not stated, was the round was and still is a small varmint round.  Intended for small, thin skinned game.  And as stated, it is such a small round many states make it illegal to hunt larger game with it.  Soldiers hate it.  It's a small, crap little round.  It's deadly.  Most rounds can be.  But it's long overdue for a replacement.

Well, the M1 carbine was developed for a specific duty.  The specs quoted essentially said that the new weapon must not be any worse than the M1 in wounding capability but most also meet the higher standards also specified.

It's almost as if none of you have ever engineered a product.  Engineering is a complex process of trading off one feature or problem for another.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TahoeHorn

TahoeHorn 107

Posted
  • Author
Posted

One thing about hunting or killing people that bears heavily on this topic:

There is a type of round that kills, but doesn't kill quickly.  You need a much more powerful round to kill quickly.  If you are in a war or shooting game there is a need to drop the target immediately.  It's not good to have your game run away and die a gruesome death a few hours later.  That's cruel and you lose your game.  It's not good to have the bad guy die an hour later.  In the meantime he'll shoot you.  He needs to go down in a heap immediately. 

BUT, if you are fighting at a distance and the enemy can't shoot back immediately, or if you hit him with a bunch of rounds up close (with select fire or full auto), maybe the smaller round works, especially because you can have more ammo.

 

The assault rifle carries the "wounding" cartridge.  The battle rifle carries the "killing" cartridge.  Look at my chart in post 110.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Parliament

Parliament 14131

Posted
Posted

Sorry to go all "It's not a clip, it's a MAGAZINE!" on you, but there are inaccuracies in there, and they are important. The 1st intermediate military cartridge of any significance was the German 8mm Kurtz, developed for their STG44 late in WW2.

They learned that most engagements happened at fairly close range and their full-power 8mm cartridge was more than they needed. Worse, it added unecessary weight and recoil to the soldier. Going to the 8mm Kurtz allowed them to fire it in full auto and achieve fire superiority.

The Americans took 20 years to admit the same. Ironically, the 1st 5.56 round was very lethal at intermediate range. It was fast and fragile. When bullets hit body they fragmented dramatically. The Vietnamese were terrified of it.

We use 7.62 NATO today on sniper rifles where we need it's longer range, and in LMG's for that reason and a few others.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites
FUBAR

FUBAR 4

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, jimmyjazz said:

Uh, the 55 mph speed limit saved gas and lives.  You have it exactly wrong.

I knew that. I’m old enough to have spent  tens of hours driving to Colorado on ski trips at 55 mph.  My point was  why stop there?  45 will save more lives and gas than 55.....  and so on and so on. It never ends. But my time is limited to about 30 years, I have little confidence in the generation behind me to understand how precious liberty really is.  

Edited by FUBAR
Misspelled
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JBJ

JBJ 3648

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

I realize this has moved into "gun control" and away from "assault weapons", but I don't want to wade into that other thread.

I recently had a conversation with a guy who made a pretty compelling point for his high-capacity high-rate weapons on his ranch, far removed from first responders, etc.  It led to a soft conclusion on my part that perhaps a better solution would be some sort of shift in graduated licensing where such weapons aren't completely outlawed but rather subject to stricter standards of ownership.  To say that I can assert the solution right at the moment would be lying . . . but it seems like it could be a reasonable compromise.

The city folk vs country folk dynamic is very strong on this issue.

 

I don't hate the idea behind licensing.  The French do this and they arguably have more gun rights than Americans currently do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
F250

F250 28680

Posted
Posted
6 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

I realize this has moved into "gun control" and away from "assault weapons", but I don't want to wade into that other thread.

I recently had a conversation with a guy who made a pretty compelling point for his high-capacity high-rate weapons on his ranch, far removed from first responders, etc.  It led to a soft conclusion on my part that perhaps a better solution would be some sort of shift in graduated licensing where such weapons aren't completely outlawed but rather subject to stricter standards of ownership.  To say that I can assert the solution right at the moment would be lying . . . but it seems like it could be a reasonable compromise.

This makes sense in that it might make it more difficult for the crazies to get a hold of a weapon. Of course this will depend on the structure of the licensing.

Personally, I think a reasonable compromise is stricter licensing and the limitation of magazines. Basically take Twicehorns idea and build tight licenses behind it. There would also need to be no grandfather rules.

I wouldn't compromise on the ban of semi-automatic rifles but would go along with a strict license structure and a limit on magazine capacity.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Johnny Sack

Johnny Sack 8397

Posted
Posted
On 3/30/2018 at 2:43 PM, jimmyjazz said:

It worked in Australia.  It worked magnificently.  (Cue the "but Australia is DIFFFFFFFERENT!" bullshit even though they're likely the single most similar country to the US on the fucking planet).

Do you think nobody has heard these arguments before?

The homicide rate in the USA dropped more than it did in Australia since they banned guns. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Johnny Sack

Johnny Sack 8397

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

Now tell us what their respective gun-related homicide rates are.

Not sure.  Lower.  Just like New Hampshire and Utah's is 1/6th of Louisiana's.  And for the same reason Louisiana has a lot more NFL talent than New Hampshire.  Demographics.

Australia's overall homicide rate was declining before the gun ban.  As was ours.  Ours has declined more than Australia's since they banned most guns.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Dennison

David Dennison 18652

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Johnny Sack said:

Not sure.  Lower.  Just like New Hampshire and Utah's is 1/6th of Louisiana's.  And for the same reason Louisiana has a lot more NFL talent than New Hampshire.  Demographics.

Australia's overall homicide rate was declining before the gun ban.  As was ours.  Ours has declined more than Australia's since they banned most guns.

How does Australia's gun-related homicide rate compare to our gun-related homicide rate?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BabaYaga

BabaYaga 15209

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, David Dennison said:

That, ladies and gents, is a strawman.

As opposed to the false dichotomy around the right to bear arms being worth the lives of young men and women being casually tossed around here?
 
No amount of gun control is going to stop someone hell-bent on killing someone.  When the ambassador to Australia who helped craft the bill says it won't work in the US, maybe it's time to change your strategy (such as the DNC Vice Chair did in calling for an outright repeal of the 2nd.  That's my favorite and suggestion that the DNC embrace whole-heartily).
 
Again, notice the left gives zero consideration to enforcing existing gun laws, or correcting the failures  in our authorities taking action when warming signs appear, mental health treatment (coincidence I'm sure virtually every shooter was on psych meds, or that Abilify is now one of most prescribed drugs in the nation), or the absurdity of gun-free zones where 100% of these shootings occur.
 
But yeah, Australia. 
 
An island with virtually no border concerns, nor history of constitutional gun precedents, and a population about the size of one of our larger cities is the perfect model for gun confiscation (which is what you are advocating.  Not bans.  Confiscation).  I'm sure no violence will arise from this course of action at all....none at all
 
Then there's this:
 

"More recently, the country's The New Daily gained access to "previously unpublished data for firearms offences" and reported a surge in crime "including a massive 83 per cent increase in firearms offences in NSW between 2005/06 and 2014/15, and an even bigger jump in Victoria over the same period."

"Australians may be more at risk from gun crime than ever before with the country's underground market for firearms ballooning in the past decade," the report added. "[T]he national ban on semi-automatic weapons following the Port Arthur massacre had spawned criminal demand for handguns."

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 45546

Posted
Posted (edited)
Quote

No amount of gun control is going to stop someone hell-bent on killing someone.

BULL. SHIT.

That's a provably false statement.  You start off on a hysterical rant from a position of weakness.  Nope.

Edited by jimmyjazz
Link to comment
Share on other sites
BabaYaga

BabaYaga 15209

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

BULL. SHIT.

That's a provably false statement.  You start off on a hysterical rant from a position of weakness.  Nope.

Then prove it.  Whitman killed more than a dozen people with a deer rifle and his parents with a knife.  

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 45546

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Then prove it.  Whitman killed more than a dozen people with a deer rifle and his parents with a knife.  

 

 

LOL.  So your argument that "no amount of gun control is going to stop someone hell-bent on killing someone" is to evoke another example of someone gunning people down?  That makes sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BabaYaga

BabaYaga 15209

Posted
Posted
Just now, jimmyjazz said:

LOL.  So your argument that "no amount of gun control is going to stop someone hell-bent on killing someone" is to evoke another example of someone gunning people down?  That makes sense.

Oh, we banning deer rifles now also?  AND knives.  Quite the bill you are proposing.  Good luck with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...