Guns: how much longer will it take ....

@sceletera,

Quote:

So clearly you think some guns are more effective for killing and maiming people than others. We can agree on that.

I don't think that. A gun is a gun is a gun, as I have said. Don't try and put words in my mouth that you think favor your ill informed opinion on guns.

Quote:

Now it is a question of whether we can identify those weapons and whether we should try to restrict them in some fashion so that they are not in the hands of civilians.

What is the difference between a Ruger Ranch Rifle and an AR-15? Until you can tell me the difference, you can't even begin to guess which guns should be banned and which are ok.

BTW, you can also stop skipping over entire sections of my posts. It shows you can't even hold an honest debate if you skip the parts that prove you wrong.

1 Reply

@Baldimo,

Baldimo wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
To be fair, the M-16 doesn't have a rifled barrel and an AR-15 does. That is why the M-16 bullet tumbles and bounces around while an AR-15 has a tight spiral.

I'm not sure where you received your info, but the M-16 does indeed have a rifled barrel, almost ALL modern day rifles have rifling in them. The "tumble" I was referring to dealt with how the bullet reacted when it hit an enemy, the light weight 5.56 round is meant to bounce around in the body and not punch through like the heavier 7.62 round.

Rifle bullets want to travel with their blunt end forward and pointy end backwards.

The spinning of the bullet from the rifling is enough to keep it oriented point forward when the bullet is traveling through the air.

This rotation is not enough to hold the point-forward position when the bullet is passing through flesh, and unless the bullet deforms and loses its shape (like a hunting or dum-dum bullet will do), it will flip around and go backwards when it passes through flesh.

Flipping around leads to a brief moment where the bullet is going sideways.

The bullets used in M-16s by the US military are not able to maintain structural integrity when they pass sideways through flesh at high enough speeds, and will violently shatter the instant that they flip sideways, effectively performing much like a hunting or dum-dum bullet at that point.

When fired from an M-4 with a 14 inch barrel (as opposed to an M-16 with a 20 inch barrel), the barrel is not long enough to achieve sufficient velocity for this effect to happen -- especially if the gun is being fired at a distant target.

It is possible that the newer ammo that they've come out with will shatter when it flips sideways even at lower velocities. I've not taken the time to look into this newer ammo they've developed.

0 Replies

@Baldimo,

My understanding that the spin to weight ratio wasn't enough in the M-16 to keep the bullet from tumbling in the air, thus you'd get keyholes in targets instead of nice round holes. I was speaking to the non-gun audience, I suppose I should have thought better and said that the early M-16's had a slow twist rate which when used with the heavier 55gr bullets caused the bullet to tumble in the air, as well as when hitting a target.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

Self defense requires at least five round detachable rifle magazines and ten round detachable pistol magazines.

By the way, magazine limits can have unintended consequences.

Before the 1994 law limiting magazine sizes for the next ten years, small handguns tended to use tiny calibers. Serious calibers tended to be found in full-sized handguns.

But when magazines started being limited to ten rounds, gun makers started sizing their handguns around ten round magazines. This led to small handguns being chambered in potent calibers instead of little mouse calibers.

The Freedom Haters flipped out over this. They denounced it as the gun industry intentionally increasing the power of the small handguns typically used in crime, not even realizing that the reason that it happened was the market responding to the legislation they had passed.

The Freedom Haters proposed new legislation outlawing small handguns altogether.

Had this legislation passed, it likely would have resulted in the .45 becoming the standard civilian handgun round. Ten rounds of .45 ammo would have been able to fit in the minimum allowed size, and there would have been no advantage in using smaller rounds if you could not make the gun smaller or squeeze more bullets in it.

However, the NRA's power had begun to be felt by then, and this new legislation failed.

0 Replies

@Glennn,

Quote:

I split the number on those killings done with both rifle and pistol. It comes out to 95 killings done with rifles, and 212 killings with pistols. It does not appear that rifles are preferred by mass shooters.

Your math and logic is screwy. Half the the killings in Orlando were not done by a pistol. Half of the killings in San Bernadino were not done by a pistol.

But let's just assume your comments have been correct.
Mass shootings are done with pistols on a 5-1 ratio
Deaths by pistols should be distributed in a 5-1 ratio if rifles and pistols are equally deadly.

Your math - 212 to 152 (If we simply add in Las Vegas rifle deaths). It clearly isn't a 5-1 ratio. It is a 4 to 3 ratio based on your numbers. Rifles are almost 4 times more deadly than pistols when it comes to mass shootings.

0 Replies

@McGentrix,

The misunderstandings really don't matter. This is what does matter.

The courts have ruled that it is constitutional to ban some weapons, namely those called assault weapons in various laws.

Your argument that all semiautomatic rifles are equal is a double edged sword.

It works well for you as long as you can keep enough gun owners emotionally engaged to want to protect their rifles that would not be banned under assault weapon bans. We already see some cracks in that as various gun owners have posted videos of them cutting apart their Ar-15 or speaking publicly about supporting some sort of gun controls.

But let's assume for a moment that another assault weapons ban is passed. The gun owners no longer vote as a bloc and the ban is passed. It is challenged repeatedly and the courts rule the same way they have in the past. Stare decisis would point us in that direction.

So "assault weapons" can be and are banned.

But other semiautomatics are no different from those assault weapons. We have years of gun owners such as orally, McGentrix, Baldimo making that argument. They are the authorities on this issue. Heck, pistol grips are just cosmetic!!!!!!

Since all semiautomatics are exactly the same and since some semiautomatics can be banned, any gun that is the same as those that are banned can be banned. You have made the argument they are all the same and would have no legal defense to now claim they are different under a Constitutional challenge. At that point, it would only require the ban to be extended to all weapons that are the same and it would be impossible for you to stop it in the courts and unlikely for you to repeal it.

2 Replies

@Baldimo,

Quote:

I don't think that. A gun is a gun is a gun, as I have said. Don't try and put words in my mouth that you think favor your ill informed opinion on guns.

So you don't think the M16 is designed to maim and kill people and is more effective at that than an M1 or a .22 bolt action rifle?
I think most people would disagree with you and some of the reasons why have been listed by others on this board.

1 Reply

@sceletera,

I can see your point, however there are a lot "what if's" in your writing.

There is one giant problem with your idea though;

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Despite what could happen, until THAT is changed there will be no mass gun banning.

2 Replies

@McGentrix,

Quote:

Despite what could happen, until THAT is changed there will be no mass gun banning.

You and I don't, however, get to determine what the amendment means. A future US Supreme Court with a liberal majority could change the interpretation in light of social and political pressure, much as the current conservative majority has.

1 Reply

@Baldimo,

Quote:

I do admit that, why do you think I wouldn't want to be left armed only with a bolt action rifle in the event we ever have to fight against our govt

Um, and how does that happen?

1 Reply

@sceletera,

sceletera wrote:

Your argument that all semiautomatic rifles are equal is a double edged sword.

It works well for you as long as you can keep enough gun owners emotionally engaged to want to protect their rifles that would not be banned under assault weapon bans.

That is not the source of the opposition to banning pistol grips. The hunters are gullible enough to believe you when you tell them that you aren't after their hunting weapons. They're pretty complacent.

sceletera wrote:

But let's assume for a moment that another assault weapons ban is passed. The gun owners no longer vote as a bloc and the ban is passed.

Assuming for a moment that the NRA is powerless and unable to oppose this ban.....

sceletera wrote:

It is challenged repeatedly and the courts rule the same way they have in the past.

Assuming for a moment that the Supreme Court decides to willfully disregard the Constitution.....

sceletera wrote:

Stare decisis would point us in that direction.

Wrong. The Supreme Court is not bound to uphold the rulings of judges on lower courts.

sceletera wrote:

But other semiautomatics are no different from those assault weapons. We have years of gun owners such as orally, McGentrix, Baldimo making that argument. They are the authorities on this issue. Heck, pistol grips are just cosmetic!!!!!!

Since all semiautomatics are exactly the same and since some semiautomatics can be banned, any gun that is the same as those that are banned can be banned. You have made the argument they are all the same and would have no legal defense to now claim they are different under a Constitutional challenge. At that point, it would only require the ban to be extended to all weapons that are the same and it would be impossible for you to stop it in the courts and unlikely for you to repeal it.

Since we're dealing with a hypothetical where the NRA is powerless and the Supreme Court is willfully ignoring the Constitution, probably any sort of civil rights violation could be passed in such a situation.

1 Reply

@hightor,

hightor wrote:

You and I don't, however, get to determine what the amendment means. A future US Supreme Court with a liberal majority could change the interpretation in light of social and political pressure, much as the current conservative majority has.

The fact that liberals hate the Constitution and want to "interpret" it to say that we have no civil rights is exactly why it is so important to vote for Republicans.

1 Reply

The formation of the union and adoption of the constitution was conditioned on acceptance of the bill of rights. Remove any part of the bill of rights PARTICULARLY the 2'nd amendment, and the union itself becomes illegitimate. That would amount to reneging on an agreement.

2 Replies

@gungasnake,

Quote:

and the union itself becomes illegitimate.

That is exactly what progressives, globalists and Islamists want. Destroy our Constitution, destroy the country and the world loses what freedom it still has.

0 Replies

@sceletera,

Quote:

So you don't think the M16 is designed to maim and kill people and is more effective at that than an M1 or a .22 bolt action rifle?

I have already addressed this, civilians can't own an M-16, why are you hung up on a gun that can't be owned by the public?
Why won't you answer the question about the Ranch Rifle and the AR-15? I have asked you several times but you keep skipping over the question and talking about the M-16.

Quote:

I think most people would disagree with you and some of the reasons why have been listed by others on this board.

Who on this board with any real understanding of weapons has posted even a reasoned argument against the AR-15? You can't even answer a simple question about 2 rifles. Until any of those people can tell me why one should be banned and the other one is ok, you have no reason to keep bring up the M-16.

0 Replies

@hightor,

Quote:

Um, and how does that happen?

How does what happen, fighting our govt? Let's hope they stick to the Constitution and we don't have to find out. I love my country, I don't trust my govt, I don't care who is in power.

1 Reply

@Baldimo,

I'm trying to envision a situation where "the government" becomes a target of an armed citizenry. So what are you going to do? Shoot up a Post Office? Bomb the Murrah Federal Building? Assassinate a president? That's all been done, Cap. It sounds like wannabe Minutemen rationalizing their obsession with firearms, like little boys who never grow up.

2 Replies

@hightor,

Quote:

like little boys who never grow up.

That sounds more like the side that is against the 2nd amendment. There is definitely a shortage of men in America but the majority are probably gun owners. Not murders or criminals, gun owners.

The society is suffering from acute emasculation, and that is not good.

0 Replies

@hightor,

Quote:

I'm trying to envision a situation where "the government" becomes a target of an armed citizenry.

You have it twisted, it is the citizenry who would become the targets of the government. Isn't that one of the things the left has been screaming about Trump? The Fascist that he is...

Quote:

So what are you going to do? Shoot up a Post Office? Bomb the Murrah Federal Building? Assassinate a president? That's all been done, Cap.

I'm not going to do anything.

Quote:

It sounds like wannabe Minutemen rationalizing their obsession with firearms, like little boys who never grow up.

The 2nd Amendment doesn't require me to rationalize anything. The only people trying to rationalize anything are those who want to place heavy restrictions or bans on items they are scared of.

I'll ask you the same question I have asked the other anti-gun people. What is the difference between a Ruger Ranch Rifle and an AR-15? Why should one be banned and the other be legal? So far no one has been brave enough to actually answer the question, maybe you will be different.

0 Replies

@McGentrix,

No one has told me which of these is an assault rifle. Would one be banned? Would both be banned? Neither?

https://ruger.com/products/mini14RanchRifle/images/5802.jpg

https://media.midwayusa.com/productimages/880x660/Primary/948/948821.jpg

2 Replies

Guns: how much longer will it take ....

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know