0
   

NRA trains members to attack enemies without mercy

 
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 23 May, 2010 10:25 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
No, you are disqualified. In the first place, i simply mentioned armor piercing ammunition, not kevlar vests. In the second place, high-velocity bullets may potentially cause life-threatening blunt-force injuries--but still will not penetrate the kevlar body armor.


Pretty much any centerfire rifle round will blow through Kevlar (or any other soft body armor) just as easily as it would a sheet of Kleenex. It takes a heavy plate to stop a rifle round.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 23 May, 2010 10:25 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
You are the one one introduced the topic of high-velocity rounds and kevlar, CJ, i did not. The current body armor used by American armed forces, as describe in this article at Global Security-dot-org, will stop your deer round:

Quote:
The outer tactical vest consists of a Kevlar weave that's will stop 9mm pistol rounds. Webbing on the front and back of the vest permits attaching such equipment as grenades, walkie-talkies and pistols. The Small Arms Protective Insert (SAPI) is made of a boron carbide ceramic with a spectra shield backing that's an extremely hard material. It stops, shatters and catches any fragments up to a 7.62 mm round with a muzzle velocity of 2,750 feet per second. It's harder than Kevlar.


The part that will stop a centerfire rifle round is not the Kevlar, but the heavy plate.

Except for SWAT teams, most police do not have such heavy plates in their armor.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 23 May, 2010 10:26 am
@McTag,
McTag wrote:
This is 100% wrong. There is not one British citizen in 1,000 who would prefer our gun laws to be altered to be like the States.

The USA is held here as an example of how NOT to do it. If you want to know the reason for that, look at the gun crime figures.

The USA gun murder figures are 30 times higher, per capita.


So? They'd be just as dead if they were killed with knives instead of guns.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 23 May, 2010 10:30 am
@joefromchicago,
joefromchicago wrote:

cjhsa wrote:
Joe - I believe Zumbo was referring to "scary looking guns".

Rather than guessing at what Zumbo was talking about, here is the blog entry in question:
    Assault Rifles For Hunters? As I write this, I'm hunting coyotes in southeastern Wyoming with Eddie Stevenson, PR Manager for Remington Arms, Greg Dennison, who is senior research engineer for Remington, and several writers. We're testing Remington's brand new .17 cal Spitfire bullet on coyotes. I must be living in a vacuum. The guides on our hunt tell me that the use of AR and AK rifles have a rapidly growing following among hunters, especially prairie dog hunters. I had no clue. Only once in my life have I ever seen anyone using one of these firearms. I call them "assault" rifles, which may upset some people. Excuse me, maybe I'm a traditionalist, but I see no place for these weapons among our hunting fraternity. I'll go so far as to call them "terrorist" rifles. They tell me that some companies are producing assault rifles that are "tackdrivers." Sorry, folks, in my humble opinion, these things have no place in hunting. We don't need to be lumped into the group of people who terrorize the world with them, which is an obvious concern. I've always been comfortable with the statement that hunters don't use assault rifles. We've always been proud of our "sporting firearms." This really has me concerned. As hunters, we don't need the image of walking around the woods carrying one of these weapons. To most of the public, an assault rifle is a terrifying thing. Let's divorce ourselves from them. I say game departments should ban them from the praries and woods.

(Source) Clearly, in referring to "AR and AK rifles," he was referring to types of semi-automatic weapons (the AR-15 and AK-47 types, to be precise), not to some generic "scary looking guns."

Now ceej, if you think the AR-15 or the AK-47 are "scary looking guns," then that's fine -- you're entitled to your esthetic opinion. But Zumbo had something far more specific in mind when he talked about "assault rifles," and he wasn't talking about how scary they looked. And he quite clearly was talking about semi-automatics, not automatics.


While he was talking about specific weapons, the sole reasons those weapons had his attention as "bad guns" was their scary cosmetic features.

Those scary cosmetic features are the only thing that differentiates them from "good guns".
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 23 May, 2010 10:32 am
@McTag,
McTag wrote:
What effect does allowing people to have guns at home have?

Lessee now:

You get Wacos, dozens of innocents needlessly killed


Not caused by people having guns at home.



McTag wrote:
You get wackos shooting at each other because of a traffic incident


Not really.



McTag wrote:
You get schoolkids killing schoolkids


Guns are hardly the cause of that.



McTag wrote:
You get accidents, fatalities


That part is true.

But swimming pools kill more people. Let's start by banning them.



McTag wrote:
You forcefeed paranoia in people like McVeigh and cjhsa


No you don't.



McTag wrote:
You get un-civilisation


Not really.



McTag wrote:
On balance, a bad idea.


No, freedom is never a bad idea.

It is a shame that the US is the only free country on the planet. It would be nice to see other countries become free.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 23 May, 2010 10:55 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
CJ talks about being afraid of heights, but that he doesn't want ladders banned. However, this very pointedly shows the immature mindset he has. I think that there is only one purpose for handguns, and that is to kill people. They aren't effective for hunting, except for those most expert in shooting hand guns, and in tracking game without being detected. Only in the most extraordinary circumstances would a hand gun be an effective hunting weapon.


The .44 magnum makes a pretty good hunting round.

Olympic target shooting handguns are designed to strike non-living targets.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 23 May, 2010 10:56 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
What need does any citizen have for a handgun, armor-piercing ammunition or a rapid-fire shotgun? No quibbling, no bullshit diversions--just give a coherent answer.


Handgun, because it is able to be carried in a holster all the time so that it is on hand if self-defense becomes necessary.

AP ammo, because sometimes criminals wear armor.

Quick firing shotgun, self defense. (The street sweeper is an impractical design though. Better to just get a riot shotgun with an extended magazine.)
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 23 May, 2010 10:58 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
oralloy wrote:
Setanta wrote:
or why anyone needs ammunition which will penetrate a police officer's kevlar vest.


To protect against criminals who wear Kevlar.


You don't need protection from criminals who wear Kevlar.

Cycloptichorn


No, I need protection from all criminals, including the ones who wear Kevlar.
0 Replies
 
Ceili
 
  3  
Reply Sun 23 May, 2010 11:27 am

Quote:
It is a shame that the US is the only free country on the planet. It would be nice to see other countries become free.


Only an american who has never traveled would say this. You have no idea what freedom is. Hint, it ain't all about guns.
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 May, 2010 01:17 pm
@Ceili,
While that, Ceili, certainly is more than correct I would perhaps like to respond to some other of the recent responses.

But I think, I can't be bothered to research facts about something what happened three years ago.
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Sun 23 May, 2010 09:42 pm
@Ceili,
Ceili wrote:
Oralloy wrote:
It is a shame that the US is the only free country on the planet. It would be nice to see other countries become free.


Only an american who has never traveled would say this.


Or someone who was aware of civil rights.



Ceili wrote:
You have no idea what freedom is.


No, I have a very good idea.



Ceili wrote:
Hint, it ain't all about guns.


However, the right to carry guns is one part of freedom.
0 Replies
 
Ceili
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 May, 2010 11:55 pm
Civil right.... the US may have started the ball rolling but... abortion or womens rights, gay rights, brown skinned citizens in Arizona, the list goes on. Laws, bylaws, regulations, rules, ordinances, taxes, more taxes, blah, blah, blah.
Your arrogance is blinding you. The truth is out there.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 24 May, 2010 05:38 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:
I would perhaps like to respond to some other of the recent responses.

But I think, I can't be bothered to research facts about something what happened three years ago.


I stumbled across this thread trying to make sure that someone had not already started a thread on Mexico's outrageous demands against US freedom.

I didn't find any threads on the subject (though this absurd tag system is so byzantine that I could very well have missed it), so I started one.

If you want an up to date thread on assault weapons, you could try this one: http://able2know.org/topic/145158-1

Mexico's demands are really beyond the pale. Asking us to destroy our freedom. Evil or Very Mad
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 08/12/2020 at 09:08:38