Firearms VII- Obrez's at Dawn - General

[url]http://www.nj.com/times-opinion/index.ssf/2013/01/opinions_civilians_have_no_rig.html[/url] [QUOTE]Emergency room doctors and nurses can immediately tell whether a gun victim was shot by a handgun or semi-automatic: A handgun will make a bullet hole; a wound from a semi-automatic looks like a bomb exploded inside the person. A bullet from an assault weapon travels three times faster than a handgun bullet and is designed to shatter upon impact. This is because they are military weapons intended to do maximum damage to a human body. They are not designed for hunting or self-defense. There is absolutely no right to assault weapons in the Constitution. The fanatical and erroneous interpretation of the Second Amendment that would claim otherwise is a direct threat to the freedom we cherish. It is a direct threat to our children.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]We already have heavy restrictions on automatic weapons in this country. What is rarely discussed, however, is that, today, semi-automatics are actually more deadly than automatics. First: Because of high-capacity clips, an assault weapon can fire almost as rapidly as a machine gun. And second: Machine guns, while capable of spraying bullets very quickly, are not very accurate. An assault rifle, however, can hit a target with deadly accuracy.[/QUOTE] :downs:

[QUOTE=Ridge;39075280]And second: Machine guns, while capable of spraying bullets very quickly, are not very accurate. An assault rifle, however, can hit a target with deadly accuracy.[/url] [/QUOTE] I also like to get my firearms knowledge from Schwarzenegger films.

Too bad it's actually been upheld several times by the supreme court that the 2nd Amendment protects military firearms...

[quote]This is because they are military weapons intended to do maximum damage to a human body. They are not designed for hunting or self-defense. [/quote] So they're meant to kill people, but not meant to kill people when you're defending yourself. k

[QUOTE=Raidyr;39075292]I also like to get my firearms knowledge from Schwarzenegger films.[/QUOTE] Explains a lot

That is why one of the most common military rounds 223. and 308. (Or their NATO equivalent) are used for hunting...

How much is like tul .45? I have no idea how much .45 goes for

[QUOTE=MR-X;39075434]That is why one of the most common military rounds 223. and 308. (Or their NATO equivalent) are used for hunting...[/QUOTE] U dun't wanna kill the animal when hunting!!! They also aren't any bigger than humans and would need more firepower to put down.

[QUOTE=NuclearAnnhilation;39075549]How much is like tul .45? I have no idea how much .45 goes for[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.jgsales.com/-p-4426.html[/url] prices are probably inflated, never looked at .45 ammo before.

[QUOTE=Ridge;39075280]Pile of nonsense[/quote] ... What the fuck man [editline]3rd January 2013[/editline] Was he drunk when he wrote that?

[QUOTE=Black Milano;39075844]... What the fuck man [editline]3rd January 2013[/editline] Was he drunk when he wrote that?[/QUOTE] No, just liberal. Liberal, not even once.

[QUOTE=DaCommie1;39075864]No, just liberal. Liberal, not even once.[/QUOTE] Why do people band wagon on issues such as gun control. I wish people would form their own opinions rather then advocating stupid drafts written by the uninformed. I'm far left yet recognize the utility and reason for owning a gun. Not everyone are going to rise up or massacre people simply because they're gun owners and as long as you keep track of who owns what I see no issue. Criminals and mafia will get guns one way or another.

[QUOTE=DaCommie1;39075864]No, just liberal. Liberal, not even once.[/QUOTE] It's better that they write crap like this. It damages their credibility by showing their ample ignorance making rebuttals easier. [editline]3rd January 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=laserguided;39075893]Not everyone are going to rise up or massacre people simply because they're gun owners[/QUOTE] Saying "not everyone" is a gigantic exaggeration. Around 20 people engage in mass shootings yearly while there are 80.000.000 gun owners. The chance of a gun owner doing a shooting in any given year is 0.000025%, being struck by lightning is 4 times more likely. People tend to lose the sense of scale in gun debates, it's important that we understand that mass shootings are a really isolated problem.

[QUOTE=DaCommie1;39075864]No, just liberal. Liberal, not even once.[/QUOTE] death to america

[QUOTE=laserguided;39075893]Why do people band wagon on issues such as gun control. I wish people would form their own opinions rather then advocating stupid drafts written by the uninformed. I'm far left yet recognize the utility and reason for owning a gun. Not everyone are going to rise up or massacre people simply because they're gun owners and as long as you keep track of who owns what I see no issue. Criminals and mafia will get guns one way or another.[/QUOTE] I was joking, I know that not all liberals hate guns and not everyone who hates guns is a liberal, unfortunately in Canada especially it's the case so often that it's become a common assumption that those who support the Liberals or NDP hate guns.

[QUOTE=DaCommie1;39076637]I was joking, I know that not all liberals hate guns and not everyone who hates guns is a liberal, unfortunately in Canada especially it's the case so often that it's become a common assumption that those who support the Liberals or NDP hate guns.[/QUOTE] I keep hearing that shit and hate it. "Hurrr, those damn liberals, destroying gun ownership" blah blah blah. Fucking stupid

[QUOTE=DaCommie1;39076637]I was joking, I know that not all liberals hate guns and not everyone who hates guns is a liberal, unfortunately in Canada especially it's the case so often that it's become a common assumption that those who support the Liberals or NDP hate guns.[/QUOTE] Its not only liberals and NDP. The weapons ban list is still in action despite conservative parties rule. The only recognition he has given the issue would be removing the long gun registry and easing law on gun shows.

[QUOTE=laserguided;39076717]Its not only liberals and NDP. The weapons ban list is still in action despite conservative parties rule. The only recognition he has given the issue would be removing the long gun registry and easing law on gun shows.[/QUOTE] As much as I think you're a cock laserguided, you have a point. Only in the US do shooters have the unwavering backing of a major party. Pretty much every other country still has us bending over for the government to get any progress

It's often due to partisan issues, the Democrats (Liberals) have traditionally been known to instate stricter gun control and to favour the ownership of firearms less than the Republicans (Conservatives). Gun control is a very partisan issue here, and with identifying with a specific party often comes people assuming, for some reason, that you support unconditionally everything that has ever been associated with that party. In Canada it's even worse, since it was actually the Liberal party who instated most of the gun control, and the Conservatives who repealed some of it. Of course, immediately after the 1989 shooting the Conservatives enacted some gun control, but all the steadfast partisans who push gun control as a partisan issue while complaining that it shouldn't be a partisan issue refer to those Conservatives as "Red Tories," as the colour of the Liberal party is red, whereas the colour of the Conservatives is blue. Admittedly I've been guilty of generalization along party lines before as well, I try not to do it now as often but I will say it happens for a reason, that being that many of the politicians under that stripe propagate the same thing, however that doesn't necessarily make it right or correct to generalize the voters the same way. [editline]3rd January 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=laserguided;39076717]Its not only liberals and NDP. The weapons ban list is still in action despite conservative parties rule. The only recognition he has given the issue would be removing the long gun registry and easing law on gun shows.[/QUOTE] I know, and I know it's because politics is a game of optics, and it looks bad for any party to repeal bans of "big, scary assault weapons" following a major tragedy or when the opinion of the media and/or public is against it. I know the Conservatives don't like guns, or rather, Toews and Harper don't like guns, but they also know many of their voters and several MPs do, they just tolerate them the most out of any other party, since Harper basically controls the Tories, to the point where they won't impose further dumb restrictions. They will probably throw gun owners another small bone in 2014/15 just before the election just to again try to secure their vote.

Speaking of optics (which I'm assuming is a gun nut's word for perspective, spin, presentation, and bias), putting sarcastic quotation marks as well as "big, scary" before [I]assault weapons[/I] obfuscates the fact that they're designed chiefly for war and explicitly for the purpose of killing people and that selling them to civilians is just to expand the manufacturer's market share and makes them sound like sperm whales or great danes or some innocent shit.

[QUOTE=Kommodore;39077234]Speaking of optics (which I'm assuming is a gun nut's word for perspective, spin, presentation, and bias), putting sarcastic quotation marks as well as "big, scary" before [I]assault weapons[/I] obfuscates the fact that they're designed chiefly for war and explicitly for the purpose of killing people and that selling them to civilians is just to expand the manufacturer's market share and makes them sound like sperm whales or great danes or some innocent shit.[/QUOTE] You realise [i]every[/i] gun is pretty much designed for war, don't you? [editline]b[/editline] Look at these two pictures: This is a Ruger Mini-14: [img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/18/Mini14GB.jpg/800px-Mini14GB.jpg[/img] This is an AR15, a semi-automatic clone of the full auto M16: [img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e0/AR15_A3_Tactical_Carbine_pic1.jpg[/img] One (the Mini-14) is considered a hunters weapon, the other, in your eyes, seems to be a "weapon of war" But they are not. Both are exactly the same in terms of threat and deadliness Both are chambered in the .223 Remington/5.56mm NATO cartridge Both can take "hi-capacity" 30 round (or more!) magazines Both are semi-auto, meaning they fire one bullet per pull of the trigger Both were designed as military weapons, the mini-14 actually competed against the AR15 in trails for selection by the US military. [i]The only difference is one looks like a hunting rifle, and the other looks like a scary "asshult wepon!"[/i]

[QUOTE=DaCommie1;39075864]No, just liberal. Liberal, not even once.[/QUOTE] Your username really doesn't fit.

[QUOTE=Jamsponge;39077461]Your username really doesn't fit.[/QUOTE] He likes Commie guns, but not actual Commies

[QUOTE=download;39077503]He likes Commie guns, but not actual Commies[/QUOTE] Still, the point still stands that a good amount of liberals actually don't mind guns. To me, it's a moral conundrum, because I think having to shoot a criminal should be a last resort. But at the very least, I think our police officers (in the UK) should be armed with a taser or some kind of stun weaponry and be well-trained to handle it, so that if they cannot prevent them doing something stupid any other way, at least they can knock them out. I just wish there was some kind of bullet that would be fine for target practice and things, but couldn't do any serious damage to a human. That would at least sort out the 'Guns just for collecting' thing, but it's hard to turn something made to kill into something made to stun.

[QUOTE=Kommodore;39077234]they're designed chiefly for war and explicitly for the purpose of killing people[/QUOTE] Because any other weapon is not? [QUOTE]and that selling them to civilians is just to expand the manufacturer's market share[/QUOTE] As opposed to selling anything else? In the end, any "oh so scary assault weapon" available to civilians is not different than any other semiautomatic weapon, except for aesthetics. They are not magical malevolent murdermachines, they are used in a ridiculously small number of gun crimes, and banning them would do [I]nothing[/I] to reduce crime.

[editline]3rd January 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=download;39077338]You realise [i]every[/i] gun is pretty much designed for war, don't you? [editline]b[/editline] This is an AR15, a [B]semi-automatic clone[/B] of the full auto M16: [img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e0/AR15_A3_Tactical_Carbine_pic1.jpg[/img] [/QUOTE] The M16 is actually the military's version of the AR15. Which is, in turn, really a scaled down version of the .308 AR10. It wasn't until Armalite sold the AR15 design to Colt that the AR15 was designated as a civilian version of the M16. From Wikipedia: The M16 rifle, officially designated Rifle, Caliber 5.56 mm, M16, is the United States military version of the AR-15 rifle. The rifle was adapted for semi-automatic, three-round burst, and full-automatic fire. The rifle was basically a scaled down AR-10 with an ambidextrous charging handle located within the carrying handle, a narrower front sight "A" frame, and no flash suppressor.

Greater than 90% of bolt action hunting rifles on the market today are designed from the K98 action, the German military's front line rifle for about half a century.

[QUOTE=Ridge;39078734]Greater than 90% of bolt action hunting rifles on the market today are designed from the K98 action, the German military's front line rifle for about half a century.[/QUOTE] Yep. The K98 had a very strong and reliable action due to having better locking lugs, a large claw extractor and using controlled feed instead of push feed.

[QUOTE=DaCommie1;39075864]No, just liberal. Liberal, not even once.[/QUOTE] It's not really a liberal position to be misinformed about guns. Ignorance is on both sides of the political aisle. I'm liberal and I have several liberal friends who all are fans of firearms and actually know their shit.

[QUOTE=Black Milano;39075902]It's better that they write crap like this. It damages their credibility by showing their ample ignorance making rebuttals easier. [editline]3rd January 2013[/editline] Saying "not everyone" is a gigantic exaggeration. Around 20 people engage in mass shootings yearly while there are 80.000.000 gun owners. The chance of a gun owner doing a shooting in any given year is 0.000025%, being struck by lightning is 4 times more likely. People tend to lose the sense of scale in gun debates, it's important that we understand that mass shootings are a really isolated problem.[/QUOTE] Basically, ban lightning.