Glocks and Duckfaces: Americans flaunt their new firearms on Instagram and Twitter. - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Kasuga Ayumu;38988679]there is no such thing as shooting to maim, I wish people would stop perpetuating this term A bullet anywhere is deadly and a bullet that doesn't kill could come back and sue your ass later. In a self defense situation, always shoot to kill. An intruder never has your best interest in mind. [editline]27th December 2012[/editline] In the head was how the myth started, in the chest is a fairly recent variant of the myth[/QUOTE] As a hunter, I absolutely abhor the idea of shooting in the head. Good way to permanently fuck something's life up where you could otherwise kill it and be done. Once you've seen a deer missing a portion of its jaw... cringe.

Clearly X is designed for Y and nothing else. Can never use anything for a purpose other than its intended purpose because the world is black and white. yup.

[QUOTE=Irkalla;38988708]As a hunter, I absolutely abhor the idea of shooting in the head. Good way to permanently fuck something's life up where you could otherwise kill it and be done. Once you've seen a deer missing a portion of its jaw... cringe.[/QUOTE] I've seen that. It's not a pretty sight. Shooting for the head is almost never a good idea, you should always shoot for the chest.

[QUOTE=nick_9_8;38985399]In Australia, all guns are illegial[/QUOTE] i must live in a totally different australia

[QUOTE=nick_9_8;38985399]In Australia, all guns are illegial, so could someone explain to me the logical reasons of owning an assault rifle? Because frankly, I don't see the point. If you reallllly wanted defense wouldn't you buy a pistol? Why would you need a gun that shoots 40 bullets in one mag...[/QUOTE] You can own guns here, it's just much harder to obtain them ever since that 1996 buyback. Mainly farmers and stuff are the civilians that have them. Honestly on this hole gun debate thing I'm pretty much on the fence, I mean if you ban guns a mass shooter will probably just get a gun through another means, but then again here mass shootings have been really low since the buyback.

[QUOTE=Irkalla;38988515]And you need a 250 dollar destructive devices stamp. Also, who uses those to hunt deer? I wouldn't. Hogs, on the other hand, are below contempt. I've heard of people hunting them with chains (to break their backs) and then just letting them sit their stuggling to get away while suffering from lower paralysis. After they're done doing that, they then kill them.[/QUOTE] there's no such thing as a $250 tax stamp, and explain to me what exactly needs to be registered as a Destructive Device? [editline]27th December 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Kasuga Ayumu;38987535][img]http://i.imgur.com/TlfxX.jpg[/img] [img]http://i.imgur.com/uhE6E.jpg[/img] the difference between these two rifles is an aftermarket stock that doesn't affect functionality. assault weapon bans are bans on appearance, not bans on deadliness.[/QUOTE] Even if it does you still can't hit shit with them.

[QUOTE=lavacano;38985483]not if you live in an area where the ducks blot out the sun[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=areolop;38985649]Where do you live.[/QUOTE] [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gE2OjvyJmjE[/media] Not exactly blotting out the sun, but if you gotta save your rice crop..

[QUOTE=Broseph_;38988857]there's no such thing as a $250 tax stamp, and explain to me what exactly needs to be registered as a Destructive Device? [editline]27th December 2012[/editline] Even if it does you still can't hit shit with them.[/QUOTE] Title II weapon. It's also 200 dollars for the tax stamp, apparently. [editline]27th December 2012[/editline] Wow that shut you up.

[QUOTE=mysteryman;38988611]I would never dream of using it as a home defense weapon though. For a home defense weapon i'd actually use a .22 pistol.[/QUOTE] Good luck with a violent guy high off his ass on drugs. Some people continue to remain a threat after being hit. A .22 will be an ant bite. Maybe not to most, but still. Some people keep a variety of shotgun shells loaded. Birdshot would be the first followed by a more lethal round with slugs being the last in case all else fails.

[QUOTE=Kasuga Ayumu;38988574]it's false. It's the .223/5.56x45 cartridge that's disallowed for hunting. AR15s can be chambered in about a hundred other cartridges that are perfectly legal for hunting in Georgia.[/QUOTE] And in doing so cease to be ar15 rifles.

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;38987890]Even more ridiculous is: [img]http://www.kitsune.addr.com/Firearms/Auto-Rifles/M-1_Carbine.jpg[/img] The top is legal, the bottom is illegal. They are functionally identical in every way. The M1A1 is just a Paratrooper version of the M1, with a folding stock, and pistol grip.[/QUOTE] Technically both are illegal because of the 15 round magazine. That aside, under the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 the Bottom if you took a grinder to the bayonet lug it would be legal because the stock connects to the bottom of the grip so legally it doesn't count as a Pistol Grip, and you're allowed to have one feature that would otherwise make it illegal, so you can have the folding stock.

[QUOTE=Tippmann357;38988904]Good luck with a violent guy high off his ass on drugs. Some people continue to remain a threat after being hit. A .22 will be an ant bite. Maybe not to most, but still. Some people keep a variety of shotgun shells loaded. Birdshot would be the first followed by a more lethal round with slugs being the last in case all else fails.[/QUOTE] Because i can only shoot him once, right? [editline]27th December 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=GunFox;38988905]And in doing so cease to be ar15 rifles.[/QUOTE] Technically they're ar-15's in the sense that they're on an ar-15 platform, just with a different chamber. A glock 19 doesn't cease to be a glock 19 if you choose to get it chambered in .40

[QUOTE=mysteryman;38988929]Because i can only shoot him once, right?[/QUOTE] Well no. I'm just saying that if someone is charging at you like a bull with drugs in their system, then it might be too late to start unloading or just not enough.

[QUOTE=Irkalla;38988604]To anyone reading and wondering why this is the case, it's because lighter rounds with less momentum tend to bounce around if you're hit in the abdominal cavity, whereas higher calibre rounds with greater momentum tend to make a clean entry and exit.[/QUOTE] 5.7 has fairly low stopping power. It is why the p90 and the FiveseveN both have such high mag capacities. .223 has an extremely high velocity and strikes with a fair amount of force, significantly increasing the soft tissue damage. .22 causes extremely little damage. If it was remotely viable, major military and police forces would use it. It is nearly worthless against humans. Meanwhile the chance of even .45 acp fmj leaving an exit wound is virtually nothing. It is far superior to 5.7 (against unarmored targets) and .22lr

[QUOTE=Tippmann357;38988954]Well no. I'm just saying that if someone is charging at you like a bull with drugs in their system, then it might be too late to start unloading or just not enough.[/QUOTE] I live in an area where home invasion is rare to begin with, a drug use in my area barely pushes outside kids using weed and prescription meds. I'm not saying it will never happen, but chances are if im being robbed it's by some teenagers out to make a quick buck and not to do damage. Again, not impossible, just highly improbable.

[QUOTE=GunFox;38988905]And in doing so cease to be ar15 rifles.[/QUOTE] Not really, especially in cases like 300blk, where everything remains the same except the barrel. You'd have an argument if I were talking about 5.7 where the whole feed system were changed or 9mm where you need a different hammer and bolt

Related: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus[/url]

[QUOTE=Irkalla;38988897]Title II weapon. It's also 200 dollars for the tax stamp, apparently.[/QUOTE] What the fuck would be the destructive device?

[QUOTE=MR-X;38985408]Don't even start this shit. Really don't the topic has been beat to death in a dozen other topics. Is there a logical reason to own anything you might have? Is it necessary to have the best and latest tvs, computers, consoles, etc. You surely don't need it to survive, so what is the point right? Its called freedom of choice, people like to be able to buy what they want when they want without the big boys up in government saying so. Most people who have a IQ higher then a potato know that this AWB is ineffective and stupid. Just because one country does it does not mean it fits another country.[/QUOTE] I don't recall owning something that's designed to kill.

[QUOTE=GunFox;38988905]And in doing so cease to be ar15 rifles.[/QUOTE] Since when did rechambering a firearm make it cease being what it was? That's like saying a C96 isn't a C96 because it's chambered in 9mm instead of .30 Mauser

this is fucked up on so many levels.

[QUOTE=Broseph_;38989119]Since when did rechambering a firearm make it cease being what it was? That's like saying a C96 isn't a C96 because it's chambered in 9mm instead of .30 Mauser[/QUOTE] [QUOte=wikipedia]The AR-15 is a lightweight, [B]5.56 mm[/B], magazine-fed, semi-automatic rifle, with a rotating-lock bolt, actuated by direct impingement gas operation or long/short stroke piston operation.[/QUOTE]

i don't even get the first one, there's no talk of banning handguns also gj firearms manufacturer lobbyists, dunno how much you paid for the "talk" of an AWB but wow you must be making 5 times whatever it was right now also also dick's sporting goods had 7.62x54r for $11 for 50 rounds lol [editline]27th December 2012[/editline] apache an AR-15 is still an AR-15 even if it's not chambered in 5.56 stop getting your information off wikipedia please

I'm not one for giving an assault rifle to everybody and I couldn't care less about second amendment crap, but I really don't see a problme with this. I'd rather see a Glock than a fucking iPad or some shit.

[QUOTE=Broseph_;38989079]What the fuck would be the destructive device?[/QUOTE] Damn you're fucking lazy, can't even google. A destructive device is in the eyes of the law a rifled weapon chambered for a round larger than 50 calibre that also has no valid sporting purpose. A destructive device is also what you'd think of as explosives, like rocket launchers, grenades, and that sort of thing. However, I used the term to refer to Title II weapons in general.

Whats wrong with people showing off their guns? Isn't that what they are for?

[QUOTE=Apache249;38989131]The AR-15 is a lightweight, 5.56 mm, magazine-fed, semi-automatic rifle, with a rotating-lock bolt, actuated by direct impingement gas operation or long/short stroke piston operation.[/QUOTE] Except the original AR-15 was fully automatic and chambered in .222 Remington Magnum rendering your lazy attempt at a counterpoint moot. [editline]27th December 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Irkalla;38989241]Damn you're fucking lazy, can't even google. A destructive device is in the eyes of the law a rifled weapon chambered for a round larger than 50 calibre that also has no valid sporting purpose. A destructive device is also what you'd think of as explosives, like rocket launchers, grenades, and that sort of thing. However, I used the term to refer to Title II weapons in general.[/QUOTE] I know exactly what a destructive device is, the question was what the fuck you were trying to declare to be a Destructive Device, not what the actual definition of a destructive device is, which is why I used the article [B][I]the[/I][/B] instead of [B][I]a[/I][/B] since the only two items mentioned in that post was an Title 1 AR-15 and a Title 2 M16.

[QUOTE=Broseph_;38989573]Except the original AR-15 was chambered in .222 Remington Magnum and fully Automatic rendering your counterpoint moot. [editline]27th December 2012[/editline] I know exactly what a destructive device is, the question was what the fuck you were trying to declare to be a Destructive Device, not what the actual definition of a destructive device is, which is why I used the article [B][I]the[/I][/B] instead of [B][I]a[/I][/B] since the only two items mentioned in that post was an Title 1 AR-15 and a Title 2 M16.[/QUOTE] "However, I used the term to refer to Title II weapons in general."

[QUOTE=Irkalla;38989626]"However, I used the term to refer to Title II weapons in general."[/QUOTE] And you called me fucking lazy and needing to google what a Destructive Device is as your reply to the question I posed so I clarified it for you since you clearly misunderstood it.

[QUOTE=Kasuga Ayumu;38988574]it's false. It's the .223/5.56x45 cartridge that's disallowed for hunting. AR15s can be chambered in about a hundred other cartridges that are perfectly legal for hunting in Georgia.[/QUOTE] Source? I've never heard .223 was illegal to hunt with in Georgia.