Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Common Sense Gun Control

A forum for discussion of regional topics including oil depletion but also government, society, and the future.

Re: Common Sense Gun Control

Unread postby Cog » Thu 05 Apr 2018, 17:32:25

KaiserJeep wrote:Lots of misinformation in recent posts. For example, the "lethal" nature of the AR-15/M-4 type of arms.

The purpose of this weapon is to wound and not to kill. Kill an enemy, they will tag him and come to kill you with vengence and zeal, the last thing you want. Wound him, and his buddies will save him, and perhaps that one bullet has diverted three enemies from completing their mission. That is why we use fully jacketed .223 rounds, because they make terrible gory wounds that are more survivable than the .30-06 rounds of WW2.

What it's all about is stopping the enemies from completing their mission. That is why it is better to incapacitate than to kill.

One does not need to have training? Reflect for one moment what any child learns from watching TV for years on end. What you do when you find a gun, is point it at some other person and pull the trigger, and be a hero. That's what all of them know so very well, until you teach them differently.


Training is necessary with regard to firearms. We do that as parents or as individuals because we are responsible people. But for the state to require it can be found no where in the US Constitution. So go ahead and invent some more laws if you wish. But you won't see me complying with them. Pointless.

Oh and I'll add another person who has never seen a gel test of 5.56 ballistics in gel or in a human. The 5.56 round was not designed to wound. You get this misinformation from someone but the reality is much different.
User avatar
Cog
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 12466
Joined: Sat 17 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: Northern Kekistan

Re: Common Sense Gun Control

Unread postby Cog » Thu 05 Apr 2018, 17:39:51

Another myth exploded about the 5.56 round since you FUDD's won't let it go. You really need to check out some gel tests on the round before you show your ignorance.


http://militaryarms.blogspot.com/2012/1 ... -myth.html

No U.S. military service rifle caliber has been more controversial than the 5.56x45mm cartridge. Since it's adoption in the 1960's, Soldiers and civilians have both circulated the myth that the 5.56 round was designed to wound the enemy and not kill them. The logic behind this claim is that wounding the enemy puts a strain on their logistical systems with the added bonus that it requires other enemy soldiers to carry off their wounded brethren thus lessening the number of combatants on the field of battle.

The only problem with this myth is that it is just that, a myth.

The U.S. military has never published any documents, requirements or doctrines stating a desire to adopt a rifle cartridge designed to only wound the enemy. Of course the military views wounding as better than no hit at all, and taking an enemy combatant out of the fight they view as a good thing. But they have never built a doctrine around the concept of wounding being the desired result of a gunshot wound.

The 5.56mm cartridge was designed to kill not wound or maim.

I believe the root of the myth comes from countless horror stories told by both civilians and Soldiers about the 5.56mm's failure to neutralize a target. In 2003 the U.S. Army conducted a study that found the 5.56mm was actually quite acceptable for combat duty. This is a quote from the study that I think carries a lot of weight.

In the end, “footpounds of energy” is misleading, “stopping power” is a myth, and the “oneshot drop” is a rare possibility dependent more on the statistics of hit placement than weapon and ammunition selection. Effectiveness ultimately equates to the potential of the weapons system to eliminate its target as a militarily relevant threat.
I agree with this statement. Shot placement will be the largest deciding factor in how effective a gun shot would will be in terms of dispatching the enemy. The horror stories about the ineffectiveness of the 5.56mm can be traced back to either unsubstantiated rumors and myths or to poor shot placement.

It's also worth noting how the 5.56mm stacked up against the .308 in the testing. For CQB type combat the 5.56mm actually kept pace with the 7.62x51(.308) in terms of close range effectiveness.

It's interesting to note that when the U.S. military adopted the .308 to replace the 30-06, similar horror stories circulated. The .308 was deemed to be inferior to the 30-06 by many Soliders. Slowly these rumors faded, and their demise was hastened with the adoption of the 5.56x45mm only a few short years later.

The 5.56mm cartridge is a fine service rifle cartridge that excels at close to medium range combat. It is not well suited to long distance engagements which is why the U.S. military has moved back to the .308 for DMR's (Designated Marksman Rifle) in the wide open spaces of the Middle East. For a survival rifle you would be hard pressed to find a more suitable caliber than the 5.56x45mm.
User avatar
Cog
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 12466
Joined: Sat 17 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: Northern Kekistan

Re: Common Sense Gun Control

Unread postby Newfie » Thu 05 Apr 2018, 18:07:52

When necessary lethal force is required.

Are you willing to use lethal force to defend your position?

If so then how are you different?
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 12593
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Between Canada and Carribean

Re: Common Sense Gun Control

Unread postby Cog » Thu 05 Apr 2018, 18:37:12

Newfie wrote:When necessary lethal force is required.

Are you willing to use lethal force to defend your position?

If so then how are you different?


Because of this:

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

An oath you took if you were in the military service Newfie. And an oath or very similar oath that every politician, police officer, and military service member takes.

My obligation, as a citizen is to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. Those who would violate the Constitution by destroying the Second Amendment or render it obsolete with regulations, are by definition domestic enemies. So short answer is yes. I'm willing to die to uphold the Second Amendment.
User avatar
Cog
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 12466
Joined: Sat 17 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: Northern Kekistan

Re: Common Sense Gun Control

Unread postby Newfie » Thu 05 Apr 2018, 21:10:12

Aw for dogs sake. I posted a long well thought out response only to have the connection lost and loose my post. Shit!

I know you feel strongly on this matter, but you are amongst a very small minority. While I really don’t think it will happen, should you align yourself with such a small sect you will be annihilated. I might be a nice romantic fantasy to die a hero’s death and all but I think the reality would suck.

I’m a pretty strong Second Amendment supporter, in part because of your influence. You can be very well written and persuasive. In this case you’ve crossed some logical line and come across as a fanatic. Such line of arguments as you are using here have many flaws, obvious flaws. It’s a bit alarming to see you continually step over the obvious problems with your arguments.

That aside, I hear your concern about a civil war over the Second Amendment. IMHO that will never happen. I think we may eventually see local/regional conflict over entitlements, perceived injustice, anger and revenge. But that case every side will be clamoring for as many guns as they can get, legalities he damned.

Visions of engaging in Street to Street fighting for the sake of a noble cause are best left to Tom Hanks et al. We are old men, we should be using our years and collective wisdom to assure our children have the opportunity to become old and wise, so that they can love and reproduce. Really, do you want to tell your son/daughter, your grand children, to “Go out shooting, die for the cause!” Really?
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 12593
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Between Canada and Carribean

Re: Common Sense Gun Control

Unread postby ralfy » Thu 05 Apr 2018, 21:17:16

2A refers to the need for regulated militias and uses the natural right to defend oneself as justification. Hence, Art. 1 Sec. 8 and the Militia Acts.
http://sites.google.com/site/peakoilreports/
User avatar
ralfy
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 4950
Joined: Sat 28 Mar 2009, 10:36:38
Location: The Wasteland

Re: Common Sense Gun Control

Unread postby KaiserJeep » Thu 05 Apr 2018, 22:07:34

The historical record shows that the 5.56 replaced the .30-06 because of a single reason: The weapon and the ammunition were lighter, meaning that a soldier could carry more rounds and would not need ammunition re-supply as often.

Cog, I read the blog opinion you linked to and found it un-persuasive. For one thing, actual testing using live animals did in fact show that the caliber of the bullet mattered more than the shape or weight or composition of the bullet, or it's velocity. I refer you to the US Army Thompson-LeGarde testing, which disclosed that bullet caliber was the single most critical factor, as long as the bullet travelled fast enough to penetrate clothing and skin, the size of the wound channel was roughly proportional to the cube of the caliber.

It may well be that the 5.56 is adequate for short/medium ranges, not giving up any significant performance advantage to the older larger calibers used in WW2. The superiority of the .308 and .30-06 at medium/longer ranges is not even in question. But I do not happen to know anybody that hunts deer with an AR-15 type weapon, or considers it a good choice, at least in 5.56. I have seen the .243 Winchester used by smaller women, but I believe it is marginal at best for deer. The .223 is for smaller game and varmints. And for wounding but not killing humans.

The military is not in the business of killing, no matter what you may believe. Their objective is to always accomplish the mission they are given, while preventing the opposing military force from achieving theirs. That is what infantry does. If you just want to kill, you can drop cluster bombs from a B-52.
KaiserJeep 2.0, Neural Subnode 0010 0000 0001 0110 - 1001 0011 0011, Tertiary Adjunct to Unimatrix 0000 0000 0001

Resistance is Futile, YOU will be Assimilated.

Warning: Messages timestamped before April 1, 2016, 06:00 PST were posted by the unmodified human KaiserJeep 1.0
KaiserJeep
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 6094
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 16:16:32
Location: Wisconsin's Dreamland

Re: Common Sense Gun Control

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Fri 06 Apr 2018, 06:28:37

One thing you both are missing is the difference between soft point hunting ammunition and military FMJ (full metal jacket) ball ammo.
When the Rough Riders charged up San Juan Hill they discovered that the FMJ ammo of the Spanish armies 7x57 Mauser rifles either killed you outright or left a clean wound that would heal up without the tremendous amounts of gangrene and amputations that our officers had seen in the civil war from 58 caliber soft lead Minie balls.
We adopted a copy of the clip fed Mauser rifle making the ammo case a quarter inch longer hoping to avoid patent infringement and necked it out to 30 caliber as the barrel making equipment in our arsenals had been making the 30-40 Kraig rifle. We lost the patent argument and had to pay Paul Mauser millions. We also pushed for what became the Geneva convention rule requiring the exclusive use of FMJ ammo as it was considered to be a more humane way to fight.
With FMJ ammo the diameter of the bullet is the only thing that counts other then the terminal velocity of the round as there no bullet expansion to consider.
Soft point hunting ammunition on the other hand often doubles in diameter on impact and can deliver much more of it's terminal energy inside a relatively thin target.
You would not want to hunt deer with 5.56x47 FMJ ammo but with a heavy for caliber soft point bullet which can be found or hand loaded will serve well enough but most of the 223 soft point ammo is intended for varmint hunting and to shatter on impact to avoid ricochets. The 243 Winchester is entirely adequate for deer with 100 grain soft point bullets but again if you don't read the label you may of grabbed a box of wood chuck bullets.
Even a 30-06 is not adequate (or ethical) for deer if you load it with military FMJ ball ammo.
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 9771
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 02:00:00

Re: Common Sense Gun Control

Unread postby Cog » Fri 06 Apr 2018, 12:00:18

5.56 comes in all sorts of bullet weights 55 grain to 77 grain and including hollow point ammo. Not saying its an excellent hunting round for deer but deer are taken with it. Humans are not deer and we don't normally have to track down their blood trail to harvest the meat like we would a deer. No matter what you use, hitting a vital whether its a human or other animal matters. 5.56 is a very accurate round.
User avatar
Cog
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 12466
Joined: Sat 17 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: Northern Kekistan

Re: Common Sense Gun Control

Unread postby KaiserJeep » Fri 06 Apr 2018, 12:23:31

The accuracy is not in question. But I just do not own an AR type weapon because it is a toy costing about $1000. I appreciate the toy aspect but there are other $1000 toys I would rather have.

I do understand that the AR is for punching .223 caliber holes in paper targets. That is what the majority are used for, and the only thing I ever used one for. For hunting I have a shotgun and a larger caliber rifle. The shotgun does double duty as a home defense weapon.

Those who think that guns serve no other purpose than to shoot people are just as wrong as the shooters themselves.
KaiserJeep 2.0, Neural Subnode 0010 0000 0001 0110 - 1001 0011 0011, Tertiary Adjunct to Unimatrix 0000 0000 0001

Resistance is Futile, YOU will be Assimilated.

Warning: Messages timestamped before April 1, 2016, 06:00 PST were posted by the unmodified human KaiserJeep 1.0
KaiserJeep
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 6094
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 16:16:32
Location: Wisconsin's Dreamland

Re: Common Sense Gun Control

Unread postby Cog » Fri 06 Apr 2018, 15:16:06

Well the first of many state bans is underway for AR's as well as any other "scary" rifles. So we just turn law abiding AR owners into felons. Has Massachusetts had anyone killed in a mass shooting with an AR15? Google search did not return any hits, but its the feelings that matter here. :roll:

http://thehill.com/regulation/court-bat ... ns-ban?amp

A federal judge dismissed a lawsuit on Friday challenging Massachusetts's ban on assault weapons.

U.S. District Judge William Young said in his ruling that the firearms and large magazines banned by the state in 1998 are "not within the scope of the personal right to 'bear Arms' under the Second Amendment."

The features of a military-style rifle are "designed and intended to be particularly suitable for combat rather than sporting applications," Young wrote.

Massachusetts was within its rights since the ban passed directly through elected representatives, Young decided.

"Other states are equally free to leave them unregulated and available to their law-abiding citizens," Young wrote. "These policy matters are simply not of constitutional moment. Americans are not afraid of bumptious, raucous, and robust debate about these matters. We call it democracy."

The lawsuit was filed last year by the Gun Owners Action League of Massachusetts, who claimed the law infringed on their Second Amendment rights.

Attorney General Maura Healey (D), a defendant in the suit, said the ban "vindicates the right of the people of Massachusetts to protect themselves from these weapons of war."

"Strong gun laws save lives, and we will not be intimidated by the gun lobby in our efforts to end the sale of assault weapons and protect our communities and schools," Healey said in a Facebook statement. "Families across the nation should take heart in this victory."
User avatar
Cog
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 12466
Joined: Sat 17 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: Northern Kekistan

Re: Common Sense Gun Control

Unread postby Cog » Fri 06 Apr 2018, 15:19:40

KaiserJeep wrote:The accuracy is not in question. But I just do not own an AR type weapon because it is a toy costing about $1000. I appreciate the toy aspect but there are other $1000 toys I would rather have.

I do understand that the AR is for punching .223 caliber holes in paper targets. That is what the majority are used for, and the only thing I ever used one for. For hunting I have a shotgun and a larger caliber rifle. The shotgun does double duty as a home defense weapon.

Those who think that guns serve no other purpose than to shoot people are just as wrong as the shooters themselves.


My last three AR builds were around $500. If you can put a lower parts kit into a stripped lower, you don't need to be paying $1000.
User avatar
Cog
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 12466
Joined: Sat 17 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: Northern Kekistan

Re: Common Sense Gun Control

Unread postby Newfie » Fri 06 Apr 2018, 15:54:42

I suspect we are in for a long debate over this topic in this country. A CONTINUED long debate I should say.
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 12593
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Between Canada and Carribean

Re: Common Sense Gun Control

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Fri 06 Apr 2018, 18:51:54

Well let us hope that it is a continued long debate of words only.
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 9771
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 02:00:00

Re: Common Sense Gun Control

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Fri 06 Apr 2018, 21:59:52

User avatar
vtsnowedin
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 9771
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 02:00:00

Re: Common Sense Gun Control

Unread postby Newfie » Tue 04 Sep 2018, 08:35:17

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/artic ... 37960.html

Not the world’s best article but some interesting insights on a couple of different fronts. A worthwhile read.

I’ll hold my comments and opions and observations for the moment and give folks a chance to read it.
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 12593
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Between Canada and Carribean

Re: Common Sense Gun Control

Unread postby Cog » Tue 04 Sep 2018, 13:35:11

Thanks for posting this. A link to the John Lott paper referenced in your link Newfie.


https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm ... id=3238736
User avatar
Cog
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 12466
Joined: Sat 17 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: Northern Kekistan

Re: Common Sense Gun Control

Unread postby KaiserJeep » Tue 04 Sep 2018, 14:21:58

The key information: With 4.4% of the World population, the USA had less than 3% of the mass shootings, and is well under average. That is NOT the narrative that the media wants you to hear.

The most deadly mass killing by a single person did not actually involve guns. In July 14, 2016, a Tunisian named Mohamed Lahouaiej-Bouhlel who was living in France, drove a 20-ton truck into a crowd celebrating Bastille Day in the city of Nice, killing 86 and wounding 458. Compare this to the 56 deaths and 422 wounds suffered at the hands of the Las Vegas concert shooter.

I would infer two things:

1) A heavy truck is a deadlier weapon than any form of small firearm.
2) The desire to kill will find expression regardless of the availability of guns.
KaiserJeep 2.0, Neural Subnode 0010 0000 0001 0110 - 1001 0011 0011, Tertiary Adjunct to Unimatrix 0000 0000 0001

Resistance is Futile, YOU will be Assimilated.

Warning: Messages timestamped before April 1, 2016, 06:00 PST were posted by the unmodified human KaiserJeep 1.0
KaiserJeep
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 6094
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 16:16:32
Location: Wisconsin's Dreamland

Re: Common Sense Gun Control

Unread postby Newfie » Tue 04 Sep 2018, 18:51:43

One thing I note was, when needlessly going over past shooters he noted the Camden shooters weird comments mid stream. Although he mentioned the Texas bell tower shooter he do not mention his suicide note and that he had a brain tumor which disrupted his ability to moderate actions. From other readings I know over half of USA death row inmates have suffered damage to their prefrontal cortex, inhibiting there ability to moderate activity.

I think it would be interesting to have a study of mass shooters looking for brain trauma to see if there is any commonality. I suspect there will be a cohort with trauma, and another group without.

The writing annoyed me. He spent a lot of time needlessly going over incidents that added nothing to the story. Perhaps to feed the public’s purient interest?

I thought more should have be said about how to standardize the definition of a shooter, or mass killer, or even attempted mass killer.

I don’t take great relief knowing there are only 9 countries in the world more violent than the USA. I was a bit surprised to see INDIA as #1, but not terribly surprised.
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 12593
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Between Canada and Carribean

Re: Common Sense Gun Control

Unread postby Newfie » Sat 22 Jun 2019, 15:29:33

Came upon this....

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/artic ... pport.html

A policy called Extreme Risk Protection Order, also known as a Gun Violence Restraining Order or sometimes a “red flag law,” has garnered significant bipartisan support. ERPOs are currently in place in 16 states and are up for a vote in seven more.

In simple terms, an ERPO sets up a process for reporting to authorities a fellow citizen who displays distressing behavior.



I still think the bigger issues are that:
We can’t encore the gun laws we have now.
We seem to be having some crisis trusting our police.
Underlying issues are mostly socioeconomic and we haven’t a clue about fixing that.
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 12593
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Between Canada and Carribean

PreviousNext

Return to North America Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests