The Thread Where We Discuss Guns and Gun Control

Older officers that manage to stick through the jading process and not wind up massive alcoholics are gems. I think it helps them as much as anyone when the do the school events. They get to do work stuff where it isn't a domestic, or sexual abuse, or or or. Community policing is expensive as hell and mostly win.
 
Because it's a trademark term that and colloquially it doesn't describe anything in particular other than a vaguely generic 70 year old direct impingement rifle design. As a talking point about gun control it's almost confusing and misused resulting in many people being less informed on the subject of gun violence and I think that helps nobody. Hope that helps.

It doesn't help at all. Are you trying to claim that AR-15s don't exist? You can literally google it and find them for sale on various gun hobbyist websites so I don't know what you think you're trying to prove here.

"AR-15 bullets" is also a misnomer since cartridge has it's own characteristics independent from the gun that fires it. And the difference between rifle bullet lethality is hardly as great as people think.

"AR-15 bullets" in the context in which I used it simply means any round fired out of an AR-15-style rifle.

Assuming you mean "the difference between rifle and pistol bullet lethality" in the second sentence there, well, either you intentionally changed it from "AR-15" to "rifle" and are thus full of horsehocky, or you are actually claiming that rounds fired from an AR-15 are not significantly more lethal than pistol rounds, in which case...you're also full of horsehocky:
https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...land-should-change-the-debate-on-guns/553937/

In a typical handgun injury, which I diagnose almost daily, a bullet leaves a laceration through an organ such as the liver. To a radiologist, it appears as a linear, thin, gray bullet track through the organ. There may be bleeding and some bullet fragments.

I was looking at a CT scan of one of the mass-shooting victims from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, who had been brought to the trauma center during my call shift. The organ looked like an overripe melon smashed by a sledgehammer, and was bleeding extensively. How could a gunshot wound have caused this much damage?

The reaction in the emergency room was the same. One of the trauma surgeons opened a young victim in the operating room, and found only shreds of the organ that had been hit by a bullet from an AR-15, a semiautomatic rifle that delivers a devastatingly lethal, high-velocity bullet to the victim. Nothing was left to repair—and utterly, devastatingly, nothing could be done to fix the problem. The injury was fatal.

A year ago, when a gunman opened fire at the Fort Lauderdale airport with a 9 mm semiautomatic handgun, hitting 11 people in 90 seconds, I was also on call. It was not until I had diagnosed the third of the six victims who were transported to the trauma center that I realized something out of the ordinary must have happened. The gunshot wounds were the same low-velocity handgun injuries that I diagnose every day; only their rapid succession set them apart. And all six of the victims who arrived at the hospital that day survived.
 
"AR-15 bullets" in the context in which I used it simply means any round fired out of an AR-15-style rifle.

Assuming you mean "the difference between rifle and pistol bullet lethality" in the second sentence there, well, either you intentionally changed it from "AR-15" to "rifle" and are thus full of ****, or you are actually claiming that rounds fired from an AR-15 are not significantly more lethal than pistol rounds, in which case...you're also full of ****:
https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...land-should-change-the-debate-on-guns/553937/

I have an AR-15 chambered in .22

It's incredibly meaningless to say 'AR-15 bullets' in the spirit in which you used it, as the standard .223 round is something like six times more powerful than my .22

Also, the AR-15 is a rifle, and it fires rifle bullets (as opposed to pistol bullets, which you know already since you made the point of separating them).

It doesn't help at all. Are you trying to claim that AR-15s don't exist? You can literally google it and find them for sale on various gun hobbyist websites so I don't know what you think you're trying to prove here.

I think you missed the point
 
It's incredibly meaningless to say 'AR-15 bullets' in the spirit in which you used it, as the standard .223 round is something like six times more powerful than my .22

Fair enough. I would gather that the .22 rounds fired from your AR-15 are still more powerful (more kinetic energy) than typical pistol rounds, though.

I think you missed the point

Apparently so. It doesn't matter, really, because I don't go in for the whole "just ban AR-15s" thing. While, again, mass shootings in schools with AR-15s chambered in the standard .223 are a powerful symbol of how Americans believe gun industry profits are more important than the lives of children, most gun violence is not mass shootings.
 
Still wrong unless you're comparing them to like .25acp which nobody uses because they're too weak lol

you would much rather be shot by a .22 hollow point (36 grain bullet at ~1200fps) than any standard 9mm (115 grain bullet, over 50% wider, at the same velocity)
 
Still wrong unless you're comparing them to like .25acp or .32 which nobody uses because they're too weak lol

I don't know what you're referring to here. You mean .22 rounds from your AR-15 are actually imparting less kinetic energy to the target than a typical pistol round? What's the point of having an AR-15 chambered in .22 then? Looks cool?

you would much rather be shot by a .22 hollow point than any standard 9mm

This whole song-and-dance routine of sorting out the differences between all the types of ammunition and the various chambers and permutations of guns would matter more if I was for banning specific types of guns, but I don't want people running around loose with handguns firing 9mm ammunition either. I don't want people to have guns. That includes the police, and it even includes the military to some extent.

Earlier you said don't disarm "the people", but "the people" in the US who have most of the guns are exactly the people who most need to be disarmed: cops, and right-wing lunatics (to the extent that those two groups don't already overlap).
 
Hell yeah

I use mine for target shooting (6-10 times cheaper to shoot than .223) and in the impossible event of 'need gun because societal collapse' mine looks intimindating af while using one of the three most common ammo types

It also holds a standard capacity without looking stupid like most other .22s out there
 
Hell yeah

I use mine for target shooting (6-10 times cheaper to shoot than .223) and in the impossible event of 'need gun because societal collapse' mine looks intimindating af while using one of the three most common ammo types

It also holds a standard capacity without looking stupid like most other .22s out there

I think, if society actually collapses, I'll go around caving gun owners' skulls in with a wrench while they're sleeping just to make a point.
 
I can imagine us transforming into a socialist country easier than I can imagine us getting rid of all the guns

they're already out there and they're not going away
 
It's just a matter of making the effort required. I admit, really getting rid of all of them quickly would likely take measures that even the most pro-gun-control Americans would be uncomfortable with. OTOH I don't think it would take many generations to nip the whole gun-fixation thing in the bud through social engineering.
 
I don't know what you're referring to here. You mean .22 rounds from your AR-15 are actually imparting less kinetic energy to the target than a typical pistol round? What's the point of having an AR-15 chambered in .22 then? Looks cool?

For general understanding: .22 (technically, ".22 Long Rifle", abbreviated 22LR) is a rimfire round that is very very inexpensive compared to rifle and pistol centerfire rounds, and is probably the most widely available ammunition on the planet. It is both a rifle and pistol round, there's plenty of both types of firearms chambered for it, and is one step above a BB/pellet rifle as being what most rural children start their firearms experience with. It has a relatively small 20-40grain bullet (pistol bullets tend to be 100-250gr) at 1000-1600 feet per second (which is on the middle to high end of average pistol velocities). The most powerful common pistol round is .44 Magnum has 250-300gr bullets at 1200-1500 feet per second. Meanwhile the AR-15 typical chambering is the ".223 Remington" which has a 40-60gr bullet at 3000ish feet per second, and 5.56 NATO, which is pretty much the same. For comparison, AK-47 usual chambering is the 7.62x39 round, 120-150gr bullets at 2000-2500 feet per second, and a typical hunting round .308 is 120-150gr in the 2500-3000fps range and 30-06 which is 150-200gr in the same 2500-3000fps range.

TLDR, rifles have bullet speeds about 3x faster than pistol bullet, but tend to be a little smaller. 22LR has pistol speeds but rifle bullet size. Rifle rounds tend to be far more lethal than pistol rounds.
 
It doesn't help at all. Are you trying to claim that AR-15s don't exist? You can literally google it and find them for sale on various gun hobbyist websites so I don't know what you think you're trying to prove here.

Mostly that AR-15 is a vague colloquial term.

"AR-15 bullets" in the context in which I used it simply means any round fired out of an AR-15-style rifle.

Yes. Understood.

Assuming you mean "the difference between rifle and pistol bullet lethality" in the second sentence there, well, either you intentionally changed it from "AR-15" to "rifle" and are thus full of ****.

No. The difference between rifle bullet lethality is hardly as great as people think. i.e. ammunition designed for use in rifles such as an AR-15 type.

or you are actually claiming that rounds fired from an AR-15 are not significantly more lethal than pistol rounds, in which case...you're also full of ****:

Correct. I'd be wrong to say something like that. Centerfire rifle ammunition (fired in an AR-15 or any firearm) is more powerful than typical handgun ammunition.
 
This whole song-and-dance routine of sorting out the differences between all the types of ammunition and the various chambers and permutations of guns would matter more if I was for banning specific types of guns

I hate to be that guy but... you brought it up. Although I admit that I have trouble expressing technical stuff on any subject and and am a bit of mush mouth.
 
No. The difference between rifle bullet lethality is hardly as great as people think. i.e. ammunition designed for use in rifles such as an AR-15 type.

You mean different types of ammunition designed for rifles, then? This still doesn't make sense as written.

I hate to be that guy but... you brought it up.

You were the one who claimed that AR-15 is a "red herring term." I can actually understand that if there is a version that fires .22 LR rounds and that is called AR-15 along with the standard chambering in .223 or 5.56 NATO. It doesn't really make any sense to talk about those two guns as if they are the same thing.

But that is still irrelevant to my general position, which is that the only way to substantially reduce gun violence is to substantially reduce the number of guns in society. Banning AR-15s or extended magazines or bump stocks or whatever is the latest liberal attempt to
prevent the most recent very high-profile murder.

just ain't gonna cut it.
 
As an aside... Biden is back under 50% and Trump is closing the gap. So I still say that the election is his to lose, despite him being behind in the polls

I've been trying to convince as many people as I can to not vote for Trump. I've been doing that ever since his infamous "take the guns first, due process second" line. Trump lost a lot of people in the gun community on that line. Those people aren't going to vote for Biden, but they are either going to stay home or vote third party.
 
I've been trying to convince as many people as I can to not vote for Trump. I've been doing that ever since his infamous "take the guns first, due process second" line. Trump lost a lot of people in the gun community on that line. Those people aren't going to vote for Biden, but they are either going to stay home or vote third party.
Here's the video:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/vide...767df6-1cec-11e8-98f5-ceecfa8741b6_video.html

"Take the firearms first, then go to Court ... Take the guns first, go through Due Process second." Yeah in some ways that's kinda the opposite of the spirit of Due Process.
 
Here's the video:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/vide...767df6-1cec-11e8-98f5-ceecfa8741b6_video.html

"Take the firearms first, then go to Court ... Take the guns first, go through Due Process second." Yeah in some ways that's kinda the opposite of the spirit of Due Process.

Oh I've seen the video plenty of times. What boils my blood is there is another version of that clip from another angle that shows Feinstein acting like an overjoyed toddler when Trump said it. Like she was just relishing the idea of taking guns away from people.
 
Oh I've seen the video plenty of times. What boils my blood is there is another version of that clip from another angle that shows Feinstein acting like an overjoyed toddler when Trump said it. Like she was just relishing the idea of taking guns away from people.
She is, but its not happening. Gun-grabbing is a losing issue.
 
She is, but its not happening. Gun-grabbing is a losing issue.

I don't know that it is anymore. A lot of anti-gun Republicans have been getting elected recently and the worrying part is a lot of those anti-gun Republicans were backed by the NRA. Speaking of the NRA, they don't even pretend to stand up for gun rights anymore. I mean, they never really did, but at least they acted like it in the past. They used to file lawsuits over almost every gun law that would get passed at all levels of government and now they don't lift a finger to challenge most gun laws. This might be a result of their reported financial difficulties though.

Gun owners themselves have also shown they are largely paper tigers. There's always a lot of tough talk in the gun community about "Molon Labe" and "from my cold dead hands" but they never live up to that talk. They just sit back and whine about every new gun law on internet forums and YouTube comment sections and waste time writing to representatives and senators who don't give a wooden nickel about their opinion.

The political climate has never been more favorable to the anti-gun movement than it is now, and it's only going to get better for them in the future.
 
The political climate has never been more favorable to the anti-gun movement than it is now, and it's only going to get better for them in the future.

I disagree with that. While it seems likely that we're about to have a legacy anti-gun Dem president (vs Obama that shied away from it) and Schumer (another legacy anti-gun pol vs Harry Reid that was definitely not) running a Senate majority that makes the federal level look very gloomy to me, on the other hand we have the Heller and McDonald decisions putting a floor on any gun bans, a vast spread of (and distinct lack of massive trauma resulting from) relaxing of concealed carry laws surfing a wave of public acceptance of guns, and oh by the way some of the same folks saying you don't need guns because police are now saying the police are not necessarily the protection you thought they were.
 
Top Bottom