Author Topic: March For Our Lives 3/24/18  (Read 34594 times)

libertarian4321

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1395
Re: March For Our Lives 3/24/18
« Reply #150 on: March 29, 2018, 05:39:37 PM »

Did you not know this?

<Edited because the post was far too long>

The particular weapons I showed were different.  Yes, you can get either the 10-22 or the AR-15 chambered for anything from .22 to 5.56 NATO.

You can also get high (or low) capacity mags for either.  The flash suppressor (or lack thereof) ain't much of an issue in a school shooting in broad daylight.

Also, I hate to bring this up, because I do NOT promote the use of bump stocks.  But I don't think I'm going to be giving away any secrets that anyone in this forum can't figure out for himself.

You can use a bump stock with the Ruger 10-22.  Anyone who puts two minutes of effort into it can figure out how to use either a commercial bump stock or a home made bump stock on a Ruger 10-22.

BTW, you can also modify semi-auto handguns to use bump stocks.   Commercial or home made.  "Bump stock" technology isn't something that requires a degree in mechanical engineering to figure out.  Anyone with a few common materials and simple hand tools can make one at home.  And you can buy magazines for pistols that can hold 100 rounds.  In other words, anyone who wants to do so can turn any semi-auto pistol into a far more deadly weapon than the unmodified AR-15s used in the school shooting.

FWIW, I have no problem with "banning" bump stocks.  I believe it would be completely ineffective for the reasons I mentioned, but if it will make some of you folks happy, I won't get upset about it.  I have no use for bump stocks, nor do probably 99+% of us who own AR-15s.

So it comes down to this:  Calling for a "ban" on just one small segment of the semi-auto market- the scary black plastic "assault style" rifles- is utterly pointless as any criminal can easily get as much (or far more) firepower by making easy modifications to essentially ANY semi-auto weapon. 

You would need to ban ALL semi-auto weapons- rifles (both with and without scary black plastic), handguns, and even shotguns, and I guarantee you that isn't going to happen.

If that is your real goal- to effectively eliminate the second amendment, good luck to you.  Barack Obama, with control of both houses of Congress, knew he couldn't pass even minor gun control legislation, so he didn't even try.  Good luck getting rid of the 2nd amendment, which would be just a tad more difficult than trying to enhance background checks (which, btw, I could also live with-I'm not unwilling to discuss reasonable steps).







« Last Edit: March 29, 2018, 05:41:13 PM by libertarian4321 »

libertarian4321

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1395
Re: March For Our Lives 3/24/18
« Reply #151 on: March 29, 2018, 06:30:37 PM »
Ideally, here's what I want:
1. universal background checks every time you buy a gun.
2. registry of guns and who owns them. Federal level would be best, but state is better than none.
3. Automatic cross reference between the registries and individuals involved in violent crimes, domestic violence incidents, have a mental illness/emotional instability that makes them prone to violence. Basically, identify people who have been or reasonably could be a threat to others and figure out who's got guns.
4. no magazines (or whatever holds the bullets) which can hold more than 10 bullets.
5. no guns that allow you to fire multiple bullets without depressing the trigger each time. That might be automatic?
6. If you fall into one or more of the categories in #3, then you can't buy guns and have to give up any guns you own (with fair market value compensation)
7. requirement that to have a gun, you also have to have gun safe and the gun must be properly secured in it.
8. buy back programs for unwanted/damaged/confiscated guns, then they're destroyed.
9. minimum age to buy a gun and a minimum age to own a gun. say 21.

I think that this would go a long way to preventing accidents and overall reducing the number of "problem" guns (ie, the ones involved in shootings, etc) while still allowing responsible people to own guns. I also don't think it's unreasonable. Sure, you have some hoops to jump through, but you're trying to acquire an object capable of killing people. It's not unreasonable to ask that you demonstrate you're not likely to use it for that purpose.

You make too much sense--and everytiime someone brings up some of these commonsense notions of regulation, they push back like you are trying to ban all guns.  Because of this push back, and unwillingness to embrace some of these commonsense notions, I'm starting to fall into the retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens camp....

If we can't agree on gun regulation, perhaps the Second Amendment needs to be repealed....

https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/27/politics/john-paul-stevens-second-amendment/index.html

No NRA supporter will go for this stuff. The whole point of their lobby is to refuse any measure of increased regulation. So there's no point in talking to the hard-liners on this thread about any of it.

As a former NRA supporter, I gotta believe others might see things differently too.

But you are right that the current objectives are so looney-toon crazy that they can't see any compromise.  Therefore, I see NRA contributions as indicator who NOT to vote for.

For my friends in Arizona, please vote for Doctor Hiral Tipirneni for Congress in the April 24, 2018 Election.  She proudly gets an "F" rating from the NRA, while her opponent gets an "A+" 

To get to know more about Doctor Tipineni, you can see her information a http://hiralforcongress.com  God forbid we actually elect a smart, educated, women of color

You have to be more than "smart and educated and a woman of color" to win a Congressional seat.

You also have to understand how our electoral system works.

The district she's running in is Gerrymandered R+13 PVI.  It's Gerrymandered so heavily Republican that the Dems didn't even bother to field a candidate the last two elections.  They knew the district was unwinnable in those elections.

Trump hanging like an albatross around the neck of all Republicans gives the Dems enough hope to take a stab at it.  But it's a shot in the dark.  Unless the Dems have some sort of silver bullet, like a surprise scandal they plan to unveil about the Republican woman running for the seat, the district will go Republican.

An "F" rating from the NRA helps Dems in MA and NY. 

It does not help them in places like AZ and TX.  Even the last Dem to hold that seat, Gabby Giffords (which was before it was redistricted so heavily Republican) made sure everyone knew she was a gun owner- because east coast liberal extremism on guns doesn't fly in the southwest.

In other words, don't bet the rent money on this one.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23129
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: March For Our Lives 3/24/18
« Reply #152 on: March 29, 2018, 07:23:20 PM »
You can also get high (or low) capacity mags for either.  The flash suppressor (or lack thereof) ain't much of an issue in a school shooting in broad daylight.

You sure can.  But you claimed that the difference between the two guns is that the black one looks scary.  That's objectively not true for all the reasons I provided.  The AR15 pictured has features that aren't displayed on the Ruger, features that make it more deadly.


So it comes down to this:  Calling for a "ban" on just one small segment of the semi-auto market- the scary black plastic "assault style" rifles- is utterly pointless as any criminal can easily get as much (or far more) firepower by making easy modifications to essentially ANY semi-auto weapon. 

Agreed, if people were only calling for a ban on scary looking black weapons.  Pretending that this is the case is dishonest.
 There is absolutely valid reason to discuss regulating aspects of guns that make them more deadly and aren't cosmetic.  Things like pistol grips, flash suppressors, and telescoping stocks.  Things that were all displayed in your picture.

the_gastropod

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 470
  • Age: 37
  • Location: RVA
Re: March For Our Lives 3/24/18
« Reply #153 on: March 29, 2018, 09:20:43 PM »
If random people carrying guns is supposed to be better than armed police, we really need to beef up our LEO training....
No the whole pro-gun viewpoint is not based on that being better.  It is the fact that not knowing who might have one acts as a deterrent through fear and intimidation.  Real solid position and why I find it totally contrary to any rational viewpoint I care to hold.  Living in a society that is "safe" because we are all afraid of each other sounds really sucky.

Texas Firearm Ownership Rate:  35,700 per 100,000
Texas Violent Crime Rate:  433.7 per 100,000
California Firearm Ownership Rate: 20,100 per 100,000
California Violent Crime Rate: 444 per 100,000


I'll stay in Texas, thank you.

Sources:
https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/gun-ownership-rates-by-state/34/
http://www.dps.texas.gov/crimereports/16/executiveSummary.pdf
http://www.ppic.org/publication/crime-trends-in-california/

Really?  You feel that adding 78% more gun ownership and achieving barely a 2% decrease in crime rate somehow is a good statistic to parade out?

But guns kill people 11! 1!!!1!

The real question is why does Texas not have 78% more gun crime if guns = crime?

Couple things:
1. Nobody is claiming a 1:1 mapping of gun increase : gun violence.
2. Cherry-picking states to suit your narrative is obvious. Comparing Texas to a state with 2x the population density is obviously problematic. You're also ignoring that California shares a border with two states with very lax gun laws (Arizona and Nevada). When presented with a reasonable example, (New York, which has 4x the population density!), you pretty much ignored it. New York (and much of the northeast) has low gun crime thanks to most of its bordering states having strong gun control laws. Crossing a state border doesn't make gun ownership easy in NY, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Hawaii, Massachusetts, etc. It's not surprising that these states have the lowest rates of gun violence.

http://lawcenter.giffords.org/scorecard/

Sibley

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7428
  • Location: Northwest Indiana
Re: March For Our Lives 3/24/18
« Reply #154 on: March 30, 2018, 08:21:18 AM »

A gun owner who does not secure his firearm in a safe should be held criminally responsible for anything that happens with his or her weapon if stolen or used by another person (like a child).  If you don't want to take this responsibility on, don't own a gun (or simply store it safely).

What are the storage requirements in Canada?

Weapons stored unloaded, with trigger lock or in a locked cabinet/safe.

If wikipedia is accurate (always an if), a safe is only one of the options -

Restricted firearms must be unloaded and either:

Made inoperable with a secure locking device (such as a trigger lock) and securely locked in a sturdy container, cabinet or room that cannot be easily broken into; or
Locked in a vault, safe or room that was built or adapted for storing these types of firearms 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Canada

I agree with you on safe storage, but I suspect we disagree on the definition of what safe storage is.  My unattended weapons are unloaded, in a locked house, in a locked closet.  A safe seems like an undue burden for most gun owners.  With the exception of adding a trigger lock (which does nothing to prevent theft), my firearms would be stored in compliance with the laws of Canada for storage.

If I had a loaded firearm in my house, it would be in a safe because I have kids.  I agree (trying to find common ground rather than argue), that dipshits who leave unattended loaded firearms within easy access of children are a problem and should be held responsible if something happens.

Yeah, that sounds accurate.  I don't know anyone with a dedicated locked room for gun storage, we always used a gun cabinet.  As long as it's stored unloaded, and locked so that it can't easily be stolen I'd say you're meeting a reasonable definition of 'safe storage'.

I can agree with that. I'd like to prevent the stupid (they are stupid) accidents and deaths of children finding a loaded gun and accidentally killing or injuring themselves or others. It's not hard to unload a gun and lock it up somewhere when it's not being actively used, and it's criminal when you don't and someone is hurt or killed as a result. if you can't commit to safe storage, then I wouldn't consider you to be a safe, responsible gun owner.

BlueHouse

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4136
  • Location: WDC
Re: March For Our Lives 3/24/18
« Reply #155 on: March 30, 2018, 10:58:39 AM »
You are being ridiculous, or you know nothing about guns (which is pretty common among the "ban" crowd).


[MOD NOTE: Manners, please.  If you can't keep your tone civil, these threads will be shut down.]

The idea that anyone has to "know about guns" to have an opinion is pretty ridiculous.  This strategy, started by the NRA, to make people feel foolish when they call something that is not NRA-classified as an "Assault Weapon" is really ingenious, but also pretty evil.  I'm going to call an AR-15 an Assault Rifle because it is a rifle used for assaulting people or animals or things.  I don't care if the gun manufacturer says it's not an "Assault Rifle".  Really?  Are you still arguing that hollow-point ammo isn't "cop-killer" ammo?  Keep your NRA marketing tropes.  I'll call it whatever I want.

Quote
An AR-15 is a civilian weapon, with no more killing capacity than many common (and rather ancient) hunting or ranch rifles.
I've read a few articles recently by doctors who have operated on victims of AR-15 and other ASSAULT RIFLES.  The main injuries seem to be from the velocity of the bullets, and the cavitation caused once the bullets strike a body/organs.  They rip organs apart making repair much more difficult than if a moving object simply sliced through the body.  So I call BS on "no more killing capacity"

BlueHouse

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4136
  • Location: WDC
Re: March For Our Lives 3/24/18
« Reply #156 on: March 30, 2018, 11:32:39 AM »

The solution of course remains: more guns in the right hands.


So, if we were to give a gun to every African-American, would you still feel like more guns are the answer?

Because I'm finding that a lot of people WHO LIVE NEAR ME who want to carry guns around to protect themselves and their families, are really just racists.  I don't know if this would be the case in a place like Texas.  How do you feel about arming every African-American in your state? 

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1358
Re: March For Our Lives 3/24/18
« Reply #157 on: March 30, 2018, 12:12:57 PM »

The solution of course remains: more guns in the right hands.


So, if we were to give a gun to every African-American, would you still feel like more guns are the answer?

Because I'm finding that a lot of people WHO LIVE NEAR ME who want to carry guns around to protect themselves and their families, are really just racists.  I don't know if this would be the case in a place like Texas.  How do you feel about arming every African-American in your state?

I'm cool with African-Americans who qualify owning guns. Just like any other race.

Despite assertions to the contrary, most gun owners I know could care less about your race. 
« Last Edit: March 30, 2018, 12:14:32 PM by Midwest »

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23129
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: March For Our Lives 3/24/18
« Reply #158 on: March 30, 2018, 01:00:47 PM »

The solution of course remains: more guns in the right hands.


So, if we were to give a gun to every African-American, would you still feel like more guns are the answer?

Because I'm finding that a lot of people WHO LIVE NEAR ME who want to carry guns around to protect themselves and their families, are really just racists.  I don't know if this would be the case in a place like Texas.  How do you feel about arming every African-American in your state?

I'm cool with African-Americans who qualify owning guns. Just like any other race.

Despite assertions to the contrary, most gun owners I know could care less about your race.

The assertions to the contrary appear to be backed by research.  Not every person who opposes gun control is racist, obviously.  The data would suggest that you may not know a representative sample of gun owners:

"Racial resentment is a statistically significant and substantively important predictor of white opposition to gun control." - https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11109-015-9326-4

"The results support the hypothesis by showing that greater symbolic racism is related to increased odds of having a gun in the home and greater opposition to gun control, after accounting for all other explanatory variables." - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3815007/

"These men claim that they are motivated by a desire to protect their wives and children, to compensate for lost strength as they age, and to defend themselves against people and places they perceive as dangerous, especially those involving racial/ethnic minority men" - http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0891243211434612

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1358
Re: March For Our Lives 3/24/18
« Reply #159 on: March 30, 2018, 01:16:43 PM »

The solution of course remains: more guns in the right hands.


So, if we were to give a gun to every African-American, would you still feel like more guns are the answer?

Because I'm finding that a lot of people WHO LIVE NEAR ME who want to carry guns around to protect themselves and their families, are really just racists.  I don't know if this would be the case in a place like Texas.  How do you feel about arming every African-American in your state?

I'm cool with African-Americans who qualify owning guns. Just like any other race.

Despite assertions to the contrary, most gun owners I know could care less about your race.

The assertions to the contrary appear to be backed by research.  Not every person who opposes gun control is racist, obviously.  The data would suggest that you may not know a representative sample of gun owners:

"Racial resentment is a statistically significant and substantively important predictor of white opposition to gun control." - https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11109-015-9326-4

"The results support the hypothesis by showing that greater symbolic racism is related to increased odds of having a gun in the home and greater opposition to gun control, after accounting for all other explanatory variables." - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3815007/

"These men claim that they are motivated by a desire to protect their wives and children, to compensate for lost strength as they age, and to defend themselves against people and places they perceive as dangerous, especially those involving racial/ethnic minority men" - http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0891243211434612

Let's assume that's true.  Why is it relevant to the discussion other than to vilify and demonize gun owners?  Most legal gun owners are law abiding citizens.

It's a variation the accusation that people with guns (or sports cars...)  are compensating for something else.



TexasRunner

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 926
  • Age: 32
  • Location: Somewhere in Tejas
Re: March For Our Lives 3/24/18
« Reply #160 on: March 30, 2018, 01:17:31 PM »

The solution of course remains: more guns in the right hands.


So, if we were to give a gun to every African-American, would you still feel like more guns are the answer?

Because I'm finding that a lot of people WHO LIVE NEAR ME who want to carry guns around to protect themselves and their families, are really just racists.  I don't know if this would be the case in a place like Texas.  How do you feel about arming every African-American in your state?

I'm cool with African-Americans who qualify owning guns. Just like any other race.

Despite assertions to the contrary, most gun owners I know could care less about your race.

Considering basically no LTC holders commit crimes, and about 7% or more of Texas LTCers are black, along with the fact that the african american violent crime rate of about 388.9 in 100,000 is still lower than the crime rate of several other countries, I have absolutely no problem with every citizen regardless of color having a firearm.

A lot like the Swiss model.

But sure, keep insinuating we all a bunch of fucking racists.  Thats not derogatory at all.

TexasRunner

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 926
  • Age: 32
  • Location: Somewhere in Tejas
Re: March For Our Lives 3/24/18
« Reply #161 on: March 30, 2018, 01:21:34 PM »
Or, in other words and to turn this around, why would you want to keep 99,611 lawful african americans out of 100,000 unarmed?  Is there some reason you brought this up other than to call 1/3rd of the country racist?


The solution of course remains: more guns in the right hands.


So, if we were to give a gun to every African-American, would you still feel like more guns are the answer?

Because I'm finding that a lot of people WHO LIVE NEAR ME who want to carry guns around to protect themselves and their families, are really just racists.  I don't know if this would be the case in a place like Texas.  How do you feel about arming every African-American in your state? 


Only on a forum this freaking leftist could this be construed as constructive conversation and not just an attempt to paint all gun owners with a wide brush of racism.

MasterStache

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2912
Re: March For Our Lives 3/24/18
« Reply #162 on: March 30, 2018, 01:43:39 PM »

It's a variation the accusation that people with guns (or sports cars...)  are compensating for something else.

Anyone that claims to own a gun(s) out of fear (ie. to protect themselves) technically is compensating for that fear. The most common reason given for owning a gun is in fact for protection
« Last Edit: March 30, 2018, 01:55:01 PM by MasterStache »

Davnasty

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2793
Re: March For Our Lives 3/24/18
« Reply #163 on: March 30, 2018, 01:52:50 PM »
Or, in other words and to turn this around, why would you want to keep 99,611 lawful african americans out of 100,000 unarmed?  Is there some reason you brought this up other than to call 1/3rd of the country racist?


The solution of course remains: more guns in the right hands.


So, if we were to give a gun to every African-American, would you still feel like more guns are the answer?

Because I'm finding that a lot of people WHO LIVE NEAR ME who want to carry guns around to protect themselves and their families, are really just racists.  I don't know if this would be the case in a place like Texas.  How do you feel about arming every African-American in your state? 


Only on a forum this freaking leftist could this be construed as constructive conversation and not just an attempt to paint all gun owners with a wide brush of racism.

I don't consider it constructive conversation. Are you assuming that everyone who disagrees with you on the main points about gun control is on the same page? I see lots of anecdotal and emotionally charged justification for gun control which I disagree with but it doesn't change my opinions about gun control, for or against.

In BlueHouse's defense, they did specify in pretty big letters "WHO LIVE NEAR ME" as in, this is anecdotal.

I'm sorry that you see this forum as leftist but personally I see it as one of the few places where I am likely to have reasonable debate on the internet. A lot of people on here are obsessively analytical which is probably related to the fact that they can grasp the FIRE concept despite a lifetime of having a different reality presented to them. The truth is just about everyone (myself included) views themselves as the moderate reasonable person while anyone to their left or right is a little out there. It's all relative.

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1358
Re: March For Our Lives 3/24/18
« Reply #164 on: March 30, 2018, 01:53:15 PM »

It's a variation the accusation that people with guns (or sports cars...)  are compensating for something else.

Anyone that claims to own a gun(s) out of fear (ie. to protect themselves) technically is compensating for that fear. The most common reason given for owning a gun is in fact fear.

Again.  So?  That's justification for painting a group of people who happen to own an object as racists?

African American's have historically had a higher murder rate per capita than whites and higher unemployment.  Racists would apply that broad brush to the entire group.  That's ignorant as well and irrelevant to the individual in that group.
« Last Edit: March 30, 2018, 01:55:24 PM by Midwest »

MasterStache

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2912
Re: March For Our Lives 3/24/18
« Reply #165 on: March 30, 2018, 02:02:44 PM »

It's a variation the accusation that people with guns (or sports cars...)  are compensating for something else.

Anyone that claims to own a gun(s) out of fear (ie. to protect themselves) technically is compensating for that fear. The most common reason given for owning a gun is in fact fear.

Again.  So?  That's justification for painting a group of people who happen to own an object as racists?

African American's have historically had a higher murder rate per capita than whites and higher unemployment.  Racists would apply that broad brush to the entire group.  That's ignorant as well and irrelevant to the individual in that group.

So it's pretty justifiable to claim the majority of gun owners are compensating for something. We all do it on a daily basis. For some reason you folks get so freaking defensive about it. I am scared of dying in a car accident. I compensate by being a defensive driver and driving less. So what? I wouldn't take offense to someone pointing it out. 

And who painted all gun owners as racist? I saw a question posed to a particular person and an anecdote provided. The only insinuation seemed to come from the highly defensive. You are perfectly capable of asking said person who posted the comment to explain further rather than jumping to immediate ill advised conclusions and likely creating straw-man arguments.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23129
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: March For Our Lives 3/24/18
« Reply #166 on: March 30, 2018, 02:08:26 PM »

The solution of course remains: more guns in the right hands.


So, if we were to give a gun to every African-American, would you still feel like more guns are the answer?

Because I'm finding that a lot of people WHO LIVE NEAR ME who want to carry guns around to protect themselves and their families, are really just racists.  I don't know if this would be the case in a place like Texas.  How do you feel about arming every African-American in your state?

I'm cool with African-Americans who qualify owning guns. Just like any other race.

Despite assertions to the contrary, most gun owners I know could care less about your race.

The assertions to the contrary appear to be backed by research.  Not every person who opposes gun control is racist, obviously.  The data would suggest that you may not know a representative sample of gun owners:

"Racial resentment is a statistically significant and substantively important predictor of white opposition to gun control." - https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11109-015-9326-4

"The results support the hypothesis by showing that greater symbolic racism is related to increased odds of having a gun in the home and greater opposition to gun control, after accounting for all other explanatory variables." - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3815007/

"These men claim that they are motivated by a desire to protect their wives and children, to compensate for lost strength as they age, and to defend themselves against people and places they perceive as dangerous, especially those involving racial/ethnic minority men" - http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0891243211434612

Let's assume that's true.  Why is it relevant to the discussion other than to vilify and demonize gun owners?  Most legal gun owners are law abiding citizens.

It's a variation the accusation that people with guns (or sports cars...)  are compensating for something else.

You can be racist as fuck and a law abiding citizen.  Heck, you can be racist as fuck and president of the United States.

If (as the research suggests) racial fear is a large component of owning a gun and opposing gun control, then that's something that should be discussed and addressed.  In the same way that it's often argued that gun controls are a band-aid for the problems of undiagnosed/untreated mental illness, it's possible that gun advocacy is merely a symptom of a problem of pervasive underlying racism in the country.  Maybe rethinking our approach and ideas of race and fear is as integral to a solution to the problem as limiting access to the deadliest weapons.

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1358
Re: March For Our Lives 3/24/18
« Reply #167 on: March 30, 2018, 03:00:49 PM »

You can be racist as fuck and a law abiding citizen.

And having an ignorant unpopular opinion isn't illegal nor should it be.


If (as the research suggests) racial fear is a large component of owning a gun and opposing gun control, then that's something that should be discussed and addressed.  In the same way that it's often argued that gun controls are a band-aid for the problems of undiagnosed/untreated mental illness, it's possible that gun advocacy is merely a symptom of a problem of pervasive underlying racism in the country.  Maybe rethinking our approach and ideas of race and fear is as integral to a solution to the problem as limiting access to the deadliest weapons.

If racism were a primary factor in murders in this country, you might have a point.  In fact it's generally the opposite, murders tend to stay within race.  Whites kill whites and so on.   

If we are focusing on factors that drive homicide in this country, it's not gun ownership by fearful white people.

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1358
Re: March For Our Lives 3/24/18
« Reply #168 on: March 30, 2018, 03:16:12 PM »

It's a variation the accusation that people with guns (or sports cars...)  are compensating for something else.

Anyone that claims to own a gun(s) out of fear (ie. to protect themselves) technically is compensating for that fear. The most common reason given for owning a gun is in fact fear.

Again.  So?  That's justification for painting a group of people who happen to own an object as racists?

African American's have historically had a higher murder rate per capita than whites and higher unemployment.  Racists would apply that broad brush to the entire group.  That's ignorant as well and irrelevant to the individual in that group.

So it's pretty justifiable to claim the majority of gun owners are compensating for something. We all do it on a daily basis. For some reason you folks get so freaking defensive about it. I am scared of dying in a car accident. I compensate by being a defensive driver and driving less. So what? I wouldn't take offense to someone pointing it out. 

And who painted all gun owners as racist? I saw a question posed to a particular person and an anecdote provided. The only insinuation seemed to come from the highly defensive. You are perfectly capable of asking said person who posted the comment to explain further rather than jumping to immediate ill advised conclusions and likely creating straw-man arguments.

"So, if we were to give a gun to every African-American, would you still feel like more guns are the answer? "

That was the start to this conversation about race and gun ownership.  There's seems to be an implication to that statement that the average gun owner wouldn't want African Americans to have guns.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23129
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: March For Our Lives 3/24/18
« Reply #169 on: March 30, 2018, 03:31:03 PM »

You can be racist as fuck and a law abiding citizen.

And having an ignorant unpopular opinion isn't illegal nor should it be.


If (as the research suggests) racial fear is a large component of owning a gun and opposing gun control, then that's something that should be discussed and addressed.  In the same way that it's often argued that gun controls are a band-aid for the problems of undiagnosed/untreated mental illness, it's possible that gun advocacy is merely a symptom of a problem of pervasive underlying racism in the country.  Maybe rethinking our approach and ideas of race and fear is as integral to a solution to the problem as limiting access to the deadliest weapons.

If racism were a primary factor in murders in this country, you might have a point.  In fact it's generally the opposite, murders tend to stay within race.  Whites kill whites and so on.   

If we are focusing on factors that drive homicide in this country, it's not gun ownership by fearful white people.

They may not be committing homicides but the same fearful race driven white people are opposing measures like a gun registry, laws regarding safe storage, and universal background checks.  Driving the getaway car plays a part in a bank heist, even if you didn't go in and perform the robbery yourself.

TexasRunner

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 926
  • Age: 32
  • Location: Somewhere in Tejas
Re: March For Our Lives 3/24/18
« Reply #170 on: March 30, 2018, 03:45:35 PM »

You can be racist as fuck and a law abiding citizen.

And having an ignorant unpopular opinion isn't illegal nor should it be.


If (as the research suggests) racial fear is a large component of owning a gun and opposing gun control, then that's something that should be discussed and addressed.  In the same way that it's often argued that gun controls are a band-aid for the problems of undiagnosed/untreated mental illness, it's possible that gun advocacy is merely a symptom of a problem of pervasive underlying racism in the country.  Maybe rethinking our approach and ideas of race and fear is as integral to a solution to the problem as limiting access to the deadliest weapons.

If racism were a primary factor in murders in this country, you might have a point.  In fact it's generally the opposite, murders tend to stay within race.  Whites kill whites and so on.   

If we are focusing on factors that drive homicide in this country, it's not gun ownership by fearful white people.

They may not be committing homicides but the same fearful race driven white people are opposing measures like a gun registry, laws regarding safe storage, and universal background checks.  Driving the getaway car plays a part in a bank heist, even if you didn't go in and perform the robbery yourself.

So gun owners oppose regulation because they're racist.

Got it.

Wow.

MasterStache

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2912
Re: March For Our Lives 3/24/18
« Reply #171 on: March 30, 2018, 04:22:28 PM »

It's a variation the accusation that people with guns (or sports cars...)  are compensating for something else.

Anyone that claims to own a gun(s) out of fear (ie. to protect themselves) technically is compensating for that fear. The most common reason given for owning a gun is in fact fear.

Again.  So?  That's justification for painting a group of people who happen to own an object as racists?

African American's have historically had a higher murder rate per capita than whites and higher unemployment.  Racists would apply that broad brush to the entire group.  That's ignorant as well and irrelevant to the individual in that group.

So it's pretty justifiable to claim the majority of gun owners are compensating for something. We all do it on a daily basis. For some reason you folks get so freaking defensive about it. I am scared of dying in a car accident. I compensate by being a defensive driver and driving less. So what? I wouldn't take offense to someone pointing it out. 

And who painted all gun owners as racist? I saw a question posed to a particular person and an anecdote provided. The only insinuation seemed to come from the highly defensive. You are perfectly capable of asking said person who posted the comment to explain further rather than jumping to immediate ill advised conclusions and likely creating straw-man arguments.

"So, if we were to give a gun to every African-American, would you still feel like more guns are the answer? "

That was the start to this conversation about race and gun ownership.  There's seems to be an implication to that statement that the average gun owner wouldn't want African Americans to have guns.

What exactly is the average gun owner criteria? The question was directed at Acroy so you are implying that he is representative of your "average gun owner." I mean does he speak for you? You sure you want to go that route? Or perhaps admit that you made the implication. It's ok, I am not insulting you. Again, instead of jumping to your own conclusions and making implications of your own perhaps you can address the original poster of the question and ask them directly what they meant. Seems pretty logical.   

Poundwise

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2076
Re: March For Our Lives 3/24/18
« Reply #172 on: March 30, 2018, 05:04:47 PM »
Accusing people of being racist/ asking people if they are racist/accusing people of accusing people of being racist does not seem to be a conversation that will lead anywhere good. FWIW, I think it's a rare person who doesn't make assumptions about people based on their looks and background. Certainly it is something that I struggle with on occasion.

A question that I would like to know the answer to (but that you don't have to answer, of course), are the reasons why specifically every gun owner here feels that they need a gun or want a gun.  I sincerely would like to know, and I will try not to use this info "against" you in this debate, though I may question your reasons.

For instance,
- did you get your gun(s) for protection, whom are you protecting, and who from?  For example, do you walk home late at night through a sketchy area of town, and why do you feel it is sketchy? How would you feel if you did not have your gun(s)?
- do you simply enjoy guns for their design and/or history? Have you spent a lot of money (for you) on guns?
- are they part of your job, or were they part of your job at one time?
- is gun ownership a part of your family culture?

And I guess a question to consider is
- how do you think specific proposed gun regulations would impact you?
I imagine that most regulations would present some sort of pain in the neck for many gun owners or prospective gun owners; the point of them being to present a hindrance to impulse buyers, careless people, and criminals means they would naturally also present hurdles to law-abiding users

Thanks, if you choose to answer any of these questions.

« Last Edit: March 30, 2018, 05:08:07 PM by Poundwise »

Poundwise

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2076
Re: March For Our Lives 3/24/18
« Reply #173 on: March 30, 2018, 05:45:13 PM »
I can go first, even though I'm not a gun owner.

Reasons I don't have a gun
- I currently never find myself in situations where I feel a physical edge would be helpful.  When a younger woman, I did live in some poor areas of several cities.  I didn't worry much about property crime beyond getting my bike stolen, but as a bartender who had to take the subway home around 2am, on a few occasions I felt threatened by strange men; however I did not feel that a gun would have helped the situation... my plan if threatened was make a lot of noise, and run to a residential building and ring all the doorbells, until somebody could call the police. I had a creepy stalker ex-boyfriend once too, but would never have considered shooting him either.
- the expense therefore seems unnecessary

- I can appreciate the cool aspect of many guns, since I enjoy technology and am an equipment collector
- Never part of my job
- My dad (who had been in the military) had a handgun at one point... it was old in the 70s, never loaded in my lifetime, and eventually disappeared along with his Polaroid camera, etc. So realistically speaking it was not part of our family... never went hunting either. We do have some gifted archers in my family, so target shooting could have been fun.

- My perception is that increased regulation would not affect my life negatively, since I am not expecting regular citizens to come to my defense, beyond calling the police or filming any crimes.  In fact, the only time I would expect to be impacted by other people's guns is if my kids visit friends whose parents own poorly-secured guns.
« Last Edit: March 30, 2018, 05:46:59 PM by Poundwise »

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23129
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: March For Our Lives 3/24/18
« Reply #174 on: March 30, 2018, 07:09:55 PM »

You can be racist as fuck and a law abiding citizen.

And having an ignorant unpopular opinion isn't illegal nor should it be.


If (as the research suggests) racial fear is a large component of owning a gun and opposing gun control, then that's something that should be discussed and addressed.  In the same way that it's often argued that gun controls are a band-aid for the problems of undiagnosed/untreated mental illness, it's possible that gun advocacy is merely a symptom of a problem of pervasive underlying racism in the country.  Maybe rethinking our approach and ideas of race and fear is as integral to a solution to the problem as limiting access to the deadliest weapons.

If racism were a primary factor in murders in this country, you might have a point.  In fact it's generally the opposite, murders tend to stay within race.  Whites kill whites and so on.   

If we are focusing on factors that drive homicide in this country, it's not gun ownership by fearful white people.

They may not be committing homicides but the same fearful race driven white people are opposing measures like a gun registry, laws regarding safe storage, and universal background checks.  Driving the getaway car plays a part in a bank heist, even if you didn't go in and perform the robbery yourself.

So gun owners oppose regulation because they're racist.

Got it.

Wow.

OK, let's ignore the studies entirely.

There was a well documented spike in gun sales (http://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales/index.html) and CCW permits (https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/concealed-gun-permits-soar-215-record-145-million-explode-under-obama) issued when Obama was president .  It's not like Obama was coming for guns, he actually signed two bills that expanded gun rights (https://www.thoughtco.com/obama-gun-laws-passed-by-congress-3367595).  White men make up 32% of Americans, and 61 percent of gun owners  (http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2017/06/22/the-demographics-of-gun-ownership/).  Violent crime has been going down for years (https://www.statista.com/statistics/191219/reported-violent-crime-rate-in-the-usa-since-1990/).  Why do you think the spike in gun sales / CCW permits happened?

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3770
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: March For Our Lives 3/24/18
« Reply #175 on: March 30, 2018, 08:50:21 PM »
Accusing people of being racist/ asking people if they are racist/accusing people of accusing people of being racist does not seem to be a conversation that will lead anywhere good. FWIW, I think it's a rare person who doesn't make assumptions about people based on their looks and background. Certainly it is something that I struggle with on occasion.

A question that I would like to know the answer to (but that you don't have to answer, of course), are the reasons why specifically every gun owner here feels that they need a gun or want a gun.  I sincerely would like to know, and I will try not to use this info "against" you in this debate, though I may question your reasons.

For instance,
- did you get your gun(s) for protection, whom are you protecting, and who from?  For example, do you walk home late at night through a sketchy area of town, and why do you feel it is sketchy? How would you feel if you did not have your gun(s)?
- do you simply enjoy guns for their design and/or history? Have you spent a lot of money (for you) on guns?
- are they part of your job, or were they part of your job at one time?
- is gun ownership a part of your family culture?

And I guess a question to consider is
- how do you think specific proposed gun regulations would impact you?
I imagine that most regulations would present some sort of pain in the neck for many gun owners or prospective gun owners; the point of them being to present a hindrance to impulse buyers, careless people, and criminals means they would naturally also present hurdles to law-abiding users

Thanks, if you choose to answer any of these questions.

I shoot 1-2x a month at a range in a pretty diverse/working class area. As a white guy, I’m probably not the majority when I go in there. However I’ve had great conversations about all sorts of things with the other patrons of all ages, colors and genders.  Everyone there has to have a FOID to shoot, and I’ve never seen anyone make another lawful gun owner or first time shooter feel unwelcome.

To answer the questions:

-Did you get your gun(s) for protection?

No. Not entirely. You see, guns are useful for a lot of different things. I hunt, I target shoot, I enjoy modifying and tweaking them, and yes, they are useful for protection. But for me protection is mostly a side benefit. There are certain aspects as to how I own and store and modify my guys to make them more useful for protection, but it’s not a main reason. For me, many of the places I go (notably to work and to my daughter’s school) I’m prohibited from carrying so I generally don’t carry anywhere except the range or the woods because most of my trips involve going to a non-gun-friendly place.

-do I enjoy guns for their design and history?  Have I spent a lot of money on guns?

Yes I enjoy the craftsmanship that goes with even my lower end Weapons. Guns are fun because they’re like legos, you can add on and replace parts and even if you start with something pedestrian you can upgrade and tweak it to something better. I wouldn’t say I’ve spent a lot on guns, maybe $2k total, but I spend more on range time and ammo. Better to be good with the tools you have than to get better tools. Also, aside from hunting, I generally just punch paper at relatively short range, you don’t need anything exotic for that.

-are/we’re guns part of your job?

Not really. I served in the Navy and very occasionally carried a side arm, and qualified annually with rifle and pistol, plus did a short stint helping to run a firearms trainer, but other than that no.

-Is gun ownership part of your family culture? 

My side of the family no. Many of the men on my side served but few were into guns in any meaningful way. However my wife’s dad and brother in law are huge gun nuts and much more serious hunters than I am. So I shoot with them frequently (tomorrow!).

-How would increased regulations affect you?

Generally they’re an annoyance, but thy could also be used against me to arrest me on a technicality. Arbitrarily make some aspect of my guns illegal, make me a technical offender. Many gun laws are nonsensical or ambiguous and a bully cop could give me a hard time. For instance, the rules about transporting guns are that it not be readily accessible to you in a car. It’s understood that means locked in a trunk. Well, what if you have an SUV or station wagon without a separate trunk?  Is it being in the way back inaccessible enough?  Another one, a gun must be transported unloaded with the ammo stored separately from the weapon. My range bag has a zippered main compartment where the gun goes, and a separate zippered compartment for magazines. Is that considered “stored separately”?  That’s the kind of shit gun owners fear, some power hungry cop looking to give me a hard time on a technicality.

I also have a really hard time with rules that are arbitrary or poorly thought out. “Cooling off” periods are my favorite whipping boy. In IL to purchase a firearm I need to get a FOID. That takes a couple months. And then once I get my FOID I need to wait another 72 hours from purchase to pickup to get my gun?  Come on, I just waited 2 months!  Also, I already have guns. Why does waiting 72 hours to get my 4th, 5th, 6th gun do anyone any good? 

I could go on and on, but the point is that generally more laws do very little to stop criminal but are a big PITA for law abiding citizens, which makes them worthless in my eyes.

TrudgingAlong

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 201
Re: March For Our Lives 3/24/18
« Reply #176 on: March 31, 2018, 10:45:04 AM »
Since we're on this topic of black gun owners, I'd really, really like to know why gun owners did not come out to protest Philando Castile's killing? I don't want to go the route of "white gun owners are racist" because that's incredibly unhelpful and unfair, so please don't take it that way, but this one really baffles me. I watched the videos, read a LOT of accounts of what happened, and it seemed a clear overreaction by the cop to the presence (he had declared it, but it was not visible at all) of a legal firearm. I even had a gun owning friend victim blame Castile by saying he didn't react perfectly so that's why he was killed, which was asinine. He declared it, then the cop started freaking out, screaming confuaing directions. A second or two later, hail of bullets.

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7335
Re: March For Our Lives 3/24/18
« Reply #177 on: March 31, 2018, 11:02:57 AM »
Since we're on this topic of black gun owners, I'd really, really like to know why gun owners did not come out to protest Philando Castile's killing? I don't want to go the route of "white gun owners are racist" because that's incredibly unhelpful and unfair, so please don't take it that way, but this one really baffles me. I watched the videos, read a LOT of accounts of what happened, and it seemed a clear overreaction by the cop to the presence (he had declared it, but it was not visible at all) of a legal firearm. I even had a gun owning friend victim blame Castile by saying he didn't react perfectly so that's why he was killed, which was asinine. He declared it, then the cop started freaking out, screaming confuaing directions. A second or two later, hail of bullets.

I strongly suspect it was a melanin issue. Sorry, but I don't know what else it would be.

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1358
Re: March For Our Lives 3/24/18
« Reply #178 on: March 31, 2018, 11:27:16 AM »

It's a variation the accusation that people with guns (or sports cars...)  are compensating for something else.

Anyone that claims to own a gun(s) out of fear (ie. to protect themselves) technically is compensating for that fear. The most common reason given for owning a gun is in fact fear.

Again.  So?  That's justification for painting a group of people who happen to own an object as racists?

African American's have historically had a higher murder rate per capita than whites and higher unemployment.  Racists would apply that broad brush to the entire group.  That's ignorant as well and irrelevant to the individual in that group.

So it's pretty justifiable to claim the majority of gun owners are compensating for something. We all do it on a daily basis. For some reason you folks get so freaking defensive about it. I am scared of dying in a car accident. I compensate by being a defensive driver and driving less. So what? I wouldn't take offense to someone pointing it out. 

And who painted all gun owners as racist? I saw a question posed to a particular person and an anecdote provided. The only insinuation seemed to come from the highly defensive. You are perfectly capable of asking said person who posted the comment to explain further rather than jumping to immediate ill advised conclusions and likely creating straw-man arguments.

"So, if we were to give a gun to every African-American, would you still feel like more guns are the answer? "

That was the start to this conversation about race and gun ownership.  There's seems to be an implication to that statement that the average gun owner wouldn't want African Americans to have guns.

What exactly is the average gun owner criteria? The question was directed at Acroy so you are implying that he is representative of your "average gun owner." I mean does he speak for you? You sure you want to go that route? Or perhaps admit that you made the implication. It's ok, I am not insulting you. Again, instead of jumping to your own conclusions and making implications of your own perhaps you can address the original poster of the question and ask them directly what they meant. Seems pretty logical.

I didn't mean to imply that Acroy did or didn't represent the "average gun owner."  I suspect the conversation would have ended there, but for others jumping in. 

Steve's comment - "They (I'm presuming that means white people who oppose gun control) may not be committing homicides but the same fearful race driven white people are opposing measures like a gun registry, laws regarding safe storage, and universal background checks." is exactly the viewpoint I was referring to.  Maybe many of us just disagree with some of the policies being proposed.
« Last Edit: March 31, 2018, 11:29:50 AM by Midwest »

MasterStache

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2912
Re: March For Our Lives 3/24/18
« Reply #179 on: March 31, 2018, 01:41:58 PM »

It's a variation the accusation that people with guns (or sports cars...)  are compensating for something else.

Anyone that claims to own a gun(s) out of fear (ie. to protect themselves) technically is compensating for that fear. The most common reason given for owning a gun is in fact fear.

Again.  So?  That's justification for painting a group of people who happen to own an object as racists?

African American's have historically had a higher murder rate per capita than whites and higher unemployment.  Racists would apply that broad brush to the entire group.  That's ignorant as well and irrelevant to the individual in that group.

So it's pretty justifiable to claim the majority of gun owners are compensating for something. We all do it on a daily basis. For some reason you folks get so freaking defensive about it. I am scared of dying in a car accident. I compensate by being a defensive driver and driving less. So what? I wouldn't take offense to someone pointing it out. 

And who painted all gun owners as racist? I saw a question posed to a particular person and an anecdote provided. The only insinuation seemed to come from the highly defensive. You are perfectly capable of asking said person who posted the comment to explain further rather than jumping to immediate ill advised conclusions and likely creating straw-man arguments.

"So, if we were to give a gun to every African-American, would you still feel like more guns are the answer? "

That was the start to this conversation about race and gun ownership.  There's seems to be an implication to that statement that the average gun owner wouldn't want African Americans to have guns.

What exactly is the average gun owner criteria? The question was directed at Acroy so you are implying that he is representative of your "average gun owner." I mean does he speak for you? You sure you want to go that route? Or perhaps admit that you made the implication. It's ok, I am not insulting you. Again, instead of jumping to your own conclusions and making implications of your own perhaps you can address the original poster of the question and ask them directly what they meant. Seems pretty logical.

I didn't mean to imply that Acroy did or didn't represent the "average gun owner."  I suspect the conversation would have ended there, but for others jumping in. 

Steve's comment - "They (I'm presuming that means white people who oppose gun control) may not be committing homicides but the same fearful race driven white people are opposing measures like a gun registry, laws regarding safe storage, and universal background checks." is exactly the viewpoint I was referring to.  Maybe many of us just disagree with some of the policies being proposed.

Sounds sensible.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23129
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: March For Our Lives 3/24/18
« Reply #180 on: March 31, 2018, 02:41:37 PM »

It's a variation the accusation that people with guns (or sports cars...)  are compensating for something else.

Anyone that claims to own a gun(s) out of fear (ie. to protect themselves) technically is compensating for that fear. The most common reason given for owning a gun is in fact fear.

Again.  So?  That's justification for painting a group of people who happen to own an object as racists?

African American's have historically had a higher murder rate per capita than whites and higher unemployment.  Racists would apply that broad brush to the entire group.  That's ignorant as well and irrelevant to the individual in that group.

So it's pretty justifiable to claim the majority of gun owners are compensating for something. We all do it on a daily basis. For some reason you folks get so freaking defensive about it. I am scared of dying in a car accident. I compensate by being a defensive driver and driving less. So what? I wouldn't take offense to someone pointing it out. 

And who painted all gun owners as racist? I saw a question posed to a particular person and an anecdote provided. The only insinuation seemed to come from the highly defensive. You are perfectly capable of asking said person who posted the comment to explain further rather than jumping to immediate ill advised conclusions and likely creating straw-man arguments.

"So, if we were to give a gun to every African-American, would you still feel like more guns are the answer? "

That was the start to this conversation about race and gun ownership.  There's seems to be an implication to that statement that the average gun owner wouldn't want African Americans to have guns.

What exactly is the average gun owner criteria? The question was directed at Acroy so you are implying that he is representative of your "average gun owner." I mean does he speak for you? You sure you want to go that route? Or perhaps admit that you made the implication. It's ok, I am not insulting you. Again, instead of jumping to your own conclusions and making implications of your own perhaps you can address the original poster of the question and ask them directly what they meant. Seems pretty logical.

I didn't mean to imply that Acroy did or didn't represent the "average gun owner."  I suspect the conversation would have ended there, but for others jumping in. 

Steve's comment - "They (I'm presuming that means white people who oppose gun control) may not be committing homicides but the same fearful race driven white people are opposing measures like a gun registry, laws regarding safe storage, and universal background checks." is exactly the viewpoint I was referring to.  Maybe many of us just disagree with some of the policies being proposed.

Sounds sensible.

Obviously many gun advocates disagree with the policies being proposed.  That's not in dispute.

If the reason that the policy is being opposed is "Minorities are scary to me, so I need an AR15 because I can't shoot enough immigrants with a shotgun", "The government was headed by a black guy and that's frightening to me, so I need a bump stock because that will enable me to single handedly take on the impure hordes", or "Black people kill black people, so let's make getting a gun as easy as possible for everyone, opposing anything that would prevent straw purchases / require background checks for all" then maybe the whole discussion around guns and politics needs to take a bit of a different tone.

Again, I don't believe that every gun advocate is racist.  I'd be surprised if the majority of gun advocates are racist.  But if there's a sizable chunk (as the evidence appears to indicate) that are, then maybe we should stop ignoring them and pretending their views don't exist.

libertarian4321

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1395
Re: March For Our Lives 3/24/18
« Reply #181 on: March 31, 2018, 06:28:45 PM »
I've read a few articles recently by doctors who have operated on victims of AR-15 and other ASSAULT RIFLES.  The main injuries seem to be from the velocity of the bullets, and the cavitation caused once the bullets strike a body/organs.  They rip organs apart making repair much more difficult than if a moving object simply sliced through the body.  So I call BS on "no more killing capacity"

This is one of the reasons it is important to have at least a basic knowledge of weapons and their capabilities before discussing banning/regulating them.

The damage done is NOT based on the weapon, but the round used.

An AR-15 can fire a .22 long rifle round which does relatively mild damage.  This is a common "plinking" round.  You would not want to use a .22 in as a defense weapon unless you had no other choice.

Or the AR-15 can fire the NATO 5.56 round.  The same round used by the military.  However, it fires at a slower rate.  A significantly more deadly round.

The main point, however, is that the rather innocuous "old school" looking Ruger ranch rifle can also be used to fire either the 5.56 NATO round or a .22 round.

On top of that, guns can fire a wide variety of bullet types- full metal jacket (sometimes called "ball"), hollow point, soft point, etc- some of which will do more internal damage than a 5.56 FMJ round. 

I'm not saying that people should understand this stuff just to be a jerk or keep people from commenting.  I'm bringing it up because knowing at least a modicum about the subject is important.  You don't have to be a weapons expert, but you should at least have some understanding of the basics before discussing what limitations to put on either the weapons, the ammunition, the magazines, etc.

We can't have a substantive discussion if people don't have any idea what they are talking about, or if they are just repeating what they heard Diane Feinstein say on CNN last night.

Even if you are on the "other side," I recommend learning some of this stuff.  If you can get out to a range and at least fire a few rounds, great, but if you don't want to do that, you can learn a lot just reading or watching youtube videos.

BlueHouse

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4136
  • Location: WDC
Re: March For Our Lives 3/24/18
« Reply #182 on: March 31, 2018, 06:46:03 PM »
I've read a few articles recently by doctors who have operated on victims of AR-15 and other ASSAULT RIFLES.  The main injuries seem to be from the velocity of the bullets, and the cavitation caused once the bullets strike a body/organs.  They rip organs apart making repair much more difficult than if a moving object simply sliced through the body.  So I call BS on "no more killing capacity"

This is one of the reasons it is important to have at least a basic knowledge of weapons and their capabilities before discussing banning/regulating them.

oh.my.gosh.   
I don't know the velocity of a bullet.  I guess that means I can't have an opinion on how it's dangerous to allow weapons that can kill many people in a few seconds.  Does the NRA have a course I can take before I'm allowed to have an opinion?

MasterStache

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2912
Re: March For Our Lives 3/24/18
« Reply #183 on: April 01, 2018, 06:47:26 AM »
I've read a few articles recently by doctors who have operated on victims of AR-15 and other ASSAULT RIFLES.  The main injuries seem to be from the velocity of the bullets, and the cavitation caused once the bullets strike a body/organs.  They rip organs apart making repair much more difficult than if a moving object simply sliced through the body.  So I call BS on "no more killing capacity"
The damage done is NOT based on the weapon, but the round used.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5424197/Radiologist-reveals-effects-AR-15-bullets-human-body.html

So this doctor, like many others, doesn't know what they are talking about? Seems to be a common theme with you.

 
« Last Edit: April 01, 2018, 06:58:42 AM by MasterStache »

RetiredAt63

  • CMTO 2023 Attendees
  • Senior Mustachian
  • *
  • Posts: 20742
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: March For Our Lives 3/24/18
« Reply #184 on: April 01, 2018, 08:48:39 AM »
I've read a few articles recently by doctors who have operated on victims of AR-15 and other ASSAULT RIFLES.  The main injuries seem to be from the velocity of the bullets, and the cavitation caused once the bullets strike a body/organs.  They rip organs apart making repair much more difficult than if a moving object simply sliced through the body.  So I call BS on "no more killing capacity"
The damage done is NOT based on the weapon, but the round used.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5424197/Radiologist-reveals-effects-AR-15-bullets-human-body.html

So this doctor, like many others, doesn't know what they are talking about? Seems to be a common theme with you.

Or since the doctor may not know which bullet type was used, maybe strict controls on bullets that cause that type of wound?

MasterStache

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2912
Re: March For Our Lives 3/24/18
« Reply #185 on: April 01, 2018, 09:42:10 AM »
I've read a few articles recently by doctors who have operated on victims of AR-15 and other ASSAULT RIFLES.  The main injuries seem to be from the velocity of the bullets, and the cavitation caused once the bullets strike a body/organs.  They rip organs apart making repair much more difficult than if a moving object simply sliced through the body.  So I call BS on "no more killing capacity"
The damage done is NOT based on the weapon, but the round used.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5424197/Radiologist-reveals-effects-AR-15-bullets-human-body.html

So this doctor, like many others, doesn't know what they are talking about? Seems to be a common theme with you.

Or since the doctor may not know which bullet type was used, maybe strict controls on bullets that cause that type of wound?

That won't help.
 
https://www.wired.com/2016/06/ar-15-can-human-body/

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23129
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: March For Our Lives 3/24/18
« Reply #186 on: April 01, 2018, 09:47:37 AM »
I've read a few articles recently by doctors who have operated on victims of AR-15 and other ASSAULT RIFLES.  The main injuries seem to be from the velocity of the bullets, and the cavitation caused once the bullets strike a body/organs.  They rip organs apart making repair much more difficult than if a moving object simply sliced through the body.  So I call BS on "no more killing capacity"
The damage done is NOT based on the weapon, but the round used.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5424197/Radiologist-reveals-effects-AR-15-bullets-human-body.html

So this doctor, like many others, doesn't know what they are talking about? Seems to be a common theme with you.

While it is a common theme with him, on this I have to side with our Libertarian friend.  The power of a round comes from the design of the ammunition, not really the weapon it's fired from.  If there's more gun powder packed into the bullet, and the bullet is physically larger, it tends to do more damage.

Handguns typically fire smaller and lower powered powered rounds.  Many hunting guns are capable of much higher powered fire (to put down a large animal like a moose safely you need a powerful round).  The AR15 is certainly not alone in being able to fire powerful rounds.

The AR15 is more deadly than many more traditional style hunting rifle because of things like the flash suppressor, the collapsible stock, the pistol grip, etc.  I think that the argument might also be made that there's little need for a large caliber semi-automatic rifle when hunting big game (I hunted moose for years with friends using a bolt action 30-06).  If you feel the need to spray an animal with bullets while hunting, you might want to take a step back and double check that you know what you're doing.

Spiritual_Lobotomy

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 38
Re: March For Our Lives 3/24/18
« Reply #187 on: April 01, 2018, 10:22:00 AM »
Is this movement about banning the sale of all firearms?  Or just the types classified as "assault weapons"?

TrudgingAlong

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 201
Re: March For Our Lives 3/24/18
« Reply #188 on: April 01, 2018, 11:04:38 AM »
Since we're on this topic of black gun owners, I'd really, really like to know why gun owners did not come out to protest Philando Castile's killing? I don't want to go the route of "white gun owners are racist" because that's incredibly unhelpful and unfair, so please don't take it that way, but this one really baffles me. I watched the videos, read a LOT of accounts of what happened, and it seemed a clear overreaction by the cop to the presence (he had declared it, but it was not visible at all) of a legal firearm. I even had a gun owning friend victim blame Castile by saying he didn't react perfectly so that's why he was killed, which was asinine. He declared it, then the cop started freaking out, screaming confuaing directions. A second or two later, hail of bullets.

I strongly suspect it was a melanin issue. Sorry, but I don't know what else it would be.

Unfortunately, I suspect you are exactly right. This right here is why I scoff every time "tyranny" pops up. Clearly gun owners who buy weapons for this reason have no clue what that is (or they only care if it's a perceived "tyranny" affecting them).

MasterStache

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2912
Re: March For Our Lives 3/24/18
« Reply #189 on: April 01, 2018, 12:08:56 PM »
I've read a few articles recently by doctors who have operated on victims of AR-15 and other ASSAULT RIFLES.  The main injuries seem to be from the velocity of the bullets, and the cavitation caused once the bullets strike a body/organs.  They rip organs apart making repair much more difficult than if a moving object simply sliced through the body.  So I call BS on "no more killing capacity"
The damage done is NOT based on the weapon, but the round used.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5424197/Radiologist-reveals-effects-AR-15-bullets-human-body.html

So this doctor, like many others, doesn't know what they are talking about? Seems to be a common theme with you.

While it is a common theme with him, on this I have to side with our Libertarian friend.  The power of a round comes from the design of the ammunition, not really the weapon it's fired from.  If there's more gun powder packed into the bullet, and the bullet is physically larger, it tends to do more damage.

Handguns typically fire smaller and lower powered powered rounds.  Many hunting guns are capable of much higher powered fire (to put down a large animal like a moose safely you need a powerful round).  The AR15 is certainly not alone in being able to fire powerful rounds.

The AR15 is more deadly than many more traditional style hunting rifle because of things like the flash suppressor, the collapsible stock, the pistol grip, etc.  I think that the argument might also be made that there's little need for a large caliber semi-automatic rifle when hunting big game (I hunted moose for years with friends using a bolt action 30-06).  If you feel the need to spray an animal with bullets while hunting, you might want to take a step back and double check that you know what you're doing.

K.E. = 1/2 mv^2

Mass and Velocity play a role. They both absolutely affect damage. Libertarian claiming the weapon used plays no role is incorrect.

.22 Caliber
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tv67iJiV3So

.223 Caliber
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=43&v=f94Wz4ATcik

Notice the distinct difference in damage caused by rounds of very little weight difference. Expand it out to 500 yards and the.223 will hit it's target with almost twice the speed of the .22. If my calculations are correct this translates to the .223 is carrying 335 foot-pounds of force, while the .22 carries 70 foot-pounds.

Arguing over which is more destructive (mass or velocity) is a moot point. I only contended that arguing one doesn't matter is disingenuous.

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7335
Re: March For Our Lives 3/24/18
« Reply #190 on: April 01, 2018, 01:04:04 PM »
I've read a few articles recently by doctors who have operated on victims of AR-15 and other ASSAULT RIFLES.  The main injuries seem to be from the velocity of the bullets, and the cavitation caused once the bullets strike a body/organs.  They rip organs apart making repair much more difficult than if a moving object simply sliced through the body.  So I call BS on "no more killing capacity"
The damage done is NOT based on the weapon, but the round used.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5424197/Radiologist-reveals-effects-AR-15-bullets-human-body.html

So this doctor, like many others, doesn't know what they are talking about? Seems to be a common theme with you.

While it is a common theme with him, on this I have to side with our Libertarian friend.  The power of a round comes from the design of the ammunition, not really the weapon it's fired from.  If there's more gun powder packed into the bullet, and the bullet is physically larger, it tends to do more damage.

Handguns typically fire smaller and lower powered powered rounds.  Many hunting guns are capable of much higher powered fire (to put down a large animal like a moose safely you need a powerful round).  The AR15 is certainly not alone in being able to fire powerful rounds.

The AR15 is more deadly than many more traditional style hunting rifle because of things like the flash suppressor, the collapsible stock, the pistol grip, etc.  I think that the argument might also be made that there's little need for a large caliber semi-automatic rifle when hunting big game (I hunted moose for years with friends using a bolt action 30-06).  If you feel the need to spray an animal with bullets while hunting, you might want to take a step back and double check that you know what you're doing.

K.E. = 1/2 mv^2

Mass and Velocity play a role. They both absolutely affect damage. Libertarian claiming the weapon used plays no role is incorrect.

.22 Caliber
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tv67iJiV3So

.223 Caliber
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=43&v=f94Wz4ATcik

Notice the distinct difference in damage caused by rounds of very little weight difference. Expand it out to 500 yards and the.223 will hit it's target with almost twice the speed of the .22. If my calculations are correct this translates to the .223 is carrying 335 foot-pounds of force, while the .22 carries 70 foot-pounds.

Arguing over which is more destructive (mass or velocity) is a moot point. I only contended that arguing one doesn't matter is disingenuous.

Agreed. Thank you for providing this explanation.

Wonder what the odds are that Libertarian will recognize his error, admit he doesn’t know enough about guns to engage in this discussion, and step away from it.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23129
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: March For Our Lives 3/24/18
« Reply #191 on: April 01, 2018, 02:15:01 PM »
I've read a few articles recently by doctors who have operated on victims of AR-15 and other ASSAULT RIFLES.  The main injuries seem to be from the velocity of the bullets, and the cavitation caused once the bullets strike a body/organs.  They rip organs apart making repair much more difficult than if a moving object simply sliced through the body.  So I call BS on "no more killing capacity"
The damage done is NOT based on the weapon, but the round used.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5424197/Radiologist-reveals-effects-AR-15-bullets-human-body.html

So this doctor, like many others, doesn't know what they are talking about? Seems to be a common theme with you.

While it is a common theme with him, on this I have to side with our Libertarian friend.  The power of a round comes from the design of the ammunition, not really the weapon it's fired from.  If there's more gun powder packed into the bullet, and the bullet is physically larger, it tends to do more damage.

Handguns typically fire smaller and lower powered powered rounds.  Many hunting guns are capable of much higher powered fire (to put down a large animal like a moose safely you need a powerful round).  The AR15 is certainly not alone in being able to fire powerful rounds.

The AR15 is more deadly than many more traditional style hunting rifle because of things like the flash suppressor, the collapsible stock, the pistol grip, etc.  I think that the argument might also be made that there's little need for a large caliber semi-automatic rifle when hunting big game (I hunted moose for years with friends using a bolt action 30-06).  If you feel the need to spray an animal with bullets while hunting, you might want to take a step back and double check that you know what you're doing.

K.E. = 1/2 mv^2

Mass and Velocity play a role. They both absolutely affect damage. Libertarian claiming the weapon used plays no role is incorrect.

.22 Caliber
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tv67iJiV3So

.223 Caliber
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=43&v=f94Wz4ATcik

Notice the distinct difference in damage caused by rounds of very little weight difference. Expand it out to 500 yards and the.223 will hit it's target with almost twice the speed of the .22. If my calculations are correct this translates to the .223 is carrying 335 foot-pounds of force, while the .22 carries 70 foot-pounds.

Arguing over which is more destructive (mass or velocity) is a moot point. I only contended that arguing one doesn't matter is disingenuous.

I'm not a gun expert, but I'd figure any gun shooting the same .223 ammunition would have similar damage wouldn't it?  You're comparing completely different ammunition when you compare it to a gun firing a .22.

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7335
Re: March For Our Lives 3/24/18
« Reply #192 on: April 01, 2018, 02:29:15 PM »
I've read a few articles recently by doctors who have operated on victims of AR-15 and other ASSAULT RIFLES.  The main injuries seem to be from the velocity of the bullets, and the cavitation caused once the bullets strike a body/organs.  They rip organs apart making repair much more difficult than if a moving object simply sliced through the body.  So I call BS on "no more killing capacity"
The damage done is NOT based on the weapon, but the round used.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5424197/Radiologist-reveals-effects-AR-15-bullets-human-body.html

So this doctor, like many others, doesn't know what they are talking about? Seems to be a common theme with you.

While it is a common theme with him, on this I have to side with our Libertarian friend.  The power of a round comes from the design of the ammunition, not really the weapon it's fired from.  If there's more gun powder packed into the bullet, and the bullet is physically larger, it tends to do more damage.

Handguns typically fire smaller and lower powered powered rounds.  Many hunting guns are capable of much higher powered fire (to put down a large animal like a moose safely you need a powerful round).  The AR15 is certainly not alone in being able to fire powerful rounds.

The AR15 is more deadly than many more traditional style hunting rifle because of things like the flash suppressor, the collapsible stock, the pistol grip, etc.  I think that the argument might also be made that there's little need for a large caliber semi-automatic rifle when hunting big game (I hunted moose for years with friends using a bolt action 30-06).  If you feel the need to spray an animal with bullets while hunting, you might want to take a step back and double check that you know what you're doing.

K.E. = 1/2 mv^2

Mass and Velocity play a role. They both absolutely affect damage. Libertarian claiming the weapon used plays no role is incorrect.

.22 Caliber
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tv67iJiV3So

.223 Caliber
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=43&v=f94Wz4ATcik

Notice the distinct difference in damage caused by rounds of very little weight difference. Expand it out to 500 yards and the.223 will hit it's target with almost twice the speed of the .22. If my calculations are correct this translates to the .223 is carrying 335 foot-pounds of force, while the .22 carries 70 foot-pounds.

Arguing over which is more destructive (mass or velocity) is a moot point. I only contended that arguing one doesn't matter is disingenuous.

I'm not a gun expert, but I'd figure any gun shooting the same .223 ammunition would have similar damage wouldn't it?  You're comparing completely different ammunition when you compare it to a gun firing a .22.

The velocity of an AR-15 is quite a bit faster, so the greater speed that the bullet enters the body has an effect.

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1358
Re: March For Our Lives 3/24/18
« Reply #193 on: April 01, 2018, 02:38:37 PM »
I've read a few articles recently by doctors who have operated on victims of AR-15 and other ASSAULT RIFLES.  The main injuries seem to be from the velocity of the bullets, and the cavitation caused once the bullets strike a body/organs.  They rip organs apart making repair much more difficult than if a moving object simply sliced through the body.  So I call BS on "no more killing capacity"
The damage done is NOT based on the weapon, but the round used.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5424197/Radiologist-reveals-effects-AR-15-bullets-human-body.html

So this doctor, like many others, doesn't know what they are talking about? Seems to be a common theme with you.

While it is a common theme with him, on this I have to side with our Libertarian friend.  The power of a round comes from the design of the ammunition, not really the weapon it's fired from.  If there's more gun powder packed into the bullet, and the bullet is physically larger, it tends to do more damage.

Handguns typically fire smaller and lower powered powered rounds.  Many hunting guns are capable of much higher powered fire (to put down a large animal like a moose safely you need a powerful round).  The AR15 is certainly not alone in being able to fire powerful rounds.

The AR15 is more deadly than many more traditional style hunting rifle because of things like the flash suppressor, the collapsible stock, the pistol grip, etc.  I think that the argument might also be made that there's little need for a large caliber semi-automatic rifle when hunting big game (I hunted moose for years with friends using a bolt action 30-06).  If you feel the need to spray an animal with bullets while hunting, you might want to take a step back and double check that you know what you're doing.

K.E. = 1/2 mv^2

Mass and Velocity play a role. They both absolutely affect damage. Libertarian claiming the weapon used plays no role is incorrect.

.22 Caliber
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tv67iJiV3So

.223 Caliber
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=43&v=f94Wz4ATcik

Notice the distinct difference in damage caused by rounds of very little weight difference. Expand it out to 500 yards and the.223 will hit it's target with almost twice the speed of the .22. If my calculations are correct this translates to the .223 is carrying 335 foot-pounds of force, while the .22 carries 70 foot-pounds.

Arguing over which is more destructive (mass or velocity) is a moot point. I only contended that arguing one doesn't matter is disingenuous.

I'm not a gun expert, but I'd figure any gun shooting the same .223 ammunition would have similar damage wouldn't it?  You're comparing completely different ammunition when you compare it to a gun firing a .22.

The velocity of an AR-15 is quite a bit faster, so the greater speed that the bullet enters the body has an effect.

Are you saying .223 is faster or .223 fired via an AR-15 is faster than .223 fired via another .223 rifle?

MasterStache

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2912
Re: March For Our Lives 3/24/18
« Reply #194 on: April 01, 2018, 03:26:58 PM »
I'm not a gun expert, but I'd figure any gun shooting the same .223 ammunition would have similar damage wouldn't it?  You're comparing completely different ammunition when you compare it to a gun firing a .22.

Not necessarily. If you could shoot the same .223 round out of a basic handgun it would not cause near the same damage as shooting it out of an AR-15 or similar. As velocity decreases, the energy imparted decreases as well (provided mass stays the same). Less energy means less destructive force.

https://fortheloveofthegun.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/chart.jpg


RetiredAt63

  • CMTO 2023 Attendees
  • Senior Mustachian
  • *
  • Posts: 20742
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: March For Our Lives 3/24/18
« Reply #195 on: April 01, 2018, 03:49:42 PM »
So if I understand the technical part clearly, the effect a bullet has on a body is a result both of the makeup of the bullet (so some bullets are more destructive) and also the velocity the rifle/handgun imparts to the bullet?  So a rifle that can shoot with high velocity, and a bullet that does more damage, will together cause much more damage than a low velocity rifle shooting a low-damage bullet.

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7335
Re: March For Our Lives 3/24/18
« Reply #196 on: April 01, 2018, 04:20:02 PM »
I've read a few articles recently by doctors who have operated on victims of AR-15 and other ASSAULT RIFLES.  The main injuries seem to be from the velocity of the bullets, and the cavitation caused once the bullets strike a body/organs.  They rip organs apart making repair much more difficult than if a moving object simply sliced through the body.  So I call BS on "no more killing capacity"
The damage done is NOT based on the weapon, but the round used.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5424197/Radiologist-reveals-effects-AR-15-bullets-human-body.html

So this doctor, like many others, doesn't know what they are talking about? Seems to be a common theme with you.

While it is a common theme with him, on this I have to side with our Libertarian friend.  The power of a round comes from the design of the ammunition, not really the weapon it's fired from.  If there's more gun powder packed into the bullet, and the bullet is physically larger, it tends to do more damage.

Handguns typically fire smaller and lower powered powered rounds.  Many hunting guns are capable of much higher powered fire (to put down a large animal like a moose safely you need a powerful round).  The AR15 is certainly not alone in being able to fire powerful rounds.

The AR15 is more deadly than many more traditional style hunting rifle because of things like the flash suppressor, the collapsible stock, the pistol grip, etc.  I think that the argument might also be made that there's little need for a large caliber semi-automatic rifle when hunting big game (I hunted moose for years with friends using a bolt action 30-06).  If you feel the need to spray an animal with bullets while hunting, you might want to take a step back and double check that you know what you're doing.

K.E. = 1/2 mv^2

Mass and Velocity play a role. They both absolutely affect damage. Libertarian claiming the weapon used plays no role is incorrect.

.22 Caliber
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tv67iJiV3So

.223 Caliber
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=43&v=f94Wz4ATcik

Notice the distinct difference in damage caused by rounds of very little weight difference. Expand it out to 500 yards and the.223 will hit it's target with almost twice the speed of the .22. If my calculations are correct this translates to the .223 is carrying 335 foot-pounds of force, while the .22 carries 70 foot-pounds.

Arguing over which is more destructive (mass or velocity) is a moot point. I only contended that arguing one doesn't matter is disingenuous.

I'm not a gun expert, but I'd figure any gun shooting the same .223 ammunition would have similar damage wouldn't it?  You're comparing completely different ammunition when you compare it to a gun firing a .22.

The velocity of an AR-15 is quite a bit faster, so the greater speed that the bullet enters the body has an effect.

Are you saying .223 is faster or .223 fired via an AR-15 is faster than .223 fired via another .223 rifle?

I’m saying the muzzle velocity of a gun with a shorter barrel is slower than the muzzle velocity of a gun with a longer barrel, all things being equal. So that is a factor.

Spiritual_Lobotomy

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 38
Re: March For Our Lives 3/24/18
« Reply #197 on: April 01, 2018, 05:33:28 PM »
Does muzzle velocity matter when shooting teenagers with no body armor at close range?

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7335
Re: March For Our Lives 3/24/18
« Reply #198 on: April 01, 2018, 05:45:41 PM »
Does muzzle velocity matter when shooting teenagers with no body armor at close range?

Well, we don’t know how close the range always is, do we?

Spiritual_Lobotomy

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 38
Re: March For Our Lives 3/24/18
« Reply #199 on: April 01, 2018, 05:52:22 PM »
Does muzzle velocity matter when shooting young adults with no body armor at an outdoor concert from far range?