PDA

View Full Version : ABC edits out first lady gaffe.


cutthemdown
02-27-2013, 05:30 PM
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/did-abc-news-edit-michelle-obamas-claim-an-automatic-weapon-killed-chicago-teen-abc-responds-to-charge/

First reported in the Washington Examiner, ABC News edited out first lady Michelle Obama‘s erroneous claim that Chicago teen Hadiya Pendleton was killed when she was shot with an “automatic weapon.” The first lady made this claim in a Tuesday morning appearance on Good Morning America and was quoted in full in ABC News’ online report. The claim was, however, edited out when the interview aired. ABC News responded to the charge on Tuesday saying the cuts were made “solely for time.”

“She was caught in the line of fire because some kids had some automatic weapons they didn’t need,” Michelle Obama said of the late Pendleton, who was shot and killed just days after performing at President Barack Obama’s second inauguration. “I just don’t want to keep disappointing our kids in this country. I want them to know that we put them first.”

ABC News quoted Mrs. Obama in full for their report posted online:

Pony Boy
02-27-2013, 08:48 PM
What do you expect when her husband doesn't know the difference either?

cutthemdown
02-27-2013, 09:55 PM
What do you expect when her husband doesn't know the difference either?

In this case i would expect ABC to just play the interview unedited and pounce on mistakes no matter who makes them. You don't have to call her out just ask her to clarify the remark. You don't cut it. Liberals news being cut quite often latley editing things to look how they want. We saw it in the trayvon martin case and a bunch of others.

I'm not saying FOX not a right wing news network but they are still outnumbered when it comes to CBS, NBC, and now ABC also showing they are shills for the left.

Fedaykin
02-28-2013, 03:56 AM
"Automatic" is used frequently both by the general public and enthusiast folks to refer to both semi and fully-automatic weapons. Both are indeed 'automatic' weapons (aka self-loading). Typically the vernacular for fully automatic is "machine gun". The term machine gun is also what the ATF uses to classify fully automatic weapons.

The National Automatic Pistol Collectors Association:
http://www.napca.net/

Automatic Pistols for Sale:
http://www.gunsamerica.com/Search/Category/200/Guns/Pistols/Colt-Automatic-Pistols.htm

Rugar Automatic Pistols for Sale:
http://www.gunsinternational.com/Ruger-Automatic-Pistols.cfm?cat_id=95

Even the names of various loads/guns refer to semi-automatic weapons as simply "automatic" or "auto", such as the .45 ACP (the round designed for use in the original M1911), which stands for .45 Automatic Colt Pistol.

"The M1911 is still carried by some U.S. forces. Its formal designation as of 1940 was Automatic Pistol, Caliber .45, M1911 for the original Model of 1911 or Automatic Pistol, Caliber .45, M1911A1 for the M1911A1, adopted in 1924. The designation changed to Pistol, Caliber .45, Automatic, M1911A1 in the Vietnam era." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1911_pistol

But I guess it's just that John Browning (the man who invented pretty much every type of automatic weapon) and the U.S. Army don't know the difference between full and semi-auto.

Welcome to human language use and all its associated vagaries. Get over yourselves.

houghtam
02-28-2013, 04:22 AM
"Automatic" is used frequently both by the general public and enthusiast folks to refer to both semi and fully-automatic weapons. Both are indeed 'automatic' weapons (aka self-loading). Typically the vernacular for fully automatic is "machine gun". The term machine gun is also what the ATF uses to classify fully automatic weapons.

The National Automatic Pistol Collectors Association:
http://www.napca.net/

Automatic Pistols for Sale:
http://www.gunsamerica.com/Search/Category/200/Guns/Pistols/Colt-Automatic-Pistols.htm

Rugar Automatic Pistols for Sale:
http://www.gunsinternational.com/Ruger-Automatic-Pistols.cfm?cat_id=95

Even the names of various loads/guns refer to semi-automatic weapons as simply "automatic" or "auto", such as the .45 ACP (the round designed for use in the original M1911), which stands for .45 Automatic Colt Pistol.

"The M1911 is still carried by some U.S. forces. Its formal designation as of 1940 was Automatic Pistol, Caliber .45, M1911 for the original Model of 1911 or Automatic Pistol, Caliber .45, M1911A1 for the M1911A1, adopted in 1924. The designation changed to Pistol, Caliber .45, Automatic, M1911A1 in the Vietnam era." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1911_pistol

Welcome to human language use and all its associated vagaries. Get over yourselves.

LOL

So what's funny here is the paleocons (I like that term, btw) here in this thread have two choices:

They believed that we didn't know the difference between semi-automatic and fully-automatic and were just trying to slip an argument by hoping we wouldn't catch it

OR...

They don't know the difference semi-automatic and fully-automatic, and thought the First Lady's edited speech was evidence of a vast conspiracy

Which is it, chumpstains?

:yayaya:

cutthemdown
02-28-2013, 04:44 AM
I know even you two don't believe your arguments. It's obvious they cut that part out because they felt she had made a mistake. You can try to argue she was correct but if so then why would they cut it out? Certainly you don't buy cutting 5 seconds of something saves time do you?

Fedaykin
02-28-2013, 05:01 AM
I know even you two don't believe your arguments. It's obvious they cut that part out because they felt she had made a mistake. You can try to argue she was correct but if so then why would they cut it out? Certainly you don't buy cutting 5 seconds of something saves time do you?

Don't give one hoot what the first lady said or thought she said. I also don't care about whatever reason the segment was trimmed.

I'm just pointing out that claiming the term "automatic" only applies to full-auto weapons is incorrect.

Perhaps they clipped it because they didn't want to deal with the buffoons who don't understand that?

Fedaykin
02-28-2013, 05:32 AM
Speaking of buffoonery about what something is, have you figured out yet cutlet that the issue with "assault rifles" isn't that they "look scary" but about their ballistics and the rate of controllable fire they enable?

Pony Boy
02-28-2013, 07:09 AM
OR...

They don't know the difference semi-automatic and fully-automatic, and thought the First Lady's edited speech was evidence of a vast conspiracy

Which is it, chumpstains?

Come on now you know there is a difference, just ask your boyfriend, he know the difference between fully-erect and semi-erect.

peacepipe
02-28-2013, 09:48 AM
Come on now you know there is a difference, just ask your boyfriend, he know the difference between fully-erect and semi-erect.
Poor puny boy,did you get your feelings hurt. This thread is just getting started and you're already dishing out insults.

houghtam
02-28-2013, 10:02 AM
Come on now you know there is a difference, just ask your boyfriend, he know the difference between fully-erect and semi-erect.

Says the guy who posted in this thread.

So which is it, do you need to be schooled on the difference between semi- and full- or are you unable to have a civil conversation on gun control because you don't even know what the other side's position is.

Either way, those are really your only two choices, and you're looking like a imbecile because of it. I'd like to hear your decision.

Rohirrim
02-28-2013, 10:26 AM
Isn't the common term for a .45 caliber pistol an automatic?

houghtam
02-28-2013, 10:43 AM
Isn't the common term for a .45 caliber pistol an automatic?

I don't know about that, as I'm a liberal who doesn't know anything about guns. But I do know the .44 AutoMag. Made by, get this...AutoMag. Hilarious!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AutoMag_%28pistol%29

BroncoBeavis
02-28-2013, 11:27 AM
Isn't the common term for a .45 caliber pistol an automatic?

Can't speak for everyone, but I've never heard a semi automatic handgun referred to as anything but semi automatic or semiauto. At least not in conversational terms.

This would be like someone talking football using a phrase like "Two-back set" while counting the QB. Technically correct... but a clear indication that the person speaking is pretty unfamiliar with the topic at hand.

TonyR
02-28-2013, 11:43 AM
So, I guess "liberal" ABC is guilty of some massive cover up here. But then "liberal" mediaite.com covered the story. So, at the end of the day, isn't the world still in balance for the right wingers? On this issue at least? Or does the overblown notion that the lberals are coming to take your guns away have you so much on edge that every little perceived slight is going to get your panties in a bunch?

errand
02-28-2013, 11:51 AM
still haven't heard one idea or plan that will keep guns semi-auto or otherwise out of the hands of criminals ....

peacepipe
02-28-2013, 11:56 AM
still haven't heard one idea or plan that will keep guns semi-auto or otherwise out of the hands of criminals ....

There are plans such as universal BG checks, We shouldn't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

BroncoBeavis
02-28-2013, 12:04 PM
There are plans such as universal BG checks, We shouldn't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Does Shotgun JoeBi get to own guns under these new plans? If so, I'd question the legitimacy of the approach. LOL

errand
02-28-2013, 12:09 PM
There are plans such as universal BG checks, We shouldn't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

most criminals know that they cannot pass a background check so what is your plan to get them to go thru the background check?

once again you're expecting law abiding citizens to go through the ringer, jump through the hoops of fire..... that would be like asking you to take a breathalyzer test every time your neighbor gets a DUI

houghtam
02-28-2013, 12:37 PM
most criminals know that they cannot pass a background check so what is your plan to get them to go thru the background check?

once again you're expecting law abiding citizens to go through the ringer, jump through the hoops of fire..... that would be like asking you to take a breathalyzer test every time your neighbor gets a DUI

Do you know what straw purchasers are and why they're relevant to this discussion?

TonyR
02-28-2013, 12:42 PM
still haven't heard one idea or plan that will keep guns semi-auto or otherwise out of the hands of criminals ....

We should probably just abolish all laws, rules, and regulations because sometimes people might figure out ways to circumvent them. I mean, why have speed limits? Can't stop everybody from speeding! Anarchy is probably the way to go. Good call.

Rohirrim
02-28-2013, 01:01 PM
Can't speak for everyone, but I've never heard a semi automatic handgun referred to as anything but semi automatic or semiauto. At least not in conversational terms.

This would be like someone talking football using a phrase like "Two-back set" while counting the QB. Technically correct... but a clear indication that the person speaking is pretty unfamiliar with the topic at hand.

When I was in the Army, every officer I knew carried a .45 and called it a "45 Auto."

Hmmm. That's what Colt calls them too. http://www.coltautos.com/1911a1ci.htm

Fedaykin
02-28-2013, 01:23 PM
Can't speak for everyone, but I've never heard a semi automatic handgun referred to as anything but semi automatic or semiauto. At least not in conversational terms.

This would be like someone talking football using a phrase like "Two-back set" while counting the QB. Technically correct... but a clear indication that the person speaking is pretty unfamiliar with the topic at hand.

So, John Browning is pretty unfamiliar with the topic at hand eh? So is the U.S. Army? Colt? Tons of gun makers and dealers? Gun clubs?

:eyeroll:

The fact that you've only experienced conversation with people who aren't aware the the term "automatic" refers to any self loading weapon (not just those that fire multiple rounds per trigger pull) just means you are the one who is "pretty unfamiliar with the topic at hand". Not the other way around.

Just like you couldn't figure out a chart was displaying over a year old data, even though you were expressly told that fact.

BroncoBeavis
02-28-2013, 01:29 PM
When I was in the Army, every officer I knew carried a .45 and called it a "45 Auto."

Hmmm. That's what Colt calls them too. http://www.coltautos.com/1911a1ci.htm

That's not Colt's website. This is:

http://www.coltsmfg.com/Catalog/ColtPistols.aspx

Colt pistols have long represented the gold standard in magazine-fed semi-automatic handguns.

Modern semi-automatic pistols all trace their roots to the famed Colt M1911 pistol, designed by John Browning and the standard-issue U.S. military sidearm from 1911 to 1985.

I think they called them auto in the early days as a differentiation from revolvers, since at that point there was no such (practical) thing as a fully automatic handgun. In the modern vernacular, calling a semi-automatic weapon an "automatic" weapon is an odd duck, since folding two very different meanings under one word only serves to confuse. You can do so as part of a textbook or historical discussion if you like. But when the topic of the day is gun control, using automatic in place of semi-automatic only serves to confuse issues. Intentionally or not.

Fedaykin
02-28-2013, 01:34 PM
still haven't heard one idea or plan that will keep guns semi-auto or otherwise out of the hands of criminals ....

Still waiting for several folks to at least admit to the reality that an AR-15/.223 or similar weapon is much more deadly (i.e. enables a single person to more quickly kill more people) than a pistol or a rifle that has more recoil.

Pretty much everyone else won't admit it. Will you?

cutthemdown
02-28-2013, 01:36 PM
Speaking of buffoonery about what something is, have you figured out yet cutlet that the issue with "assault rifles" isn't that they "look scary" but about their ballistics and the rate of controllable fire they enable?

Then why do the liberals like Fienstien talk about folding stocks, pistol grips, flash suppressors? It's because otherwise they have to admit regular hunting rifles about the same.

TonyR
02-28-2013, 01:37 PM
Conservatives are trying so hard to highlight controversies, no matter how trivial, we have forgotten the basics of reporting: W5 + H as I learned in grade school, also known as who, what, where, when, why, and how. I think conservatives need to reset some of their reportorial resources to tell the stories that need to be told by focusing on the facts at hand in a world view of the right. We need to establish a baseline for integrity in reporting that then allows us to highlight the truly outrageous. That baseline must be the basics of who, what, where, when, why, and how and it must be set before taking the next step into analysis of motivation and its implications. …

Conservatives must start telling stories, not just producing white papers and peddling daily outrage. The stories we choose to tell should have all the information we need to be informed of facts and paint a picture of those facts’ impact. http://www.redstate.com/2013/02/27/w5-h-a-baseline-for-integrity/

cutthemdown
02-28-2013, 01:39 PM
Still waiting for several folks to at least admit to the reality that an AR-15/.223 or similar weapon is much more deadly (i.e. enables a single person to more quickly kill more people) than a pistol or a rifle that has more recoil.

Pretty much everyone else won't admit it. Will you?

Maybe slightly more deadly not much more. Which is why they have to be legal. Law abiding citizens should be able to have that extra punch when going up against a bad guy. Not to mention in a riot i may have to shoot multiple people.

Fed will you agree that if a riot occured and 10 or more people were trying to loot your property that an assault rifle would be better then a shotgun? or a handgun? Now throw in that 2-3 of the 10 rioters are armed?

For sure a law abiding citizen should be able to have an assault rifle. There is no reason law abiding citizens shouldn't.

Fedaykin
02-28-2013, 01:41 PM
Then why do the liberals like Fienstien talk about folding stocks, pistol grips, flash suppressors? It's because otherwise they have to admit regular hunting rifles about the same.

I don't give a hoot what whoever that person is talks about. I want to know if you've learned anything over the course of the last couple months.

Have you?

BroncoBeavis
02-28-2013, 01:42 PM
The fact that you've only experienced conversation with people who aren't aware the the term "automatic" refers to any self loading weapon (not just those that fire multiple rounds per trigger pull) just means you are the one who is "pretty unfamiliar with the topic at hand". Not the other way around.

I didn't say they 'weren't aware' of the technicality. Go back to my quarterback analogy. There was a time back in the early days of the game where the Quarterback was basically just one of the "backs" so it would've made conversational sense back in that day to call him a "back" instead of a "quarterback"

Today, if you called Peyton Manning a "back" everyone would look at you like you're crazy (because you are) even though you're technically correct.

Talking gun control while calling a semi-automatic an automatic is the same deal. Not exactly wrong. Just a bit off.

Your reflexive defensiveness is nothing if not predictable. :)

Fedaykin
02-28-2013, 01:52 PM
Maybe slightly more deadly not much more. Which is why they have to be legal. Law abiding citizens should be able to have that extra punch when going up against a bad guy. Not to mention in a riot i may have to shoot multiple people.


Ever fired any of the following:

.22
9mm para
.45 Auto
.223/Nato5.56
7.62x39 (AK)?
.308

I've fired all of those rounds (and a whole lot more). There is a huge difference between the recoil of a .308 and a .223, and the ability to control a rifle when firing fast is far greater than that of a pistol (simple physics there).



Fed will you agree that if a riot occured and 10 or more people were trying to loot your property that an assault rifle would be better then a shotgun? or a handgun? Now throw in that 2-3 of the 10 rioters are armed?

Hilarious!

In other words, yes an "assault rifle" does provide significantly more ability to engage multiple targets. Thanks for finally admitting that, even though you didn't mean to.


For sure a law abiding citizen should be able to have an assault rifle. There is no reason law abiding citizens shouldn't.

I'm, at worst, on the fence about whether or not a very. At this point I'm just trying to see if you'll at least acknowledge there is a significant difference between a .223AR and a pistol. Ironically, when you think it supports your position, you are *glad* to talk about the significant superiority, but when asked straight up you spew bull****.

BroncoBeavis
02-28-2013, 02:06 PM
Still waiting for several folks to at least admit to the reality that an AR-15/.223 or similar weapon is much more deadly (i.e. enables a single person to more quickly kill more people) than a pistol or a rifle that has more recoil.

Comedy gold. Police and military should be the only ones with access to recoil control? Fed's new gun control proposal. Outlaw civilian gunstocks that are larger than the gun's barrel. Then if you really want, you can still choose to shoot, but it'll probably break your shoulder. LOL

Oh, and BTW, the main reason an AR-15 lacks a lot of recoil is because .223 is a tiny caliber. You get what your shoulder pays for. Would you ban .22's as well? They kick even less.

Fedaykin
02-28-2013, 02:07 PM
I didn't say they 'weren't aware' of the technicality. Go back to my quarterback analogy. There was a time back in the early days of the game where the Quarterback was basically just one of the "backs" so it would've made conversational sense back in that day to call him a "back" instead of a "quarterback"

Today, if you called Peyton Manning a "back" everyone would look at you like you're crazy (because you are) even though you're technically correct.

Talking gun control while calling a semi-automatic an automatic is the same deal. Not exactly wrong. Just a bit off.


Automatic is used all the time to refer to semi-auto pistols (I cited several different sources that do so), though I will give you that the incorrect usage to refer only to full-auto is becoming more prevalent in society.

Ironically, having a pistol referred to as "automatic" is how I was originally learned about semi vs full (when I was 8).

[Your reflexive defensiveness is nothing if not predictable. :)

:eyeroll: Nice try.

Fedaykin
02-28-2013, 02:12 PM
Comedy gold. Police and military should be the only ones with access to recoil control? Fed's new gun control proposal. Outlaw civilian gunstocks that are larger than the gun's barrel. Then if you really want, you can still choose to shoot, but it'll probably break your shoulder. LOL


The only comedy gold is that you think the above is something other than a horrible strawman. Idjit.


Oh, and BTW, the main reason an AR-15 lacks a lot of recoil is because .223 is a tiny caliber. You get what your shoulder pays for. Would you ban .22's as well? They kick even less.

A .223 is a small calibre, but the ROUND is much more powerful than a .22. It's more powerful than just about every pistol/revolver (even a hand cannon like a .44 magnum).

Apparently you think calibre is the end all of the power of a round, eh?

houghtam
02-28-2013, 02:15 PM
The only comedy gold is that you think the above is something other than a horrible strawman. Idjit.



A .223 is a small calibre, but the ROUND is much more powerful than a .22. It's more powerful than just about every pistol/revolver (even a hand cannon like a .44 magnum).

Apparently you think calibre is the end all of the power of a round, eh?

Beat me to it. This is why a conversation about stopping power is much more important than how a gun looks.

And why is it the gun nuts are the ones lacking in knowledge about, you know, guns?

cutthemdown
02-28-2013, 02:17 PM
Beat me to it. This is why a conversation about stopping power is much more important than how a gun looks.

And why is it the gun nuts are the ones lacking in knowledge about, you know, guns?

Still not one logical argument as to why ABC would do this. They edited because they thought it was a gaffe, or it is a gaffe, or they thought people would think it was a gaffe, either way its them censoring the news before giving it to us which is not acceptable.

cutthemdown
02-28-2013, 02:20 PM
You need a lot of power to shoot through body armor. Criminals now where body armor so private citizens need the power to penetrate that. Whats next?

houghtam
02-28-2013, 02:24 PM
Still not one logical argument as to why ABC would do this. They edited because they thought it was a gaffe, or it is a gaffe, or they thought people would think it was a gaffe, either way its them censoring the news before giving it to us which is not acceptable.

Or it was just part of the editing process, like a lot of stuff. Speeches are edited all the time. If every network aired every second of every speech given by every elected official (Mrs. Obama isn't one, btw, Castle Thickskull), we'd never have time to watch important stuff like...has ABC run anything decent since LOST?

Fedaykin
02-28-2013, 02:36 PM
Still not one logical argument as to why ABC would do this. They edited because they thought it was a gaffe, or it is a gaffe, or they thought people would think it was a gaffe, either way its them censoring the news before giving it to us which is not acceptable.

You think any programming is broadcast without editing? Who cares what the first spouce has to say or what was edited in a fluff interview?

houghtam
02-28-2013, 02:36 PM
You need a lot of power to shoot through body armor. Criminals now where body armor so private citizens need the power to penetrate that. Whats next?

A stupid argument if I've ever heard one.

We need guns to fight criminals. Okay well you don't need these guns that can shoot through body armor to be semi-automatic. Well but criminals wear body armor so we need to be able to defeat that. Then make body armor illegal for average citizens. Well but then criminals will be able to shoot me with guns that can't penetrate body armor.

It's the same stupid argument as:

We need guns to fight criminals. Okay but you don't need semi-automatic guns. But then the criminals will only have them. Okay well you don't need X. But then only the criminals will have X. Okay well you don't need Y. But then only the criminals will have Y.

OR

I need to get to work on time, but I don't feel like following the speed limit. Well you don't need to drive 100mph, you could kill someone, no matter how good a driver you are, stay under the limit. BUT THEN ONLY THE CRIMINALS WILL BE ABLE TO DRIVE 100MPH WHAT ABOUT MY RIGHTS THE CONSTITUTION NEVER SAYS ANYTHING ABOUT SPEED LIMITS.

You already stated that you think fully automatic guns, grenades, and tanks shouldn't be available. Yet, you're being charged by this mythical 10 person riot mob (2 or 3 are armed, btw) and you obviously need something to go through body armor, so why stop at an AR? Why not just say I should be able to use anything necessary to stop people? Shouldn't your reaction be to just go for the thing that's most likely going to stop 10 people from taking your ****ty property?

Why not use landmines? Then you don't even need to be home for them to be effective (and considering the vast majority of burglaries and home invasions occur while people are gone, that's much more effective than keeping a gun in the house).

Rohirrim
02-28-2013, 02:42 PM
Not to be a spoil sport or anything, but if you really want to arm yourself with something which is intended to protect you from the government, it better be able to take down drones. Just sayin'...

Requiem
02-28-2013, 02:46 PM
This is a very interesting debate. Thanks to the guys dropping knowledge. I used to hunt pheasant, but haven't done anything but some shootin' out in the woods of Colorado for fun with target practice. Guns are kinda weird to me. There is an antique case of old wild west guns at NDSU in the alumni center. Pretty cool stuff.

BroncoBeavis
02-28-2013, 02:49 PM
The only comedy gold is that you think the above is something other than a horrible strawman. Idjit.

Funny, you said .223 AR's should be banned because of a recoil advantage. But it has no advantage over a .22 on recoil. And .22 cals kill far more people every year than AR-15s (or .223's in general)

Pretty realistic looking for a strawman. I'm gonna take "Fed wants it banned because Rachel Madcow Said So" for 500, Alex." LOL

A .223 is a small calibre, but the ROUND is much more powerful than a .22. It's more powerful than just about every pistol/revolver (even a hand cannon like a .44 magnum).

Apparently you think calibre is the end all of the power of a round, eh?

Simple science, Fed. F=ma if you remember back to Intro to Physics. It's true that a .223 cart delivers more velocity than a .22lr. But by upping the acceleration on that (slightly) larger caliber, you deliver even more force to the stock (aka recoil)

Anyway, you say a .223 should be banned even if it's far less powerful than say a .308, only because it has less recoil. Yet you say a .22 should still be legal, even though it has even less (and yet kills more people). Is there some invisible recoil to lethality sweet spot that you're aiming at that none of us know about?

Fedaykin
02-28-2013, 03:06 PM
Funny, you said .223 AR's should be banned because of a recoil advantage. But it has no advantage over a .22 on recoil. And .22 cals kill far more people every year than AR-15s (or .223's in general)


No, I said (or tried to at least but got distracted and didn't finished the sentence) that at worst, I'm on the fence about a ban for a very specific subset of semi-auto rifles (i.e. those that are commonly referred to as assault rifles). I also said nothing about stocks.


Simple science, Fed. F=ma if you remember back to Intro to Physics. It's true that a .223 cart delivers more velocity than a .22lr. But by upping the acceleration on that (slightly) larger caliber, you deliver even more force to the stock (aka recoil)


LOL trying to be condescending about physics to me eh? You should probably know, I have a bachelors in Physics.

In any event, you seem lost. The problem with a .223 is that it delivers a very high amount of muzzle energy (and high killing power) yet maintains a very manageable amount of recoil when fired from a rifle platform.


Is there some invisible recoil to lethality sweet spot that you're aiming at that none of us know about?

YES. That's the whole damn design strategy of the NATA5.56! Jesus you are ignorant.


Anyway, you say a .223 should be banned even if it's far less powerful than say a .308, only because it has less recoil. Yet you say a .22 should still be legal, even though it has even less (and yet kills more people).


A .223 has much less recoil than a .308, but still delivers a very deadly projectile.

A .22 is deadly, but not to the same degree as a .223. A 22 is a very small projectile (30 grains) fired with a muzzle energy of about ~150ft*lb. A .223 is a small projectile (60 grains) fired at a muzzle energy of 1300ft*lb (10x the energy).

The difference?

A .22 will put a small, neat hole an inch or two into your body (not a good thing, but readily survivable even without prompt medical attention).

A .223 will enter your body, yaw (tumble end over end), fracture and SHRED your insides like razor blades. Very similar to what a hunting round (a common use for the .308) is designed to do. The biggest difference being a hunting round expands and then shreds, whereas a .223 does not expand due to design (to comply with international treaty). This lethality is all done with a manageable recoil in a .223 platofmr, the, as you call it, sweet spot.

BroncoBeavis
02-28-2013, 03:31 PM
LOL trying to be condescending about physics to me eh? You should probably know, I have a bachelors in Physics.

Some namecall. Others condescend. In either case, you usually you reap what you sow.

In any event, you seem lost. The problem with a .223 is that it delivers a very high amount of muzzle energy (and high killing power) yet maintains a very manageable amount of recoil when fired from a rifle platform.

People say the same about a .243. Very manageable recoil, Yet it's inarguably more powerful than the .223. On the other side, there's the 22 250. Recoil difference is fairly negligible in the real world. To the point it has more to do with gun design than cartridge. So it becomes a pretty awesome coincidence that people only want to ban the one that's in the news.

YES. That's the whole damn design strategy of the NATA5.56! Jesus you are ignorant.

Reaping, Sowing. etc etc

A .223 has much less recoil than a .308, but still delivers a very deadly projectile.

A .22 is deadly, but not to the same degree as a .223. A 22 is a very small projectile (30 grains) fired with a muzzle energy of about ~150ft*lb. A .223 is a small projectile (60 grains) fired at a muzzle energy of 1300ft*lb (10x the energy).

The difference?

A .22 will put a small, neat hole an inch or two into your body (not a good thing, but readily survivable even without prompt medical attention).

A .223 will enter your body, yaw (tumble end over end), fracture and SHRED your insides like razor blades. Very similar to what a hunting round (a common use for the .308) is designed to do. The biggest difference being a hunting round expands and then shreds, whereas a .223 does not expand due to design (to comply with international treaty). This lethality is all done with a manageable recoil in a .223 platofmr, the, as you call it, sweet spot.

There's a reason a .22 isn't legal to use on deer in most states. Same with the .223. But the .243 is generally considered ok.

Fact of the matter is,the difference is most .243's look like this:

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRWHZNX2cTTSd0YcFYfpyzttBQ5uV8Ux hKkm6VV6Gy9mk3tCPoI

And when a crazy wants to go shoot a bunch of people, he wants to pick up a weapon that looks the part. It sure as hell ain't because he's done detailed ballistic study on 223 vs 22/22-250/243. 600 pound gorilla alert.

Fedaykin
02-28-2013, 03:33 PM
Here's a nice link to inform yourself about the terminal ballistics of many different firearms:

http://www.ar15.com/ammo/project/Self_Defense_Ammo_FAQ/index.htm

here're the results of typical pistol wounds:

http://ammo.ar15.com/project/Misc_Images/DocGKR/Handgun_gel_comparison.jpg

Notice they are all single tract wounds, even with hollow point ammunition (hollow point ammo is designed not to fracture like a .223 but to expand -- the point being to make sure the bullet doesn't exit the target which isless desirable (because energy from the shot is therefor wasted)

This is what the bullets look like after being shot:

http://ammo.ar15.com/project/Misc_Images/DocGKR/Handgun_expanded_JHP.jpg

(as a side note, I always laugh when on a TV show someone get's shot and the 'doctor' pulls a perfectly non-deformed bullet out of the wound).

Here's the result of a .223 hit (both a before and after of the bullet and the wound profile in ballistics gel:

http://ammo.ar15.com/project/Misc_Images/DocGKR/77grSMK.jpg

Notice the multiple wound tracts and the fractured projectile that created them.

The takeaway? Putting a hole/through in someone is bad. Shredding their insides with razorblades is a lot worse.

houghtam
02-28-2013, 03:46 PM
This is a very interesting debate. Thanks to the guys dropping knowledge. I used to hunt pheasant, but haven't done anything but some shootin' out in the woods of Colorado for fun with target practice. Guns are kinda weird to me. There is an antique case of old wild west guns at NDSU in the alumni center. Pretty cool stuff.

Old guns fascinate me.

As I've said before, I own a Springfield M1861 (my brother owns an original), and I would love to own a flintlock someday. A Colt Lightning would be neat to have.

But see, that's what gets me about hobbies. People can have all kinds of hobbies, some legal, and some not. The people with the hobby call them hobbies and want people to respect their right to practice it. The people on the outside see the hobby as potentially dangerous for one reason or another and want it to be more regulated. Growing roses isn't the same as growing pot. Going camping isn't Civil War reenacting. Coin collecting isn't gun collecting. All of them need to be regulated, and some much more than others.

The personal protection argument is, at best, a wash. At best. There is still no evidence (everything presented thus far other than what I posted back in December has been anecdotal) that says your home is any safer with a gun than without, and there is still a lot of evidence that suggests you're more likely to have an accident with it than an opportunity for protection. Then you're upping the ante by suggesting we need people out on the streets who legitimately think they would have had a chance to perform some sort of Rambo stunt in Theater #9 armed? In public?? Excuse me, but no. **** no.

I don't know what the solutions to inner city violence, mental health, or the socio-economic divide are, but adding more guns to the situation defies all logic and statistics.

What burns me up even more isn't even that argument. Because despite what this board suggests, most gun owners aren't that stupid. Most want real reform. No, what makes me angry is the dishonest, disingenuous bull**** arguments you pull (and then unintentionally proceed to completely subvert) in the process of protecting your precious goddamn guns.

You whine about the class, race and social divides, not only neglecting to even discuss how it happened and whose policies (and institutions) got us there in the first place, but then refusing to give a coherent rebuttal and/or replacement plan.

You claim to want the government out of our lives, but you have no problem determining who can get married and who can stick his dick where.

You claim to be morally superior. You want to ban all abortion, yet your attitude about what actually happens to that child after it's born is "pull yourself up by your bootstraps." You say marriage is sacred, yet more marriages fail than succeed. You claim all life is sacred, yet say things like "let criminals fry" and "but that shooter in Aurora wasn't a human being and I'd have enjoyed killing him."

You bitch and moan about Obama's drone warfare policies, yet say how weak he is on foreign policy, as if somehow discreet killings are worse than foreign invasions. I mean, they may not be better, but they're certainly not worse.

And the worst part, like I said, is how you do it. Beavis and epicnyuk are the worst. You pretend like you don't understand arguments, you purposely leave out vital information to one side of an argument...you post in the rest of the forum like normal, intelligent human beings, but when it comes to political discussion, it's like you purposely only turn on the part of your brain that wins you the argument (in your own eyes). You're not fooling anyone.

Fedaykin
02-28-2013, 03:54 PM
Some namecall. Others condescend. In either case, you usually you reap what you sow.


Big surprise, you missed the point: I'm laughing at your pitiable attempt to condescend.


People say the same about a .243. Very manageable recoil, Yet it's inarguably more powerful than the .223. On the other side, there's the 22 250. Recoil difference is fairly negligible in the real world. To the point it has more to do with gun design than cartridge. So it becomes a pretty awesome coincidence that people only want to ban the one that's in the news.

Nice try at a distraction.

The .223 is what the army decided was the best 'sweet spot' you are talking about. The soviets decided on a different compromise (more power, less controllable) for the AK-47. Note that they changed their mind, and now use a round nearly identical (ballistic characteristics) to the .223 in the AK-74 (seventy-four)

No one cares about the designation of the cartridge or what the damn things LOOK like. They care about the capabilities of that weapon.


Reaping, Sowing. etc etc


When you say something that betrays ignorance, I'll call you on it. Suck it up kid.


There's a reason a .22 isn't legal to use on deer in most states. Same with the .223. But the .243 is generally considered ok.

Fact of the matter is,the difference is most .243's look like this:

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRWHZNX2cTTSd0YcFYfpyzttBQ5uV8Ux hKkm6VV6Gy9mk3tCPoI


Oh look a bolt action rifle. Not even remotely related to what we are talking about!


And when a crazy wants to go shoot a bunch of people, he wants to pick up a weapon that looks the part. It sure as hell ain't because he's done detailed ballistic study on 223 vs 22/22-250/243. 600 pound gorilla alert.

A crazy guy wanting to kill lots of folk wants a weapon that allows him to kill the most folk. He doesn't care what it looks like.

Fedaykin
02-28-2013, 04:09 PM
As for other differences between typical pistols (including the .22) and more powerful rounds like the .223 you have to understand an important fact about high powered weapons:

What kills you isn't necessarily the hole in your body or the shredding of your insides, it's that parts of your cardiovascular system explode, particularly in the brain. Basically as the round enters your body, it creates a pulse of pressure in your bloodstream, which causes hemorrhaging. You die from massive brain bleeding before the damage from the primary would kills you.

It's called hydrostatic shock.

Hunters know this very well, it's what results in "blood shot" meat near the wound that you have to avoid when harvesting the meat. Bloodshot meat is a more localized effect, but it's the same thing (hemorrhaging caused by induced static hydraulic pressure in the cardiovascular system).

A .22 doesn't produce anywhere near enough energy to cause hydrostatic shock. Typically the minimum is considered to be the energy from a .45ACP, which is about half the energy of a .223/NATO

BroncoBeavis
02-28-2013, 04:15 PM
Here's a nice link to inform yourself about the terminal ballistics of many different firearms:

The takeaway? Putting a hole/through in someone is bad. Shredding their insides with razorblades is a lot worse.

Interesting. But I'm not sure comparing one rifle cartridge's ballistics to a bunch of handguns is all that useful. Different animals entirely.

Fedaykin
02-28-2013, 04:20 PM
Interesting. But I'm not sure comparing one rifle cartridge's ballistics to a bunch of handguns is all that useful. Different animals entirely.

It's the whole point: A .223 is MORE powerful and more deadly than most pistols (and many rifles) yet capable of being fired at a faster rate due to less recoil (because it's a relatively low power rifle round but fired from a much more stable rifle platform).

Are you really that lost in this topic?

It's simple:

More powerful round (i.e. higher chance of killing) + faster rate of fire = much more deadly than lower power, slower firing.

Cutlet has (inadvertently) admitted this simple, objective fact. Do you have the integrity to admit it?

BroncoBeavis
02-28-2013, 04:45 PM
It's the whole point: A .223 is MORE powerful and more deadly than most pistols (and many rifles) yet capable of being fired at a faster rate due to less recoil (because it's a relatively low power rifle round but fired from a much more stable rifle platform).

Are you really that lost in this topic?

Only when you talk about it. :)

Who the eff brought in handguns? Every alternative cartridge I mentioned, .22LR, 22-250, .243 is a rifle cartridge with minimal recoil. And in the case of the .243, far more powerful. Why would you ban the .223 and not the .243? .22-250 generally has a higher velocity, but that's an old-school varmint hunting caliber, closely associated with woodgrain stocks. So therefore it does not meet MSNBC's public safety alert criteria. LOL

Much like our last debate your followup approach is usually to baffle with amazing volumes of (irrelevant) bull****.

cutthemdown
02-28-2013, 08:03 PM
Here's a nice link to inform yourself about the terminal ballistics of many different firearms:

http://www.ar15.com/ammo/project/Self_Defense_Ammo_FAQ/index.htm

here're the results of typical pistol wounds:

http://ammo.ar15.com/project/Misc_Images/DocGKR/Handgun_gel_comparison.jpg

Notice they are all single tract wounds, even with hollow point ammunition (hollow point ammo is designed not to fracture like a .223 but to expand -- the point being to make sure the bullet doesn't exit the target which isless desirable (because energy from the shot is therefor wasted)

This is what the bullets look like after being shot:

http://ammo.ar15.com/project/Misc_Images/DocGKR/Handgun_expanded_JHP.jpg

(as a side note, I always laugh when on a TV show someone get's shot and the 'doctor' pulls a perfectly non-deformed bullet out of the wound).

Here's the result of a .223 hit (both a before and after of the bullet and the wound profile in ballistics gel:

http://ammo.ar15.com/project/Misc_Images/DocGKR/77grSMK.jpg

Notice the multiple wound tracts and the fractured projectile that created them.

The takeaway? Putting a hole/through in someone is bad. Shredding their insides with razorblades is a lot worse.

Can you show that same 5.56 round shot with a gun with a pistol grip so i can see the difference? Oh wait thats right no difference. So you proved rifels shot into a human do a lot of damage. Congrats we did not no that....DERP!

Fedaykin
02-28-2013, 09:59 PM
Can you show that same 5.56 round shot with a gun with a pistol grip so i can see the difference? Oh wait thats right no difference. So you proved rifels shot into a human do a lot of damage. Congrats we did not no that....DERP!

Nice strawman.. yet again. I've never claimed that pistol grips are a problem.

Try again oh ye of no honesty.

cutthemdown
02-28-2013, 10:03 PM
Nice strawman.. yet again. I've never claimed that pistol grips are a problem.

Try again oh ye of no honesty.

Cool then you disagree with the liberals wants to have any law be about what a rifle looks like, or if it has a pistol grip. At least your not insane.

How about the difference between a .308 hunting rifle and the NATO round from a tactical ar-15. Got that for me oh great seer of all that is truth?

cutthemdown
02-28-2013, 10:04 PM
Trying to figure out how you can compare a rifle to a handgun then use that information to say what kind of rifles should be legal. Can you explain yourself better oh great master of wisdom and honesty.

cutthemdown
02-28-2013, 10:08 PM
Oh yeah!

Fedaykin
02-28-2013, 10:12 PM
Only when you talk about it. :)

Who the eff brought in handguns?


We've been comparing the differences between rifles, "assault rifles" and pistols for quite a while here. Do try to keep up kid. It ain't that hard.

Typically your more ignorant folks always say 'well, a 9mm is semi-auto too, it's just as dangerous as an AR-15!' That's what cutlet has said, and persists in the strawman idiocy that the only issue is pistol grips, collapsible stocks, look, etc.


Every alternative cartridge I mentioned, .22LR, 22-250, .243 is a rifle cartridge with minimal recoil. And in the case of the .243, far more powerful. Why would you ban the .223 and not the .243? .22-250 generally has a higher velocity, but that's an old-school varmint hunting caliber, closely associated with woodgrain stocks. So therefore it does not meet MSNBC's public safety alert criteria. LOL


:eyeroll: Oh no, I didn't mention by name every similar round. Do you really think you have some grand point there? That grasping hand must be getting mighty full of straws there.

Also, trying to compare a .22 to a .223 is complete idiocy, like I've shown.

Finally, I have not called for banning _anything_. I've said I'm on the fence about it, and want to get you idjits to at least understand/admit the qualities that are in question. How many times do I have to say that before it gets through your thick ****ing skull?



Much like our last debate your followup approach is usually to baffle with amazing volumes of (irrelevant) bull****.

Once again, the only one bringing amazing volumes of irrelevant bull**** (like whining that I didn't mention every conceivable round that would fulfill the characteristics in question) is you bub.

Though in only a tangentially related topic, have you figured out it's 2013 yet not 2011?

Fedaykin
02-28-2013, 10:24 PM
How about the difference between a .308 hunting rifle and the NATO round from a tactical ar-15. Got that for me oh great seer of all that is truth?


The recoil of a .308 will prevent a high rate of fire. It's pretty simple. The muzzle energy of a .308 is around twice that of a .223. Have you ever shot one? It's been my primary hunting rifle for over a decade.


Trying to figure out how you can compare a rifle to a handgun then use that information to say what kind of rifles should be legal. Can you explain yourself better oh great master of wisdom and honesty.

What part of an assault rifle is designed to fire a round far more deadly than a pistol round at rates far higher than can be achieved by a pistol is not sinking in cutlet?

I mean Jesus I already put it in a simple little equation, and you've already agreed, inadvertently, with me that an "assault rifle" is what you want when you need to engage a lot of folk in a short amount of time.

What are you actually confused about? are you being purposefully obtuse as you are wont to do?

cutthemdown
02-28-2013, 10:52 PM
An AR-15 is a totally different tool then a handgun. Handguns are designed to be easy to carry around. The fact they are far more deadly then a handgun doesn't prove anything in the debate on whether they should be banned or not.

I don't even think arguing this type of stuff is important. Whats important are the numbers. Not that many people are killed by assault rifles. It's a made up problem. People who own assault rifles use them for target practice mostly.

I bet more people drown in the USA every yr then get shot with rifles. It's only an issue because the media and the govt trying to scare people.

Fedaykin
02-28-2013, 11:00 PM
An AR-15 is a totally different tool then a handgun. Handguns are designed to be easy to carry around. The fact they are far more deadly then a handgun doesn't prove anything in the debate on whether they should be banned or not.

I don't even think arguing this type of stuff is important. Whats important are the numbers. Not that many people are killed by assault rifles. It's a made up problem. People who own assault rifles use them for target practice mostly.

I bet more people drown in the USA every yr then get shot with rifles. It's only an issue because the media and the govt trying to scare people.

Once again cutlet, I'm not arguing about banning anything. That's like the 5th time I've said that in this thread. Get it through your head.

I'm glad, though, that you have finally at least admitted straight up that a assault rifle is far more deadly than a pistol. Thanks for finally digging deep and just dealing with reality for once.

cutthemdown
02-28-2013, 11:09 PM
So then you don't agree with any ban. What are we arguing about then?

BroncoBeavis
02-28-2013, 11:09 PM
Also, trying to compare a .22 to a .223 is complete idiocy, like I've shown.

That was in response to your post about lack of recoil being King. Then you mission creeped, like you always do when proven to be blowing smoke... All the way from talking about the lack of recoil in a small caliber plinker rifle, to suddenly comparing it to a .45 cal hand cannon.

You're all over the map. At least this time you're not quoting 800 rounds per second firing rates LOL

Fedaykin
02-28-2013, 11:15 PM
That was in response to your post about lack of recoil being King. Then you mission creeped, like you always do when proven to be blowing smoke... All the way from talking about the lack of recoil in a small caliber plinker rifle, to suddenly comparing it to a .45 cal hand cannon.


Never claimed lack of recoil was king. As I've said dozens of times, it's all about, as you call it, the "sweet spot".

Pay the **** attention kid.


You're all over the map. At least this time you're not quoting 800 rounds per second firing rates LOL

Was a ****ing typo, get over yourself.

Fedaykin
02-28-2013, 11:19 PM
So then you don't agree with any ban. What are we arguing about then?

I said I'm not arguing for a ban. At this point, as I said, I'm just trying to get those that are arguing to at least accept reality and have a least a basic understanding of what they're talking about.

You're lame strawman about pistol grips and stocks you've been tossing around forever is just one of the worst offenses. But we've cleared that up now. You seem to finally "get" that the legit concern is about the ballistic and rate of fire capabilities of the weapons. Only took you several months to pull your head our of your rear.

cutthemdown
02-28-2013, 11:49 PM
I said I'm not arguing for a ban. At this point, as I said, I'm just trying to get those that are arguing to at least accept reality and have a least a basic understanding of what they're talking about.

You're lame strawman about pistol grips and stocks you've been tossing around forever is just one of the worst offenses. But we've cleared that up now. You seem to finally "get" that the legit concern is about the ballistic and rate of fire capabilities of the weapons. Only took you several months to pull your head our of your rear.

BS! The last govt ban was on things like a pistol grip, etc etc. Your argument that its about ballistics doesn't hold so you have to go to rate of fire. A combo of ballistic tests and how fast someone can fire the rifle.

I just made fun of Fienstien who is my Sen and how she is always talking about bayonets and pistol grips, and folding stocks etc.

To argue with your points on ballistics i would counter that the country has no problem with assault rifle murders. It's very rare. More people drown in pools then get killed by assault rifles in the USA.

handguns are the real problem. Focusing on assault rifles is a joke.

cutthemdown
02-28-2013, 11:54 PM
Rifles period only used to kill about 300-400 times a yr and I think that counts suicides. It's such a non issue it is a joke to make it one. The goal is to make our society safer but this number is not high enough to warrant targeting rifles of any type. There just isn't the safety issue there to tackle. Hell spending money on increasing pool safety would be better. I think a few thousand people drown each yr in pools.

But of course you know me I think people need to be responsible for themselves. The govt can't make the world a safe place. You could take away every single rifle in the country and only save a few hundred lives a yr. It's just not even close to being a problem in the USA.

houghtam
03-01-2013, 01:32 AM
Rifles period only used to kill about 300-400 times a yr and I think that counts suicides. It's such a non issue it is a joke to make it one. The goal is to make our society safer but this number is not high enough to warrant targeting rifles of any type. There just isn't the safety issue there to tackle. Hell spending money on increasing pool safety would be better. I think a few thousand people drown each yr in pools.

But of course you know me I think people need to be responsible for themselves. The govt can't make the world a safe place. You could take away every single rifle in the country and only save a few hundred lives a yr. It's just not even close to being a problem in the USA.

Monster trucks kill fewer people each year than trash trucks. Ergo hoc facto monster trucks should be legal to drive in traffic, regardless of the fact that NO ONE NEEDS TO DRIVE A ****ING MONSTER TRUCK.

cutthemdown
03-01-2013, 03:01 AM
Monster trucks kill fewer people each year than trash trucks. Ergo hoc facto monster trucks should be legal to drive in traffic, regardless of the fact that NO ONE NEEDS TO DRIVE A ****ING MONSTER TRUCK.

False equivalence. I know i know i do it also but still this is one. It just riles you that the numbers point to the fact rifles are not the problem. Not to mention out of those 400 rifle deaths we don't know how many are assault style. Maybe what half? if that? Why make an issue out of something that is clearly not a big problem in the USA?

I can understand the push for background checks on all weapons but even that probably won't bring down gun deaths all that much.

Rifles though, as powerful as Fed has proved they are, just aren't a threat to public safety. The numbers just are not there to worry about rifles. The fact they can't be concealed makes them less dangerous then handguns.

houghtam
03-01-2013, 10:08 AM
False equivalence. I know i know i do it also but still this is one. It just riles you that the numbers point to the fact rifles are not the problem. Not to mention out of those 400 rifle deaths we don't know how many are assault style. Maybe what half? if that? Why make an issue out of something that is clearly not a big problem in the USA?

I can understand the push for background checks on all weapons but even that probably won't bring down gun deaths all that much.

Rifles though, as powerful as Fed has proved they are, just aren't a threat to public safety. The numbers just are not there to worry about rifles. The fact they can't be concealed makes them less dangerous then handguns.

Tell that to the people in Newtown, Aurora, Oregon...

houghtam
03-01-2013, 11:01 AM
It's okay folks, cut's got this.

Those little children died for your rights, correct? Let's hear it again, say it with me: "Those little children dying is a small price to pay for my right to own an assault rifle."

Tree of liberty, fertilized, blood...you know the rest.

BroncoBeavis
03-01-2013, 11:05 AM
Tell that to the people in Newtown, Aurora, Oregon...

Ahhh, back to the wonders of Neoprohibitionism.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/11/alcohol-related-deaths-_n_821900.html

houghtam
03-01-2013, 11:11 AM
Ahhh, back to the wonders of Neoprohibitionism.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/11/alcohol-related-deaths-_n_821900.html

Yep, you missed the whole rest of the argument, though. Nice of you to jump in when it's convenient for you.

Tell me again how keeping a gun in your home prevents burglaries, or how someone with a CCL permit would have been able to brave the elements and stop the Aurora shooting.

Or I can just continue to watch you get destroyed in explaining why a gun that the US military settled on as optimal for their uses somehow isn't more dangerous than other rifles.

Hey, do you happen to know anything about employment law?

:yayaya:

BroncoBeavis
03-01-2013, 01:57 PM
Yep, you missed the whole rest of the argument, though. Nice of you to jump in when it's convenient for you.

Tell me again how keeping a gun in your home prevents burglaries, or how someone with a CCL permit would have been able to brave the elements and stop the Aurora shooting.

Please, you make it sound like Seal Team 6 couldn't have done anything to help.

Or I can just continue to watch you get destroyed in explaining why a gun that the US military settled on as optimal for their uses somehow isn't more dangerous than other rifles.

The military has many factors beyond pure killing power to think about when selecting ammunition. In the end, they compromised between pure stopping power and ammunition-toting capacity (since the guys in the field can't stop at a corner sporting goods store every time they run low) Anyone who'd argue (all else being equal) that a .223 is more lethal than a .243 is completely mistaken. (I'll hold the name-calling)

Hey, do you happen to know anything about employment law?

:yayaya:

I know enough to know it gets bent or broken every day of the week, yet rarely results in affected employees becoming millionaires. LOL

houghtam
03-01-2013, 02:56 PM
In the end, they compromised between pure stopping power and ammunition-toting capacity (since the guys in the field can't stop at a corner sporting goods store every time they run low)

Wait a minute.

What does ammunition capacity have to do with anything? Are we really to believe that how much ammunition you can carry has any effect whatsoever on how many people you can effectively kill at a time?

You don't say.

Fedaykin
03-01-2013, 02:58 PM
Anyone who'd argue (all else being equal) that a .223 is more lethal than a .243 is completely mistaken. (I'll hold the name-calling)


No one has argued that...

Are you completely incapable of reading comprehension?

BroncoBeavis
03-01-2013, 04:12 PM
Wait a minute.

What does ammunition capacity have to do with anything? Are we really to believe that how much ammunition you can carry has any effect whatsoever on how many people you can effectively kill at a time?

You don't say.

Needless to say (or at least I wouldda thought so) the ammo carrying capacity needed for a few weeks out in the rice paddy is a bit different from some crazy deciding to spend his last hour or so going down in a blaze of anti-glory. You should be glad those guys don't use .243's. But please keep arguing that it would make sense to ban one yet not the other because it usually comes in black. Makes my life easier.

cutthemdown
03-01-2013, 04:20 PM
It's okay folks, cut's got this.

Those little children died for your rights, correct? Let's hear it again, say it with me: "Those little children dying is a small price to pay for my right to own an assault rifle."

Tree of liberty, fertilized, blood...you know the rest.

I just feel that when only 400 Americans get killed by rifles a yr that we should be concentrating on other things to save more kids lives. I realize a kid getting shot is provocative and one just drowning in a pool not so much. You don't see national news covering kids drowning. But its way more of a threat to young kids then rifles.

i agree with you handguns need some work. The problem with handguns is they are the weapon of choice among felons. Thats why rifles just really not an issue. Sure a few times a yr someone will snap with them. Once a decade some police dept gets in a shootout like the Hollywood one a few yrs back. Hell maybe even twice a decade but still not enough where legislation can help.

You just can't legislate 400 people getting shot with rifles. Its such a small number there isn't much to work with people. Hell the number is so low you could ban all rifles and still maybe have 400 deaths from them.

Lets push govt to legislate in areas that really need attention.

cutthemdown
03-01-2013, 04:28 PM
Fed is trying to make some wierd point that an ar-15, in .223 has a combination of firepower, calibar size, small recoil that enables it to be slightly more deadly then say a .308 which has more firepower but a person may not squeeze and many rounds on target in the same amount of time.

I will conceed that but not sure what it proves when the amount of people killed by rifles is so very low. They just aren't really a problem. No one can prove or logically show that legislation on ar-15s could possible make us safer. How can people be scared of only 400 people a yr being killed by rifles? more people drown.

cutthemdown
03-01-2013, 04:29 PM
Tell that to the people in Newtown, Aurora, Oregon...

wow 3 incidents. What a epidemic.

Fedaykin
03-01-2013, 09:59 PM
Needless to say (or at least I wouldda thought so) the ammo carrying capacity needed for a few weeks out in the rice paddy is a bit different from some crazy deciding to spend his last hour or so going down in a blaze of anti-glory. You should be glad those guys don't use .243's. But please keep arguing that it would make sense to ban one yet not the other because it usually comes in black. Makes my life easier.

No one has attempted to argue that.

Reading comprehension: you need a lot more practice.

Moron.

cutthemdown
03-02-2013, 04:48 AM
more people are beaten to death by someone hands and feet then are killed by rifles in a yr in the USA. How can anyone look at a rifle, that causes about 400 deaths a yr, and say wow this is a huge problem in the USA? People just don't care around rifles and shoot people with them. Its very very rare. But we have almost 300 million people so yeah hundreds will be shot with rifles each yr. Still not enough to warrant legislation.

BroncoBeavis
03-02-2013, 07:28 AM
more people are beaten to death by someone hands and feet then are killed by rifles in a yr in the USA. How can anyone look at a rifle, that causes about 400 deaths a yr, and say wow this is a huge problem in the USA? People just don't care around rifles and shoot people with them. Its very very rare. But we have almost 300 million people so yeah hundreds will be shot with rifles each yr. Still not enough to warrant legislation.

MSNBC told them it was a huge problem.

BroncoBeavis
03-02-2013, 07:32 AM
No one has attempted to argue that.

Reading comprehension: you need a lot more practice.

Moron.

Nobody really has any idea what you're arguing. You mostly just nip at heels and make meaningless comparisons.

Dukes
03-02-2013, 09:53 AM
more people are beaten to death by someone hands and feet then are killed by rifles in a yr in the USA. How can anyone look at a rifle, that causes about 400 deaths a yr, and say wow this is a huge problem in the USA? People just don't care around rifles and shoot people with them. Its very very rare. But we have almost 300 million people so yeah hundreds will be shot with rifles each yr. Still not enough to warrant legislation.

Which leads you to the simple question. What is their motivation for gun control? If it were about saving lives there's hundreds of other objects and chemicals that kill thousands of more people a year.

Fedaykin
03-02-2013, 01:54 PM
Nobody really has any idea what you're arguing. You mostly just nip at heels and make meaningless comparisons.

LMAO Cutlet is not confused, nor I would venture is anyone else. Just you, which either means you really are that dumb or are just being purposefully obtuse.

cutthemdown
03-02-2013, 01:58 PM
Fed is easy to figure out just listen. he is saying he feels an ar-15 has a combination of attributes that makes it more deadly in someones hands then say a larger more powerfull weapon, that would have more recoil.

I also dont get why he is making that point though because he doesn't tie it in to how it should affect gun control.

Also still waiting for a liberal to prove 400 rifle deaths a yr is enough to warrant this much attention. Govt would be better off looking at things where more deaths occur if saving lives is the goal.

cutthemdown
03-02-2013, 01:59 PM
Which leads you to the simple question. What is their motivation for gun control? If it were about saving lives there's hundreds of other objects and chemicals that kill thousands of more people a year.

Mostly dems right now eager for any big social/domestic issues they can use to kee attention off failed foreign police, failed economic policy.

Fedaykin
03-02-2013, 02:28 PM
Fed is easy to figure out just listen. he is saying he feels an ar-15 has a combination of attributes that makes it more deadly in someones hands then say a larger more powerfull weapon, that would have more recoil.

More correctly: the class of weapons we call "assault rifles" use rounds and a platoform (rifle) that enable unmatched -- among currently legal weapons -- rate of (controllable) fire + lethality.


I also dont get why he is making that point though because he doesn't tie it in to how it should affect gun control.


Like I said, I'm just trying to see how many of you folks can actually accept reality. Most folks can't/won't admit that an "assault rifle" like the AR-15 (but certainly not limited to that one model) is more deadly than a semi-automatic pistol, because they are "both semi-auto!, yuk yuk". Dozens of threads just here on the mane have people claiming that. It's ridiculous and that as well as lots of other idiocy (e.g. Beavis thinking that calibre was the definitive determinant of a weapons power/lethality) betrays a stunning level of ignorance about the topic at hand.

How can you have a reasonable conversation about what/if something should be done until all the participants are reasonably well informed about the topic?

cutthemdown
03-02-2013, 02:31 PM
Fed can you accept reality that only 400 people get killed by rifles. And probably only a small % of those are assault style platforms. So they are more deadly does that in itself mean it needs legislation?

Certianly you agree that the fact more people get beat to death then die from rifles means this really isn't that big of a problem right? If you are going to argue 400 rifle deaths enough for the govt to start legislating on then I think you are reaching big time just to try and win the argument.

Peoples points are just that its easy to kill unarmed people with a gun. Doesn't matter if its a handgun or a rifle. My point handguns are the most deadly is based on the facts. Rate of fire, platfrom this pales in comparison to ABLE TO HIDE IN YOUR WAISTTBAND.

The only way to make us safer is harsher penalties for felons caught with weapons.

Fedaykin
03-02-2013, 03:01 PM
Fed can you accept reality that only 400 people get killed by rifles. And probably only a small % of those are assault style platforms. So they are more deadly does that in itself mean it needs legislation?

Certianly you agree that the fact more people get beat to death then die from rifles means this really isn't that big of a problem right? If you are going to argue 400 rifle deaths enough for the govt to start legislating on then I think you are reaching big time just to try and win the argument.


You're trying to compare crimes (individual murders) of opportunity to mass murders. Murders of individual people (often without premeditation) to carefully planned mass murder. The comparison is not valid.

Of course a whole lot more people get killed by pistols and fists, there are a lot more people with pistols and fists and a whole lot more people with motive (with or without premeditation) to kill! No matter what weapons are available, the rate of these types of crimes won't be affected (the NRA stooges are quite right about that much at least).

But, when someone wants to kill as many people as possible in, say, a theatre or school, they don't try to beat them to death or take just a pistol.


Peoples points are just that its easy to kill unarmed people with a gun. Doesn't matter if its a handgun or a rifle. My point handguns are the most deadly is based on the facts.

Again, you're comparing apples or oranges. You're aggregating the actions of a huge number of people (the entirely of gun violence in the country) to the actions of a single individual wanting to commit mass murder.

The reason assault weapons are getting a lot of attention right now is because they've been used to commit mass murder a lot recently. And as I've said, the capabilities of assault weapons to enable that type of crime are a legit concern.

Rate of fire, platfrom this pales in comparison to ABLE TO HIDE IN YOUR WISTTBAND.

So, you are now going to argue that collapsible stocks are a problem after all huh? After all, if I can collapse the stock, I can more easily hide my weapon!

;)

frerottenextelway
03-03-2013, 09:11 AM
Which leads you to the simple question. What is their motivation for gun control? If it were about saving lives there's hundreds of other objects and chemicals that kill thousands of more people a year.

Oh stfu, first off the "400" number is more than every other first world nation, combined, for all guns, or pretty damn close. Second off, there is extensive regulation on pretty much everything that causes death, except for guns despite that being constitutionally required to be heavily regulated.

houghtam
03-03-2013, 09:30 AM
You're trying to compare crimes (individual murders) of opportunity to mass murders. Murders of individual people (often without premeditation) to carefully planned mass murder. The comparison is not valid.

Of course a whole lot more people get killed by pistols and fists, there are a lot more people with pistols and fists and a whole lot more people with motive (with or without premeditation) to kill! No matter what weapons are available, the rate of these types of crimes won't be affected (the NRA stooges are quite right about that much at least).

But, when someone wants to kill as many people as possible in, say, a theatre or school, they don't try to beat them to death or take just a pistol.



Again, you're comparing apples or oranges. You're aggregating the actions of a huge number of people (the entirely of gun violence in the country) to the actions of a single individual wanting to commit mass murder.

The reason assault weapons are getting a lot of attention right now is because they've been used to commit mass murder a lot recently. And as I've said, the capabilities of assault weapons to enable that type of crime are a legit concern.



So, you are now going to argue that collapsible stocks are a problem after all huh? After all, if I can collapse the stock, I can more easily hide my weapon!

;)

In this very thread, we have Beavis and cut inadvertently admitting that ammunition capacity, recoil, weapon size, weapon caliber, and background checks are at least contributing factors to the lethality of a weapon.

Yet, the only two arguments we will still hear from them are "but it's my right..." and "then only the criminals will have..." There is no "good faith" in discussions on gun control.

Fedaykin
03-03-2013, 06:19 PM
Hey Cutlet: If people had ready access to rocket launchers, there would likely be a small number of murders committed with those weapons (probably even less than with assault rifles). Almost entirely in mass murder situations.

In addition, they would likely be damn fun to "target practice" with (I know I would get one hell of a kick out of it!). They would certainly provide a huge defensive capability (much more than just a lead slinger!) against looters and other mobs. They would be a weapon absolutely required for any armed rebellion (can't fight tanks and airplanes with lead slingers alone).

So, should rocket launchers be legalized? Why or why not?

Meck77
03-03-2013, 08:06 PM
I just feel that when only 400 Americans get killed by rifles a yr that we should be concentrating on other things to save more kids lives.

It amazes met that parents stuff their kids at McDonalds. Talk about killing your kids. Forget the the guns.

cutthemdown
03-03-2013, 11:21 PM
Fed it is a legitmate argument. We have only 400-600 deaths a yr from rifles. That doesn't even count the difference between assault and regular. I feel it's legitmate to argue there isn't a huge need here for govt intervention into the gun marketplace.

If they want to push backgrond checks, closing the gun shows not having to check etc etc i can support that. I just don't see a big problem here. We had a couple high profile assault gun rampages that i bet we won't see often. At least i hope not. Our govt has way bigger fish to fry then wasting a lot of political capital and time on gun control.