The Orange Mane -  a Denver Broncos Fan Community  

Go Back   The Orange Mane - a Denver Broncos Fan Community > Jibba Jabba > War, Religion and Politics Thread
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Chat Room Mark Forums Read



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-28-2013, 04:20 PM   #51
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,123

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
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?
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2013, 04:45 PM   #52
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fedaykin View Post
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.

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

Last edited by BroncoBeavis; 02-28-2013 at 04:55 PM..
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2013, 08:03 PM   #53
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 

Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 37,267
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fedaykin View Post
Here's a nice link to inform yourself about the terminal ballistics of many different firearms:

http://www.ar15.com/ammo/project/Sel..._FAQ/index.htm

here're the results of typical pistol wounds:



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:



(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:



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!
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2013, 09:59 PM   #54
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,123

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cutthemdown View Post
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.
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2013, 10:03 PM   #55
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 

Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 37,267
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fedaykin View Post
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 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2013, 10:04 PM   #56
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 

Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 37,267
Default

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 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2013, 10:08 PM   #57
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 

Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 37,267
Default

Oh yeah!
Attached Images
File Type: jpg obamas little finger.jpg (27.8 KB, 25 views)
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2013, 10:12 PM   #58
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,123

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
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.

Quote:
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.
: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?


Quote:
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 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2013, 10:24 PM   #59
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,123

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cutthemdown View Post
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.

Quote:
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?
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2013, 10:52 PM   #60
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 

Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 37,267
Default

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.
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2013, 11:00 PM   #61
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,123

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cutthemdown View Post
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.
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2013, 11:09 PM   #62
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 

Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 37,267
Default

So then you don't agree with any ban. What are we arguing about then?
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2013, 11:09 PM   #63
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
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
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2013, 11:15 PM   #64
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,123

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
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.

Quote:
You're all over the map. At least this time you're not quoting 800 rounds per second firing rates
Was a ****ing typo, get over yourself.
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2013, 11:19 PM   #65
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,123

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cutthemdown View Post
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.
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2013, 11:49 PM   #66
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 

Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 37,267
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fedaykin View Post
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 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2013, 11:54 PM   #67
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 

Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 37,267
Default

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.
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2013, 01:32 AM   #68
houghtam
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,384
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cutthemdown View Post
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.
houghtam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2013, 03:01 AM   #69
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 

Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 37,267
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by houghtam View Post
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.
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2013, 10:08 AM   #70
houghtam
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,384
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cutthemdown View Post
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 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2013, 11:01 AM   #71
houghtam
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,384
Default

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.
houghtam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2013, 11:05 AM   #72
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by houghtam View Post
Tell that to the people in Newtown, Aurora, Oregon...
Ahhh, back to the wonders of Neoprohibitionism.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_821900.html
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2013, 11:11 AM   #73
houghtam
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,384
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
Ahhh, back to the wonders of Neoprohibitionism.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._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?

houghtam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2013, 01:57 PM   #74
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by houghtam View Post
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.

Quote:
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)

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

I know enough to know it gets bent or broken every day of the week, yet rarely results in affected employees becoming millionaires.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2013, 02:56 PM   #75
houghtam
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,384
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
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.
houghtam is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes



Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:02 AM.


Denver Broncos