Any gun collectors?

[d-dave]

I'm kind of surprised we're not in the TB yet, to be honest =P

My problem with the AR-15 is less the gun and more the ammo.  The bullets do TREMENDOUS amounts of internal damage.  I mean, the base of the AR-15 and the  M-16 (Source: https://special-ops.org/whats-the-difference-between-an-ar15-m4-and-m16/#:~:text=The distinction between an AR,military in close-quarters combat) are similar in nature, and both fire the same ammunition.  This is not a weapon made for civilians, it was made for combat and the ammo was designed for war, not self-defense.

So fine, people wants their "cool" looking AR-15s and other tacti-cool gear for Insurgency Cos-Play, hog hunting or scaring people with whom they have a disagreement.  My biggest problem is the actual wounds caused by the weapon are much worse than other firearms.

Time after time, when the super popular AR-15 is used in a violent attack, there is always a medical professional who is saying that the wounds are just worse. 

Quote

While handguns have the potential to seriously harm people, sometimes fatally, semi-automatic rifles can cause even more damage.

"Disturbingly, in mass shootings, the AR-15 or the AR-15-style rifle seems to be the weapon of choice," Dr. Cornelia Griggs, a pediatric and critical care surgeon at Massachusetts General Hospital, told ABC News. "That's not to say that there aren't other rifles that can cause quite a lot of damage in the human body, but this type of injury is devastating and unique to many military-grade weapons."

https://abc7.com/why-ar15-semi-automatic-weapons-dangerous/13051721/

That is the MUCH larger issue.  While the 2nd amendment says, and has been interpreted, as buy as much guns as you want - there is nothing about limiting the ammunition.  Or is there a way to redesign the round so that ammo sold to civilians would be more of a straight shot through a target as opposed to the devastating wound pattern the military round causes?

I've fired some higher powered, long rifles before.  There is a certain cool "this thing is powerful" feeling.  I get that.  You feel it from your tingly bits on up.  The dopamine rush is real.  Last time I did, I was at an outdoor "not strictly regulated" range.  There were some bowling pins we could set up, and being able to see those things hit and fly was cool as crap.  I think for many people, that's where the fantasy ends.  Like you can shoot a bunch of random stuff, and it's cool and all; but then you have to ask yourself the hard question: what happens if I shoot a living creature or a person with this weapon?

Hopefully I won't get this thread tossed in the TB, but while I respect people who collect cool and antique firearms, or those who responsibly own guns; I do think there is more that can be done to protect the greater public from the people who want to abuse the good behavior of the larger population.

[Cullenator]

9 hours ago, LinvilleGorge said:

What are you confused about?

Not confused.  Exasperated

We spent a whole page talking about Assault Rifles and just at the point we were about to come to some measure of agreement you realized you were talking about making them illegal.  All of a sudden you are talking about a very specific weapon made by a very specific manufacturer and our common usage of AR (which had at no time been in question) becomes Assault Rifle to me and AR-15 to you. I was unambiguous in my usage, only abbreviating to AR after multiple uses of Assault Rifle.

 

That's the kind of poo that earns people labels like gun nut

Edited May 2, 2023 by Cullenator

[LinvilleGorge]

12 minutes ago, Cullenator said:

Not confused.  Exasperated

We spent a whole page talking about Assault Rifles and just at the point we were about to come to some measure of agreement you realized you were talking about making them illegal.  All of a sudden you are talking about a very specific weapon made by a very specific manufacturer and our common usage of AR (which had at no time been in question) becomes Assault Rifle to me and AR-15 to you. I was unambiguous in my usage, only abbreviating to AR after multiple uses of Assault Rifle.

 

That's the kind of poo that earns people labels like gun nut

It's exasperating to me that you're confused. I said I'm ok with banning high capacity removable magazines. In your opinion that means that AR-15s are banned. Forget AR-15s. Use a Mini-14, whatever. All of those weapons can be retrofitted to be made compliant with banning high capacity removable magazines. 

THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT.

[Cullenator]

Not doing this with you anymore.

You say you are for some gun regulation, in this case banning detachable magazines.  I point out the logical conclusion of that ban. You move the goal posts.

I don't have the energy or desire to play this game especially with someone who is being intentionally obtuse.

The last word is yours

 

 

[LinvilleGorge]

8 minutes ago, Cullenator said:

Not doing this with you anymore.

You say you are for some gun regulation, in this case banning detachable magazines.  I point out the logical conclusion of that ban. You move the goal posts.

I don't have the energy or desire to play this game especially with someone who is being intentionally obtuse.

The last word is yours

 

 

Because you either cannot or will not acknowledge the reality that these firearms can be modified to be compliant. That's on you.

It seems to me that you just want blanket bans on no actual functional basis. If you take your non-compliant firearm and modify it to be compliant, what's the problem?

I have moved zero goal posts. I have been perfectly logically consistent. I said from the beginning that I support banning high capacity detachable magazines. Period. You just thought you were going to be able to convince me that means that I support blanket banning a bunch of firearms based on this sole attribute. I support requiring those firearms to be modified to be compliant. That's where we differ.

No. I will not support an "assault rifle" ban because it focuses on a lot of irrelevant features. Focus on the feature that makes this class of firearms particularly deadly in mass shooting scenarios. Drop all the other BS.

 

 

[LinvilleGorge]

47 minutes ago, d-dave said:

I'm kind of surprised we're not in the TB yet, to be honest =P

My problem with the AR-15 is less the gun and more the ammo.  The bullets do TREMENDOUS amounts of internal damage.  I mean, the base of the AR-15 and the  M-16 (Source: https://special-ops.org/whats-the-difference-between-an-ar15-m4-and-m16/#:~:text=The distinction between an AR,military in close-quarters combat) are similar in nature, and both fire the same ammunition.  This is not a weapon made for civilians, it was made for combat and the ammo was designed for war, not self-defense.

So fine, people wants their "cool" looking AR-15s and other tacti-cool gear for Insurgency Cos-Play, hog hunting or scaring people with whom they have a disagreement.  My biggest problem is the actual wounds caused by the weapon are much worse than other firearms.

Time after time, when the super popular AR-15 is used in a violent attack, there is always a medical professional who is saying that the wounds are just worse. 

https://abc7.com/why-ar15-semi-automatic-weapons-dangerous/13051721/

That is the MUCH larger issue.  While the 2nd amendment says, and has been interpreted, as buy as much guns as you want - there is nothing about limiting the ammunition.  Or is there a way to redesign the round so that ammo sold to civilians would be more of a straight shot through a target as opposed to the devastating wound pattern the military round causes?

I've fired some higher powered, long rifles before.  There is a certain cool "this thing is powerful" feeling.  I get that.  You feel it from your tingly bits on up.  The dopamine rush is real.  Last time I did, I was at an outdoor "not strictly regulated" range.  There were some bowling pins we could set up, and being able to see those things hit and fly was cool as crap.  I think for many people, that's where the fantasy ends.  Like you can shoot a bunch of random stuff, and it's cool and all; but then you have to ask yourself the hard question: what happens if I shoot a living creature or a person with this weapon?

Hopefully I won't get this thread tossed in the TB, but while I respect people who collect cool and antique firearms, or those who responsibly own guns; I do think there is more that can be done to protect the greater public from the people who want to abuse the good behavior of the larger population.

This is a complete myth. The .223/5.56 round is one of the weaker modern centerfire rifle rounds available. Interesting historical note: the AR-15 actually predates the M-16.

If you're comparing the .223/5.56 to typical gunshot wounds seen in America (almost always handguns) then yes, the .223/5.56 is far more damaging. That's simply because rifle rounds pack a lot more velocity and energy. But compare the .223/5.56 to other rifles typically found in American gun safes (pick your flavor - .308, .30-06, .243, .270, whatever, think typical "deer rifles") and those rounds create a LOT more damage than the .223/5.56. There's a reason why the military is moving away from that round to a larger diameter, heavier bullet round despite the weight penalty that will mean soldiers will be able to carry less ammunition in the field. They need a round that does more damage.

If you want to ban the AR-15 on the rationale of the damage the round causes you are in effect arguing to ban all modern centerfire rifles because the vast majority do a lot more damage than the .223/5.56.

 

[d-dave]

20 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

If you want to ban the AR-15 on the rationale of the damage the round causes you are in effect arguing to ban all modern centerfire rifles because the vast majority do a lot more damage than the .223/5.56.

I never said ban the gun.  We're never going to ban any firearm in the US with the money and power of the gun lobby.  Sure, I've said that in the past, but I've realized that's not the most helpful position to have.  Many people just love their guns more than anything else.  Who am I to stop being from being happy?

How often are the other "deer hunting" rifles used in mass shootings?  How many people are shot per year in an AR-type weapon versus a deer hunting rifle?  While I did actually look for a "damage" comparison or impact comparison - you are correct that a "deer hunting rifle" is a deadly weapon.  It has a larger, more powerful bullet.  

BUT - there is a significant difference in how the damage occurs.  The smaller round starts it's expansion sooner than the larger.  The larger will more often blow through a human sized target before it expands and tumbles.  At least, that's what I researched in 10 minutes of googling.

Is there a way to "solve" the ammo issue while still respecting gun owners who enjoy target shooting or legitimate hunting (animals not people)?  I don't want to pile on the demonization of gun owners because while it is fun and easy, it's not productive.  Hence why I think dealing with the ammunition the is the least bad way of trying to do some good.

[LinvilleGorge]

16 minutes ago, d-dave said:

I never said ban the gun.  We're never going to ban any firearm in the US with the money and power of the gun lobby.  Sure, I've said that in the past, but I've realized that's not the most helpful position to have.  Many people just love their guns more than anything else.  Who am I to stop being from being happy?

How often are the other "deer hunting" rifles used in mass shootings?  How many people are shot per year in an AR-type weapon versus a deer hunting rifle?  While I did actually look for a "damage" comparison or impact comparison - you are correct that a "deer hunting rifle" is a deadly weapon.  It has a larger, more powerful bullet.  

BUT - there is a significant difference in how the damage occurs.  The smaller round starts it's expansion sooner than the larger.  The larger will more often blow through a human sized target before it expands and tumbles.  At least, that's what I researched in 10 minutes of googling.

Is there a way to "solve" the ammo issue while still respecting gun owners who enjoy target shooting or legitimate hunting (animals not people)?  I don't want to pile on the demonization of gun owners because while it is fun and easy, it's not productive.  Hence why I think dealing with the ammunition the is the least bad way of trying to do some good. 

It's just physics, man. It's all velocity, mass, energy, and bullet type. If we're talking FMJs then they don't expand, period. If we're talking about an expandable, hollow point type of bullet them they're all going to expand in a human sized target.

There's a lot of mythology around the .223/5.56 round but if it was true the military wouldn't be moving away from it to a larger, more powerful round despite the ammo capacity reducing weight penalty that comes along with that move.

You see this type of mythology in the long range shooting world. Guys absolutely convinced there's something magical about 6.5mm projectiles that allows them to have a flatter trajectory. No, there just happens to be a lot of heavy for caliber, low ballistic coefficient bullets commercially available in that caliber. There's nothing magical about that specific diameter of projectile.

[OHYO]

I’ve got pictures of some of current and past Carolina Panthers hog hunting with an AR type platform that I would love to share on here. I won’t do it for fear of repercussions to my friends hog hunting business and to the players, most of them are holding an AR with a thermal scope.

We need sensible and educated new gun laws. 

[Cullenator]

15 hours ago, CamWhoaaCam said:

Not my conversation but im confused why yall call it magazine.

 

Just say clips dammit!

[CamWhoaaCam]

They use clip in the movies.

 

I never heard someone say "hand me the magazine" when talking about a gun.

Edited May 2, 2023 by CamWhoaaCam

[jasonluckydog]

I got yelled at in training for calling it a clip. It's a magazine, everyday it's a magazine. This is burned in my head.

[Cullenator]

19 minutes ago, CamWhoaaCam said:

They use clip in the movies.

 

I never heard someone say "hand me the magazine" when talking about a gun.

If I had to guess...

In war movies around the time when the M1-Garand was the infantry rifle of choice (WWII & Korea) the term clip got stuck in the vernacular. It used the En-block clip pictured above.

Inertia, lazy writers, and a public that became accustomed to that word being appropriate for anything that held cartridges allowed it to persist even though it is technically wrong.

[CamWhoaaCam]

8 minutes ago, Cullenator said:

If I had to guess...

In war movies around the time when the M1-Garand was the infantry rifle of choice (WWII & Korea) the term clip got stuck in the vernacular. It used the En-block clip pictured above.

Inertia, lazy writers, and a public that became accustomed to that word being appropriate for anything that held cartridges allowed it to persist even though it is technically wrong.

Yeah which is why I was confused. I honestly can't remember anyone using "magazine" when referring to a gun around me. I hear "reload clip" all the time.

 

Thanks for making it make sense though.