Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
With a gun-grabber in the whitehouse embolding people to start calling to ban assault weapons, I have a question.
What makes this:
More dangerous than this:
They both put identical bullets downrange at identical velocities. Since F=ma, the damage caused by these rifles would be identical. Yet the top one is demonized because it "looks scary". Does that make any sense whatsoever??
How many guns has the guy in the Whitehouse banned? How many guns did the runner up ban?
I look forward to the uneducated responses from the experts.
An uneducated question would deserve an uneducated answer. No one is grabbing guns, except Mitt Romney because his "assult weapon" ban in MA is still in effect. Most "pro-gun" posters in CD voted for him. Go figure.
Last edited by Finn_Jarber; 12-05-2012 at 05:56 AM..
I'd actually say the bottom rifle can be more dangerous. Far more people would own one, and they can even be bought at garage sales with nothing other than the cash. The AR platform is going to be a lot more money and only sold where folks at least have a clue on who cannot buy one.
Marry Ann, the 90 year old widow doesn't care who she sells her husband's bolt action rifle to. She doesn't know any better and whoever brings the cash.
The AR OTOH being sold by Ed the 50 year old is smart enough to turn away buyers who aren't legit.
you are partially correct. I bought 2 barret 50's, 4 AR's, an M1A, a M1 garand, 9 semi auto pistols, 2 revolvers, alot of ammo, and alot of gear at an estate sale. the widow was selling all of her husbands gear, ammo and firearms. she was follow all state gun laws concerning firearms at the sale.
the good thing was, that no form 4473 was ever filled out, so no federal registration permit needed.
A FMJ round traveling at 3000 fps could go through the perp, causing a surprisingly small amount of damage, then go through the wall behind him, the wall behind that, your neighbor sleeping behind that wall, and so on and so forth. If I have to shoot someone for real, I want to kill the bad guy. Not wound the bad guy and 3 of my neighbors.
not always. I can fire a 50 BMG ball in my home and not go through the wall at all.
I concur with everything you posted. However, it should be noted that the FMJ 5.56mm "anti personnel ball round" is intentionally made unbalanced, so that it tumbles end over end as well as rotates because of the rifling. This causes the round to act randomly when it strikes its target, thus causing more damage than a balanced FMJ round might have caused.
Also, the various different military's around the world have gone to smaller caliber rounds since WW II. This is because WW II taught them that a wounded enemy consumed more of the enemy's resources than a dead enemy.
the round that you are talking about is mainly the 55 grain bullet being shot in a rifle with a 1 in 9 twist.
alot of the AR's these days fire a 62-75 grain bullet in a 1 in 7 twist. with little or no tumbling at all.
Fine with assault rifles, so long as they are not fully automatic, and so long as the purchasers do not have some recognized mental illness or criminal record. That's all.
if you are going to limit a person right to own firearms for being a criminal or having a mental illness, then the right to vote based upon that should also be in place.
The philosophy behind banning assault weapons, at least for those in power is simple:
Make them illegal to own, so that when it all finally hits the fan and common citizens obtain them and are defending others from federal mercenaries, anyone in possesion of an assault weapon that is not working for the federal government or is in the army/marines/national guard, etc - can then be called a
'terrorist'.
terrorists to the goverment can also be called patriot to the people in the country.
An uneducated question would deserve an uneducated answer. No one is grabbing guns, except Mitt Romney because his "assult weapon" ban in MA is still in effect. Most "pro-gun" posters in CD voted for him. Go figure.
except for the fact that your answer is uneducated concerning the assault weapon ban in mass. look at what the dems gave in order to get that assault weapon ban.
except for the fact that your answer is uneducated concerning the assault weapon ban in mass. look at what the dems gave in order to get that assault weapon ban.
No, it is not uneducated. Romney made the "assult weapons" ban permanent and claims such weapons are "designed for killing". Defend it if you think it is OK to negiciate away people's constitutional right, I don't care. I don't like in MA, and never will.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
