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.
If I were king, I would do it based on the damage a round fired from that weapon can do. Set the damage a hunting rifle can do as your cutoff. Fire it into ballistic gel to replicate a human body, and see what damage is done.
From what I understand, a round fired from a M4 or M16 fragments in the body and basically shreds it.
That does not belong in civilian hands.
However, if an AR15 only fires a bullet that doesn't do the same kind of damage as a hunting rifle, then fine. Have it.
they would know that the Supreme Court said things like it's definitely constitutional to restrict weapons around places like schools and that the right to own weapons does not extend to all weapons at all times.
Here's the thing. A LARGE percentage of gun owners that want to own machine guns, assault weapons, etc. could give a rat's ass what the Supreme Court says. I'm quite confident they most likely haven't read the constitution. All they care is they want their guns and they want them now. Nothing else really matters and they certainly don't care what the Supreme Court, or any other governmental entity says.
To them the Supreme Court is "big brother government" and they don't care what they say or think. So you must first start from that fact that they don't care what they say or think. The mistake is thinking that they care what the Supreme Court says or thinks.
We're finally starting to get to the point where more and more people are discussing the matter and some type of regulation is all but certain. How strong that regulation remains to be seen.
If I were king, I would do it based on the damage a round fired from that weapon can do. Set the damage a hunting rifle can do as your cutoff. Fire it into ballistic gel to replicate a human body, and see what damage is done.
From what I understand, a round fired from a M4 or M16 fragments in the body and basically shreds it.
That does not belong in civilian hands.
However, if an AR15 only fires a bullet that doesn't do the same kind of damage as a hunting rifle, then fine. Have it.
The 5.56/223 round used by the AR15/M16 doesn't tumble any less or more than any bullet that has it's weight at it's base. The tumbling doesn't have to do with the caliber but the bullet design. Bullets with a point (forward) end that has less weight than the base will tend to tumble as soon as they hit resistance unless they mushroom. FMJ don't mushroom so they tumble. All long base heavy rounds tumble at the terminal phase.
That thing about the 5.56 being designed to tumble is a myth. The fragment part depends on the bullet design and the speed at the terminal phase as well as cannelure if so designed.
The conditions of assessment and management of the injured casualty are divided into three phases: precrash, crash, and postcrash. Again, the term crash does not necessarily mean a vehicular crash. The crash of a vehicle into a pedestrian, a missile (bullet) into the abdomen, and a falling body striking the asphalt after a fall are all crashes. In each case, energy is exchanged between a moving object and the tissue of the human body or between the moving human body and a stationary object.
As the human body collides with a solid object, or vice versa, the number of body tissues particles that are impacted by the solid object determines the amount of energy exchange that takes place and therefore the amount of damage (injury) that occurs to the casualty.
In summary how damage is inflicted is an equation of many things, velocity, bullet mass and design. There are no specific calibers or bullet types that can be singled out. For what it's worth, FMJ ammo is illegal(for hunting) because it usually just punches a hole through the enemy without inflicting deadly damage.
Here's the thing. A LARGE percentage of gun owners that want to own machine guns, assault weapons, etc. could give a rat's ass what the Supreme Court says. I'm quite confident they most likely haven't read the constitution. All they care is they want their guns and they want them now. Nothing else really matters and they certainly don't care what the Supreme Court, or any other governmental entity says.
To them the Supreme Court is "big brother government" and they don't care what they say or think. So you must first start from that fact that they don't care what they say or think. The mistake is thinking that they care what the Supreme Court says or thinks.
We're finally starting to get to the point where more and more people are discussing the matter and some type of regulation is all but certain. How strong that regulation remains to be seen.
I too am a numbers guy but by chance am also a hunter, not really a shooting enthusiast. I found this guy's data logical.
The thing is I don't think you can even try to quantify things such as "average number of people killed in mass shooting".
Absolutely I can respect the rights of gun owners, especially hunters. However, no one will change my mind on the rational for the average citizen to own some of these types of weapons out there.
We can agree to disagree as I'm sure there is no way that many gun enthusiasts will agree it's a good idea for anyone to limit their right to own such weapons.
I mean look at some of the leaders for some of these pro-gun organizations (i.e. Gun Owners of America). I think it's a bit comical they are trying to call "assault weapons" other terms like "defensive weapons".
It's just one of those things that will be an ongoing debate until the next mass murder. Sooner or later we will come to a point where there absolutely will be more restrictions. I think even the most die hard gun enthusiast would admit that more restrictions and controls are coming down the pipeline.
Last edited by earlyretirement; 01-17-2013 at 03:36 PM..
The thing is I don't think you can even try to quantify things such as "average number of people killed in mass shooting".
Absolutely I can respect the rights of gun owners, especially hunters. However, no one will change my mind on the rational for the average citizen to own some of these types of weapons out there.
We can agree to disagree as I'm sure there is no way that many gun enthusiasts will agree it's a good idea for anyone to limit their right to own such weapons.
I mean look at some of the leaders for some of these pro-gun organizations (i.e. Gun Owners of America). I think it's a bit comical they are trying to call "assault weapons" other terms like "defensive weapons".
It's just one of those things that will be an ongoing debate until the next mass murder. Sooner or later we will come to a point where there absolutely will be more restrictions. I think even the most die hard gun enthusiast would admit that more restrictions and controls are coming down the pipeline.
I agree that more restrictions are coming but I honestly don't think they are going to do any good. There are hundreds of millions of these weapons already in homes and most are not registered. Even Countries like Mexico that have banned guns for most people have shootings fairly regulary. The shelf life of a gun is hundreds of years.
For those reasons I think the EOs Obama did will do more good than any "ban". For the book I think a machine gun is an assault weapon, not the guns these yocals used in these shootings. My woodsmaster is a far more ferocious bullet chucker than the AR-15 and it will never be banned as it's labeled a hunting rifle because it doesn't look scary out of the box. It was made in 1956. I also think a shotgun is far more lethal at close range than any rifle or handgun. I feel that if we can't eliminate ALL guns (which we can't) we had better focus on what to do otherwise.
Last edited by 1AngryTaxPayer; 01-17-2013 at 05:26 PM..
I don't think anyone is saying that gun controls and regulations are going to totally solve/prevent these kinds of occurrences. Because as you mentioned, there are a lot of guns already out there. Just look at the sales immediately after this horrible tragedy in CT. Sales skyrocketed as people were afraid that new regulations would prevent them from buying them.
Restrictions and controls won't totally prevent these tragedies. You and other gun enthusiasts have the argument "these new restrictions won't do any good". And I would counter, "more restrictions and controls can't and won't do any harm". I AM glad that at least you consider a machine gun as an assault weapon because I'm sure many gun lovers would call them "defensive weapons". I am curious if you'd consider the AR-15 a "defensive weapon"?
You use the example of Mexico and say that there are shootings fairly regularly. I agree. But I'd counter, imagine how HORRIBLE the situation in Mexico would be if their gun control laws were as loose as the USA?
There is no cure all in this matter and I think everyone realizes that. But you have to start somewhere. Fundamental and systemic change takes small steps. This is one of those issues that won't be solved overnight and that both sides will continue to disagree on probably until the end of time.
I don't think anyone is saying that gun controls and regulations are going to totally solve/prevent these kinds of occurrences. Because as you mentioned, there are a lot of guns already out there. Just look at the sales immediately after this horrible tragedy in CT. Sales skyrocketed as people were afraid that new regulations would prevent them from buying them.
Restrictions and controls won't totally prevent these tragedies. You and other gun enthusiasts have the argument "these new restrictions won't do any good". And I would counter, "more restrictions and controls can't and won't do any harm". I AM glad that at least you consider a machine gun as an assault weapon because I'm sure many gun lovers would call them "defensive weapons". I am curious if you'd consider the AR-15 a "defensive weapon"?
You use the example of Mexico and say that there are shootings fairly regularly. I agree. But I'd counter, imagine how HORRIBLE the situation in Mexico would be if their gun control laws were as loose as the USA?
There is no cure all in this matter and I think everyone realizes that. But you have to start somewhere. Fundamental and systemic change takes small steps. This is one of those issues that won't be solved overnight and that both sides will continue to disagree on probably until the end of time.
You have some good points and ideas. I consider a gun a tool like a hammer. An AR can be a hammer for the purpose of defense the same as offense. We have some really bad people on this planet. I am glad we missed the WWII mess as what we are dealing with is nothing compared to that era.
If I were king, I would do it based on the damage a round fired from that weapon can do. Set the damage a hunting rifle can do as your cutoff. Fire it into ballistic gel to replicate a human body, and see what damage is done.
From what I understand, a round fired from a M4 or M16 fragments in the body and basically shreds it.
That does not belong in civilian hands.
However, if an AR15 only fires a bullet that doesn't do the same kind of damage as a hunting rifle, then fine. Have it.
People, wake up.
When ammunition is fired from a firearm, it matters almost nil what firearms was used, the potential it has is the same. There are slight variables such as velocity in short barrels vs longer barrels and such but this makes very little difference and not enough to cause one to be acceptable for ownership and one not.
An AR15 firing a .223 does no more damage than does a conventionally designed rifle (hunting rifle if you must). This is a fact, not opinion.
Ammunition fired from an M4 or M16 does not fragment in the body anymore than it does when fired from a hunting rifle, fragmentation is a function of ammunition design, not the firearm used to fire it.
A 22 can kill a person farther away than many people can see one.
If you were king. And now you know why we don't have kings.
Ammunition fired from an M4 or M16 does not fragment in the body anymore than it does when fired from a hunting rifle, fragmentation is a function of ammunition design, not the firearm used to fire it.
I hold the same crazy view as Generals McChrystal and Powell -- which is that the weapons their troops went into combat with do not belong in civilian hands. If it's the ammunition that make them that way, then ban the ammunition, not the weapon. I'll defer to the experts on that. But weapons that are designed for military operations do not belong in civilian hands.
The Supreme Court, in the Heller decision, left the door wide open for restrictions on weapons like this.
Look, I don't care if someone owns a gun. I really don't. All of them are lethal. I understand that and I'm fine with it. And I don't even care about whether or not someone needs a gun.
I also know very well that banning private ownership of weapons that belong in the hands of the military will not stop all the killings. The shooting we had here in California involved a shotgun, which nobody wants to ban.
I'm with the Generals I listed above as well as Presidents Reagan, Nixon, and both Bush Sr. and Jr. All of those people supported some form of restrictions on the weapons civilians can own.
And so does the Supreme Court.
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.
