[split] Firearm Education Thread (lots of pics)
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-11-2014, 07:01 AM
RE: [split] Firearm Education Thread (lots of pics)
(14-11-2014 11:17 PM)Stuffed_Assumption_Meringue Wrote:  For some reason it seems I can have only so many quotes in a single post. I've broken it up and this is the second half:
(14-11-2014 08:58 PM)Chas Wrote:  A sabot round is one where the effective projectile is smaller in diameter than the barrel of the weapon, the rest of the space is taken up by a spacer - the sabot.

You are confusing two different types of sabot ammunition. A shotgun sabot slug is not armor penetrating - you are thinking of antitank artillery rounds.
Oh. OK. Deus Ex lied to me.

How about the appropriateness of a weapon purchased for the role? You said a couple of pages back that you don't have a problem with people owning assault weapons. Sure. I can respect that; I can't justify being against that rationally.

But do you understand where people, a generic, non-inclusive "people," are coming from when they have a problem with; people owning the very powerful, very dangerous assault weapons for personal defense?

I think that people's concept of "very powerful, very dangerous assault weapons" is likely based on misinformation. And I will further state that that misinformation is intentionally promulgated by some in the anti-gun crowd.

Can you please define for us what "very powerful, very dangerous assault weapons" are? As opposed to assault weapons that aren't very powerful and/or very dangerous? And what the criteria are?
Quote:
(14-11-2014 08:58 PM)Chas Wrote:  The military already uses incendiary rounds, explosive rounds, armor piercing rounds, ...

[Image: tab1-4.gif]
Yeah. Just took a moment to look it up: Ammo types in arms aren't covered by the Geneva Conventions or any of the doctrines of war. I think that's an oversight rather than a conscious choice given that they do cover putting a stone in a snowball.

Wikipedia Wrote:The Hague Convention of 1899, Declaration III, prohibited the use in international warfare of bullets that easily expand or flatten in the body. This is often incorrectly believed to be prohibited in the Geneva Conventions, but it significantly predates those conventions, and is in fact a continuance of the St. Petersburg Declaration of 1868, which banned exploding projectiles of less than 400 grams, as well as weapons designed to aggravate injured soldiers or make their death inevitable. NATO members do not use small arms ammunition that is prohibited by the Hague Convention and the United Nations.

Despite the ban on military use, hollow-point bullets are one of the most common types of bullets used by civilians and police, which is due largely to the reduced risk of bystanders being hit by over-penetrating or ricocheted bullets, and the increased speed of incapacitation.

In many jurisdictions, even ones such as the United Kingdom, where expanding ammunition is generally prohibited, it is illegal to hunt certain types of game with ammunition that does not expand. Some target ranges forbid full metal jacket ammunition, due to its greater tendency to damage metal targets and backstops.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-11-2014, 07:03 AM
RE: [split] Firearm Education Thread (lots of pics)
(15-11-2014 01:59 AM)Im_Ryan Wrote:  
(14-11-2014 08:21 PM)Chas Wrote:  Horseshit. Guns are an integral part of the some Americans experience.

Fixed.
But seriously though Chas, it's not even close. America is way too broad to be generalized like that.

The 'horseshit' was for your generalization. The U.S. has a history of armed civilians as does Switzerland. The comparison is valid.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-11-2014, 07:50 AM (This post was last modified: 15-11-2014 08:06 AM by Cathym112.)
RE: [split] Firearm Education Thread (lots of pics)
(15-11-2014 02:38 AM)Stevil Wrote:  
(14-11-2014 09:39 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Since you have no experience with guns, I'd say the only person peddling propoganda is you. I own guns and am experienced with them. You've never fired a gun, held a gun, or attempted to gain knowledge of a gun.
As I have said to you before, I have fired a shotgun, several 0.22, a 0.308, a pistol and a semi-automatic rifle.
I've killed rabbits, possums, cats, magpies,

Interesting. Whose guns did you shoot? You repeated have said,

(24-04-2014 01:10 PM)Stevil Wrote:  I will never get in a gun fight because I don't own a gun.

And you've shot a semi-automatic rifle? That's odd that you would know about that kind of gun, but not enough to know that there is no such thing as a semi-automatic assault rifle, don't ya think?

(24-04-2014 04:25 PM)Stevil Wrote:  I don't need guns for self defence, my country is mostly safe.

What would I need a semi automatic assualt rifle for? ........
It seems to me to be highly irrational to live in fear thinking a person needs a semi automatic assualt rifle for defence.

That's why I think your experience is next to none.
Quote: But I don't hold that this makes me more qualified to debate about the dangers of guns in society than anyone else, even someone whom has never held a gun.

That's stupid. Someone who has extensive experience with guns is more qualified to speak about the dangers than someone who has very little knowledge of guns. We see this happen with politicians, that are repeatedly trying to introduce legislation and restrictions on the appearance of the gun, which has zero effect on its functionality.

A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day - Bill Watterson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-11-2014, 10:54 AM
RE: [split] Firearm Education Thread (lots of pics)
I think if we are honest, we do not buy "assault rifles" for self defense although I know a few guys who adamantly claim that. I have one "assault rifle," a Ruger Mini-Thirty which shoots the same cartridge as an AK-47 [7.62 x 39]. I have it because ammo is dirt cheap [you can buy steel cased Russian ammo for less money than you can reload] and shooting the thing is more fun than swimming naked with the Peterson twins. I have two high cap, 30 round, magazines for it and it is a ton of fun to go out to a little mountain valley, with nobody around for miles, and act like a child blowing the crap out of tin cans as fast as I can squeeze the trigger.

The rifle is not a hunting rifle and it is not a good target competition rifle. It is good for throwing a lot of lead quickly and with some accuracy. I have only used it "seriously" one time when a half dozen feral dogs came into my pasture and started chasing horses. That rifle took all six of those dogs in as many seconds. [I don't like shooting dogs but feral dogs have become a dangerous problem in some parts of the west.]

If you own an AR or AK platform rifle, I think you should admit that you love it because it is so damned much fun to shoot. You would still own it even if there was never any threat of any kind to you. Big Grin Even people who think they are afraid of guns enjoy shooting those things once you convince them that the gun does not have a mind of its own and is not going to run off shooting children and pets.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-11-2014, 01:55 PM
RE: [split] Firearm Education Thread (lots of pics)
(15-11-2014 07:50 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Interesting. Whose guns did you shoot? You repeated have said,
You want names, addresses, phone numbers? What?

(15-11-2014 07:50 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  And you've shot a semi-automatic rifle? That's odd that you would know about that kind of gun, but not enough to know that there is no such thing as a semi-automatic assault rifle, don't ya think?
We don't debate the merits of assault rifes in NZ.
At the time of my participation in that other thread, I wasn't aware of what the technical term "assault rife" meant. I do now know what it means.


(15-11-2014 07:50 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  That's why I think your experience is next to none.
Quote:A person can use a shot gun, several 0.22's, a 0.308, a semi-automatic rifle and still not know what the term assault rife means.

Have you used a bazooka or a grenade launcher or a surface to air missile launcher? Does this mean your experience with weapons is next to nothing?


[quote='Cathym112' pid='686081' dateline='1416059451']
But I don't hold that this makes me more qualified to debate about the dangers of guns in society than anyone else, even someone whom has never held a gun.

That's stupid. Someone who has extensive experience with guns is more qualified to speak about the dangers than someone who has very little knowledge of guns.
This is your opinion. But in my experience in debate with gun enthusiasts is that they often pull out propaganda and invalid reference documents to suggest more guns = less gun massacres and less gun deaths etc.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-11-2014, 02:00 PM
RE: [split] Firearm Education Thread (lots of pics)
(15-11-2014 10:54 AM)Black Eagle Wrote:  Even people who think they are afraid of guns enjoy shooting those things once you convince them that the gun does not have a mind of its own and is not going to run off shooting children and pets.
Contrary to cathy's assertions that I am afraid of gun. I in fact do find it fun to use a gun.
I just don't think the fun factor justifies making these guns available in society and enduring the odd massacre that comes with it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-11-2014, 03:43 PM
RE: [split] Firearm Education Thread (lots of pics)
You know I realized that I am pretty much done here. If the americans want to keep there guns let them, I don't like them but forget it, I ain't even staying here anyway, if they can keep their guns and stop the slaughter I can be fine with that.

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOW_Ioi2wtuPa88FvBmnBgQ my youtube
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-11-2014, 04:17 PM
RE: [split] Firearm Education Thread (lots of pics)
(14-11-2014 03:21 PM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  
(14-11-2014 03:03 PM)wazzel Wrote:  Since you consider guns to make absolute difference the invers is also true. Large men are no longer afraid that a small man might have a gun. Now that there are no guns large men have no fear of small men (or women) and take them on at will. Large men rob a smaller man or woman with little risk of death or sever harm.

Then you take flight and avoid places where someone can trap you. Also if you live in the U.S every one is a bit to lazy to actually do something that requires physical activity.

(14-11-2014 03:03 PM)wazzel Wrote:  Really by force? Today you are a law abiding gun owner, tomorrow you have the special police tearing your house apart to find your gun. That is a messed up stance.

That is one way yes, but the illegalizing and destroying guns is the better idea, seeing as gun owners do follow the laws(or at least one hopes they do.
Point 1 not always possible. Point two huge incorrect stereotype - I live in the US south and bike and run several times a week and do triathlons. Taking things from law abiding citizens by force is wrong.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-11-2014, 04:36 PM
RE: [split] Firearm Education Thread (lots of pics)
(15-11-2014 04:17 PM)wazzel Wrote:  
(14-11-2014 03:21 PM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  Then you take flight and avoid places where someone can trap you. Also if you live in the U.S every one is a bit to lazy to actually do something that requires physical activity.


That is one way yes, but the illegalizing and destroying guns is the better idea, seeing as gun owners do follow the laws(or at least one hopes they do.
Point 1 not always possible. Point two huge incorrect stereotype - I live in the US south and bike and run several times a week and do triathlons. Taking things from law abiding citizens by force is wrong.

I don't care, I want guns to be gone, but if you people want to keep them fine, but america better fine a way to stop those school shootings.

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOW_Ioi2wtuPa88FvBmnBgQ my youtube
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-11-2014, 05:20 PM
RE: [split] Firearm Education Thread (lots of pics)
(15-11-2014 04:36 PM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  
(15-11-2014 04:17 PM)wazzel Wrote:  Point 1 not always possible. Point two huge incorrect stereotype - I live in the US south and bike and run several times a week and do triathlons. Taking things from law abiding citizens by force is wrong.

I don't care, I want guns to be gone, but if you people want to keep them fine, but america better fine a way to stop those school shootings.

And I want a billion dollars. When you come up with an actual solution, I'm all ears.

But you apparently don't care about reality.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: