[split] Firearm Education Thread (lots of pics)
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-11-2014, 05:43 PM
RE: [split] Firearm Education Thread (lots of pics)
(15-11-2014 05:20 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(15-11-2014 04:36 PM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  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.

Whatever you say man

[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, 05:49 PM
RE: [split] Firearm Education Thread (lots of pics)
(15-11-2014 07:50 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  
(15-11-2014 02:38 AM)Stevil Wrote:  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.

I'm glad you learned something.

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, 09:18 PM
RE: [split] Firearm Education Thread (lots of pics)
(15-11-2014 05:49 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  I'm glad you learned something.
Yeah, well.

I find that if I keep an open mind, as well as a skeptical mind, I can filter out the propaganda, false assumptions, bad reference articles and the like, then sometimes I might find something of value.

The "assault rifle" term was interesting to find out what the term actually meant and that it has no connection to the English meaning for the work "assault".

But it's just a technical term. It has no bearing on the argument for or against certain guns.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2014, 10:17 AM
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.

I would prefer that people not need to commit crimes or hurt others. If that was the case the the presence of guns would not matter.

Look to fix the problem, stop focusing on a tool.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2014, 10:18 AM
RE: [split] Firearm Education Thread (lots of pics)
(15-11-2014 09:18 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(15-11-2014 05:49 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  I'm glad you learned something.
Yeah, well.

I find that if I keep an open mind, as well as a skeptical mind, I can filter out the propaganda, false assumptions, bad reference articles and the like, then sometimes I might find something of value.

The "assault rifle" term was interesting to find out what the term actually meant and that it has no connection to the English meaning for the work "assault".

But it's just a technical term. It has no bearing on the argument for or against certain guns.

Except that correct terminology matters in the discussion. If one is for or against certain guns, both sides need to understand which guns those are.

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
16-11-2014, 12:18 PM
RE: [split] Firearm Education Thread (lots of pics)
(16-11-2014 10:18 AM)Chas Wrote:  Except that correct terminology matters in the discussion. If one is for or against certain guns, both sides need to understand which guns those are.
Sure.
It's easy to correct a misunderstanding of a technical term.
Just clarify what it means and then move forward into the discussion.

Most people against "assault rifles" are against rapid fire guns, which obviously includes fully automatic and most times also includes semi automatic as well. So that covers both functions of an assault rifle.

Guns like the AR-15 may be mis-claimed as an assault rifle by some people, but with further clarification you might find that the rapid fire (semi automatic), large magazine aspect of it marks it as a candidate for a school or mall massacre.
And it's hard to accept that it has a useful purpose such as self defense in a first world country. Sure, I've seen those photo's of Korean's on roof tops. An AR-15 certainly has no use for hunting ducks, rabbits, possums, deer etc.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2014, 12:36 PM
RE: [split] Firearm Education Thread (lots of pics)
(16-11-2014 12:18 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(16-11-2014 10:18 AM)Chas Wrote:  Except that correct terminology matters in the discussion. If one is for or against certain guns, both sides need to understand which guns those are.
Sure.
It's easy to correct a misunderstanding of a technical term.
Just clarify what it means and then move forward into the discussion.

Most people against "assault rifles" are against rapid fire guns, which obviously includes fully automatic and most times also includes semi automatic as well. So that covers both functions of an assault rifle.

Again, "assault rifle" has an existing, precise meaning - it does not include AR-15s or other semi-automatic rifles. A new term was invented, assault weapon, which does not have a precise meaning. So even when one avoids the entirely incorrect term "assault rifle", it is still not necessarily clear what one is referring to without grounding the definition.

Quote:Guns like the AR-15 may be mis-claimed as an assault rifle by some people, but with further clarification you might find that the rapid fire (semi automatic), large magazine aspect of it marks it as a candidate for a school or mall massacre.

Do you know how many of those have actually been carried out with an AR-15 or other 'assault rifle'? I think it is maybe 2 or 3.

Quote:And it's hard to accept that it has a useful purpose such as self defense in a first world country. Sure, I've seen those photo's of Korean's on roof tops. An AR-15 certainly has no use for hunting ducks, rabbits, possums, deer etc.

An AR-15 is, in fact, an excellent hunting rifle; why would you claim it is not?

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
16-11-2014, 03:23 PM
RE: [split] Firearm Education Thread (lots of pics)
(16-11-2014 12:36 PM)Chas Wrote:  An AR-15 is, in fact, an excellent hunting rifle; why would you claim it is not?
If you are shooting deer, generally you get one shot. A bolt action, without a magazine would be sufficient.

Even shooting rabbits or possums, a pump action or something with an action that means you can't keep aim between shots would be fine. Shooting rabbits then a .22 would be fine. A magazine or ammunition reserve of 5 or 6 bullets should be plenty.

With ducks, obviously a shotgun is most suitable. Perhaps double barreled so you could maintain aim and get two attempts.

AR-15 seems to me to be overkill, like trying to crack a walnut with a sledge hammer or using an off-road 4 wheel drive to pick the kids up from school.

How does an AR-15 stack up with regards to accuracy against other .308s?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2014, 03:39 PM
RE: [split] Firearm Education Thread (lots of pics)
(16-11-2014 03:23 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(16-11-2014 12:36 PM)Chas Wrote:  An AR-15 is, in fact, an excellent hunting rifle; why would you claim it is not?
If you are shooting deer, generally you get one shot. A bolt action, without a magazine would be sufficient.

Untrue. Why do you think that?

Quote:Even shooting rabbits or possums, a pump action or something with an action that means you can't keep aim between shots would be fine.

No, it wouldn't. Why do you think that?

Quote:Shooting rabbits then a .22 would be fine. A magazine or ammunition reserve of 5 or 6 bullets should be plenty.

Why do you think that is sufficient?

Quote:With ducks, obviously a shotgun is most suitable. Perhaps double barreled so you could maintain aim and get two attempts.

By now, I realize you have little or no experience or knowledge of hunting.

Quote:AR-15 seems to me to be overkill, like trying to crack a walnut with a sledge hammer or using an off-road 4 wheel drive to pick the kids up from school.

Why do you think that? What is it that makes it overkill?

Quote:How does an AR-15 stack up with regards to accuracy against other .308s?

The AR-15 is chambered for 5.56x45 NATO (.223 Remington), not .308.

ARs are quite accurate. In CMP/NRA High Power competition, the AR-15 has become the dominant rifle used.

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
16-11-2014, 04:00 PM
RE: [split] Firearm Education Thread (lots of pics)
(14-11-2014 04:24 PM)Chas Wrote:  Why not do like Switzerland? They have a 0.6 murder rate compared to our 4.7 murder rate and the 4th highest rate of gun ownership in the world.

The rate of gun ownership does not directly correlate with homicide rate.
Switzerland is often lauded as the poster child of anti gun control proponents in USA.

But one has to think, if both Switzerland and USA have high gun possession then why is there such a difference in murder rates and gun murders?
It seems that having high gun possession hasn't reduced the USA murder rates down to Switzerland levels.
- Are USA people more aggressive than Switzerland people?
- Is there more social unrest?
- Are there differences in gun laws and gun culture?

Taking a look at this last item
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politic...witzerland
Quote:The vast majority of men between the ages of 20 and 30 are conscripted into the militia and undergo military training, including weapons training. The personal weapons of the militia are kept at home as part of the military obligations however it is not allowed to keep the ammunition.
Seems that the people are forced to possess a firearm whether they want to or not. Possession does not mean that they carry it, use it, or think about it.

Quote:Each soldier is required to keep his army-issued personal weapon (the 5.56x45mm SIG SG 550 rifle for enlisted personnel and/or the 9mm SIG P220 semi-automatic pistol for officers, military police, medical and postal personnel) at home or (as of 2010) in the local armoury (Zeughaus). Up until October 2007, ammunition (50 rounds 5.56 mm / 48 rounds 9mm) was issued as well, which was sealed and inspected regularly to ensure that no unauthorized use had taken place.[4] The ammunition was intended for use while travelling to the army barracks in case of invasion.
Their ammunition is actively monitored.

Quote:In October 2007, the Swiss Federal Council decided that the distribution of ammunition to soldiers shall stop and that all previously issued ammo shall be returned. By March 2011, more than 99% of the ammo has been received. Only special rapid deployment units and the military police still store ammunition at home today.
What percentage of USA people would return their ammo?


Quote:The sale of ammunition – including Gw Pat.90 rounds for army-issue assault rifles – is subsidized by the Swiss government and made available at the many shooting ranges patronized by both private citizens and members of the militia. There is a regulatory requirement that ammunition sold at ranges must be used there.
Army issue assault rifles are for army purposes, not for personal use.
Would be interesting to know the ownership rate of personal guns for personal use.

Quote:To carry a loaded firearm in public or outdoors (and for an individual who is a member of the militia carrying a firearm other than his Army-issue personal weapons off-duty), a person must have a Waffentragbewilligung (gun carrying permit), which in most cases is issued only to private citizens working in occupations such as security.
What is the demographic of people carrying loaded weapons in USA? Are they carrying specifically for work purposes?

Quote:Guns may be transported in public as long as an appropriate justification is present. This means to transport a gun in public, the following requirements apply:

The ammunition must be separated from the gun, no ammunition in a magazine.
The transport needs to be as direct as possible and needs a valid purpose
This must drastically reduce the amount of guns people are carrying around with them.

Quote:Government statistics for the year 2010[19] records 40 homicides involving firearms, out of the 53 cases of homicide in 2010.

The annual rate of homicide by any means per 100,000 population was 0.70, which is one of the lowest in the world.[20] However, the annual rate of homicide by guns per 100,000 population was 0.52, which is higher than neighboring countries'
Would be interesting to see if the Switzerland homicide rate would reduce if there were less guns.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: