Gun Nuts

[coboardhead]

This is hilarious. As Vientomas’s source indicated an AR15 CAN use NATO ammunition. It is, really, the same caliber. How do I know this? While both ISO and Techno quoted sources that utilized double speak from pro gun sources, I’ve, actually, reloaded .223 ammo to get ballistics that nearly replicate NATO ammo in a bolt action rifle. And, a friend of mine HAS an AR15 with NATO 5.56 stamped on the chamber. So….

It is true that some AR15’ s will only chamber the .223 rem version.

Trivia…the .223 Remington was developed under a contract with the US military and was used in the Vietnam War. Or, by ISO’s and Techno’s version…”a non military operation”. The M16 used the NATO version of the .223 until the mid 80’s when the new cartridge was developed that ISO and Techno are trying to confuse us with.

So. The bottom line is this.

The AR15 is the parent weapon of the M16 and both used .223 Remington in a well let’s call it a police action (Vietnam War)

New AR15 s can be had on line that use the current .223 ammo (NATO 5.56)

Summary. Almost any idiot can buy a semi auto weapon that uses military grade ammo with a 30 round clip. Is this a good thing Techno and Iso?

[techno900]

coboardhead said:

[swchandler]

While I know almost nothing about guns, I do know that the AR15 is a firearm that was designed for killing people. In either its military (automatic) or non-military (semi-automatic) versions, they can still use the same deadly family of ammunition.

It's kind of foolish to brush off deadliness of the semi-automatic version, because as history has proven, its more than capable to wound and kill vast numbers of people in no time at all. As fast as you can pull the trigger. Add in high capacity magazines, and massive death and mayhem are at your finger tip.

Need I say any more? Even techno900 should be able to get the picture and better understand why the AR15 should be banned, or at the very least, strictly controlled.

[coboardhead]

Techno

Bard simply stated some time ago that no military uses 22 caliber ammo. I disagreed. I have continued to state that these weapons do use 22 caliber (223 and 5.56 are less than .23 in dia). They use ammo that is or is very similar to weapons used in military operations. Yet, both you and Iso want to argue this point. Yet again, you pull up a source that is outdated. You CAN purchase an AR15 that is chambered for 5.56. I don’t see your point except to, incorrectly, prove I’m wrong?

I agree high capacity magazines are ONE of the issues. But, the caliber is a problem too. This caliber was designed (in all 3 versions we’re discussing) to provide maximum damage with minimal recoil which increases accuracy in hitting targets. It’s really pretty simple. They are incredibly useful in inflicting a great deal of damage. Except for the fun factor (yeah I’ve blown the sh$t out of a bowling ball with an AR15) they have no use for the every day homeowner for personal defense and are just plain dangerous.

As far as comparisons with semi auto pistols. Someone adept at pistol use can kill a lot of people. I own a 9 mm semi auto. That’s the most popular on the market. I also have a .223 target bolt action. What these calibers are capable of doing are vastly vastly vastly different things. So, the fatality rate at a mass shooting will be higher.

These weapons should be outlawed or allowed under limited licensing. That’s common sense.

[techno900]

coboardhead said:

[swchandler]

I don't think that posting something 4 times makes any sense at all. Even once would have been too much, especially in such a losing battle here.

Yet, I do have to give techno900 some credit. He does see the problem with high capacity magazines. Maybe in the right light, you can see his liberal stain.

[coboardhead]

Techno

YOUR party has prevented for nearly 30 years the gathering and sharing of data on gun violence. You don’t recall the freezing of Federal funding to study gun violence? Now, you claim there just aren’t workable solutions. Priceless.

Still the statistic are compelling. Even the studies the NRA and Federal Govt could not stop:


https://ohiocapitaljournal.com/2022/06/15/did-the-assault-weapons-ban-of-1994-bring-down-mass-shootings-heres-what-the-data-tells-us/

Reinstate the assault weapons ban. It did help prevent episodes such as the most recent mass shootings in Texas and Illinois.

[techno900]

[coachg]

That is one point of view. Here is another. Guns will be around no matter what new laws are created. So, the obvious issue is how many guns are available for the nut jobs to get access to and how hard is it for them to get access to those guns. Think auto accidents. They have zero auto accidents on the Galapagos Islands. I bet they have very few accidents in Rochester, Nevada. 50 years ago, they didn’t have access to an AR-15.
It is a complicated issue involving both people & guns. I do agree with you that it will not get resolved anytime soon like it did in other countries because we have something the other countries didn’t have; the American Taliban. A political party that will do anything they can to allow nut jobs to have access to guns and to make sure that there are more guns than people in this country.

Coachg

[coboardhead]

I've posted this before. This is a multi-part problem. Whenever one deals with issues like this, maybe it's best to break it down with a little math.

For example (made up numbers because the GOP doesn't allow us to share real numbers....)

x = guns available
y = crazy folks who can get guns
z = gun capacity to kill (magazines, ballistics)

Let's say we reduce each by 10% Gun Deaths = (x) (y) (z) = .9 x .9 x .9 =.729.

That's a reduction in gun deaths of 27%.

Of course there is some overlap. And, maybe we can to better than 10%. But, EACH aspect of the gun issue should be addressed to get the numbers down. Throwing our hands in the air and saying there isn't a solution is forgetting that we need reductions. Those are actual human lives.