Where Do You Stand On Gun Control/Second Amendment?

Discussion in 'Politics & Current Events' started by BenjaminW, Feb 19, 2018.

Where Do You Fall On Gun Control

  1. For

    51 vote(s)
    71.8%
  2. Against

    20 vote(s)
    28.2%
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. tedtan

    tedtan SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    4,015
    Likes Received:
    560
    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2009
    Location:
    Never Neverland
    I agree. Restricting firearms will help, but it can only do so much. We'll need to do a lot more in order to get things under control.


    The thing is, most rifles are powerful enough to penetrate most body armor. Military grade body armor prides a little more protection against some rifle rounds, but not most.

    And the AR15/M16 rifle often used in these mass shootings fires a 5.56mm NATO (.223 Rem) round that isn't particularly powerful. (To put it in perspective, it is illegal in most jurisdictions to hunt deer with a 5.56/.223 because it is not considered powerful enough to make a clean kill on deer sized animals).
     
  2. ArtDecade

    ArtDecade Unhindered by Talent

    Messages:
    4,223
    Likes Received:
    1,147
    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2009
    Location:
    Joe's Garage
    That is why I was thinking that different types of calibers should only be available with different types of certifications. A driver's license means you can drive most vehicles, but we still have CDL certifications as things get more powerful. Just a thought.
     
  3. MaxOfMetal

    MaxOfMetal Likes trem wankery. Super Moderator

    Messages:
    27,722
    Likes Received:
    5,450
    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2008
    Location:
    Milwaukee, WI
    Wat.

    https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/03/...know-how-much-damage-rifle-bullets-1823503094

    You use larger caliber, faster rounds on game because you're trying to preserve the meat (so nothing that explodes/tumbles). You want a .338 or 7mm to punch through the super dense coat and flesh while not ricocheting all inside.

    The .223/5.56 is plenty powerful in the civilian market. But it's just as easy to get an AR in .308/7.62. The Blackout and Wylde round are popular too. You can even get monster .458 SOCOM kits for reasonable prices.

    The whole "this round isn't powerful enough" thing is bullshit cooked up by gun manufacturers to sell more guns in all kinds of calibers.
     
  4. bostjan

    bostjan MicroMetal Contributor

    Messages:
    14,726
    Likes Received:
    2,660
    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Location:
    St. Johnsbury, VT USA
    I guess there is still some confusion about caliber. Caliber is the diameter of the bullet. You could have a tiny caliber round in a huge casing with tons of powder and it could be deadly as hell, or you could have a round the size of a boxing glove with just enough powder to get it out of the barrel, and it could be virtually harmless.

    As @MaxOfMetal said, the 5.56mm rounds used in AR-15/M-16 rifles are particularly good at wounding and killing people. It's not a huge round, and they are not particularly penetrating in comparison with hunting rifle ammo. It's a manageable amount of knockback for a fully automatic weapon held by hand with enough killing power to be highly effective in battle.

    That's why I'm a bit confused about the idea of trying to limit caliber. Maybe hunting moose/elk is something you want to have regulated but legal, then you will need a large and powerful round. Anyway, if it can kill anything bigger than a gopher, chances are that it could potentially kill a person if aimed properly.

    And if Trump said today that all of the hunters would have to turn over their weapons tomorrow, I really don't think it would go well. There are still families who survive off of hunting part of the year. It might not be common, but there are people who live that way, and I doubt that they'd be happy about having to switch to using a bow and arrow or a spear to hunt.
     
  5. tedtan

    tedtan SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    4,015
    Likes Received:
    560
    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2009
    Location:
    Never Neverland
    Perhaps things have changed recently, but the .223 was not legal in most jurisdictions even in the past 5-10 years, the reasons given by the states being a concern over the power (e.g., energy transfer) of the smaller diameter, lighter weight bullet. Not against people, but animals. A .223 bullet shouldn't tumble, but expand like any other hunting bullet (the military 5.56 NATO round will tumble because it is designed to do so, but the civilian bullet shouldn't). Any of these rounds should pass cleanly through an animal, the question is how much energy is transferred into the target before the bullet exits. I haven't looked into this regarding the .223, just commenting on various laws, but a while back, the .243 was the minimum legal for deer and antelope in many jurisdictions.

    And you can keep the .338 - I don't want that unless I'm hunting brown bear, and even then I'd probably pass it over for a .378 mag. :lol:
     
  6. tedtan

    tedtan SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    4,015
    Likes Received:
    560
    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2009
    Location:
    Never Neverland
    Keep in mind that it is a combination of the weight of the bullet, the diameter of the bullet (or how large it expands after impact), the speed at which it is launched, and how well it holds up under impact that determine how effective it will be against a given target. You could add in ballistic coefficient, as well, as it will contribute to the trajectory, and, as a result, how flat the round shoots.

    Yeah, people are softer targets than animals, so we are more easily killed with smaller, slower, lighter more frangible bullets than animals. If you want to take larger animals, they have much tougher hide, bones, etc. and require more energy transfer to kill cleanly.
     
    bostjan likes this.
  7. KnightBrolaire

    KnightBrolaire gearwhoricus americanus

    Messages:
    6,942
    Likes Received:
    3,911
    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2015
    Location:
    Minneapolis, MN
    .223 is fine for taking deer, especially if you're using heavier weight soft tip/expanding rounds. Heavier wt round with an expanding tip= way more energy transferred to the target.
    Full metal jacket rounds on the other hand, tend to overpenetrate or tumble/ricochet (depending on what the round encounters). I had a patient that was shot with 5.56 fmj rounds and one bounced off his left scapula and exited out his right glute. The other rounds were stopped by his body armor.

    Class iii body armor is good for stopping maybe one or two 5.56 or 7.62mm rounds. The kevlar weave helps more with handgun calibers like 9mm, while 5.56 or 7.62 tend to blow right through it and crack the ceramic plate on the first shot.
     
  8. bostjan

    bostjan MicroMetal Contributor

    Messages:
    14,726
    Likes Received:
    2,660
    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Location:
    St. Johnsbury, VT USA
    Right. That's just my point, though, that having a cutoff caliber seems like am ineffective approach to me.

    I used to work with this skinny guy in a restaurant. One day he was walking along the sidewalk and somebody mistook him for someone else and emptied a 9mm clip into him. The bullets all went in and out, most through various parts of his torso, with two in the right arm. After some considerable time in the hospital, the guy was okay and came back to work. I was ~19 at the time and was in total disbelief that someone could get shot so many times and survive, let along not having to poop in a bag. But that was the thing, had the bullets fragmented or mushroomed on impact or bounced around inside of his body, he very likely wouldn't have lived.
     
    tedtan and Winspear like this.
  9. Winspear

    Winspear Tom Winspear

    Messages:
    10,825
    Likes Received:
    1,400
    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2009
    Location:
    Southend-on-Sea, Essex, U.K
    I feel that a complete gun ban would be beneficial - the type of gun does not matter in my mind. Just like other countries.
    You'll notice I said "I think it would be beneficial" - not "I think there should be a gun ban". This is because I am not naive and I know it can never be that simple. It's an incredible difficult situation to find a solution for. I am however confident that if the USA woke up tomorrow and all legal guns were gone, that there would be a reduction in deaths. Yes, some people who would have been able to defend themselves with a gun will now be dead instead - that makes it difficult. But I am sure the number of deaths would go down overall. But indeed, I'm not saying this is necessarily the solution.

    One thing I am sure of: I don't understand how any pro-gun person can go around saying "Guns aren't the problem". Guns being the problem doesn't automatically mean that a ban is the perfect solution. It's possible to acknowledge that guns are a the problem and still be against a ban. I just can't fathom how anyone can say "Guns aren't the problem" and expect to be taken seriously in their discussion.
     
    zappatton2 and bostjan like this.
  10. possumkiller

    possumkiller Custom Title:

    Messages:
    3,052
    Likes Received:
    729
    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2008
    Location:
    Danzig
    Because guns don't kill people brah...










    Fracking does...
     
    Winspear likes this.
  11. bostjan

    bostjan MicroMetal Contributor

    Messages:
    14,726
    Likes Received:
    2,660
    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Location:
    St. Johnsbury, VT USA
  12. auxioluck

    auxioluck Metal Teddy Bear

    Messages:
    2,444
    Likes Received:
    306
    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2007
    Location:
    SoCal
    I attribute a lot of his attitude to being young and not having a lot of work experience. It's not unusual for employers to have restrictions outside state laws. For example, there are a lot of employers in California who drug test for marijuana, even though it's 100% legal in the state's eyes. I also think we live in an overly sue-happy society, and there are lots of other legal ways to get firearms than Dick's or Walmart. Seems like someone trying a money grab to me.
     
  13. Randy

    Randy ROOMFORYOUROOMFORYOUROOMFORYOU Super Moderator

    Messages:
    20,090
    Likes Received:
    2,920
    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2006
    Location:
    The Electric City, NY
    Apparently conservatives think it's okay for private company to discriminate against a couple trying to buy cake because they're gay but discriminate against a guy trying to buy a gun because he's under 21 and OH SHIT!
     
    bostjan likes this.
  14. bostjan

    bostjan MicroMetal Contributor

    Messages:
    14,726
    Likes Received:
    2,660
    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Location:
    St. Johnsbury, VT USA
    Funny thing is that I find it highly unlikely for this lawsuit to be settled before this Oregon man turns 21 anyway.

    Also, if he wins, then I want to sue every rental car company ever for not renting to 16-year-old kids.
     
  15. tedtan

    tedtan SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    4,015
    Likes Received:
    560
    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2009
    Location:
    Never Neverland
    I was elaborating on what you said, rather than addressing that comment to you. But I was posting as I was about to run off to a meeting (as I often do when I have down time between meetings), so that probably wasn't as evident as it should have been. Mea culpa. :lol:
     
    Last edited: Mar 6, 2018
    bostjan likes this.
  16. tedtan

    tedtan SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    4,015
    Likes Received:
    560
    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2009
    Location:
    Never Neverland
    Other countries don't necessarily have a complete ban, though. My main interest in shooting is side-by-side and over-under shotguns, which are perfectly legal in the UK, Canada, Europe, Australia, etc.

    Granted, they aren't high capacity (they only hold two shots - one in each barrel), but if you get hit by a 12 gauge, you're hamburger meat. (Fun fact: Germany tried, unsuccessfully, to have shotguns outlawed for use in war during World War I as they were so inhumane and destructive in trench warfare, even though Germany was using tanks, machine guns, mustard gas, flamethrowers, etc. :nuts:).
     
    bostjan likes this.
  17. StevenC

    StevenC SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    2,352
    Likes Received:
    659
    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Location:
    Northern Ireland
    Uhh...
     
    bostjan and vilk like this.
  18. 1b4n3z

    1b4n3z SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    628
    Likes Received:
    157
    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2009
    Location:
    Hellsinki, Finland
    Yeah it looks like we could buy assault rifles and shotguns here, just not full automatic guns. Quite a large selection to choose from too. Of course you'd need a license and no criminal record. There are a lot of guns in circulation too, about 30 for every 100 people. You'd think the countryside is a shooting gallery from the amount of guns available and booze consumed but not (quite) so. Maybe the mandatory military training men undergo removes much of gun enthusiasm. I certainly lost all fascination to guns having to drag those damn things around for a year
     
  19. MaxOfMetal

    MaxOfMetal Likes trem wankery. Super Moderator

    Messages:
    27,722
    Likes Received:
    5,450
    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2008
    Location:
    Milwaukee, WI
    It's become a "lifestyle" thing in the US. There's a whole industry devoted to supporting it.

    It wasn't always like this though. I remember when I first started shooting the idea of people basing thier entire life and image on firearms was ridiculous.
     
    possumkiller likes this.
  20. narad

    narad SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    5,968
    Likes Received:
    3,121
    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2009
    Location:
    Cambridge, UK
    And now we've come so far that online dating services are having to ban users because of the prevalent amount of dudes posing with their guns.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page