Shoot a camera, not a gun

Status
Not open for further replies.
Getting into Technical Details About Assault Weapons

Getting into Technical Details About Assault Weapons

As dsang pointed out, other countries have mass shootings. There are nuts everywhere. However, the frequency in the US is greater then any other country on earth. I suspect it is the easy access to weapons, especially large capacity assault weapons.

I stated earlier that states with better gun control have less shootings which still holds true. Someone pointed out the possible exception of Washington, DC. Well, I still stand by my earlier post as DC is not a state. The most frequent mass shootings occur in the South which can be argued is the area most into the gun culture.

If you want to own a gun for home defense, why not a shotgun most of which have 4 round magazines. The sound of chambering a round on a Remington 870 has an amazing effect as a psychological deterrent, just ask any police officer.

Again, I see no reason not to regulate assault weapons and high capacity magazines. By law, a shotgun for hunting can't hold more then 3 rounds plus one in the chamber. And from a technical point a variant of the AR15 for home defense is not the best choice as the .223 round will go through both the bad guy and several layers of wallboard. Remember you are legally responsible for anywhere the round goes after you pull the trigger.

So, we can't hunt with an AR15 as there are much better caliber weapons available then the .223. It is not the best round for home defense, and unless you can't hit the side of a barn you don't need a 30 round magazine (and if you can't hit the side of a barn, perhaps you should not own any weapons) so can you tell me why anyone needs to own one, other then the fact that they can pretend to be Rambo.

Again, I own several guns, spent 22 years as a federal law enforcement agent and a firearms instructor for US Customs. I think you should be able to own a weapon if you feel a need for self defense or just like shooting for fun.

The question becomes which is more harmful for society: the freedom to own anything you want or regulation of certain types of weapons to prevent mass shootings. I come down on the side of reasonable regulations and restrictions on the types of firearms and high capacity magazines which can be sold. Remember, until the late 1930's you could buy fully automatic weapons from Sears by mail. Anyone want to go back to those times?

Actually, I should not have asked the last question as I am sure there are people in the US who would like to buy machine guns, hand grenades, and other fun toys by mail.
 
Jubb Jubb said:
Hah, no got me there, but still a sport just for the joy of killing an animal to me does not make sense.

Are the animals eaten after they are killed? Mind you I have never hunted and no nothing really about hunting.
Click to expand...
There's a difference between "a sport just for the joy of killing an animal " and shooting and eating, say, a deer. Like you, I find the former deeply repulsive. But I also feel that unless you are prepared to kill what you eat, you have as very limited moral right to eat something that has been killed for you. You're wimping out. I think many more of us would be vegetarians, or at least, eat a lot less meat, if we had to kill everything we ate. Including (possibly, but far from certainly) me.

Cheers,

R.
 
@ Roger,

well, "exceptional combat handgun proficiency" means simply I know how to shoot moving targets with a handgun, while I am moving at the same time, and that I do it well. Force-on-force scenario based training is that used by Law Enforcement which employs "fake bad guys" armed with high-velocity Simunitions or high-velocity Paint Ball "guns." It seeks to approximate what the psychophysiological correlates of deadly force encounters elicit in the officer. I can firmly attest that getting hit by a 500'/sec .65 cal Paint Ball on ones T-shirt covered chest does indeed raise one's adrenaline. :D

Yeah, I forgot that some folks on here can only have their firearms at a range and that they are limited in the amount and caliber of ammo they can own. For them I can see that they might get into a bit of a bind if they are required also to qualify at mandatory intervals. I don't face that predicament :D

BTW, in the Beslan link I put up, there are some quite moving photos.
 
Last edited:
ktmrider said:
As dsang pointed out, other countries have mass shootings. There are nuts everywhere. However, the frequency in the US is greater then any other country on earth. I suspect it is the easy access to weapons, especially large capacity assault weapons.

I stated earlier that states with better gun control have less shootings which still holds true. Someone pointed out the possible exception of Washington, DC. Well, I still stand by my earlier post as DC is not a state. The most frequent mass shootings occur in the South which can be argued is the area most into the gun culture.

If you want to own a gun for home defense, why not a shotgun most of which have 4 round magazine. The sound of chambering a round on a Remington 870 has an amazing effect as a psychological deterrent, just as any police officer.

Again, I see no reason not to regulate assault weapons and high capacity magazines. By law, a shotgun for hunting can't hold more then 3 rounds plus one in the chamber. And from a technical point a variant of the AR15 for home defense is not the best choice as the .223 round will go through both the bad guy and several layers of wallboard. Remember you are legally responsible for anywhere the round goes after you pull the trigger.

So, we can't hunt with an AR15 as there are much better caliber weapons available then the .223. It is not the best round for home defense, and unless you can't hit the side of a barn you don't need a 30 round magazine (and if you can't hit the side of a barn, perhaps you should not own any weapons) so can you tell me why anyone needs to own one, other then the fact that they can pretend to be Rambo.

Again, I own several guns, spent 22 years as a federal law enforcement agent and a firearms instructor for US Customs. I think you should be able to own a weapon if you feel a need for self defense or just like shooting for fun.

The question becomes which is more harmful for society the freedom to own anything you want or regulation of certain types of weapons to prevent mass shootings. I come down on the side of reasonable regulations and restrictions on the types of firearms and high capacity magazines which can be sold. Remember, until the late 1930's you could buy fully automatic weapons from Sears by mail. Anyone want to go back to those times?
Click to expand...
All indisputably true but it's hard to frame the laws exactly. Is my .45 National Match more dangerous than my .44 single-action Ruger magnum because it's 'semi-automatic'? My feeling is 'no': I wouldn't want to be someone else in front of me, offering a threat, if I had either in my hand. Mind you, I'd not really want to be someone standing in front of me if I had my jam-prone Hi-Standard .22. After all, it MIGHT work. Are ya feelin' lucky, punk?

But, as I said earlier, I don't go around tooled up, looking for grief, so it's all a bit academic.

Cheers,

R.
 
frank-grumman said:
@ Roger,

well, "exceptional combat handgun proficiency" means simply I know how to shoot moving targets with a handgun, while I am moving at the same time, and that I do it well. Force-on-force scenario based training is the that used by Law Enforcement which employs "fake bad guys" armed with high-velocity Simunitions or Paint Ball dispensing "guns." It seeks to approximate what the psychophysiological correlates of deadly force encounters elicit in the officer.

Yeah, I forgot that some folks on here can only have their firearms at a range and that they are limited in the amount and caliber of ammo they can own. For them I can see that they might get into a bit of a bind if they are required also to qualify at mandatory intervals. I don't face that predicament :D

BTW, in the Beslan link I put up, there are some quite moving photos.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the clarification. Are you saying you're NOT required to requalify at mandatory intervals? If you're in law enforcement, I hope you are. And if you are, guess what -- it takes ammunition.

Cheers,

R.
 
apostasiometritis said:
A person with mental issues, having access to an assault rifle.

One of them two issues has to be addressed, it is simple as that.

Mind you, a couple of days before this happened another nutter armed with a knife/machete did the same in China, though apparently Chinese kids don’t matter that much (another story, apologies).

So, I believe that the emphasis has to be put on *who* is allowed a weapon, not what weapon that will be.

Against most people who are caught unaware any kind of weapon is lethal.
Click to expand...

A big difference is that the Chinese incident ended with 22 wounded children, rather than 20 shot dead children. I think if the guy in China had had an assault rifle or even any gun at all, the results may have been different.
 
Jubb Jubb said:
The amount of guns in the U.S. is no longer an excuse for not getting rid of them. If there are too many to get rid of now, then in the future this number will just grow and keep growing and it will continue to be a rubbish excuse.

Sure there is the mental side of it, but take the guns out of the equation and all you have is a nut, like the guy who went on a knife rampage in a school last week, where the injuries were bad, but not one person lost their life.

Here in Australia, a nut went on a rampage in 1996 in Tasmania killing 35 people and injuring a whole lot more. After this event, the Prime Minister at the time banned guns and issued a buy-back scheme. There were a lot of people against it, but it is no doubt one of the best things that happened to this country.

For this to change in the U.S., the country needs to change. And what was relevant in the 1700's is no longer relevant today.
Click to expand...

Jubb jubb

Thank you for this thread, living 1 hour away from where this happened
has effect us all here, but your right. Things are only going to change here
when this country truly wants it.

Range
 
Some reservations in posting here, I deleted an earlier post, but here I go anyways, for you Robert :)

digitalintrigue said:
ktmrider said:
I stated earlier that states with better gun control have less shootings which still holds true.
Click to expand...
I'd like to see the data on this, if you have it.
Click to expand...

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/01/the-geography-of-gun-deaths/69354

There is a correlation but not necessarily a causal relationship.

However, IMO:

Black and white linkage of the Newtown shooting with lack of gun control is simply politicizing a problem. Of the 11 deadliest shootings in the US, five have happened from 2007 onward. In these 5 years gun laws didn't change significantly, and neither did mental health care. It's a recent problem, and it's global.

Think video games, home schooling, how emotionally the media will report about Newtown for the months to come, all the Blogs, twitter and facebooks posts that will be written on it, this thread, etc.

I'm with Frontman:

Frontman said:
Had he thought his rampage would not have raised a media uproar, he might have ended only one life, his own.
Click to expand...


And what does the subject have to do with "Rangefinder Photography Discussion " anyways ?

Roland.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Thanks for the clarification. Are you saying you're NOT required to requalify at mandatory intervals? If you're in law enforcement, I hope you are. And if you are, guess what -- it takes ammunition.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

No Im not in law enforcement, at least not as a sworn member. I qualify voluntarily every 6 months on each weapon I own :angel: Ooops, missed your last comment. If I were in LE, the ammo would be provided by the department and whatever forthcoming shall we say, constraints, will of course "exempt" LE.
 
Last edited:
@ktmrider,

actually, sir, the report you make about .223 (5.56) being unsuitable for home defense depends heavily upon the kind of ammunition used as well as the length of the barrel of the weapon. As to ammo technology gearing up for the home defense market, you might want to check this out:

http://www.winchester.com/Products/...ative/PDX1-Defender-rifle/Pages/S223RPDB.aspx

Most important: thank you for your service and for your family's sacrifice. Not an easy patrol district you had I betcha.
 
ferider said:
It's a recent problem, and it's global.

Think video games, home schooling, how emotionally the media will report about Newtown for the months to come, all the Blogs, twitter and facebooks posts that will be written on it, this thread, etc.
Click to expand...


Hollywood/movie violence, perhaps?

Curious about home schooling. Not many students are...
 
Jubb Jubb said:
Hah, no got me there, but still a sport just for the joy of killing an animal to me does not make sense.

Are the animals eaten after they are killed? Mind you I have never hunted and know nothing really about hunting.
Click to expand...

Look, hunting is expensive. I don't do it but I have some friends that do. It is the ultimate test of shooting and stalking skills. You can't just shoot as many animals as you want. You need to buy a tag which is good for a one animal. The number of rounds you are allowed to have is also limited. The ammunition must be of a certain caliber so the animal will not suffer excessive pain.

Frankly, I could care less if the animal is eaten or not. The hunter paid for the tag and they can do whatever they want with the animal. On some hunting grounds, there is an excess of wild animals.

Some hunters hunt with a bow and arrow. Should those be banned also?

You have yet to answer any of my questions.
 
apostasiometritis said:
A person with mental issues, having access to an assault rifle.

One of them two issues has to be addressed, it is simple as that.

Mind you, a couple of days before this happened another nutter armed with a knife/machete did the same in China, though apparently Chinese kids don’t matter that much (another story, apologies).

So, I believe that the emphasis has to be put on *who* is allowed a weapon, not what weapon that will be.

Against most people who are caught unaware any kind of weapon is lethal.
Click to expand...

Wrong. The type of weapon used or ease of access doesn't matter. It is the act of committing a crime which is wrong.
 
Is California a state?

Is California a state?

ktmrider said:
I stated earlier that states with better gun control have less shootings which still holds true. Someone pointed out the possible exception of Washington, DC. Well, I still stand by my earlier post as DC is not a state. The most frequent mass shootings occur in the South which can be argued is the area most into the gun culture.
Click to expand...

http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/dataondemand/165757356.html
 
I believe mods are waiting for Stephen's call.

The thread has been pretty calm, overall. Would be cool to keep it that way.
 
ferider said:
Some reservations in posting here, I deleted an earlier post, but here I go anyways, for you Robert :)



http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/01/the-geography-of-gun-deaths/69354

There is a correlation but not necessarily a causal relationship.

However, IMO:

Black and white linkage of the Newtown shooting with lack of gun control is simply politicizing a problem. Of the 11 deadliest shootings in the US, five have happened from 2007 onward. In these 5 years gun laws didn't change significantly, and neither did mental health care. It's a recent problem, and it's global.
Click to expand...

Except it's not really a recent problem is it?

1990 Las Cruces
1991 Luby's Massacre
1991 University of Iowa
1991 Chinatown, Boston
1993 101 California Street
1998 Newington Lottery
1998 Thurston High School
1998 Westside Middle School
1999 Forth Worth
1999 Columbine High School

The death counts have gone up (well kind of, two of worst shootings happened in the 1990s), but that doesn't make it a new phenomenon.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom