The Gun Control Challenge

Post Reply New Topic

AspieRogue wrote:

In the early days of the M16 the 5.56mm ammo was loaded with extruded powder then they went to ball powder for military use since it would yield higher velocity. What they also got was a higher cyclic rate on full auto and more fouling. That added to Vietnam’s humidity caused a lot of issues in the form of stoppages at really bad times. They did not even have the right cleaning tools for them. Changes were made to remedy those problems and the new M16a1 became a formidable weapon that could be trusted.


The M60 was an abortion in the field. This is where I get really annoyed when I know we’re better than that and could have fielded a much better weapon even if it did mean adopting a foreign designed one like the MG-3.
The 60 was replaced by the much better M240 (FN-MAG) as a GPMG and the M249 as a squad automatic weapon.


A decent SMG like a Colt M635 or H&K MP5 will actually be accurate.
Some, like the Ingram MAC10, will not be. Someone once let me run a few mags through his 9mm MAC10. That short dick barrel, open bolt operation, and just general chunkiness does cause them to spray a lot but it is a cheap example and not a good choice for much more than a gun fight in a closet.


AceOfSpades wrote:

And how! Just when you think you’ve got them they fall back and re-hash something like “gunz have no place in civilized society” or “but if there were no guns……” ad nauseam.

If someone wanted to do a paper on willful ignorance the anti-gunners would be the perfect subject.

Last edited by Raptor on 14 Aug 2012, 5:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I explained the Philippines has much lower GDP, how is that not economic factor?


Switzerland does not have permission similar to CCW in the US. The only reason why the pro-gunners talk about Switzerland is because of assault rifles.


You are the one who is ignorant about the corruption in the Philippines.

You are the one playing semantics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_rifle

I asked because I was thinking of the case of Hong Kong in the late 19 century. IIRC The British colony was much more peaceful than the neighboring area. In this case the difference in culture and economics can be eliminated.


On the other hand one of the sources you quoted mentioned Washington DC. Also note that while gun ownership is always increasing, crime rate does not simply decrease but have several notable peaks. I think we can agree that either cases are not particularly strong.


Yes and the source highlights the stupidity of the regulation. The article is very specific: some teenager went to the gun show and walked away with a gun, using a fake ID or whatever trick. That 2% does not include the case when there is another legal buyer helping them. This proves that despite all the assertions about law biding gun owners, plenty of them are associated with criminals and helping the later to get 'illegal' guns.

Raptor hit most of the things I was going to say about the evolution of the M16 and how its current incarnation is a far cry from the Vietnam original, though I'd like to add that among other things Eugene Stoner designed the weapon with a chromed chamber, which the Army bean counters eliminated as an unnecessary expense, and doubtlessly exacerbated some of the early problems. The British L85/SA80 had similar "teething problems" when it was first issued, including among other things, having the plastic stock melt when pressed to the cheek because of the the insect repellent the British military was using at the time. It too developed into a perfectly satisfactory weapon after the initial issues were addressed, kinda like patching software. Even the AK has gone through several iterations, most AKs out there are not actually 47s but AKMs, as they "modernized" the design fairly early on to make it more economical to manufacture, and also added some features such as the simple slant brake seen on many 7.62X39 Kalashnikovs.

About submachineguns, the interesting thing to me is that they're essentially dead as a category, having been superseded by short assault rifles such as the AKSU74 on one side and PDW class weapons such as the FN P90 on the other. The only people who really use them anymore are terrorists and the people who fight them, such as anti-terrorist and hostage rescue teams, and some municipal SWAT teams, the terrorists because they're relatively concealable, and the anti-terrorists because they lack the over-penetration dangers of full caliber weapons. The H&K MP5 is really the end of the line for the sub-gun, sure there have been a handful of subsequent designs that are fairly innovative, but who's buying them?

I was pointing out what's what.
BTW: My knowledge goes beyond wikipedia.

If I were to get an automatic rifle I'd go for the AN-94 Abakan. Unfortunately though, they are not exported(yet).

I wonder if the US Army or the Marine Corps would allow PFCs to use weapons other than issued M16s, like a G3 rifle for example. German smalls arms are just that much better than american ones.

9 days and still no serious entries?

If you aren't aware of any good reasons for regulating guns, then you aren't looking very hard.

In general, the more guns a country has, the more violent. This makes intuitive sense (why the hell else would you get guns?)

Trying to "impose" gun regulation on the USA wouldn't actually be very hard if NRA propaganda didn't have everybody in a frenzy. It's easier to get a gun in some states than to get a driver's license, which should appear ridiculous .

Gun regulation in the USA is more lax than it used to be.

You gun nuts have apparently never read the 2cd amendment either:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

If you read this, you will notice that they put the right to bear arms in the context of a militia being necessary. They also used the phrase, "well regulated." Why in the world would they put those words there if they didn't want gun regulation? They meant for there to be a militia so that the USA could be protected from foreign invaders who were armed with muskets. They did not mean for any random hillbilly to have automatic assault rifles and rocket propelled grenades.

In Germany, where they have tight gun regulation, you can still go hunting. You just have to undergo some mental tests and gun training so that they know that you are serious about hunting and you're not a sociopath or some dumbass who thinks he's rambo. If you're really worked up about this issue, then you've been brainwashed and you're a tool of rich people who make money by selling guns. But that's not that uncommon, because nearly all issues talked about on national television are fake issues.

Okay, I'll have to keep that in mind for addressing your arguments in proper context.


People have looked hard, presented them both rationally, then as propaganda aimed at emotion rather than reason when that didn't work, it has been debated in just about every legislative body in the country, sometimes implemented, sometimes repealed. Regulations have been addressed time and time again, but they have not proven useful.


Oh god...and I'm the one that's supposedly narrow minded and brainwashed.


You can own and drive a car on private property and offroad where legal without a license, background check, or age restrictions. So in reality, guns are more regulated than cars. If you want to carry a gun in town in public, the licensing is similar.


It's not a bad thing. The relaxed gun laws do not adversely affect crime. Sure there are incidents that play on people's emotions from time to time, but such events are insignificant when viewed as data points.


If you look closer, the commas break the 2nd amendment into four separate components that all work together. We have the right to form militias, the 2nd amendment is needed to protect our freedom, we have the right to bear arms (in part, for militia use and security), and the government is supposed to LEAVE IT THE HELL ALONE!! ! By your logic, free speech and free press, would be limited to methods available before 1800and anything else id dangerous and subversive to society. The constitutional convention wrote a document that was intended to be applicable for centuries. They thoroughly studied the pitfalls of human civilization and specifically addressed where peoples go wrong and end up in a totalitarian state. Defending against this happening here was not high on their reasons for such an open-ended right to bear arms, but it did cross their mind. There are many, including in our courts and government, who treat the constitution like they treat last year's fashion trends in their wardrobe. However, the founding fathers knew the day would come when such fools would gain influence, thus they left a self defense mechanism for the constitution in the 2nd amendment.


Perhaps anyone who likes that idea can move there. They have universal healthcare too. However, their gun laws don't work either since their estimates for illegal guns account for as much as 75% of all guns owned. It is a different set of conditions there that keeps the peace.

Do guns save lives? TIME magazine:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/artic ... 46,00.html

So are you and Bird Boy over there butt buddies or something? Just love to pick on the people putting out the fallacious arguments, aye? That's fine, I'll be over here in the ring if you ever decide to grow a pair.

That's absurd. You can look at lots of stats about gun ownership vs violence. I'm not going to cite anything because it is trivially easy to look up.



No, it really is that simple. I'm not the one saying double-think things like more weapons (tools of violence) = less violence.




You are wrong. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" is not a complete sentence. It is not in four components. It is one. They could have just said, "The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed," but they did not. And anyway gun regulation does not reduce your right to bear arms, it makes it so that we know who owns the guns. It also keeps you from buying rocket propelled grenades, which no one needs.

Also the founding fathers had no opinion on our current discussion because we are talking about weapons that they did not know exist.

I'm sure that if the founding fathers had some idea about modern weapons, they'd allow the government to regulate them. Do you really want any random civilian to be able to own nukes? If the 2cd amendment really is a free pass to own anything like you say, then you surely must.




I'm tired of you dumbass rednecks bashing countries that you've never been to and don't know anything about. I just spent the past year in Germany studying and they are in better shape than we are in a lot of ways. What you say about illegal gun ownership in Germany is absurd. And their state healthcare system works. It's cheaper than ours and the people there are healthier (you can tell just by looking at them). They made me get German healthcare when I was there because American healthcare doesn't meet their standards.
Look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Healt ... t_rise.svg

Germany does have problems, but you don't know what they are, so you should shut your face about Germany.

^
Read the OP, read about how SCOTUS has invalidated your view of 2A, and STFU about guns if you don't know anything about them. Thank you.

This constitutes mature debate? You are passionate, but you do not persuade.

First you set up an impossible set of circumstances in an attempt to insulate your political view from challenge, and then you belittle those who disagree with you.

This is not your best work.

And yet you have nothing to say about ShamelessGit. That's just weak, I always thought of you as intellectually honest and level headed. Definitely not YOUR best work.

ShamelessGit is the one who started out with "If you don't know anything about Germany then STFU about it" and with calling John_Browning a dumbass redneck. Oh yeah Dox47 is just mad that ShamelessGit disagrees, it can't possibly be because of his patronizing tone and insults .

I'm getting real sick of people assuming that someone is angered by mere disagreement while turning a blind eye to that person's insults and condescending tone. Why is it that certain people are "disagreed" with in a harsher manner than others? Maybe it's because of how they go about it not because of the fact that they merely disagree.