Open carry in Oklahoma

[antikristuseke]

What August said, also full auto fire does not really increase leathality unless you are at point blank range, it is used for suppression, pin down the enemy while others manouver to a position to take them out. People tend to have an aversion to sticking their head up with bullets cracking by over their head.
In the context of most shootings done by a lone gunman it would be a liability rather than an advantage, with organized groups though that changes quite a bit but assault rifles have a very short time where they are capable of providing supressing fire since the weapon overheats and seizes up, even with maschine guns designed for that role have to have frequent barrel changes t allow hot barrels to cool off while maintaining suppressing fire.

[MH]

Second, the purpose of the 2nd amendment has absolutely nothing to do with hunting, therefore the suitability of a firearm in that regard is irrelevant.

...but

My issue is that people who campaign for guns too often try to down play lethality of "civilian" assault rifles.
It sort of makes me wonder about those guys....who also own all those guns.

[August]

Originally Posted by MH

...but

My issue is that people who campaign for guns too often try to down play lethality of "civilian" assault rifles.

Well it might seem that way but remember when you hear such statements that they're almost always responding to someone who is going out of their way to play up their lethality in order to get them banned.

In fact the very term "assault weapon" was rather obscure until it was brought into the public vernacular by people with an anti-firearms ownership agenda. After all I carried an M16 for seven years in the Army and not once did I ever hear anyone call it an "assault weapon" yet now it's practically a household word.

Bottom line here is aside from cosmetics there is nothing to distinguish a so called (civilian type) assault weapon from any semi-auto rifle. It's just easier to demonize them in the media.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by MH

...but

My issue is that people who campaign for guns too often try to down play lethality of "civilian" assault rifles.
It sort of makes me wonder about those guys....who also own all those guns.

Very true, but it also works the other way. Those of us who support gun ownership see a lot of alarmist yelling from the other side, rather than reasoned arguments. A lot of people who want to ban guns are of the "all guns are evil" variety, and talk of "assault rifles" and similar turns as part of a larger agenda.

As for "all those guns", polls of various types indicate that somewhere between 30% and 40% of all American households contain at least one gun.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...ership-us-data

If we assume the lowest number (30%) and assume that no household has more than one gun (certainly not true, but taking the lowest possible numbers), that would mean that there are currently ninety million (90,000,000) privately owned guns in the United States. To someone who doesn't like guns that number might be truly alarming. To the gun-owner the next question would be "And how many of them were used to shoot somebody last year?"

The simple fact is that most people are responsible citizens and have no desire to kill anyone else, even in the heat of an argument.

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Meaningless parrot fodder

Most trite cliches are, but in this case it also happens to be true. Ban all guns. Good sheep will go along. Criminals will still find a way to get one. Also a majority of violent criminals tend to be young, strong and male. Weaker beings like women and us older guys become easy prey.

Here's another trite cliche for you: "God made men. Colonel Colt made them equal."

[Buddahaid]

Perhaps but a lot of formerly good sheep will then become criminals like me. Only three of my guns were purchased over the counter. The others I inherited. Do you have any idea how many millions of guns are in that category? They will never be all accounted for.

[Sailor Steve]

There are also millions of perfectly serviceable guns that are no longer classified as "firearms" at all. Due to age or type of mechanism a great many are now classified as "relics" or "curios".

Most trite cliches are, but in this case it also happens to be true.

Not at all since there has never been any serious call to ban all guns which means it is a meaningless phrase that some people parrot as though it means something.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Not at all since there has never been any serious call to ban all guns which means it is a meaningless phrase that some people parrot as though it means something.

Really? Maybe you don't think Brady is serious, but several states have tried. For most of us it was pretty alarming wondering which way the Supreme Court would go in the case of the Washington ban.

And the saying is indeed true on it's bare face. If guns were to be banned then there would be two classes of gun owners - those who already are willing to obtain them illegally (since it is against the law for convicted felons to own one) and those of us who would become outlaws because we would not submit to such a law. Either way, it is true.

[Buddahaid]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

There are also millions of perfectly serviceable guns that are no longer classified as "firearms" at all. Due to age or type of mechanism a great many are now classified as "relics" or "curios".

All of mine actually. 1916, 1919, 1943, 1945, and 1945.

[Stealhead]

Originally Posted by Buddahaid

All of mine actually. 1916, 1919, 1943, 1945, and 1945.

That is just to be considered a relic it has to be from pre-1898 to be basically "fare game" so to speak even if it still functions that is why you see lots of antique shops selling pre-1898 firearms it is because they don't need a firearms license to sell but they will not buy post 1898 firearms unless they have a license.

I have seen some say x round is a "wounding" round x round is a "killing" round... news flash any bullet can kill you and the whole notion that military weapons use "wounding" bullets is an urban myth anyone that thinks this has clearly not seen what a modern 5.56mm similar bullet will do to the human body some of the heavy grain one used by elite forces have been mistaken by pathologists to have been caused by 7.62x51mm rounds.This myth is caused I believe by the Hague Convention which bans certain types of warfare one of the the things that it bans or perhaps discourages is the better word is causing unnecessary pain and suffering that does not mean to encourage wounding over killing but more the use of weapons that are likely to cause long painful death or a needlessly painful injury.In other words you should kill the enemy quickly if he is displaying the will to be a combatant(even if he is retreating).

The goal of a well made weapon/round/munition is to be as deadly as possible and then if failing to kill to cause the most injury possible killing is always most important who wants a wounded enemy still able to fight being able to use his weapon to kill you?

[NeonSamurai]

Originally Posted by August

First, nobody calls our military "operators" except no nothing civilians and media shills. The Special Forces themselves hate the term.

Never said I was exclusively referring to the military, they are not the only organizations or individuals that use such weapons "professionally", hence my choice of the word operator.

Second, the purpose of the 2nd amendment has absolutely nothing to do with hunting, therefore the suitability of a firearm in that regard is irrelevant.

True, but proponents of such weapons sometimes justify ownership for hunting reasons, which I don't think is a valid argument.

Third, bullets are bullets. Even a 30-06 is "designed" to wound instead of kill outright if the target is large enough. Trust me, against Prairie Dogs and other varmints up to a Deer a 5.56 or 7.62mm is definitely a killing bullet.

You would consider using a 5.56 for hunting deer? As that would not be a round I would choose. 7.62 is a full length rifle cartridge, and not quite so popular as an assault rifle round due to the recoil and size. It is a popular hunting and sniping round due to its ballistics and better kill probability.

Rounds like the 5.56 were in many ways designed to maximize casualties to overload the enemy with (like the 5.56's tendency to tumble on entry), more so than the older style rounds.

Originally Posted by antikristuseke

What August said, also full auto fire does not really increase leathality unless you are at point blank range, it is used for suppression, pin down the enemy while others manouver to a position to take them out. People tend to have an aversion to sticking their head up with bullets cracking by over their head.
In the context of most shootings done by a lone gunman it would be a liability rather than an advantage, with organized groups though that changes quite a bit but assault rifles have a very short time where they are capable of providing supressing fire since the weapon overheats and seizes up, even with maschine guns designed for that role have to have frequent barrel changes t allow hot barrels to cool off while maintaining suppressing fire.

Full auto can be used in terror shootings to increase casualty numbers. Drive by shootings and terrorists opening up on crowds demonstrate that. Of course someone can spray and pray with a semi auto as well, but you can put more rounds out in a shorter time with full auto. These guys are not trying to suppress the targets, they are trying to cause as many civilian casualties as they can, barrels overheating and stuff like that are the least of their concerns as this is not a firefight.

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Very true, but it also works the other way. Those of us who support gun ownership see a lot of alarmist yelling from the other side, rather than reasoned arguments. A lot of people who want to ban guns are of the "all guns are evil" variety, and talk of "assault rifles" and similar turns as part of a larger agenda.

As for "all those guns", polls of various types indicate that somewhere between 30% and 40% of all American households contain at least one gun.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...ership-us-data

If we assume the lowest number (30%) and assume that no household has more than one gun (certainly not true, but taking the lowest possible numbers), that would mean that there are currently ninety million (90,000,000) privately owned guns in the United States. To someone who doesn't like guns that number might be truly alarming. To the gun-owner the next question would be "And how many of them were used to shoot somebody last year?"

I think a better question would be, how many more murders occurred because of easy access to firearms. Also how many legal weapons ended up in criminal hands and later used in the commission of a crime?

The simple fact is that most people are responsible citizens and have no desire to kill anyone else, even in the heat of an argument.

Maybe, but how many guns get stolen from "responsible citizens" each year? How do we know which people are going to be responsible with them and which are going to suddenly snap and use those weapons in a not so responsible way? Do we need to pull out the statistics comparing countries with easy access to guns vs countries without? Basic logic says that easier access increases the likelihood of use.

Most trite cliches are, but in this case it also happens to be true. Ban all guns. Good sheep will go along. Criminals will still find a way to get one. Also a majority of violent criminals tend to be young, strong and male. Weaker beings like women and us older guys become easy prey.

The statistics say otherwise in general. The notion that having armed citizens will keep the criminals at bay is laughable. Look at gang warfare for example, these kids will readily shoot at each other, and they know the other side is packing the same kind of weaponry they are and will definitely shoot back. Does that stop them in the slightest from attacking each other? Not one little bit. If anything it will only more likely increase the casualty rates as the criminal element will be even more inclined to shoot first.

As far as the criminals getting one, that is both true and false. In Canada for example it is more difficult and expensive to get the more heavily regulated/outlawed weapons (non hunting weapons or weapons with more than 5 rounds), and most criminals particularly street hoodlums do not have them. The only criminals that reliably have them are organized crime groups such as the mafia, hells angels, etc. but they are into major smuggling (guns and drugs), which is why they have them. Most of these weapons are smuggled in from the USA (and this is how the internal US policies on firearms affect more than just American citizens, most murdered committed with firearms that were obtained illegally in Canada came from the United States, and I wont even go into Mexico). The simple fact is that decreased public availability does affect criminal availability, particularly if the same is true for the surrounding countries (In Japan for example, guns are very difficult to acquire).

Here's another trite cliche for you: "God made men. Colonel Colt made them equal."

Ya, too bad that isn't true either. Still comes down to training, skill, experience, and willingness to shoot first. That generally tends to put the ball in the criminal's court particularly with the more recent trend with them entering the military for the training.


The thing is, is that I am not particularly anti-gun, I am ambivalent. In some ways I like guns and wouldn't mind owning an MP-5, an M4A1 and some other military weapons. But on the other hand I really have to strongly question the need for civilians to own such weapons, particularly given the costs associated with them to society. I also think most of the arguments put forth to justify ownership as being absurd when held up to rational scrutiny. Sure the idea of being able to defend oneself is a nice idea in theory, but does it really work that way most of the time? Most evidence seems to show that the safer countries are those that don't have piles of guns everywhere, particularly if the country also has strong social systems in place to help prevent crime in the first place (such as fairer distributions of wealth, equality, and opportunity).