Open carry in Oklahoma

[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.

[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?

[Buddahaid]

People have been killed with a BB gun too.

http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml02/02029.html

[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).

[NeonSamurai]

Originally Posted by Stealhead

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?

There is a ton of research done on the effectiveness of different rounds by the military. The 5.56x45mm NATO for example can cause a lot of trauma to the human body due to its tendency to tumble and break apart on impact (depends on load, weapon, and distance) and cause increased amounts of hydrostatic shock. It's kill probability per shot though, is much lower than say the 7.62x51mm NATO, though the wounds the 5.56 create tend to be much harder to treat surgically. Hence its reputation as a wounding round.

From a military theory perspective it is more advantageous to seriously cripple or wound your adversary rather than kill them, this is with the idea that the enemy will have to deal with the casualties by either trying to treat them, or having to dispose of them. In fact several bullets since the 5.56mm (that one happened to be more of a fluke in the design) were designed with the intent that they tumble and fragment on impact to increase the trauma and severity of the wounds caused. They have all tended to be smaller lightweight rounds that also have lower first shot pk ratios.

[Stealhead]

Originally Posted by NeonSamurai

There is a ton of research done on the effectiveness of different rounds by the military. The 5.56x45mm NATO for example can cause a lot of trauma to the human body due to its tendency to tumble and break apart on impact (depends on load, weapon, and distance) and cause increased amounts of hydrostatic shock. It's kill probability per shot though, is much lower than say the 7.62x51mm NATO, though the wounds the 5.56 create tend to be much harder to treat surgically. Hence its reputation as a wounding round.

From a military theory perspective it is more advantageous to seriously cripple or wound your adversary rather than kill them, this is with the idea that the enemy will have to deal with the casualties by either trying to treat them, or having to dispose of them. In fact several bullets since the 5.56mm (that one happened to be more of a fluke in the design) were designed with the intent that they tumble and fragment on impact to increase the trauma and severity of the wounds caused. They have all tended to be smaller lightweight rounds that also have lower first shot pk ratios.

What the military theorist thinks is a good idea and what the person actually fighting is a good idea can greatly differ.What you say about the 5.56mm round in comparison to the 7.62x51mm round is true but the reasoning has much more to do with ballistics than anything a heavy round is naturally going to have more effect than a light weight one.More rounds are always better which is why smaller calibers are popular with armed forces mainly because a solider can carry many more small caliber rounds in the same amount of weight as a larger round.

I would argue that what is best killing or wounding is a matter of what foe you are facing for the US and our allies in Afghanistan it is much better to kill for the Taliban to a certain extent is better for them to wound enemy troops because of its negative morale effects and the effect.

Taliban dead fighter no longer a problem.Taliban wounded fighter he goes and inspires others to fight you or comes back to fight you again directly.

Now you take two large industrialized nations and the cost of dealing with wounded mounts up.At the same time Many nations suffered a lot of losses to casualties but that did not stop thier will to might there are always more young men somewhere after all.

[August]

Originally Posted by NeonSamurai

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.

People hunt deer with pistols but yeah a deer would be on the upper end of the scale of things i'd hunt with the 5.56. It's a fine coyote round though, even the slower 55 grain version.

The point is the AR series are indeed valid hunting weapons though again that is not the purpose of the RKBA.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by NeonSamurai

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?

How is that a better question? It's a fair question of course, but criminals will always figure out ways to make their crimes easier. Yes, we have a high gun crime rate, and reducing the number of guns would obviously reduce the number of uses in crimes, but how does our overall violent crime rate compare with that of other countries? Here's what one British source has to say.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...frica-U-S.html

It's interesting to me that within the confines of the US, the states with the highest gun ownership rates are also the states with the lowest gun crime rates.
http://flowingdata.com/2011/01/19/st...earms-murders/

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?

Good questions. How many times has either one happened? Tens? Hundreds? Thousands? Millions? Enough to make a statistical difference? I quoted ninety million guns in America as a conservative estimate; a source I looked at suggested a gun for every American is more likely. Not that everyone has one, but that there may be three hundred million privately owned guns in our country. My question still stands: How many of them were used to kill someone, or even rob someone last year?

Don't forget to ask the other questions. How many robberies are thwarted each year because the robber heard the sound of a slide working and ran for his life. I've heard first-hand accounts of several such incidences over the years, and that's just from people I've known or worked with.

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.

Basic logic avoids the point that people without access to firearms still manage to kill, harm and rob in creative ways. If someone comes into my home with intent to do any of the above, a gun is my best bet for defending my home and my life.

The statistics say otherwise in general. The notion that having armed citizens will keep the criminals at bay is laughable.

Really? Which statistics are those? I already asked how many home invasions have been thwarted by armed homeowners. Just google "armed homeowner stops invasion". There are hundreds of them. Not a fair trade? Maybe not, but hardly "laughable". Try "armed citizen foils robbery". Same thing. No, they don't keep criminals at bay, but then neither do armed police, or prisons, or courts. They do, however, stop a great many crimes.

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.

Do you think that trying to ban all guns will make a difference in that. They'll still get them, and once again that trite saying will be true.

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.

And having more restrictions here will change that? They (and we) will get them elsewhere.

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.

On that we agree. A gun is not a magic wand, to be waved at a criminal to make him go away. If you're going to have one, know how to use it and be willing to use it; otherwise don't have it. As to the "equality" idea, yes it is true. I'm old and have a hard time getting around sometimes. If someone breaks into my home, and I'm sure he intends more than just taking some stuff and leaving, how am I going to stop him? I have some handy weapons, but a gun is much more sure.

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?

I think I've shown enough real-life stories to indicate that it does. Most of the time? That's hard to judge, since we don't know how many times it has occured but not been reported. I mentioned personal knowledge of a few such events. Not all of those were reported to the police.

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).

Except of course for Switzerland.

[Stealhead]

Originally Posted by August

People hunt deer with pistols but yeah a deer would be on the upper end of the scale of things i'd hunt with the 5.56. It's a fine coyote round though, even the slower 55 grain version.

I agree with you on that and it explains why a lot of people use .270
for deer rather than a .223 of course with the .270 you have enough power to
take down elk of course here in Florida a .270 is about all the power you need for any deer.

Really? Maybe you don't think Brady is serious, but several states have tried.

Name one state that has even proposed attempting to ban all guns.
Even the brady bunch don't do that.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Stealhead

I agree with you on that and it explains why a lot of people use .270
for deer rather than a .223 of course with the .270 you have enough power to
take down elk of course here in Florida a .270 is about all the power you need for any deer.

The last time I went hunting I was still using my good old .30-06.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Name one state that has even proposed attempting to ban all guns.

No state legislature has tried to ban all guns, but members have tried to bring it up. Georgia tried to ban most handguns as far back as 1837. This seems to have been more of a racial thing, as one of the provisions was barring any gun ownership to free blacks. That said, DC has tried to ban all handguns, and you always have to worry about what might slip by.

If you think I'm being a reverse alarmist, maybe you should read what gun-control advocates have said on the subject.
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcnobody.html

Even the brady bunch don't do that.

Like any political organization, Brady has to put on a public face that doesn't always reflect its real goals. Individual members are a little less subtle.

We'll take one step at a time, and the first is necessarily - given the political realities - very modest. We'll have to start working again to strengthen the law, and then again to strengthen the next law and again and again. Our ultimate goal, total control of handguns, is going to take time. The first problem is to slow down production and sales. Next is to get registration. The final problem is to make possession of all handguns and ammunition (with a few exceptions) totally illegal
-Nelson Shields, Handgun Control (later Brady Campaign) Founder

No state legislature has tried to ban all guns

Exactly, and there has never been any serious attempt to do anything even remotely like it which is why the original line was parrot fodder.

Nice link, I would normally reject out of hand anything citing Kleck as he is a bigger idiot than the brady bunch are, but all your link managed to deliver as "evidence" to back up that claim was a single quote from one complete nobody who is appointed to do health programs on cigarettes.

The reason I call Kleck a bigger idiot than the Bradys is that he did a propoganda piece were he falsly claimed two specific countries had banned all guns and somehow proved his theory about it increasing problems by adding in figures from another state entirely which surprisingly had even laxer gun regulations than the other two countries, though to be fair I do understand his need to add a warzone to his fiction to pad out the numbers as his claims were so ludicrous to start with.

Individual members are a little less subtle.

Yet even that quote doesn't back up the claim does it.

[Sailor Steve]

I guess you're right. I'll be turning in my guns tomorrow.

[Armistead]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

I guess you're right. I'll be turning in my guns tomorrow.

You can ship them to me for proper disposal..