Skyrad 0 #1 January 8, 2013 Theres no need for civvys to own some weapons... http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/mcchrystal-says-serious-action-needed-gun-control-174328785.html I've got a lot of respect for this Soldier so his thoughts on this matter interest me, its a pity he didn't go on to expand his argument but his voice will carry a lot of weight high up.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cvfd1399 0 #2 January 8, 2013 This general is a complete fucking idiot when it comes to guns. He may be a fine person and commander but he needs to shut the hell up. 223. Feet per second 3000. Muzzle energy 1300 ft lbs 30-06 feet per second 2910. Muzzle energy 2808 ft lbs The first is a standard military round. The second is a hunting round that has been around since 1906, and is more lethal and damaging. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skiskyrock 0 #3 January 8, 2013 QuoteThis general is a complete fucking idiot when it comes to guns. He may be a fine person and commander but he needs to shut the hell up. 223. Feet per second 3000. Muzzle energy 1300 ft lbs 30-06 feet per second 2910. Muzzle energy 2808 ft lbs The first is a standard military round. The second is a hunting round that has been around since 1906, and is more lethal and damaging. uhhh.... where do you think the 30-06 came from? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cvfd1399 0 #4 January 8, 2013 The army, what's your point, he is saying that the .223 is so lethal civilians should not have access to it. My point is that there are hundreds of other rounds that are equal or more powerful. He is trying to play it off like the civilians are getting military surplus, and they needs to be stopped so we don't have access to them. That won't change a thing Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #5 January 8, 2013 QuoteThe first is a standard military round. The second is a hunting round that has been around since 1906, and is more lethal and damaging. On the basis of an individual round, you'd be correct. On the basis of kinetic energy that can be expended per reload cycle (AR-15 with 100 round drum vs M1 and 8 round "en bloc" clip) you'd be wrong -- woefully wrong. I don't think regulation ought to be determined solely by the energy of a single round, but instead how much energy can be continuously delivered over a larger period of time. For instance, a minute, taking into account reloading by an expert user.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cvfd1399 0 #6 January 8, 2013 Or just go down this list and pick any non military round you want if you don't like me using the 30-06. I counted 50 on the first page that was more powerful than the 223 http://www.lone-star-armory.com/library/Ballistics-Classic-Cartridges.pdf Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cvfd1399 0 #7 January 8, 2013 What's so hard about reloading an m1? You don't have to remove a mag, just insert from top and push down, it's not like your feeding it in one by one like a 30/30. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #8 January 8, 2013 It takes time. It's not difficult. It's a period of time and loss of focus for the potential mass murderer.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cvfd1399 0 #9 January 8, 2013 I agree it's slower, but not barbaric like a muzzle loader or something Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skiskyrock 0 #10 January 8, 2013 QuoteQuoteThe first is a standard military round. The second is a hunting round that has been around since 1906, and is more lethal and damaging. On the basis of an individual round, you'd be correct. On the basis of kinetic energy that can be expended per reload cycle (AR-15 with 100 round drum vs M1 and 8 round "en bloc" clip) you'd be wrong -- woefully wrong. I don't think regulation ought to be determined solely by the energy of a single round, but instead how much energy can be continuously delivered over a larger period of time. For instance, a minute, taking into account reloading by an expert user. So how much energy can a classroom full of first graders safely absorb? I find the whole line of argument pointless. There is no way to fit a gun with so many guards and bumpers that it will be safe if fired in a crowded theater. The problem begins and ends with the person firing the gun. And to the idea that weapon X is too powerful for mere civilians ... this is ceeding them to the folks that brought us Kent State. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #11 January 8, 2013 Nonsense. Or do you believe civilians ought to have access to RPGs?quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 444 #12 January 8, 2013 QuoteQuoteThe first is a standard military round. The second is a hunting round that has been around since 1906, and is more lethal and damaging. On the basis of an individual round, you'd be correct. On the basis of kinetic energy that can be expended per reload cycle (AR-15 with 100 round drum vs M1 and 8 round "en bloc" clip) you'd be wrong -- woefully wrong. I don't think regulation ought to be determined solely by the energy of a single round, but instead how much energy can be continuously delivered over a larger period of time. For instance, a minute, taking into account reloading by an expert user. Your "kinetic energy" solution sound nifty, but it is full of holes (pardon the pun). 5 rounds from a .50BMG exceed the energy of a 30 round magazine of 5.56. You would outlaw a gun/round that has NEVER BEEN USED IN A CRIME. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #13 January 8, 2013 Who said "outlaw"? Regulate does not equal "outlaw."quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 444 #14 January 8, 2013 Why does the .50 need to be "regulated"? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #15 January 8, 2013 Generically, along with all other weapons systems, it would make sense as an overall strategy to reduce gun violence in the US. I'm not suggesting a straight line in the assignment of kinetic energy, but perhaps some sort of curve which would allow something like a five round load in a .50, but not allow a 100 round drum on say, a .22. I'm saying it should be one of several factors so hunters can still hunt, but idiots can't just spray a room full of people.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 444 #16 January 8, 2013 I believe that it is currently against the law for anybody, to spray bullets at a room full of people, and it has not seemed to work very well. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #17 January 8, 2013 QuoteI believe that it is currently against the law for anybody, to spray bullets at a room full of people, and it has not seemed to work very well. Right, which is exactly why we need to limit their ability to do so. Currently they have all too easy access to the tools to do that. Let's make it just a bit more difficult than buying a 32 ounce soda.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skiskyrock 0 #18 January 9, 2013 it is perfectly legal to own an RPG, just takes a tax stamp for a destructive device. And a stamp for each rocket. Rocket availability is a bit of a hurdle. My point wasn't that civilians should have unrestricted access to everything, but that McChrystal's idea that only the military can be trusted with certain types of weapons since THEY don't slaughter civilians kind of flies in the face of history. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #19 January 9, 2013 QuoteQuoteI believe that it is currently against the law for anybody, to spray bullets at a room full of people, and it has not seemed to work very well. Right, which is exactly why we need to limit their ability to do so. Currently they have all too easy access to the tools to do that. Let's make it just a bit more difficult than buying a 32 ounce soda. Number of deaths due to DUI in 2011. 10,228 You don't see us banning alcohol, or high powered cars...... How'd that Prohibition thing work out anyway? Since 1991 the number of DUI deaths in this country has been reduced by 5000 per year. How'd they do THAT? There's your answer.....---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhaig 0 #20 January 9, 2013 QuoteQuoteI believe that it is currently against the law for anybody, to spray bullets at a room full of people, and it has not seemed to work very well. Right, which is exactly why we need to limit their ability to do so. Currently they have all too easy access to the tools to do that. Let's make it just a bit more difficult than buying a 32 ounce soda. so make another law making something illegal. Has worked so well for so many things. here, and for those who say guns won't be manufactured in people's garages: http://www.northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/threads/179192-DIY-Shovel-AK-photo-tsunami-warning!-- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #21 January 9, 2013 QuoteYou don't see us banning alcohol . . . Nope. It is, however, regulated and unlike guns and ammo, the bar tender is held responsible for giving people too much. There is a limit to how much you're legally allowed to have in your body and drive a car. Again, there is a wide gulf between an out right ban and additional regulation. You appear to think there can not be a middle ground between no regulation and confiscation. That's simply not the case.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #22 January 9, 2013 QuoteIt takes time. It's not difficult. It's a period of time and loss of focus for the potential mass murderer. WHich makes no difference if the victims are defenseless. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #23 January 9, 2013 It gives more time for some to get away. It opens a gap in the firing sequence where people could potentially overtake the gun man by, if nothing else, brute force. Is it the ultimate solution? Probably not. Could it be a useful addition to a broader strategy? I think the answer is yes.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #24 January 9, 2013 QuoteAnd to the idea that weapon X is too powerful for mere civilians ... this is ceeding them to the folks that brought us Kent State. Most of the rounds fired at Kent State were .30 caliber. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #25 January 9, 2013 QuoteQuoteYou don't see us banning alcohol . . . Nope. It is, however, regulated and unlike guns and ammo, the bar tender is held responsible for giving people too much. There is a limit to how much you're legally allowed to have in your body and drive a car. Again, there is a wide gulf between an out right ban and additional regulation. You appear to think there can not be a middle ground between no regulation and confiscation. That's simply not the case. I don't see how you can regulate firearms without confiscation of certain types when there are so many in circulation, it just becomes a mockery of the new legislation. It would make far more sense to improve the routes for identifying and intervention for people most likely to commit such shootings. Look at all the mass shootings in the last few years and the overwhelming majority were committed by school or college kids. What no one knew these kids were fruit loops? Socially alienated sociopaths? I simply don't believe it. Focus on addressing the abusers of firearms before they spaz out not the law abiding owners of semi auto longs.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
