Gun question.

[ExpressLane]

The wild hog problem infrequently materializes here in Boston, but I suppose that it doesn't hurt to be ready just in case.
Meanwhile, pork is the least expensive meat in the supermarket right now.
I wish that beef was that price, too.

Yeah the pork prices make me wish I ate pork.

 

[ExpressLane]

One wonders why. The NATO 5.56 round isn't as lethal as the .223 Remington hollow point hunting round...although obviously lethal enough.

full jacketed rounds are designed to be less lethal than a hollow point round of same caliber and charge.

 

[Mr.Badguy]

This is a 10-round magazine British Enfield SMLE, a rifle that first saw military service in 1895. It is bolt action. In the hands of someone who is practiced with it, you can easily fire 20 aimed rounds a minute from one, possibly as many as 30.

It isn't the weapon that matters. It is who is operating it that does.

Practiced, you can fire 10 rounds in 10 seconds, reload in 10 seconds, and repeat the process.

Then wouldn't you agree that a weapon that requires LESS PRACTICE to do the same thing is more "deadly"?

 

[ExpressLane]

Then wouldn't you agree that a weapon that requires LESS PRACTICE to do the same thing is more "deadly"?

So would you agree some mass shooters practice with their guns.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Then wouldn't you agree that a weapon that requires LESS PRACTICE to do the same thing is more "deadly"?

No. The two are equally deadly. What makes the difference is the person operating them. An AR-15 in the hands of an amateur with little practice and who manages to score say, one hit in three rounds firing it is far less deadly than someone with considerable practice and an Enfield SMLE who hits their target every time. Thus, for let's say 20 rounds fired, the amateur hits 7 times while the experienced shooter hits 20 times.

 

[ExpressLane]

A Glock cannot kill someone past about a 100 yards; an AR-15 can easily kill at 800 yards. Glocks lack the accuracy of an AR-15 even below 100 yards. A Glock is not going to get through reasonable body armor, like an AR-15 can. Glocks are really not designed for a high rate of fire like AR-15's are.

There is one thing that makes a Glock better than an AR-15, it is easier to carry. If I am a soldier, I know I am going out to kill someone, so I want to carry something like an AR-15. If I am a hunter, I know I am going out to kill something, so I want to carry something like a hunting rifle. If I am anyone else, and do not know I am going out to kill anything, I want to either not carry any weapon, or at most carry a pistol.

Glocks can cycle just as fast as an AR-15 and you can buy 30 round capacity or larger magazines. In practice magazines larger than 30 rounds have a higher failure rate in AR-15

 

[Nordberg]

No. The two are equally deadly. What makes the difference is the person operating them. An AR-15 in the hands of an amateur with little practice and who manages to score say, one hit in three rounds firing it is far less deadly than someone with considerable practice and an Enfield SMLE who hits their target every time. Thus, for let's say 20 rounds fired, the amateur hits 7 times while the experienced shooter hits 20 times.

I worked at a company that worked on the original ARs. The airforce was working with us on it. They said their people were such bad shots, that they wanted to spray bullets to keep them alive. https://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/a...e#:~:text=1963: The M-16 is,the AR-15 in 1960.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

I worked at a company that worked on the original ARs. The airforce was working with us on it. They said their people were such bad shots, that they wanted to spray bullets to keep them alive. https://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/a...e#:~:text=1963: The M-16 is,the AR-15 in 1960.

That would be the fully automatic versions of the M-16 with the "spray and pray" feature... Later ones only allow a 3 round burst. I found that (the 3 round thing) not all that useful as you hit with one and miss with two...

 

[Geeko Sportivo]

Then wouldn't you agree that a weapon that requires LESS PRACTICE to do the same thing is more "deadly"?

Man, you just made me prouder to own me own Brit 303 Enfield!

That was pretty fast!

 

[Walt]

Hollow point bullets are used by the military, dumbass.

The Hague Convention of 1899, Declaration III, prohibited the use in international warfare of bullets that easily expand or flatten in the body.[1] It is a common misapprehension that hollow-point ammunition is prohibited by the Geneva Conventions, as the prohibition significantly predates those conventions. The Saint Petersburg Declaration of 1868 banned exploding projectiles of less than 400 grams, along with weapons designed to aggravate injured soldiers or make their death inevitable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollow-point_bullet

 

[Into the Night]

Think MILITARY WEAPONS DUMB ASS!

Which asks a question in itself, WHY DO CITIZENS NEED MILITARY STYLE WEAPONS AND AMMO>

Because.

I need not justify why I need or want a gun or any other weapon.

 

[LurchAddams]

Since "all of the above" is not an option, I'll go with B. F = MA

FWIW, deer hunting with the .223 is illegal in some areas because it's better at wounding deer than killing them. It's why I prefer the AK; the 7.62x39 is a better hunting round due to F = MA.

A real man would just wrestle the deer to the ground, strangle it, and watch the life leave its eyes

 

[Into the Night]

Hollow points are illegal by the Genevia Convention for warfare.

The Hague Convention of 1899 forbid the use of "Dum-dum" bullets in war, and that has been continued in the Genevia Convention as a prohibition against using hollow point bullets in warfare. The military used only full metal jacket bullets today.

Nope. Hollow point bullets are used in warfare.
The military uses hollow point bullets as well as FMJs.

 

[Damocles]

Glocks can cycle just as fast as an AR-15 and you can buy 30 round capacity or larger magazines. In practice magazines larger than 30 rounds have a higher failure rate in AR-15

It is not difficult to build one, you can get aftermarket stuff that fit a Glock... I've seen 150 round chambers that have circular bottoms, they look a bit like the magazine for an old tommy gun... Let me see if I can find a link to an image of something similar...

 

[Into the Night]

If so, using hollow point bullets is a war crime under international conventions.
Terrorist groups may use hollow points, but they're criminals already.

It is not a war crime to use hollow point bullets in warfare. The military does use hollow point bullets.

 

[Nordberg]

That would be the fully automatic versions of the M-16 with the "spray and pray" feature... Later ones only allow a 3 round burst. I found that (the 3 round thing) not all that useful as you hit with one and miss with two...

So killing 3 people at a time is not good enough? You know that people make them automatic too. If you shoot a hundred bullets and miss, that must not be USEFUL to you.

 

[Into the Night]

That's like saying that all refrigerators are Frigidaires because in some place they are "colloquially known" as such. Just saying "colloquial" doesn't mean the same thing as "correct"....

A clip is used to hold the bullets in line to more quickly load a magazine, a magazine pushes the next round up into the firing chamber and is not a clip... They are different things even if folks who do not know about guns use it incorrectly "colloquially".

Nope. A clip is a type of loading mechanism for some types of guns. Magazine speed loaders are not a clip.

This is not a clip.

This is not a clip.

 

[Damocles]

Think MILITARY WEAPONS DUMB ASS!

Which asks a question in itself, WHY DO CITIZENS NEED MILITARY STYLE WEAPONS AND AMMO>

Are you afraid that ole Bugs Bunny is gonna shoot back?

Why would someone "need" a newspaper that isn't controlled by the government? Why would anyone "need" to have a right to stop the government from entering their house unless they have probable cause and a valid warrant if they weren't doing anything illegal? Why would they "need" to be able to march with signs that aren't approved by the government in D.C.?

Thankfully our rights aren't based on what you think we "need", they are rights and you don't get to decide to ignore it because you think I don't "need" to exercise my rights. The 2nd Amendment tells you why you are allowed to own and bear arms, it is because the government has the right to call up a military (at that time there was no standing army) and those folks who just won a war against the most advanced military in the world at the time wanted to make sure the new government couldn't try to take it away again and make them helpless against an overbearing government....

The right doesn't say, "Because there are rabbits you want to eat, you have the right to keep arms for hunting".

 

[Geeko Sportivo]

Why would someone "need" a newspaper that isn't controlled by the government? Why would anyone "need" to have a right to stop the government from entering their house unless they have probable cause and a valid warrant if they weren't doing anything illegal? Why would they "need" to be able to march with signs that aren't approved by the government in D.C.?

Thankfully our rights aren't based on what you think we "need", they are rights and you don't get to decide to ignore it because you think I don't "need" to exercise my rights.

Hey, I'm not the one who wants to take anyone's guns away.

But, I do believe we should have a system that supports Licensing gun owners to be able to own, buy, or sell guns in America- just like the way we do with licenses and registrations we have in every state now for automobiles, that we put in place back when automobiles became a major safety and theft concern.

I believe that automobiles and guns have some things in common, as they are both Public Safety concerns, both can be dangerous, they can both be stolen, and they can end up in the wrong hands.

A system like that addresses many of these issues and would lesson the problems we are having with guns.

I can't even imagine the problems that would come with automobiles if we didn't have that system in place!

Just sayin'

 

[Damocles]

Nope. A clip is a type of loading mechanism for some types of guns. Magazine speed loaders are not a clip.

This is not a clip.

This is not a clip.

One thing we know, a clip is not a magazine.... a clip puts bullets in line so you can load them into specific guns (into the magazine on that gun, BTW)... LOL.

I'll give you help so you too can know what you are talking about:

https://thehubaz.com/blog/clip-vs-m...re both,the firearm's chamber during shooting.

Clips and magazines are both used for loading a gun, but they serve different purposes. A clip holds cartridges together to make them easier to load into the magazine. You can also use a clip to load a cylinder. The magazine feeds rounds into the firearm’s chamber during shooting. In the image above, the part on the left is a clip and the part on the right is a magazine. There are different varieties of clips and magazines that may look different than this example. In general, magazines are referenced more often. This is because all guns besides revolvers or single-shot firearms have a magazine. Conversely, clips are not necessary for the operation of firearms and not all models use them.

Here are the images it talks about:

While I did somewhat simplify and say they are to help load a magazine and did not also include cylinders doesn't change that what I said was correct. These two things are different from each other.