• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What Will You Do?

notquiteright said:
Yeah, the 22LR BS shows how little some know or how much some want to lie.... :unsure:

I wasn't over thrilled carrying the M16-A1. The round had been developed for those with limited marksmanship skills. It was flat shooter so no real need to compensate to hit a man-sized target out to 300 meters or so.
Kinda wanted a 7.62 calling card. German assault cartridge or a sleeker Russian type round. But never once wished I could carry a 22LR rifle... ✌️
Click to expand...

Was there the need for compensation at 300 meters with the previous cartridge?
 
rahl said:
no you aren't. It's about shot placement. There is no such thing as "excessively lethal". You can't be MORE dead lol.

No they aren't.

irrelevant to the claim of "excessively lethal" which doesn't exist.
Click to expand...
I don't believe I used the term excessively lethal. More lethal, more capable of being lethal... :unsure:

It's pretty obvious you have little understanding of how real engagements work. Rarely do you get the opportunity to be all about shot placement... :rolleyes:
I doubt you can find more than a handful of real deals who'd be OK with trading their rifle for a 22 and being all about shot placement (and 99% of them would be lying)... ✌️
 
RF667799 said:
Was there the need for compensation at 300 meters with the previous cartridge?
Click to expand...
Name the cartridge and you know the answer... read up on the development of the 5.56 and you'll find the answer. Find out what rifles the Air Security Guard carried before the AR series was developed... ✌️
 
BabaVoss said:
Several things need to happen.
We need to get rid of excessively lethal firearms. How we define that is a conversation we need to have as a nation. But no civilian needs those for protection or sport.
We need to get rid of high capacity magazines.
We need to limit how much of a personal arsenal anyone can assemble.
We need to do much more in the area of mental health.
Note that I am not advocating banning all guns.
If we could do the above I believe it would reduced the number of deaths we see all too often. As gun advocates, you should what that to happen.

/
Click to expand...
You can't do any of this, and it would have a miniscule effect, anyway. The vast majority of homicides have one or two victims and are committed with handguns.

The Democrats in Congress aren't even trying to do any of this.

What's the purpose of limiting the number of guns?
 
BabaVoss said:
So, since “lots of things” can be used that way, we should simply accept regular mass shootings. I see.
Click to expand...
You'd have to confiscate virtually all guns to stop mass shootings.
 
notquiteright said:
Name the cartridge and you know the answer... read up on the development of the 5.56 and you'll find the answer. Find out what rifles the Air Security Guard carried before the AR series was developed... ✌️
Click to expand...

The answer is, "No, not to any greater extent than the 5.56 as originally developed for the Armalite rifles."
 
RF667799 said:
Was there the need for compensation at 300 meters with the previous cartridge?
Click to expand...
Yes, and the given the move from 55 grain to 62 grain to 77 grain bullets use by the military in 5.56 NATO, in shorter barrels, the ballistic path of the 5.56 NATO is similar enough to the 168 grain 7.62 NATO to be moot.
 
BabaVoss said:
We disagree.
Click to expand...
You should read the section of Caetano v Massachusetts where SCOTUS discusses the "dangerousness" of different guns. Constitutionally it doesn't matter.

The AR series of rifles is available on over 100 calibers. Which of those are "excessively lethal"

"Excessively lethal" isn't the trait you should be focusing on. "In common use for lawful purposes" is the trait that counts.
 
RF667799 said:
The answer is, "No, not to any greater extent than the 5.56 as originally developed for the Armalite rifles."
Click to expand...
You don't read history, the AP guards were armed with a variety of underpowered carbines, sub machine guns and pistols that had poor trajectories and weak stopping power. the AR series was developed for them to be able to engage across a runway of aircraft apron without the need to judge range.
Try again if you must... ✌️
 
notquiteright said:
You don't read history, the AP guards were armed with a variety of underpowered carbines, sub machine guns and pistols that had poor trajectories and weak stopping power. the AR series was developed for them to be able to engage across a runway of aircraft apron without the need to judge range.
Try again if you must... ✌️
Click to expand...

I've never saw that it was developed specifically and exclusively for shooting across runways by the AP. They could have adopted the M14 for the same effect.
 
notquiteright said:
You don't read history, the AP guards were armed with a variety of underpowered carbines, sub machine guns and pistols that had poor trajectories and weak stopping power. the AR series was developed for them to be able to engage across a runway of aircraft apron without the need to judge range.
Try again if you must... ✌️
Click to expand...
The Army started looking at calibers smaller than .30 caliber as early as 1950, for two primary benefits - a flatter trajectory to enhance the chance of a hit at distances between 100 and 300 yards and a lower recoil to allow a spread of bullets fired automatically to increase the chances of a single hit. The lower caliber cartridge used in at least one of those those studies was the .220 Swift, a round considerably more powerful than the .223 Remington.

The AR-10 predated the AR-15/M16 by some years, as it was the completion for the M-14 rifle. Stoner used that design along with the existing .222 Remington for his early prototypes for the Army. The concerns of the Air Force and the need of their security forces wasn't a driver in the development of the AR15/M-16.

The .222 Remington was wildcatted into the round that became the .223 Remington by extending the case by a tenth of an inch in order to better ensure the bullet to penetrate the helmet of a Warsaw Pact soldier at 500 yards. If the enemy infantry is 500 yards from the boundaries of your airfield you've already lost.
 
notquiteright said:
I don't believe I used the term excessively lethal. More lethal, more capable of being lethal... :unsure:
Click to expand...
something also can't be "more" lethal. You aren't MORE dead.
notquiteright said:
It's pretty obvious you have little understanding of how real engagements work.
Click to expand...
because I'm correcting you?
notquiteright said:
Rarely do you get the opportunity to be all about shot placement... :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
It's literally the most important thing in shooting
notquiteright said:
I doubt you can find more than a handful of real deals who'd be OK with trading their rifle for a 22 and being all about shot placement (and 99% of them would be lying)... ✌️
Click to expand...
Uh, you can be killed just as easily with a 22LR, as you can with a 308.
 
Rucker61 said:
Yes, and the given the move from 55 grain to 62 grain to 77 grain bullets use by the military in 5.56 NATO, in shorter barrels, the ballistic path of the 5.56 NATO is similar enough to the 168 grain 7.62 NATO to be moot.
Click to expand...

Even with the originally 55 grain loading, both are within "minute of man" at 300 meters.
 
rahl said:
which doesn't change the fact that there is no such thing as "excessively lethal". You can't be MORE dead.
Click to expand...
You are missing something. I'm viewing it as "more likely to kill".
 
BabaVoss said:
You are missing something. I'm viewing it as "more likely to kill".
Click to expand...
which is also meaningless. Shot placement is the determining factor. If I hit an artery, or vital organ, you are not more dead if I hit it with a 308, vs a 17 HMR.
 
marduc said:
So what impact in a swatting event differs between having a gun and not having a gun then?
I am still confused, you are presenting a zero sum scenario.
Click to expand...
If you are "SWATted" and you do have a gun AND any one of the police officers takes it into their head that you are showing even the slightest suspicion of a hint of a potential possibility of even thinking about using it, you are going to end up DEAD.

If you are "SWATted" and you do not have a gun AND any one of the police officers takes it into their head that there is a chance that you could potentially have a gun and that you might be thinking about using it, you are going to end up DEAD.

That's the difference.

Oh yes, and your estate can always sue the impecunious anonymous caller who "SWATted" you to recover damages (assuming that your estate can find out who made the telephone call).
 
Michael Cole said:
I have only an old 9mm and I'll bury it before I give it up. I've been wanting a shotgun for a long time, and I'll bury that too.

I don't need an AR, don't want one, and there has to be some way to allow people enough firepower to defend themselves without the proliferation of firearms as we currently have.

This is theory only, as it's impossible to confiscate guns. Any restrictions will occur on the manufacturing end, and as long as I'm allowed a 9mm and a shotgun, I'm fine.
Click to expand...
My proposal would be to totally "de-regulate" all black powder firearms that do NOT load with cartridges. The "gang bangers" won't like them because they are slow to reload so you can't bang off 15 rounds, slam in a new magazine, and bang off another 15 rounds (so that you can be sure of hitting your target at least once) and leave next to no trace of where you were shooting from. Shooting (across your own car and through the passenger side window) at the car that you are passing from inside your own car because you are ticked off over the fact that they were only driving 10 mph over the speed limit and you wanted to drive 15 mph over the speed limit is rather self-defeating when using black powder firearms.

Having a LeMat

1687882141004.webp​

with its nine .36 or .42 cal rounds in the cylinder and one more 20 ga. in the secondary, should be quite a sufficiency to enable any trained shooter to defend themselves, their family, and their home. If you are really scared, use two.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom