EVE Search - From a gunowners view

All Channels

Out of Pod Experience

From a gunowners view

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Surfin's PlunderBunny Minmatar Sicarri Covenant	Posted - 2007.08.10 22:44:00 - [91] Edited by: Surfin''s PlunderBunny on 10/08/2007 22:45:23 And in about another 200 years we'll see man portable versions! Hooray for progress! Edit* FYI: I believe they require a nuclear power plant to operate Tic Toc Tic Toc , time is ticking ~Liz Kali
LVSOCOM Vale Heavy Industries Molotov Coalition	Posted - 2007.08.11 01:57:00 - [92] Edited by: LVSOCOM on 11/08/2007 01:59:43 Edit to fix errors... Originally by: Epoch Edited by: Epoch on 10/08/2007 22:17:11 Originally by: ry ry Originally by: Belloc Slunv Originally by: LVSOCOM Ever wonder why most police and the military stopped carrying .38 caliber revolvers? Thats right-- it wasn't an effective man stopper. afaik the .38 was discountinued because it couldn't penetrate through windows as well as a .357 mag ;) i heard it was because it didn't look macho enough. I like that AR-15 LVSOCOM posted a pic of. I would never personally own one (my Five-SeveN is enough), but its still a nice looking weapon. Thanks. I bought it when I turned 18 as my first rifle (it looked considerably different back then). Mostly because my dad had taught me how to safley handle a firearm and enjoy the sport of shooting-- dispite not being nearly the avid enthusiast I was even at the time. So when the time came and I could buy my own, I went for something he didn't have in his collection (WWII era stuff) and bought the AR. The FiveSeven is an impressive pistol. A few police officers I work with carry them as their personal defense weapons. About the .38 again... Glass is one of the trickiest standard building materials a bullet can expect to encounter. While being able to clearly see the target on the other side of it, the deflection and impact on velocity of the bullet after penetrating is subject to a ton of variables. The one constant that helps negate these variables is velocity and energy (ft-lbs/ nm). The more energy the projectie carries upon impact the harder it is for deflection to occur (requires thicker/harder glass). Most .38 special in its hayday was lead cast bullet with reletively low velocity loading compared to what commercial self defense loads today offer. This probably preformed good against soft targets but poor against anything with a barrier (glass or worse, the heavy steel used in cars back then) or heavy clothing (leather lowers velocity). Anyways, .38 special CAN be a good man stopper. I shouldn't have said it isn't, espically since I primarily carry a 9mm (arguably a weaker round). It just wasn't back then with the available technology. .22, .25, .32ACP, and .380ACP are not in my opinion 'reliable' man stoppers for different reasons (low velocity/energy) and I would not choose to carry one to defend myself with if the situation arose.
DarkMatter Sintered Sanity	Posted - 2007.08.11 02:08:00 - [93] Edited by: DarkMatter on 11/08/2007 02:10:29 I prefer to kill things with a bow, much more challenging... I own a 12ga, that's it as far as guns are concerned... Quote: I just think having a multitude of guns in your house is a bit much. =p So... You think a stamp collector is stupid for having all those stamps in his house that he will never use? It's a hobby dude... Some collect cars, some guns... My Infinity Ship Designs: T-Y9, Hauler
Belloc Slunv Amarr Slacker Industries Exuro Mortis	Posted - 2007.08.11 02:10:00 - [94] Originally by: Derovius Vaden Originally by: Belloc Slunv Originally by: ry ry Originally by: Belloc Slunv Originally by: LVSOCOM Ever wonder why most police and the military stopped carrying .38 caliber revolvers? Thats right-- it wasn't an effective man stopper. afaik the .38 was discountinued because it couldn't penetrate through windows as well as a .357 mag ;) i heard it was because it didn't look macho enough. .357 mag is the same caliber as a .38. It just so happens that the .357mag is a longer case to fit more powder. I thought the .38 webley's had great stopping power, or did I get fed the wrong information? I'm talking .38 special, as that's the only variant I've used.
Belloc Slunv Amarr Slacker Industries Exuro Mortis	Posted - 2007.08.11 02:12:00 - [95] Originally by: Micheal Dietrich Originally by: Belloc Slunv Originally by: LVSOCOM Ever wonder why most police and the military stopped carrying .38 caliber revolvers? Thats right-- it wasn't an effective man stopper. afaik the .38 was discountinued because it couldn't penetrate through windows as well as a .357 mag ;) couldn't penetrate windows? A pellet gun can penetrate windows. Hell a thrown rock can penetrate windows. Sorry, I wrote that bad. The way I should have put it was that the .38 special round tended to be more unpredictable when shot through windows, thus, the .357mag, was deisgned to have ballistics that are more predictable when shot through windows.
Imperator Jora'h	Posted - 2007.08.11 03:37:00 - [96] Originally by: Judas Lonestar Also, firearms were used almost 2 million times last year or the year before to defend life and property. Are you telling me there was more then 2 million cases of injury due to a gun in the home? I doubt it. Please, EDUCATE yourself on the issue and dont just pass on the mindless drivel you hear from the Brady Bunch. Funny you accuse me of spouting drivel from the left wing when you toss out a perfect example of NRA dogma with that cite of two million instances where a gun was used in defense. Two million what exactly? In 2005 about 11.5 million violent and property crimes were reported (cite). Of that about 1.4 million were violent crimes and the bulk of that is larceny theft (which includes stuff like shop lifting and pick pockets but excludes things taken by force or violence or fraud). So you are saying law abiding gun owners thwarted about 17% of all crimes? Funny because in 1996 (latest I could find info on) there were just barely over 1 million felony convictions in all the United States (cite). Granted not all criminals get caught or convicted but also note of that million most will not be for stuff you'd use a gun to defend yourself (credit card fraud, embezzlement, drug possession, etc.). As for misdemeanors is pulling a gun appropriate to defend yourself from a kid stealing a can of soda from your store? So who are these two million people? Does that include law enforcement doing their job? Does that tell you anything about whether using a gun was appropriate? Does it tell you how many people got shot (justly or unjustly)? Does it include the cranky old coot waving his shotgun at some kids running across his property?
Derovius Vaden	Posted - 2007.08.11 03:41:00 - [97] Originally by: Imperator Jora'h Originally by: Judas Lonestar Also, firearms were used almost 2 million times last year or the year before to defend life and property. Are you telling me there was more then 2 million cases of injury due to a gun in the home? I doubt it. Please, EDUCATE yourself on the issue and dont just pass on the mindless drivel you hear from the Brady Bunch. Funny you accuse me of spouting drivel from the left wing when you toss out a perfect example of NRA dogma with that cite of two million instances where a gun was used in defense. Two million what exactly? In 2005 about 11.5 million violent and property crimes were reported (cite). Of that about 1.4 million were violent crimes and the bulk of that is larceny theft (which includes stuff like shop lifting and pick pockets but excludes things taken by force or violence or fraud). So you are saying law abiding gun owners thwarted about 17% of all crimes? Funny because in 1996 (latest I could find info on) there were just barely over 1 million felony convictions in all the United States (cite). Granted not all criminals get caught or convicted but also note of that million most will not be for stuff you'd use a gun to defend yourself (credit card fraud, embezzlement, drug possession, etc.). As for misdemeanors is pulling a gun appropriate to defend yourself from a kid stealing a can of soda from your store? So who are these two million people? Does that include law enforcement doing their job? Does that tell you anything about whether using a gun was appropriate? Does it tell you how many people got shot (justly or unjustly)? Does it include the cranky old coot waving his shotgun at some kids running across his property? spits Once ya catch one of them there varmits stealing a soda, ya'll give'm a face full of buckshot and hang dem der corpse outside the store on dem der fence. The others will know you mean business, I tell you what.
smashsmash	Posted - 2007.08.11 04:21:00 - [98] i imagine railguns would be similar to spud guns in being regulated. here in america-land the BATF doesn't consider them a firearm. i wrote them a letter a few years ago inquiring about it and they sent me the spud gun template letter. however, the city had a different opinion on the matter and considered them firearms. i had to give up the dream of building the ultimate potato launcher. Originally by: Tarminic Would a homemade railgun fall under traditional gun control laws?
Imperator Jora'h	Posted - 2007.08.11 04:21:00 - [99] Originally by: LVSOCOM First off, your knowledge of ballistics is extremely poor. Second your knowledge of firearms overall is almost as poor. Let me help you a bit... As a matter of fact, I have a concealed weapons permit and I DO carry a variety of different handguns (depending on weather, since some are harder to conceal in summer clothes then others). However, a .22 is NOT a good self defense weapon. It is better then NO gun, but not by much. My knowledge of guns is sufficient. I was raised with them and took classes in their use (pistols and rifles) when I was a teenager. I make no claims to being an expert but not clueless either. My point is WHY do you need a hand cannon? Sure a bigger gun will hurt the person getting shot more but in the case of self defense why? I guarantee you that you will have my attention every bit as much if you are pointing a .22 at me as you would pointing a .45 at me. I also guarantee getting shot by a .22 would pretty much stop me from continuing after you. If I still come shoot me again. Police and military have need of bigger guns to do their job effectively (as this video illustrates). I'd wager in most cases for self defense shooting someone with a .22 will dissuade them assuming the point is to prevent the crime from continuing as opposed to killing the dude.
LVSOCOM Vale Heavy Industries Molotov Coalition	Posted - 2007.08.11 04:53:00 - [100] Originally by: Imperator Jora'h Originally by: LVSOCOM First off, your knowledge of ballistics is extremely poor. Second your knowledge of firearms overall is almost as poor. Let me help you a bit... As a matter of fact, I have a concealed weapons permit and I DO carry a variety of different handguns (depending on weather, since some are harder to conceal in summer clothes then others). However, a .22 is NOT a good self defense weapon. It is better then NO gun, but not by much. My knowledge of guns is sufficient. I was raised with them and took classes in their use (pistols and rifles) when I was a teenager. I make no claims to being an expert but not clueless either. My point is WHY do you need a hand cannon? Sure a bigger gun will hurt the person getting shot more but in the case of self defense why? I guarantee you that you will have my attention every bit as much if you are pointing a .22 at me as you would pointing a .45 at me. I also guarantee getting shot by a .22 would pretty much stop me from continuing after you. If I still come shoot me again. Police and military have need of bigger guns to do their job effectively (as this video illustrates). I'd wager in most cases for self defense shooting someone with a .22 will dissuade them assuming the point is to prevent the crime from continuing as opposed to killing the dude. Right. You a sane, probably non-intoxicated, and rational person would back down when staring down the barrel of a gun (regardless of caliber). Do you think this translates to a loon, drug addict, or general scum of the earth criminal? Say that fails and you resort to why you had the knife, sword, bat, golf club, or firearm and you use deadly force to eliminate the threat. Why choose lesser weapon on the notion that a hand cannon is excessive, when all of them have the capability to kill or serverly maim? I think you see someone who chooses to carry a substantial caliber (anything over .22LR is apparently hand cannon to you?) to be cold hearted individual and looking to shoot someone given provocation. When in reality the majority of gun owners who bought guns for self defense have ZERO desire to ever fire their weapon in protection of a life. This goes double for people like me who enjoy shooting as a hobby.
Micheal Dietrich Cynical Cartel	Posted - 2007.08.11 05:13:00 - [101] Theres been good points from both sides of the topic so far. Lets remember to keep it civil ___________________________ Never Forget, Never Forgive
Belloc Slunv Amarr Slacker Industries Exuro Mortis	Posted - 2007.08.11 05:23:00 - [102] Originally by: Imperator Jora'h My point is WHY do you need a hand cannon? Sure a bigger gun will hurt the person getting shot more but in the case of self defense why? I guarantee you that you will have my attention every bit as much if you are pointing a .22 at me as you would pointing a .45 at me. I also guarantee getting shot by a .22 would pretty much stop me from continuing after you. If I still come shoot me again. As was stated, most firearm owners that own for self protection have no desire to ever fire upon a person. Killing people in the real world is not a good thing, it's quite sad in fact (Yes, that's my point of view and I'm in the military, ironic?) But as was also pointed out people that are strung out on drugs/alcohol tend to be more 'resistant' in a pain sense. A .22LR would require multiple rounds fired to bring someone down. I would also like to point out that a person coming at you from approximently 6 feet will still make it to you before they go down, reguardless of caliber honestly. That's inertia. a .22 caliber firearm would take them down slower and require multiple shots to take down said person.
Imperator Jora'h	Posted - 2007.08.11 05:51:00 - [103] Edited by: Imperator Jora''h on 11/08/2007 05:52:07 Edited by: Imperator Jora''h on 11/08/2007 05:51:31 Originally by: Belloc Slunv As was stated, most firearm owners that own for self protection have no desire to ever fire upon a person. Killing people in the real world is not a good thing, it's quite sad in fact (Yes, that's my point of view and I'm in the military, ironic?) But as was also pointed out people that are strung out on drugs/alcohol tend to be more 'resistant' in a pain sense. A .22LR would require multiple rounds fired to bring someone down. I would also like to point out that a person coming at you from approximently 6 feet will still make it to you before they go down, reguardless of caliber honestly. That's inertia. a .22 caliber firearm would take them down slower and require multiple shots to take down said person. Fine but where is the line drawn? As with most things in life you need to weigh many factors. We could build planes to be far safer than they are today. We could build buildings that would reliably withstand hurricanes and earthquakes. We do not generally do it this way because at some point the effort costs more than the payoff. In the end we accept some risk and if the worst happens we feel for the unlucky sod who got nailed. So too I think with firearms. Can we contemplate a drug crazed psychopath whose only goal is to murder you and your family? Sure. Even happens on occasion. But those occasions are relatively rare. Far more likely it will be some dude looking to nick your television and that guy is likely to be put off just fine by a less powerful weapon. So at what cost to society is it that we permit very powerful firearms to potentially protect you from some remote occurence? Also remember if you can have a powerful weapon your attacker may have one as well. Several posters go on about how a gun is just a tool. But they ignore why an AK-47 (as an example) is a reasonable tool. For home defense wouldn't a pistol be better? For hunting wouldn't a rifle/shotgun be better? Of course an AK-47 could do either job but it is not the best tool available for those jobs. Like having the wrong sized screwdriver. You might still get done whatever it is you want done but it is not the best choice for the job.
LVSOCOM Vale Heavy Industries Molotov Coalition	Posted - 2007.08.11 06:45:00 - [104] Edited by: LVSOCOM on 11/08/2007 06:51:58 Originally by: Imperator Jora'h Edited by: Imperator Jora''h on 11/08/2007 05:52:07 Edited by: Imperator Jora''h on 11/08/2007 05:51:31 Originally by: Belloc Slunv As was stated, most firearm owners that own for self protection have no desire to ever fire upon a person. Killing people in the real world is not a good thing, it's quite sad in fact (Yes, that's my point of view and I'm in the military, ironic?) But as was also pointed out people that are strung out on drugs/alcohol tend to be more 'resistant' in a pain sense. A .22LR would require multiple rounds fired to bring someone down. I would also like to point out that a person coming at you from approximently 6 feet will still make it to you before they go down, reguardless of caliber honestly. That's inertia. a .22 caliber firearm would take them down slower and require multiple shots to take down said person. Fine but where is the line drawn? As with most things in life you need to weigh many factors. We could build planes to be far safer than they are today. We could build buildings that would reliably withstand hurricanes and earthquakes. We do not generally do it this way because at some point the effort costs more than the payoff. In the end we accept some risk and if the worst happens we feel for the unlucky sod who got nailed. So too I think with firearms. Can we contemplate a drug crazed psychopath whose only goal is to murder you and your family? Sure. Even happens on occasion. But those occasions are relatively rare. Far more likely it will be some dude looking to nick your television and that guy is likely to be put off just fine by a less powerful weapon. So at what cost to society is it that we permit very powerful firearms to potentially protect you from some remote occurence? Also remember if you can have a powerful weapon your attacker may have one as well. Several posters go on about how a gun is just a tool. But they ignore why an AK-47 (as an example) is a reasonable tool. For home defense wouldn't a pistol be better? For hunting wouldn't a rifle/shotgun be better? Of course an AK-47 could do either job but it is not the best tool available for those jobs. Like having the wrong sized screwdriver. You might still get done whatever it is you want done but it is not the best choice for the job. If the person assaulting me has a pistol, I want a rifle. Plain and simple. The AK excels in this role. A famous firearms instructor and ex-cop who survived several gun fights has said, "a pistol is for fighting your way to your rifle." And yes, if the perp is within even 18ft before you have your weapon at a low ready, you stand a much lesser chance of even engaging the perp with your weapon before they close the distance. The wounds you may inflict also have a low probability of incapacitating the perp before they are able to set upon you. Them being within 6 feet means you weren't maintaining a big rule when it comes to surviving armed confrontation, which is make and control distance from the attacker as much as possible. At 6 feet an average attacker with a knife has a leg up on a skilled firearm user.
Imperator Jora'h	Posted - 2007.08.11 07:17:00 - [105] Originally by: LVSOCOM If the person assaulting me has a pistol, I want a rifle. Plain and simple. The AK excels in this role. A famous firearms instructor and ex-cop who survived several gun fights has said, "a pistol is for fighting your way to your rifle." And yes, if the perp is within even 18ft before you have your weapon at a low ready, you stand a much lesser chance of even engaging the perp with your weapon before they close the distance. The wounds you may inflict also have a low probability of incapacitating the perp before they are able to set upon you. Them being within 6 feet means you weren't maintaining a big rule when it comes to surviving armed confrontation, which is make and control distance from the attacker as much as possible. At 6 feet an average attacker with a knife has a leg up on a skilled firearm user. Hard for me to argue this as I have no experience in it but I have seen SEAL videos and when they are assaulting an indoor location they seem to opt for a sub machine gun (HK MP5 I think) or a pistol. They certainly are not using their M4A1 when they know they will be assaulting an indoor area. You see the same thing in videos of assaults on aircraft (get rid of hijackers). In the close confines of such an environment they opt for pistols or maybe submachineguns. One would suppose these guys know their stuff and choose their weapons accordingly. In a home I think you'd be lucky to get 20' on your opponent. Most homes do not have spaces much larger than that and that supposes you will come upon the intruder ideally with them at the opposite side of the room. Seems more likely you will engage the person at closer ranges and a longer weapon would seem to be a liability it such situations. Just asking the following as I do not know: I have been told that at closer ranges the higher velocity of a round from a rifle is not ideal in stopping people. The idea being is the bullet is likely to pass straight through the person. A shot from a pistol is more likely to stay in the body and bounce around a bit causing more damage. Morbid I know but true?
Orion Eridanus Dark Nova Crisis	Posted - 2007.08.11 08:18:00 - [106] For those questioning the need for people to own guns, more specifically automatics I say this.... How else do you expect me to hose down large amounts of zombies that are attempting to enter my house, should that day arrive? Unable to unanchor batteries? Dont dispair, it's not a bug its a feature
Fink Angel Caldari The Merry Men	Posted - 2007.08.11 10:01:00 - [107] Originally by: Ryan Scouse'UK in the UK were not aloud guns sadly!! :( only the bad people have guns .. whats up with that? In the UK, knives are readily available and knife related crime is far, far more prevalent than gun crime. If guns were relatively easy to obtain, I think the whole gun crime thing would step up a notch. On the whole I'm happier with the balance we've got.
Imperator Jora'h	Posted - 2007.08.11 11:52:00 - [108] Originally by: Orion Eridanus For those questioning the need for people to own guns, more specifically automatics I say this.... How else do you expect me to hose down large amounts of zombies that are attempting to enter my house, should that day arrive? Chainsaw Duh
Tarminic Black Flame Industries	Posted - 2007.08.11 15:40:00 - [109] Originally by: Orion Eridanus For those questioning the need for people to own guns, more specifically automatics I say this.... How else do you expect me to hose down large amounts of zombies that are attempting to enter my house, should that day arrive? You know damn well that any zombie plan based on ammunition will fail! ------------ Whiners - Unite! Tarminic - 25 Million SP in Forum Warfare.
Orion Eridanus Dark Nova Crisis	Posted - 2007.08.11 17:09:00 - [110] Originally by: Tarminic Originally by: Orion Eridanus For those questioning the need for people to own guns, more specifically automatics I say this.... How else do you expect me to hose down large amounts of zombies that are attempting to enter my house, should that day arrive? You know damn well that any zombie plan based on ammunition will fail! Of couse I know that, but I have enough to last me till I can get to my planned "fortress" Unable to unanchor batteries? Dont dispair, it's not a bug its a feature
LVSOCOM Vale Heavy Industries Molotov Coalition	Posted - 2007.08.11 17:10:00 - [111] Edited by: LVSOCOM on 11/08/2007 17:11:58 Novel incoming! Hmm subguns are a overall better choice for both defensive and offensive action indoors. However for room clearing/securing (someone breaks in and you choose to investigate), that is mostly due to 3 things; overall length of the weapon (makes it eiser to round corners with the weapon shouldered), rate of fire (full auto or 3rnd burst is a valuable tool for an entry carbine or subgun, but wouldn't be available as an option for someone like me), and availability of higher velocity loadings that a 9mm pistol could not safely fire (+P+ ammunition). However, on the defensive (say someone broke in and you barricaded yourself rather then confront them, which is a much safer move) a rifle (even semi auto) can do the job very well as you are not attempting to move around corners or confined spaces. You'd probably just be sitting and pointing it at the door. Rifles being "ineffective" indoors isn't really true. How effective it is depends on the rifle caliber and that particular loading really. The 5.56x45mm NATO our troops use is a great example. With M193 (also known as XM193) 55grn (used to be standard for our troops) 5.56 is designed to tumble then fragment in soft flesh. The fragmentation is caused by the drag incurred after the round makes a 90 degree yaw (the tumble). This only happens if the velocity if sufficient (IIRC: an AR like mine, with 14.5" barrel, is capable of this reliably upto about 300 yards). This round is still standard afaik for MOST issue weapons, while other "high speed units" (SEALs, rangers, Delta, etc) using short barreled or long range (special purpose rifles) M16 varients need a heavier bullet such as the 77grn SMK MK262. Other 5.56mm loads like M855 (steel core) are not. They are designed to simply use their heavier steel core to penetrate body armor or cover more effectively. I don't know how often this round gets used by our military and police. Civilians have better defensive ammunition options that offer less ability for over penetration (an issue with rifle rounds indoors). Check out this thread on a forum I frequent. AR15.com Defensive Ammunition comparison It has alot of pictures of ballistic gelatin tests that show what a wound tract from rifle and pistol rounsd look like. Some of the interesting ones are the 5.45x39 53grn M74 and 5.56mm 77grn MK262. The 5.45 round has a huge amount of yaw in the wound path, which is due to the design of the bullet. Basically, the russians went with a method used in lead tipped hunting ammunition, which is to use a tip that deforms eisily and leads to cuasing the round to yaw or tumble in soft flesh. However, the russians make the jacket (part that surrounds the lead) of the bullet very thick which inhibits fragmentation (they have the same issue with alot of their imported M193). Now check out the MK262. Notice the MASSIVE bulge then smaller wound tracts? This is from the round tumbling 90 degrees, then fracturing in several places into smaller pieces. Also, take a look at the bottom at the 7.62x51mm (thats basically .308) 175GRN SMK. SMK stands for Seirra Match King, a popular maker of rifle projectiles that are used in sports and combat use alike. That wound path is what a .308 "deer rifle" is capable of. Lastly, (you'll have to scroll back up :P) take a look at the pistol JHP results. Also look at the effect denim had on their expansion. Interesting stuff... I carry the Winchester RA9T and RA45T rounds shown in my pistols btw.
Micheal Dietrich Cynical Cartel	Posted - 2007.08.11 19:19:00 - [112] ^^^^^If someone should break into your house, should they expect to be tackled commando style by a guy in black swat? Who the hell barricades themselves in their room when someone breaks in? You dont need an assualt rifle to take out someone who is most likely holding onto your tv. If a gun must be used then a handgun should do fine because chances are the assailants are NOT wearing full body armor nor do you need to use 30 rounds to tear the living hell out of maybe a couple guys and the picture of your grandma that on the wall behind them. ___________________________ Never Forget, Never Forgive
LVSOCOM Vale Heavy Industries Molotov Coalition	Posted - 2007.08.11 22:13:00 - [113] Edited by: LVSOCOM on 11/08/2007 22:22:17 You're right, in all likely hood I would probably try to chase off dude trying to steal my stuff now. And I likely wouldn't use my rifle to do so, for the reasons I gave above... I own exactly 1 piece of black gear, a drop leg holster. Thats it and all I plan on owning unless I take up 3 gun shooting matches. And none of that will be black, it'll be OD or tan. Black gets awefully hot in a desert. But really, I'm getting caught up talking about bs with you... If you're willing to use deadly force, then use it. Don't p***y foot around with .22's, bats, swords, or whatever else you can find thinking they are a more civilized weapon. You're kidding yourself... BTW: The dramaticised picture of spraying "30 rounds" is hilariously indicative of your false sterotyping of their owners. We are not John Rambo. We are not Dirty Harry. We don't consider our house the O.K. Corral. We are typical people who choose not to view certain objects as 'scary' because they are capable of killing.
Imperator Jora'h	Posted - 2007.08.11 22:27:00 - [114] Originally by: LVSOCOM What rifles do pose is overpenetration (civil liability) risks The 5.56x45mm NATO our troops use is a great example. If using a rifle for home defense wouldn't frangible ammunition be a smart choice? I do not know a lot about it but from what little I have read the ballistic charateristics are favorable (i.e. you are not losing much in terms of range or accuracy...even read accuracy and range improve some) and you do not have the hazard of over penetration. And back to the topic at hand...if you believe a rifle to be a superior home defense weapon then why not outlaw handguns? Handguns are far and away the moste common type of firearm used in crimes. If a rifle is a better home defense weapon and certainly the choice for hunting then of what use are handguns? Police can keep them of course.
Imperator Jora'h	Posted - 2007.08.11 22:35:00 - [115] Originally by: LVSOCOM BTW: The dramaticised picture of spraying "30 rounds" is hilariously indicative of your false sterotyping of their owners. We are not John Rambo. We are not Dirty Harry. We don't consider our house the O.K. Corral. We are typical people who choose not to view certain objects as 'scary' because they are capable of killing. I've never been confused by that. Talking to my friends who have been in the military they very rarely go full auto with their weapons. They say it is fun to do but will empty a modern M16 in about 1-2 seconds and probably not to much good effect. They tell me three-round bursts are the preferred shooting mode.
LVSOCOM Vale Heavy Industries Molotov Coalition	Posted - 2007.08.11 23:02:00 - [116] Edited by: LVSOCOM on 11/08/2007 23:04:33 Originally by: Imperator Jora'h Originally by: LVSOCOM BTW: The dramaticised picture of spraying "30 rounds" is hilariously indicative of your false sterotyping of their owners. We are not John Rambo. We are not Dirty Harry. We don't consider our house the O.K. Corral. We are typical people who choose not to view certain objects as 'scary' because they are capable of killing. I've never been confused by that. Talking to my friends who have been in the military they very rarely go full auto with their weapons. They say it is fun to do but will empty a modern M16 in about 1-2 seconds and probably not to much good effect. They tell me three-round bursts are the preferred shooting mode. Sorry, should have stated that was directed Micheal Dietrich. The use of frangibles and birdshot in shotguns are two things that have become sort of a gunshop fallacy of valid self defense loads. Yes, they can be lethal. But they are not the best choices. Frangibles for instance, were intended for short range training use steel plates as a target. A typical round would penetrate or worse ricochet, where frangibles are designed to break apart on impact with steel and reduce risk of injury to the shooter. They do not reliably fragment in flesh and in lighter building materials are less likely to break apart as designed. I'll just copy from another source rather then rewrite what he said best: http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot3_2.htm Originally by: The Box O' Truth Birdshot as a Defense Load I have had a lot of questions, summed up as follows: How effective is birdshot (#4, #6, #8, etc.) as a defense load? We have done tests with various birdshot loads. Birdshot penetrated through two pieces of drywall (representing one wall) and was stopped in the paper on the front of the second wall. The problem with birdshot is that it does not penetrate enough to be effective as a defense round. Birdshot is designed to bring down little birds. A policeman told of seeing a guy shot at close range with a load of 12 gauge birdshot, and was not even knocked down. He was still walking around when the EMTs got there. It was an ugly, shallow wound, but did not STOP the guy. And that is what we want... to STOP the bad guy from whatever he is doing. To do this, you must have a load that will reach the vitals of the bad guy. Birdshot will not do this. Important parts bolded. From the sound of it, by the perp beign able to walk around afterwards mean it also failed to inflict enough pain to incapacitate the dude.
LVSOCOM Vale Heavy Industries Molotov Coalition	Posted - 2007.08.11 23:09:00 - [117] Originally by: Imperator Jora'h And back to the topic at hand...if you believe a rifle to be a superior home defense weapon then why not outlaw handguns? Handguns are far and away the moste common type of firearm used in crimes. If a rifle is a better home defense weapon and certainly the choice for hunting then of what use are handguns? Police can keep them of course. Heres where I stop following along with "banning it will solve the problem." I could reguritate the typical talking point that murder, robery, and a litany of other crimes are already illegal, but I'm going to opt for something else. What makes you secure-- a piece of paper on a buerocrats desk and a promise, or a piece of steel in your hand and the knowledge of how to use it?
smashsmash	Posted - 2007.08.11 23:37:00 - [118] i thought america was supposed to be number one and all that patriotic crap and lies. apparently we need guns to protect ourselves from a) criminals, b) the police/government and c) other gun owners. that sounds like a bad omen and a sign that things need to be improved. if the average stupid american needs to own guns to really protect themselves then the entire country's government is a mess. we might as well have standing armies of "law abiding citizens" standing around in starbucks, best buy and mc donalds. i know i'd feel a lot safer with those kooks guarding things.
LVSOCOM Vale Heavy Industries Molotov Coalition	Posted - 2007.08.11 23:57:00 - [119] Edited by: LVSOCOM on 12/08/2007 00:01:14 Originally by: smashsmash i thought america was supposed to be number one and all that patriotic crap and lies. apparently we need guns to protect ourselves from a) criminals, b) the police/government and c) other gun owners. that sounds like a bad omen and a sign that things need to be improved. if the average stupid american needs to own guns to really protect themselves then the entire country's government is a mess. we might as well have standing armies of "law abiding citizens" standing around in starbucks, best buy and mc donalds. i know i'd feel a lot safer with those kooks guarding things. First off, if you live here you apprently think the rest of us are idiots and have no intention of getting invovled in the issues you percieve-- so why don't you leave? Second, the police have no legal obligation to protect you. They are much like CONCORD, a reactive force of punishment AFTER a crime has been commited. Not much the government of any free country can do about that. Lastly, I've been carrying a firearm for the past 2 years every day. I've yet to need it hope I never do. But its there if I do. There are another couple thousand of them in Las Vegas alone that have managed it responsibly as well. In fact, having a concealed carry license generally means the person is a "law abiding" individual and has no intention of commiting a minor crime, much less a violent one. I'd wager CCW holders are involved, per capita, in less crimes per year then any other demographic. You need to take a hard look at this problem and realise you are projecting your own feelings of inability to responsibly own a firearm onto others.
Imperator Jora'h	Posted - 2007.08.12 00:06:00 - [120] Edited by: Imperator Jora''h on 12/08/2007 00:08:04 Originally by: LVSOCOM Heres where I stop following along with "banning it will solve the problem." I could reguritate the typical talking point that murder, robery, and a litany of other crimes are already illegal, but I'm going to opt for something else. What makes you secure-- a piece of paper on a buerocrats desk and a promise, or a piece of steel in your hand and the knowledge of how to use it? Yes murder, robbery and such are all illegal. But having a gun enables those crimes in a way nothing else does. Ever see someone try to hold up a bank with a baseball bat? I find the rhetoric that banning all guns would only see criminals with guns and law abiding citizens SOL weak at best. You do not see this as the case in countires like Great Britain or Japan. Yes some still manage to have guns but the citizens are not universally screwed. For argument's sake assume all private ownership of firearms is outlawed nationally tomorrow. It would take years for the huge number of weapons currently out there to dwindle but dwindle they would. Certainly some types like mafia sorts and professional hitmen would still likely get their hands on them but for your average shmuck on the street looking to rob the local 7-11 a gun would quickly go out of reach as an affordable and easily obtained tool. As your average Joe I doubt you have much truck with organized crime or have people looking to hire hitmen to track you down. Your concern is some bloke looking tonick your TV or some drug crazed loon banging down your door. If firearms were very difficult to obtain chances are these intruders would not have one to threaten you either. Besides, the best response to a home invader is to get the hell out if you can and call the police. Sure you might lose some property and the perp would get away but confronting them always carries risk. While you might be armed the other guy might be as well and forcing a confrontation carries risk to you. Your TV is not worth your life and frankly not worth shooting the robber and potentially killing him either. He may be a lowlife but I would be hard pressed to kill someone for running off with my television. As for the crazed psycho looking to just do you and your family well...those are thankfully exceptionally rare. Absolutely in such a circumstance I'd want all the firepower I could lay my hands on. But looking at the larger picture allowing private gun ownership to protect yourself from such a situation enables a raft of other crimes and shootings. How many people need to die every year so some very, very few can defend themselves from this most unlikely event? And why do gun advocates fight so vehemently from seemingly mundane gun control laws? In particular I remember the battle over mandator waiting times to buy a gun. Personally I think anyone who cannot wait a week to obtain a gun is EXACTLY the sort of person you WANT to wait a week to but a gun (or even not have one at all).

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.