Please gun supporters - explain to me once and for all why you need an automatic weapon

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hey gun experts ... care to enlighten us about the effective firing range of an AR15 in comparison to something like a Beretta? Then tell us some more about which is more appropriate for "home defense" or "self defense" against "bad guys."

"Effective firing range" is not the issue. Overpenetration is the issue. AR15 is better than pistol from this perspective.

http://www.gunsandammo.com/ammo/long-guns-short-yardage-is-223-the-best-home-defense-caliber/

The Overpenetration Question
Overpenetration has always been a concern when discussing the use of firearms in a dwelling, so the knee-jerk reaction has been to immediately eliminate a rifle as a suitable option. However, in the last several decades there have been exhaustive studies about what pistol and shotgun projectiles do when fired indoors, and those results are very interesting (and not in a good way).

Proponents of the pistol for home defense like to think that because it’s “just” a pistol round, overpenetration really won’t be an issue. Such is not the case. Drywall sheets and hollow-core doors (which are what you’ll find in the majority of homes and apartments in this country) offer almost no resistance to bullets. Unless brick or cinderblock was used somewhere in your construction, any pistol cartridge powerful enough to be thought of as suitable for self-defense is likely to fly completely through every wall in your abode. In fact, hollowpoint pistol bullets tend to plug up as they go through drywall, turning them—in effect—into round-nose bullets. Round buckshot pellets are just as bad, and shotgun slugs are worse.

These same concerns about overpenetration are what kept people away from considering the rifle for home defense. For years many people just assumed they knew what would happen to a rifle bullet fired indoors—it would go through every wall available and then exit the building. While armor-piercing and FMJ ammunition is specifically designed to do this, extensive testing has shown that light, extremely fast-moving .223 projectiles (including FMJs) often fragment when they hit a barrier as soft as thin plywood.

When talking about the effectiveness of rifle bullets on people, ballisticians and armchair commandos throw around a number of technical terms, such as “hydrostatic shock” and “temporary wound cavity.” The simple fact is that the more of its energy a bullet can dump into a target, the more effective it will be. Full metal jacketed ammunition has a tendency to zip right through, and while the resulting wound might cause the person to bleed to death, until they do there’s a good chance they’ll go on posing a threat. Projectiles designed either to stop in the body or cause a great deal of tissue upset work much better at immediately stopping the threat. That’s why police talk about the “stopping power” of a cartridge rather than its “killing power.”

When using rifle ammunition with projectiles designed specifically for personal defense, such as Winchester’s new .223 PDX1 loadings, fragmentation is assured. Bullets striking an intruder will separate into smaller, lighter pieces and—most likely—not overpenetrate and exit the body as errant shrapnel. All of the energy generated will then be transferred into the target. If the round fired is a miss and hits only wood or drywall, the projectile will break apart into smaller pieces—while these are still dangerous, their potential for injury, or penetration of additional walls, is much less than a pistol bullet or buckshot pellet. Many SWAT teams are using M4-type rifles, and overpenetration, when your teammate may be on the other side of the wall, is a major concern.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fix your shit, gun people.

In Florida, though, you don't need a license to buy or carry a rifle like the AR-15. There is a three-day waiting period to purchase a handgun like the Glock Mateen also had on him, but no waiting period at all to buy an AR-15.

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-ar15-gun-used-in-orlando-20160613#ixzz4BUIsTgzV

And...

Today, just over 24 hours since the Pulse attack, the NRA broke its silence by using the Twitter account of a magazine it owns to retweet from @NRABlog, “Need a gift for #FathersDay? How about a gift from the #NRA store?!”

It's pretty common to not need a license to buy or carry a long gun, and in most places you only need a permit to carry the handgun if you are going to conceal it. If you want to wear it on your belt or in a shoulder or thigh holster where it can be seen, you can without a permit.

Right, and those of us with COMMON SENSE want you to be required to be licensed only after you have completed a federally approved training and safety course just like a car, and to be required to MAINTAIN your license through periodic testing just like a car, and to have any violations or offenses count against your lisence just like a car, and to be required to REGISTER your firearms just like you register your car and to re-register periodically just like your car, and to PROVE that you have proper safety equipment in place (i.e. a gun safe). If you are so law-abiding I see no reason why you can't do this. No one is coming for your GD guns, just like no one is coming for your car. But just like with a car, you should be held LEGALLY accountable for maintaining it and operating it safely, and if you can't, then yes you should lose the privilege. We don't want reckless crazy people on our streets putting our lives in danger. We shouldn't accept reckless crazy people on our streets with guns without any way to check them either. A one-time background check at the time of purchase is bullshit. A patchwork of state laws is bullshit. I want FEDERAL LAWS that apply to everyone so that, no matter where you go in this country, you know everyone is playing by the same rules.

Reasonable proposals, but judging by this thread, quite a few people ARE coming for your guns.

Oh, please. Everyone KNOWS that that will never happen. Republicans repeat this lie because it riles people up. It's irresponsible and borderline criminal to play politics that way while people die. Who cares if a bunch of anonymous internet strangers say they support taking your guns when you know damned well that it will never happen? I mean, logistically, how at this point could the authorities possibly round up every gun in America? It would be the shootout at the OK Corral on every street corner in America. This is as stupid an assertion as deporting 11 million people or banning Muslims from the country. Can't we all grow up, be reasonable, analyze our problems and apply common sense to solving them? Be a part of the solution. Stop the nonsense. Stop the ideological pandering. And I say this to EVERYONE, regardless of political persuasion. We've all lost our goddamned minds.

10:05 here. I agree, but believe that we need to identify and neutralize the extreme rhetoric, regardless of whether it emanates from the right or left and regardless of whether the issue is immigration or gun control.

The people railing against gun owners here are no better than Trump supporters railing against immigrants or Muslims. They make the respective problems more difficult to solve.

PP here. Enough blame to go around. The other side lies blindly on a regular basis to stoke fear and routinely blocks common sense reform. So I'm sorry, but you fail my reasonableness sniff test with that response.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gun supporters - - Why do you need to buy semi-automatics? Why????

Because very few guns are not semi automatics.

Why can't you use one of the few guns that's not semi-automatic?

Why can't gun manufacturers create something safer? Why can't they agree to install fingerprint ID devices?

They did create "safer" options. Nobody wanted them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you support guns, would you feel differently if it was your child gunned down? Would you still feel it was your right?
Or would you do more victim blaming and say "This wouldn't have happened if someone else in the club had a gun and defended themselves"? (Like I've been hearing people say)

For shame.

Emotional appeals like this are exactly why I'm glad the 2nd Amendment (among others) are in the Bill of Rights.

Our fundamental rights don't depend on "feelings".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm not a gun owner, and I'm not a strong 2nd Amendment supporter.

However, I am a strong 5th Amendment supporter (God, I hope I chose the right one ). I'm not the least bit comfortable with the way some of you are talking about denying the Constitutional civil rights of individuals without due process just because they happen to have been "flagged" by the FBI?

I would think that Hillary Clinton, especially given her current legal difficulties, would be particularly sensitive to people drawing definitive conclusions about those who are under some sort of FBI investigation.

The flag does not have to be an absolute ban. If you are flagged, you should be entitled to a due process hearing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not a gun owner, and I'm not a strong 2nd Amendment supporter.

However, I am a strong 5th Amendment supporter (God, I hope I chose the right one ). I'm not the least bit comfortable with the way some of you are talking about denying the Constitutional civil rights of individuals without due process just because they happen to have been "flagged" by the FBI?

I would think that Hillary Clinton, especially given her current legal difficulties, would be particularly sensitive to people drawing definitive conclusions about those who are under some sort of FBI investigation.

The flag does not have to be an absolute ban. If you are flagged, you should be entitled to a due process hearing.

What other rights should be curtailed while "flagged"? Freedom of privacy? Unlawful searches? Self-incrimination?

Why stop at the 2nd Amendment?

Either arrest them or let them go. This "flagged" business is a very slippery slope.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not a gun owner, and I'm not a strong 2nd Amendment supporter.

However, I am a strong 5th Amendment supporter (God, I hope I chose the right one ). I'm not the least bit comfortable with the way some of you are talking about denying the Constitutional civil rights of individuals without due process just because they happen to have been "flagged" by the FBI?

I would think that Hillary Clinton, especially given her current legal difficulties, would be particularly sensitive to people drawing definitive conclusions about those who are under some sort of FBI investigation.

The flag does not have to be an absolute ban. If you are flagged, you should be entitled to a due process hearing.

What other rights should be curtailed while "flagged"? Freedom of privacy? Unlawful searches? Self-incrimination?

Why stop at the 2nd Amendment?

Either arrest them or let them go. This "flagged" business is a very slippery slope.

I don't believe in slippery slope arguments. We always draw the line somewhere. "Freedom of privacy?" That's not even in the Constitution, it's something that liberal judges made anyway. "Unlawful searches." Sure, just go tell a secret judge you think someone's a terrorist and you've got the right to wiretap him forever. Tell him that he also sells drugs and you can beat his door down. Got the wrong house? NO problem, it was all under legal warrant.

I am drawing the line here -- if the FBI believes you may be a danger, you don't have a right to a gun until you have a due process hearing. That's the only right I think deserves that kind of treatment because your gun might kill me but your words will never hurt me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you support guns, would you feel differently if it was your child gunned down? Would you still feel it was your right?
Or would you do more victim blaming and say "This wouldn't have happened if someone else in the club had a gun and defended themselves"? (Like I've been hearing people say)

For shame.

But there WAS somebody else there with a gun, right? The off duty officer/security guard? Of course he probably did not have an assault rifle.....so I expect there will be arguments that everyone should carry assault rifles now to stop the loonies that have one.

I really don't get what assault rifles are used for besides killing a lot of people. You can hunt, go to the shooting range, and defend yourself with many other options. Weren't machine guns leagal until the 1980s or so? Do gun rights folks think those need to be brought back too, just because it's their "right?"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you support guns, would you feel differently if it was your child gunned down? Would you still feel it was your right?
Or would you do more victim blaming and say "This wouldn't have happened if someone else in the club had a gun and defended themselves"? (Like I've been hearing people say)

For shame.

But there WAS somebody else there with a gun, right? The off duty officer/security guard? Of course he probably did not have an assault rifle.....so I expect there will be arguments that everyone should carry assault rifles now to stop the loonies that have one.

I really don't get what assault rifles are used for besides killing a lot of people. You can hunt, go to the shooting range, and defend yourself with many other options. Weren't machine guns leagal until the 1980s or so? Do gun rights folks think those need to be brought back too, just because it's their "right?"

Did you read the thread? Machine guns are ILLEGAL! Assault rifles by definition have rapid auto fire and they are ILLEGAL! Did you do an research on your own? The Orlando killer used a Sig MCX (not a machine gun!) and a Glock 9mm ( again, not a machine gun). The major of the bullets fired were from the Glock btw.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you support guns, would you feel differently if it was your child gunned down? Would you still feel it was your right?
Or would you do more victim blaming and say "This wouldn't have happened if someone else in the club had a gun and defended themselves"? (Like I've been hearing people say)

For shame.

Emotional appeals like this are exactly why I'm glad the 2nd Amendment (among others) are in the Bill of Rights.

Our fundamental rights don't depend on "feelings".

2nd Amendment has nothing to do with private gun ownership. It's about state militias. With the inevitable shift in the Supreme Court majority, an originalist interpretation curtailing private gun rights is going to be the next major shift. It's going to happen, just a question of when.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you support guns, would you feel differently if it was your child gunned down? Would you still feel it was your right?
Or would you do more victim blaming and say "This wouldn't have happened if someone else in the club had a gun and defended themselves"? (Like I've been hearing people say)

For shame.

But there WAS somebody else there with a gun, right? The off duty officer/security guard? Of course he probably did not have an assault rifle.....so I expect there will be arguments that everyone should carry assault rifles now to stop the loonies that have one.

I really don't get what assault rifles are used for besides killing a lot of people. You can hunt, go to the shooting range, and defend yourself with many other options. Weren't machine guns leagal until the 1980s or so? Do gun rights folks think those need to be brought back too, just because it's their "right?"

Did you read the thread? Machine guns are ILLEGAL! Assault rifles by definition have rapid auto fire and they are ILLEGAL! Did you do an research on your own? The Orlando killer used a Sig MCX (not a machine gun!) and a Glock 9mm ( again, not a machine gun). The major of the bullets fired were from the Glock btw.

NP but I think the point was that machine guns were made illegal because of the incredible danger and ability to kill so many people so quickly. I don't hear of gun enthusiasts wanting to reverse that ban (but who knows maybe they do?). The semi-automatic weapon the Orlando shooter used also had the ability to kill a lot of people quickly. At what point do we draw the line and say these types of weapons should be in the hand of the military and law enforcement only? What else do gun enthusiasts use these weapons for?