If Obama Took 'Executive Action' On Guns, What Might He Do?

Originally Posted by badfast

First, you are right. I don't like you (at least the way you present yourself online).

But, allow me to provide a quick explanation on the other side. Not understanding the other side makes these arguments pointless. The anti-gun group has the advantage to argue from emotion of sympathy. Whereas gun owners as also arguing from emotion, but it comes off as more angry.

Let me explain to you the argument in pictures:

This a .40 next to a 7.62x39. You can see the difference. There is also velocity differences, etc. etc. Granted no one would want to be hit by either.

Now you see the difference in magazine capacity. The Kahr magazine holds only 6 rounds. The AK magazine holds 30. 3 Kahr magazines (1 in the gun, 2 backups). That is a total of 18 rounds (19 if I keep one in the chamber, but I don't). It would take 5 Kahr magazines for the same capacity of 1 AK magazine.

Now you can see 6 AK magazines next to each other totaling 180 rounds. For the Kahr to carry that amount would require 30 magazines.


Here are the 2 guns that I used. Now at a close range they are both equally effective, but at increasing distances the handgun starts to lose out. Are you the handgun is just as effective as the rifle at a range of 30m? 100m?

Once you begin to understand that you will really begin to understand the other side. The reality is it is all emotional. Either one of those guns and bullets give the capacity to kill. This isn't a statistics based issue at the moment because as you can see there are stats to support both sides.

Learn to understand the other side first, then you can better support your own side.

Then why didn't you come across like a rational individual first instead of posting two word sentences without any context whatsoever.

Now, 1st, I can show you a 30 round glock magazine, but I know you know what those are. Next, you are right, you need to understand the other side, which is something the anti gun groups refuse to do, and I personally, attempt to do, although their point is completely lost.

Next, the issue of reloading. I can reload my Glock in about 2-5 seconds, assuming there are no snags or anything. Are reload times really something that matter when everyone else is unarmed? Hell, if I was shooting up a theater, I could light a cigarette and no one would do a damn thing about it. If you are shooting a glock in a school, is that two seconds that it takes you to reload going to be that big of an issue? It seems to me you are making the reload a FAR bigger issue than it actually is. Now, as for range...these are not assassinations. There are random mass killings. A theater is what...10-20 meters long? These guys arent tactically taking out enemies, they are just randomly firing, and yes, at 10-20 meters, I would be just as accurate with my glock as you would be with an AK (more accurate, since the AK sucks, but we digress)......

The point is, there is no point. You (politicians and liberals) want to BAN guns (whatever guns they want to ban.) That means "YOU" need to provide a coherent reason as to why a ban is necessary. Most crimes and murders are committed with handguns. If anything, we should ban handguns, since they can be concealed, are more lethal in daily use, and are far more prominent, while letting people buy ARs.

Originally Posted by peytonracer4

Because you can't bust in a door, hit someone 2 feet in front of you, hit someone 300 yards away and put a 60 round magazine in a pistol. Also the guns they use are fully automatic which are MUCH more lethal than the semi auto ar15 we can guy here. They're not even the same gun.
Try again.

Can you not can hit someone at 2 ft in front of you and from 300 yards with a semi auto AR? Do you guys consistently miss all the points?

Originally Posted by badfast

If handguns are more lethal why are not the chosen weapon in war? Why do they serve as a backup?

Because of range and accuracy. In a wartime situation, you don't want to be in a close combat situation, so you are far better off taking out the threat from a decent distance. Furthermore, like mentioned earlier, their weapons are fully automatic, which makes a BIG difference. Your body physically has less response and agility with a rifle rather than a handgun.

Originally Posted by badfast

Can you not can hit someone at 2 ft in front of you and from 300 yards with a semi auto AR? Do you guys consistently miss all the points?

In a close combat situation, it would be MUCH harder for you, as it would be FAR easier for a baddie to control your AR. You are giving someone almost 2 feet of grab material getting close to them with an AR.

Originally Posted by NFRs2000nyc

The point is simple. A 9mm or a 45 is more lethal than a 223. A 223 is a smaller round, and it is a sharper round with more penetrating power. It will go through a person where a 9mm or a 45 will get lodged, causing infection, sepsis, and a heap of other lethal issues. If anyone knew what they were talking about (legislators and politicians) they would understand that an AR is LESS lethal than a handgun.

You clearly do not know what you're talking about. The difference in muzzle velocity is night and day.

Small, light rounds have a higher velocity, resulting in much more devastating effects. They have great penetrating ability, almost always slicing through body armor. They retain their velocity for longer due to the decreased air-resistance. They are accurate and precise. Small caliber rounds produce minimal recoil and cycle much faster. They are lightweight to carry, not just the round, but the casing as well, overall weighing nearly half the weight of a 7.62 set-up. Light-weight High-velocity rounds also tumble, ricochet, and splinter inside the body, turning organs into yesterday’s lunch. The high-velocity impact of these rounds also cause massive wounding due to hydrostatic shock, the trembling shock-force wave that travels through the body.

tactical armchair ranger advice is pointless.

Originally Posted by casino is no lie

You clearly do not know what you're talking about. The difference in muzzle velocity is night and day.

Small, light rounds have a higher velocity, resulting in much more devastating effects. They have great penetrating ability, almost always slicing through body armor. They retain their velocity for longer due to the decreased air-resistance. They are accurate and precise. Small caliber rounds produce minimal recoil and cycle much faster. They are lightweight to carry, not just the round, but the casing as well, overall weighing nearly half the weight of a 7.62 set-up. Light-weight High-velocity rounds also tumble, ricochet, and splinter inside the body, turning organs into yesterday’s lunch. The high-velocity impact of these rounds also cause massive wounding due to hydrostatic shock, the trembling shock-force wave that travels through the body.

Excluding vital organs (in which case you'd be dead from any round) you would have a better chance surviving a 223 wound than a 44, 45, etc.

Originally Posted by badfast

Can you not can hit someone at 2 ft in front of you and from 300 yards with a semi auto AR? Do you guys consistently miss all the points?

That's not the point. Those cases don't happen in your "mainstream killing spree"
Show me one case, where the semi auto ar15 was a better gun for the job than a high capacity 9mm or 45 would have been? It's not. A handgun would be just as lethal as any rifle and would be truly better suited in a domestic urban environment because, like I said, it is much easier to conceal.
In war time, yes a high capacity rifle would be the better tool. But it is not more lethal than a pistol inside of a school. Or a mall. Or a house.
Why don't you understand the different uses for different guns? You seem so confused.

Odds are, if he does something, he will do this :

Bans the sale, transfer, importation, or manufacturing of:
120 specifically-named firearms
Certain other semiautomatic rifles, handguns, shotguns that can accept a detachable magazine and have one military characteristic
Semiautomatic rifles and handguns with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds

Strengthens the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban and various state bans by:Moving from a 2-characteristic test to a 1-characteristic test
Eliminating the easy-to-remove bayonet mounts and flash suppressors from
the characteristics test
Banning firearms with "thumbhole stocks" and "bullet buttons" to address
attempts to "work around" prior bans
Bans large-capacity ammunition feeding devices capable of accepting more than 10 rounds.

Link : http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/publ...2-ac8ca4359119

^^^Any backup that shows why he would adopt that over something else? I think it'll be more moderate than Feinsteins garbage.

Originally Posted by peytonracer4

That's not the point. Those cases don't happen in your "mainstream killing spree"
Show me one case, where the semi auto ar15 was a better gun for the job than a high capacity 9mm or 45 would have been? It's not. A handgun would be just as lethal as any rifle and would be truly better suited in a domestic urban environment because, like I said, it is much easier to conceal.
In war time, yes a high capacity rifle would be the better tool. But it is not more lethal than a pistol inside of a school. Or a mall. Or a house.
Why don't you understand the different uses for different guns? You seem so confused.

The sad part is, judging by the pics he posted, he seems to be pretty well versed in firearms, which leads me to believe he is just pushing the same agenda the politicians are, regardless of how little sense they make.

Originally Posted by NFRs2000nyc

Excluding vital organs (in which case you'd be dead from any round) you would have a better chance surviving a 223 wound than a 44, 45, etc.

You've clearly demonstrated that you are not educated on the subject. The hydrostatic shock caused from a carbine rifle round will do significantly more damage to areas of the body that don't house vital organs. What do you think is going to happen to all the surrounding arteries, veins and capillaries when you're shot in the leg. You have a greater chance of bleeding out in those situations from a 5.56 than you do a .45 from a Glock.

Furthermore you can survive a hit to a vital organ. Lungs are an example. And while a .45 round from a Glock will punch a hole in your lung, a 5.56 from an AR-15 will tumble, ricochet and splinter inside of the lung turning it into swiss cheese.




Please stop before you continue to embarrass informed gun owners. You're not our spokesperson.

Oh, and badfast, correct me if I am wrong, but I was under the impression it is rather simple to convert a regular semi auto AR into a belt fed one...how will a 10 round mag limit stop that?

Originally Posted by casino is no lie

You've clearly demonstrated that you are not educated on the subject. The hydrostatic shock caused from a carbine rifle round will do significantly more damage to areas of the body that don't house vital organs. What do you think is going to happen to all the surrounding arteries, veins and capillaries when you're shot in the leg. You have a greater chance of bleeding out in those situations from a 5.56 than you do a .45 from a Glock.

Furthermore you can survive a hit to a vital organ. Lungs are an example. And while a .45 round from a Glock will punch a hole in your lung, a 5.56 from an AR-15 will tumble, ricochet and splinter inside of the lung turning it into swiss cheese.




Please stop before you continue to embarrass informed gun owners. You're not our spokesperson.

I never claimed to be a spokesperson. As for the ricochet, that would depend on how much velocity the round has already lost, and in close quarter combat, it will lose minimal velocity, thus, most likely passing through you. Also, not all 223 rounds fragment.

Originally Posted by NFRs2000nyc

I never claimed to be a spokesperson. As for the ricochet, that would depend on how much velocity the round has already lost, and in close quarter combat, it will lose minimal velocity, thus, most likely passing through you. Also, not all 223 rounds fragment.

The muzzle velocity of a round from a Glock 38 (.45) is ~250% slower than a round from an AR15 (.223). Additionally, the rate of deceleration from the Glock is significantly greater due to caliber of the round.

And as I clearly stated before, the high-velocity impact of these rounds also causes massive wounding due to hydrostatic shock, the trembling shock-force wave that travels through the body.

You clearly do not comprehend the physics. You're only digging the hole deeper.

Originally Posted by 2000_328CI

Why the need for posting pictures?

because I thought it was funny?

Originally Posted by 2000_328CI

And what on earth does my appearance have to do with me deciding I want to purchase a firearm. This is exactly what those in favor of gun control have been shaking their heads at the entire debate. Rather than logic or facts you just twist the argument into a personal grudge match.... oh chase doesn't need a firearm because he's tall and has long blonde hair???

No, you didn't strike me as the type, and frankly I couldn't equate this:



with this:





At the end of the day, while I don't see eye to eye with you and don't agree with your politics, I have no personal grudge against you. So I was just giving you a hard time and messing with you a bit.

----------

Originally Posted by NFRs2000nyc

Excellent. You seem to have a decent grasp on the subject, far better than most anti gun liberals. Great.

.

Good, at least now you know that I may not know everything, but I do know what I'm talking about at times.

Contrary to what you may think, I'm actually not very anti-gun. My thoughts are that if someone really wants to harm someone, they will find a way whether it be a gun, knife, or some other means. That said, as I mentioned previously, I think it is the degree of efficiency in inflicting harm, but there are several factors that play in what defines efficiency, whether it be characteristics of a gun vs AR, a person's weapons proficiency, munitions, etc. I do think there needs to be some form of gun regulation in order to keep them out of people with intention to do harm. However, how that is implemented and who gets decide who gets them and who doesn't is the million dollar question. No sense arguing it since it's all redundant arguments and you all have expressed your thoughts ad nauseum on e46 OT.

Originally Posted by NFRs2000nyc

If anyone knew what they were talking about (legislators and politicians) they would understand that an AR is LESS lethal than a handgun. A AR is also harder to use on the move. A telescoping stock and a pistol grip does nothing for a weapon's lethality, and neither does a barrel shroud.

Maybe in a general sense, however one could state that lethality can be also tied to a person's weapons handling proficiency. Same goes for your comment on an AR is harder on the move. I think it depends. While I agree with you, in a general principle, I had no issues with handling my standard issue M4 while in the service - on top of all the protective gear I was required to wear. It's like you just mentioned that an AR is awkward to use if you're not trained.

Originally Posted by NFRs2000nyc

An AR is far harder to conceal.

agree

Originally Posted by NFRs2000nyc

In a close combat situation, it would be MUCH harder for you, as it would be FAR easier for a baddie to control your AR. You are giving someone almost 2 feet of grab material getting close to them with an AR.

In a general principle, yes. However, I for one, would much rather prefer an M4 to a handgun in CQB, especially going into and clearing a house. Like I mentioned earlier, there is the factor of a person's training that goes into play (for example not allowing your barrel to protrude past a corner as to not give away your position). As far as grabbing an AR from an opponent, there is that issue too, however it can be mitigated if you know how to counter a barrel grab.

Originally Posted by mdyaman

No, you didn't strike me as the type, and frankly I couldn't equate this:



with this:





At the end of the day, while I don't see eye to eye with you and don't agree with your politics, I have no personal grudge against you. So I was just giving you a hard time and messing with you a bit.

----------



Good, at least now you know that I may not know everything, but I do know what I'm talking about at times.

Contrary to what you may think, I'm actually not very anti-gun. My thoughts are that if someone really wants to harm someone, they will find a way whether it be a gun, knife, or some other means. That said, as I mentioned previously, I think it is the degree of efficiency in inflicting harm, but there are several factors that play in what defines efficiency, whether it be characteristics of a gun vs AR, a person's weapons proficiency, munitions, etc. I do think there needs to be some form of gun regulation in order to keep them out of people with intention to do harm. However, how that is implemented and who gets decide who gets them and who doesn't is the million dollar question. No sense arguing it since it's all redundant arguments and you all have expressed your thoughts ad nauseum on e46 OT.



Maybe in a general sense, however one could state that lethality can be also tied to a person's weapons handling proficiency. Same goes for your comment on an AR is harder on the move. I think it depends. While I agree with you, in a general principle, I had no issues with handling my standard issue M4 while in the service - on top of all the protective gear I was required to wear. It's like you just mentioned that an AR is awkward to use if you're not trained.



agree



In a general principle, yes. However, I for one, would much rather prefer an M4 to a handgun in CQB, especially going into and clearing a house. Like I mentioned earlier, there is the factor of a person's training that goes into play (for example not allowing your barrel to protrude past a corner as to not give away your position). As far as grabbing an AR from an opponent, there is that issue too, however it can be mitigated if you know how to counter a barrel grab.

You are also not the average baddie (not a baddie at all, just for the sake of my point.) You are trained, and trained by a military no less. You are not some punk a$$ freshman that stole his mommies big bad AR to shoot up a school. I guess think of it as something like a Camparo T1 Vs a GTR....sure the Camparo is A LOT faster around a track...IF you have the skills of an F1 driver, but to a noob, the GTR would be a lot faster.

That was my only point, since most gun violence is committed with handguns, and you and I seem to agree that for an untrained person, an AR is far more cumbersome to use than a few handguns, banning rifles is pointless. Hell, walk into a school with 4 glocks hidden on you with 30 round mags in each, and you will have much more lethality than trying to sneak your way into a school with an AR.

Originally Posted by NFRs2000nyc

You are also not the average baddie (not a baddie at all, just for the sake of my point.) You are trained, and trained by a military no less. You are not some punk a$$ freshman that stole his mommies big bad AR to shoot up a school. I guess think of it as something like a Camparo T1 Vs a GTR....sure the Camparo is A LOT faster around a track...IF you have the skills of an F1 driver, but to a noob, the GTR would be a lot faster.

That was my only point, since most gun violence is committed with handguns, and you and I seem to agree that for an untrained person, an AR is far more cumbersome to use than a few handguns, banning rifles is pointless. Hell, walk into a school with 4 glocks hidden on you with 30 round mags in each, and you will have much more lethality than trying to sneak your way into a school with an AR.

I think this is a way more complex issue than "ban this" or "ban that". I'm in no way a gun expert, or gun law, but having been former military, I do know a thing or two. My views are more moderate, but I do know will power, that is having the will to inflict harm, is also a very important factor. Weapons (guns, knives, etc) provide the means to inflict harm. That said, it's how you balance identifying those that have the will and intent to inflict harm, and managing the means to do so (for those identified people) by restricting access to weapons as a measure to mitigate the degree of efficiency of lethality. Just my opinion.

So easy to tell who googles some gun stuff and reposts it trying to sound experienced. Lol


Let me ask a simple question. Take the emotion, hyperbole, politics and media misinformation out of it. Pure facts:

How many people are killed each year from

1. Semi-Automatic Rifles
2. Fully-Automatic Rifles
3. Fists and Feet

Get back to me

Originally Posted by JonJon

So easy to tell who googles some gun stuff and reposts it trying to sound experienced. Lol


Let me ask a simple question. Take the emotion, hyperbole, politics and media misinformation out of it. Pure facts:

How many people are killed each year from

1. Semi-Automatic Rifles
2. Fully-Automatic Rifles
3. Fists and Feet

Get back to me

Case in point.... you. Everything you says is a regurgitation from something you read online. Get off your pedestal.