Some powerful shit

Rum, beer, women, movies, nice websites, gaming, etc., without interrupting the flow of martial threads.

Re: Some powerful shit

Postby BruceP on Mon Mar 05, 2018 9:53 am

Ian C. Kuzushi wrote:
Sure, I was contrasting hunting tools against weapons of self-defense and war. It wasn't that long ago that the vast majority of guns were not designed to kill people, but were hunting tools. Shotguns, 30-06, etc...This was the norm when I was growing up.


At the risk of picking nits, the 30-06 Springfield was originally developed by the US military as a replacement for the 30-40 Krag, 6mm Lee Navy and 30-30 cartridges in order to stay abreast of the cartridges which were being developed by European militaries.
BruceP
Great Old One
 
Posts: 1571
Joined: Sat May 31, 2008 3:40 pm

Re: Some powerful shit

Postby Steve James on Mon Mar 05, 2018 10:00 am

You implied that the issue wasn't the cartridge, but the damage, when you wrote this; ;

Steve James wrote:
...but my point was about the damage. The issue was not the caliber. And, I think you know that

and earlier, that the platform was the reason for the extra damage.


I recall you pointed out that the AR-15 used a .22 (or .223) size cartridge. Ok, it's the same size cartridge, but you pointed out that it wasn't as effective at killing as the 22lr. So, what's your conclusion about the difference? Is it wrong that one is more damaging than another? Is that a myth?
"A man is rich when he has time and freewill. How he chooses to invest both will determine the return on his investment."
User avatar
Steve James
Great Old One
 
Posts: 16916
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 8:20 am

Re: Some powerful shit

Postby Steve James on Mon Mar 05, 2018 10:25 am

"A man is rich when he has time and freewill. How he chooses to invest both will determine the return on his investment."
User avatar
Steve James
Great Old One
 
Posts: 16916
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 8:20 am

Re: Some powerful shit

Postby Michael on Mon Mar 05, 2018 10:26 am

Because I'm really not much of a gun aficionado I'm speculating a little bit when I say this, but I'm sure there are a fairly small amount of rifles truly developed, and primarily meant for hunting animals that are not simultaneously just as effective for use against people, or don't have a military history like the 30-06. Perhaps elephant guns are an example?

Anyway, I do see that military weapons have developed over time, so that those from 100 years ago look different than those in use since WW2, but they are really not separated by much. The fact that people used to more often have hunting guns that resembled military rifles from pre-WW2 does not make the newer style of weapons into a more lethal category except that people's gun choices have increased based on an accumulation of technology over time, whereas most other new technology replaces the older. Wish I could buy a bew '57 Chevy, but I can't.

Mass shootings are a social problem (social phenomenon) that is occurring at a time when this large time-variety of guns are available, but the choices of some mass shooters for the newer rifles simply reflects the time in which the problem is occurring, a time where these is a contrast or variety of newer and older weapons. To understand what I'm saying, consider mass killings by vehicle, acknowledging of course that automobiles are not meant for killing and are not directly comparable to guns; I'm just using the comparison in terms of technology over time in relation to an emergent social phenomenon.

If there was such a huge variety of vintages of automobile readily available in society as thee are guns, the newest ones would have some obvious advantages, especially in terms of engine power and reliability, which would possibly make them the best choice for mass killers. If there were gradually more and more mass killers by vehicle and they chose the newest trucks for murder, only those with very reliable electronic fuel injection, would people think that the obvious choice to deal with the problem would be to outlaw fuel injection and make everyone go back to carburetor gasoline engines? Possible even ban diesel engines since those are all fuel injection based?

I hope my comparison is apt because I just can't see focusing much attention on AR-15s, especially when so many mass shootings have been carried out with handguns. The first mentally deranged mass shooter back in 1969 at the Univ. of Texas had nothing like an AR.
Last edited by Michael on Mon Mar 05, 2018 10:29 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Michael
Great Old One
 
Posts: 11880
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 7:05 pm
Location: Guangzhou, China

Re: Some powerful shit

Postby BruceP on Mon Mar 05, 2018 10:26 am

Steve James wrote:
I recall you pointed out that the AR-15 used a .22 (or .223) size cartridge. Ok, it's the same size cartridge, but you pointed out that it wasn't as effective at killing as the 22lr. So, what's your conclusion about the difference? Is it wrong that one is more damaging than another? Is that a myth?


Holy comprehension!

A cartridge is the composition of case, powder, primer and bullet. A caliber is the diameter of the bullet used in a particular cartridge. .224"/5.7mm is the diameter/caliber of bullet used in the 5.56x45 NATO round, and its sporting equivalent cartridge is the .223 Remington. They both use a .224 caliber bullet of varying weights.

Nowhere did I even come close to making that assertion regards the lethality of 22lr over 5.56/.223. LOL

The caliber (not cartridge) of bullet in the 5/56/.223 cartridge (not caliber) is .224" or thereabouts. .22lr just happens to have the same diameter (within .001") bullet, but that's where similarities end.
Last edited by BruceP on Mon Mar 05, 2018 10:34 am, edited 1 time in total.
BruceP
Great Old One
 
Posts: 1571
Joined: Sat May 31, 2008 3:40 pm

Re: Some powerful shit

Postby Michael on Mon Mar 05, 2018 10:40 am



One of the things the Florida Congressman said was that AR-15s should not be allowed because their effective range is easily 50 - 150 meters, whereas the 9mm handgun he concealed carries is 20-30 meters. Do I need to explain why this is a serious failure of intelligence? It means any weapon with a range greater than 30 meters should be banned.

He also suggested that an AR-15 should be banned because it is an automatic like the M-4 he had in the military.

This guy is speaking without thinking much and I'm getting tired of this "thank you for your service" dick sucking line, especially from an interviewer who asked no counter-point questions.
User avatar
Michael
Great Old One
 
Posts: 11880
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 7:05 pm
Location: Guangzhou, China

Re: Some powerful shit

Postby Steve James on Mon Mar 05, 2018 11:01 am

Bruce P., fine. The kid who gets hit will not care.

Michael, he didn't say that the AR was automatic. He said that the M4 was like the AR, but I wouldn't dare speculate about the similarities in terms of ammunition.

His point about range is something that Bruce might want to address. But, personally, I wouldn't want anyone in my neighborhood, let alone building, firing off AR-15 rounds. 150 meters is almost a football field and a half. (Somebody measure). Iinm, he was talking about self-defense. I.e., that he carries a 9mm for protection, but that it'd be useless against someone with an AR-15. Consequently, he would need to carry an AR-15 to give himself a chance.

Besides, why attack a GOP combat vet for his opinion? Get mad at this guy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uaPM6r3QlbE
"A man is rich when he has time and freewill. How he chooses to invest both will determine the return on his investment."
User avatar
Steve James
Great Old One
 
Posts: 16916
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 8:20 am

Re: Some powerful shit

Postby Ian C. Kuzushi on Mon Mar 05, 2018 11:17 am

BruceP wrote:
Ian C. Kuzushi wrote:
Sure, I was contrasting hunting tools against weapons of self-defense and war. It wasn't that long ago that the vast majority of guns were not designed to kill people, but were hunting tools. Shotguns, 30-06, etc...This was the norm when I was growing up.


At the risk of picking nits, the 30-06 Springfield was originally developed by the US military as a replacement for the 30-40 Krag, 6mm Lee Navy and 30-30 cartridges in order to stay abreast of the cartridges which were being developed by European militaries.


Hot dang you got me there. By the time I was born, this was a hunting rifle. Heck, even the BAR was by then. I knew the BAR was designed for military use, but not the 30-06. Also, I didn't even know that the Garand fired 30-06, and was just thinking of all the bolt actions I have seen over the years in closets and later safes. All used for hunting.

Mike, there are some rounds developed for hunting, but they are not far off from what you propose (they are exotic, for the most part). The 300 H&H Mag comes to mind. There are also lots of sporting rifles, which sort of gets back to the point I think is important: the platform. The 30-06s I grew up around were bolt action and it's a lot harder to carry out a mass shooting with that than with a semi-auto platform with high capacity mags that are also made to fire for extended periods.
Last edited by Ian C. Kuzushi on Mon Mar 05, 2018 11:36 am, edited 1 time in total.
文武両道。

Lord Li requires one hundred gold coins per day!
User avatar
Ian C. Kuzushi
Great Old One
 
Posts: 1842
Joined: Sun May 15, 2011 10:02 pm

Re: Some powerful shit

Postby Michael on Mon Mar 05, 2018 11:24 am

Steve James wrote:Besides, why attack a GOP combat vet for his opinion? Get mad at this guy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uaPM6r3QlbE

Just to be clear, I was attacking the CNN interviewer and criticizing the Congressman in that role, but thanks for the funny Trump video.
User avatar
Michael
Great Old One
 
Posts: 11880
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 7:05 pm
Location: Guangzhou, China

Re: Some powerful shit

Postby Steve James on Mon Mar 05, 2018 11:37 am

It's the difference between an ideologue and a demagogue. Of course, he could be joking in that sophisticated way of his.
"A man is rich when he has time and freewill. How he chooses to invest both will determine the return on his investment."
User avatar
Steve James
Great Old One
 
Posts: 16916
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 8:20 am

Re: Some powerful shit

Postby Michael on Mon Mar 05, 2018 11:48 am

Of course, he could be joking in that sophisticated way of his.

Going away a grin on my face. Because it's really late here in China. :D
User avatar
Michael
Great Old One
 
Posts: 11880
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 7:05 pm
Location: Guangzhou, China

Re: Some powerful shit

Postby BruceP on Mon Mar 05, 2018 12:11 pm

Steve James wrote:Bruce P., fine. The kid who gets hit will not care


Well, that's a nice backdoor exit, but this discussion has me trying to make sense of stuff you're writing about, and then offering some constructive corrections to your misuse of phrases and terminologies. It's important to be accurate and factual when you make your 'points' and/or raise issues. A lot of what I've taken issue with in that regard had to be repeated before you were able to understand how you mangle the topic with your lack of basic knowledge on the subject.

Again, the discussion between you and I typifies the difficulties people in your country are having in engaging dialogue on these complex issues when one 'side' can't even use proper terminology and then don't care when it's been shown to them how their obfuscations sabotage any chance for reasonable back-and-forth.. You want people to get mad at Trump, but you've shown the same lack of knowledge here. And I aint even mad...
Last edited by BruceP on Mon Mar 05, 2018 12:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
BruceP
Great Old One
 
Posts: 1571
Joined: Sat May 31, 2008 3:40 pm

Re: Some powerful shit

Postby Steve James on Mon Mar 05, 2018 12:34 pm

So, what does that do about the problem. Don't worry about Trump. Of course, it's a back door exit. The points have been made, and people can decide for themselves. I said don't believe me. What about the video I posted? I didn't even comment, because I don't think banning the AR-15 solves the "problem." He favors it, yet, his position is mocked. The common sense of his position can even be understood by DT. And, your own country has stricter restrictions than ours. That's why there's no reason for me to argue with you. Nothing changes.
"A man is rich when he has time and freewill. How he chooses to invest both will determine the return on his investment."
User avatar
Steve James
Great Old One
 
Posts: 16916
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 8:20 am

Re: Some powerful shit

Postby grzegorz on Mon Mar 05, 2018 12:47 pm

I think dude in the video is the wisest Mofo in the room. He made a video, uploaded it to youtube and everyone is discussing it. Agree or disagree he got a conversation going and he isn't even a reality TV show star whose only accomplishment in life was part of the lucky sperm club.
Last edited by grzegorz on Mon Mar 05, 2018 12:48 pm, edited 2 times in total.
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
User avatar
grzegorz
Wuji
 
Posts: 5426
Joined: Sun Jun 28, 2009 1:42 pm
Location: Eastern Bloc

Re: Some powerful shit

Postby grzegorz on Mon Mar 05, 2018 12:57 pm

Michael wrote:Because I'm really not much of a gun aficionado I'm speculating a little bit when I say this, but I'm sure there are a fairly small amount of rifles truly developed, and primarily meant for hunting animals that are not simultaneously just as effective for use against people, or don't have a military history like the 30-06. Perhaps elephant guns are an example?

Anyway, I do see that military weapons have developed over time, so that those from 100 years ago look different than those in use since WW2, but they are really not separated by much. The fact that people used to more often have hunting guns that resembled military rifles from pre-WW2 does not make the newer style of weapons into a more lethal category except that people's gun choices have increased based on an accumulation of technology over time, whereas most other new technology replaces the older. Wish I could buy a bew '57 Chevy, but I can't.

Mass shootings are a social problem (social phenomenon) that is occurring at a time when this large time-variety of guns are available, but the choices of some mass shooters for the newer rifles simply reflects the time in which the problem is occurring, a time where these is a contrast or variety of newer and older weapons. To understand what I'm saying, consider mass killings by vehicle, acknowledging of course that automobiles are not meant for killing and are not directly comparable to guns; I'm just using the comparison in terms of technology over time in relation to an emergent social phenomenon.

If there was such a huge variety of vintages of automobile readily available in society as thee are guns, the newest ones would have some obvious advantages, especially in terms of engine power and reliability, which would possibly make them the best choice for mass killers. If there were gradually more and more mass killers by vehicle and they chose the newest trucks for murder, only those with very reliable electronic fuel injection, would people think that the obvious choice to deal with the problem would be to outlaw fuel injection and make everyone go back to carburetor gasoline engines? Possible even ban diesel engines since those are all fuel injection based?

I hope my comparison is apt because I just can't see focusing much attention on AR-15s, especially when so many mass shootings have been carried out with handguns. The first mentally deranged mass shooter back in 1969 at the Univ. of Texas had nothing like an AR.


I have a trucking license and I spent about a year going to a trucking school. One shut down and was part time and the other I attended daily and got my license from. I had to get a physical, memorized all the parts of the tractor and trailer and how to inspect them and spent hundreds of hours of driving and parking a big rig. Guess what? There are hundreds of jobs available to me that start at $70,000 a year. Why? Because most people are not willing to go through all this even though they want these jobs.

So yes, let's require a licenses to own and operate a gun.

Also I have yet to see a car attack a high school in the US. But when it happens let's deal with it. How's that for a solution?
Last edited by grzegorz on Mon Mar 05, 2018 1:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
User avatar
grzegorz
Wuji
 
Posts: 5426
Joined: Sun Jun 28, 2009 1:42 pm
Location: Eastern Bloc

PreviousNext

Return to Off the Topic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests