T1B

Left Seater wrote: Hey Board Bitch.

Fallacy of ad populum.
It's like arguing with 4th graders.

Moving Sale wrote:

Left Seater wrote: Hey Board Bitch.

Fallacy of ad populum.
It's like arguing with 4th graders.

So, Donald Trump, Barak Obama, W Bush, and 41 others weren't actually POTUS?

See, this is why you're also the Dumbest.

I don't think you understand how the electoral college works.

As for the argument you were trying to make, it is still the same basic fallacy.

The majority of this country voted for this president; therefore, this president must, objectively, be a good President.
The majority of this board voted for MS for BB; therefore, MS must, objectively, be a proper BB.

Like I said 4th graders.

"Board Bitch" is a subjective title (although in this case, a painfully obvious one). The method for selecting the Board Bitch is through a vote.

And it wasn't even a close contest. When you ran away with the vote, it went from being subjective to concrete.

Sucks to be you, Board Bitch.

So what you are saying is a bunch of mouth breathing idiot racist fucks don't like me, but they do like you. Congrats I guess.

Moving Sale wrote:but they do like you.

Link?

That's pretty funny stuff, coming from someone whose new schtick is following another poster around, calling them "liar."

I suppose haiving your ass so close to the ground makes it easier for you to kick it.

Joe in PB wrote:

Moving Sale wrote:

Joe in PB wrote: It's all over the net, you do a search for once tard.

You said it. I was just wondering if you were talking shit or not. Sounds like you are.

Mr. Obama has a long history of disdain toward gun ownership. According to Prof. John Lott, in Debacle, a book he co-authored with iconic conservative strategist Grover Norquist,

....“When I was first introduced to Obama (when both worked at the University of Chicago Law School, where Lott was famous for his analysis of firearms possession), he said, ‘Oh, you’re the gun guy.’

I responded: ‘Yes, I guess so.’

’I don’t believe that people should own guns,’ Obama replied.

I then replied that it might be fun to have lunch and talk about that statement some time.

He simply grimaced and turned away. …

Unlike other liberal academics who usually enjoyed discussing opposing ideas, Obama showed disdain.”

https://www.forbes.com/sites/ralphbenko ... a84e93624b

This is one reason you suck, you bring nothing of substance to the table. There's tons more about Obama and his anti-firearm stance on the net.

What sticks out for me is that Chicago, his home city, is the capital of gun carrying thugs and he doesn't say a word about it and when he does come to the city and speak, he is mocked.

But hey, Board Bitch/Dumbest Poster of 2017 did not lose any of his lead in that department for 2018. Pedo in Seattle is catching up to Screwy though in a hurry. Screwy better step up to keep his second place showing in check for the next 10 months.

Dinsdale wrote: That's pretty funny stuff, coming from someone whose new schtick is following another poster around, calling them "liar."

If you would like to post the pic with the 1969 tag go right ahead.
Or you could post a link to how dangerous sushi is.
Or how sand is great to add to clay soils.
Or how it's illegal to sell never frozen sushi.
Or.....

Guns are not most drugs. Guns could be banned just like qualudes were banned. If no company will make the parts, then the product does not get manufactured. It won't happen and I don't think it should, but it certainly could.

Moving Sale wrote:Guns are not most drugs. Guns could be banned just like qualudes were banned. If no company will make the parts, then the product does not get manufactured. It won't happen and I don't think it should, but it certainly could.

You really are on a roll this week with moronic statements, BB.

If no "company" makes the parts, those with the slightest bit of machining ability will do it on bridgeports in their garage. We are talking late 19th century technology. A firing mechanism for a semi auto rifle is not like a B2 bomber.

smackaholic wrote:

Moving Sale wrote:Guns are not most drugs. Guns could be banned just like qualudes were banned. If no company will make the parts, then the product does not get manufactured. It won't happen and I don't think it should, but it certainly could.

You really are on a roll this week with moronic statements, BB.

If no "company" makes the parts, those with the slightest bit of machining ability will do it on bridgeports in their garage. We are talking late 19th century technology. A firing mechanism for a semi auto rifle is not like a B2 bomber.

Given the amount of attention that has been given to education in blue collar trades, I'm guessing not too many people are going to know how to make their own parts for their guns.

Moving Sale wrote:Guns are not most drugs. Guns could be banned just like qualudes were banned. If no company will make the parts, then the product does not get manufactured. It won't happen and I don't think it should, but it certainly could.

Can you buy quaaludes on the back market ?? Can you buy heroin and meth on the streets ??

So you would advocate for banning AR style rifles and then taking them away from citizens who legally own them ??

In congressional testimony last year, the National Shooting Sports Foundation estimated assault-style weapons domestically in the range of 5 million to 8.2 million.

Of course he would, that is the entire Democratic stance, inanimate objects kill people, not people kill people.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

Joe in PB wrote:Of course he would, that is the entire Democratic stance, inanimate objects kill people, not people kill people.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

Well....people do kill people.... when they're racist white cops. And the fact they are frequently 100% justified in doing so is irrelevant.

BSmack wrote:

smackaholic wrote:

Moving Sale wrote:Guns are not most drugs. Guns could be banned just like qualudes were banned. If no company will make the parts, then the product does not get manufactured. It won't happen and I don't think it should, but it certainly could.

You really are on a roll this week with moronic statements, BB.

If no "company" makes the parts, those with the slightest bit of machining ability will do it on bridgeports in their garage. We are talking late 19th century technology. A firing mechanism for a semi auto rifle is not like a B2 bomber.

Given the amount of attention that has been given to education in blue collar trades, I'm guessing not too many people are going to know how to make their own parts for their guns.

So, the fact that only a fairly small percentage of the population possesses these skills changes anything?

Of course it doesn't.

Also, give criminals the incentive to become gunsmiths and some will.

88 wrote:The AR-15 is the most popular modern rifle in the United States. I get it. But there are way scarier guns available for sale to the public, in my opinion. Check out the Barrett 82A1 if you want to get freaked out. https://barrett.net/firearms/model82a1/ Why the fuck is this gun for sale to the public? You could stop a Jeep a mile away with one of those bastards. Ridiculous.

And you can buy one for just under $10,000.

Not exactly portable or quick if you’re looking to deal out some mayhem. However, there are people who enjoy long range target shooting with those rifles. Asking why someone would need such a gun is much like asking the suburban mom why she needs a four wheel drive Range Rover when the most arduous obstacle she negotiates is a curb.

People like different stuff. Viva l’difference.

Goober McTuber wrote: And you can buy one for just under $10,000.

And $5 a round to shoot it.

I've seen guys at the rifle range shooting them. It's quite the rich man's sport.

88 wrote: Should people who like different stuff be permitted to purchase and "long range target shoot" one of these?



Why not? And what is the difference?

Whether or not they "should" is certainly up for debate.

But in all but a couple of states, individuals can own artillery pieces.

Actually just yesterday, my friend was mentioning how his friend had several such pieces (rich dude). He has ammo for them, as well. Every cannon, and every shell must have its own tax stamp (which gets spendy in a big hurry).

Other than the sheer scale and various accoutrements like hydraulics, an artillery piece is a single shot rifle. And if we can draw parallels, in certain states a person can own and operate a mortar tube as well. The problem with your argument, 88, is that like anything, we can extend the logic to the point of reductio ad absurdism.

Just to be contrarian I’ll point out that you actually can own such an artillery piece nearly everywhere, just as long as it isn’t functional, hence most VFWs and those Sherman tanks and 105mm howitzers you always see out on the lawn.

While I have a problem with mag caps, types of ammo and fire rate, my biggest issue is with what weapons like the AR-15 do to a person downrange. A person should have the right to have a gun that can stop a threat, but weapons like the AR-15 go far past that. It's not designed to stop people, but to quickly kill them (which is why it is suited for war).

As Justice Scalia said in Heller, the right to bear arms is not absolute.

In certain situations, an AR type weapon could be an effective defensive weapon. If you find yourself in a situation where you have the need to be mobile, shoot numerous rounds without reloading and have decent accuracy outside 10 yards. Someone that lives in a rural area might very well want to have these capabilities.

As for the NRA's line in the sand, you realize that if there is no line, those bastards will continue to creep towards full disarmament, which is their goal.

Yes, we heard for 8 years that Obama was going to take away our guns.

smackaholic wrote:In certain situations, an AR type weapon could be an effective defensive weapon. If you find yourself in a situation where you have the need to be mobile, shoot numerous rounds without reloading and have decent accuracy outside 10 yards. Someone that lives in a rural area might very well want to have these capabilities.

What can an AR-type weapon do that say, a Glock 19 can't do?

Diego in Seattle wrote:It's not designed to stop people, but to quickly kill them (which is why it is suited for war).

Rooster wrote:The 5.56 round is actually purposefully designed to not kill the intended target, although that sounds counter-intuitive on the surface of it. The round itself is little more than a hyper velocity .22 round (hence its’ other nomenclature, the .223) that was built around the idea that a wounded soldier is more of a drag on the combat effectiveness of a unit than a dead one, which for most countries’ armies are ignored rather than gathered up like ours do. By shooting the enemy to incapacitate their ability to fight, yet leaving them alive to either tie up another soldier to attend to them or by letting them scream in agony on the battlefield, it demoralizes our enemies and reduces their war fighting capability. It was given a size and speed which caused it to bounce around inside a body rather than having it become a through-and-through like a 7.62 round. Basic von Clausewitz, right?

What can an AR platform weapon do that a Glock 19 cannot? Shoot accurately out past 100 yards.

Rooster wrote:What can an AR platform weapon do that a Glock 19 cannot? Shoot accurately out past 100 yards.

Which means it can more easily pierce walls.

88, the problem with restricting magazine capacity, muzzle velocity, or bump stocks is that taken individually or in a group none of these issues touches on why the Left’s preoccupation with the AR platform is so nonsensical.

As I am certain you know, a long arm is precisely that— a weapon that is a long range firearm. This however, adds no benefit to a shooter in a classroom setting like in Parkland where the distances between Cruz and his victims were likely 5-25 feet. Muzzle velocity, a bump stock, or magazine capacity are all either negated by the distances he shot at, or can be just as effectively produced in a handgun without the possibility of having to negotiate a long barreled weapon in close quarters like around doors or narrow hallways.

This is not to suggest that an AR-15 can’t be or isn’t effective in a school shooting— obviously it is —but that Cruz’s selection of that particular weapon system is more likely to have been a result of playing Call of Duty or from watching SWAT on television. Why? Because as has been brought up numerous times before here or in other forums, a handgun is a better choice if you want to be effective and a shotgun even more so. Furthermore, the sheer number of homicides caused by handguns bears this out. (However, I believe the number of homicides by rifle is going to increase just by virtue of the number of rifles sold in the past decade.)

We can have a rational discussion on such things as those you wrote about in your post. However, we can’t have the same type of discussion with most gun control proponents because they have a strange fixation on the oh-so-scary AR-15 and how as a “weapon of war” it has no business being in the hands of civilians. Never mind that not a single soldier in any standing army actually carries an AR-15. Anywhere.

And this is the crux of the problem: Gun control enthusiasts cannot be bothered to learn about the thing that they are so adamantly opposed to— either that, or they are so blinded by their ideology that they cannot tell the difference even after being educated by those who know better about firearms. Without the knowledge base necessary to hold a frank and rational discussion, it ends up being entirely an emotional argument, devoid of facts, unbiased data, and honest statistics.

Diego in Seattle wrote:

Rooster wrote:What can an AR platform weapon do that a Glock 19 cannot? Shoot accurately out past 100 yards.

Which means it can more easily pierce walls.

The AR-15 can more easily pierce walls? Yes, I suppose that is true, but only to the extent that if you are shooting through walls you really don’t know what you are doing or shooting at. This is a primary reason why handguns are a better self defense weapon: in general they have lower muzzle velocities, a larger selection of non-wall penetrating rounds, and in close quarters, are more maneuverable in spaces where walls can impinge on the ability to bring the gun to bear on the target.

It is universally acknowledged by firearms self defense experts that an AR-15 is not the best choice for both home or self defense. Ground troops carry an M4, which looks like an AR-15, not for any particular effectiveness in clearing rooms, but because it is a compromise between a variety of mission types: patrols, guard duty, squad marksman, and so forth. Special Forces units have different types of M4s that they carry depending on the specific mission they have been assigned. A shorted version called a carbine which has a 14 inch barrel is preferable for close quarters combat or room clearing because it can be brought to bear around corners and furniture far better than the “regular” or normal 21 inch barrel of an M16. Furthermore, they have collapsible stocks which shorten the weapon system even further and use red dot sights with zero parallax so they need not even be brought to the shoulder to accurately fire.

You see? This is is exactly what I was talking about with 88. Having no knowledge base of the things you are fighting against leads nowhere. A quantum physicist might as well be talking to an interior designer for as much mutual and commonly understood information is being bandied about between the two camps.

Rooster wrote:What can an AR platform weapon do that a Glock 19 cannot? Shoot accurately out past 20 yards.

ftfy.

I am not saying that someone proficient with a glock couldn't have a nice tight group at 20 yards, but it would likely start going to shit by 50. At 100 yards, forget about it. A mediocre shot would likely be better at 50 yards with an AR than a very good shot with the glock.

Rooster;
You talk about suitability for close-quarters combat, fire rate, muz velocity, but don't bother to address one of the most important aspects.

An AR inflicts much more serious wounds than a handgun, resulting in more deaths.

"Stopping power" is discussed all the time when discussing sidearms. I've never heard it mentioned in connection w/ an AR. Why do you suppose that is?

I'd like to know how many of the 17 might have survived if they had been shot with a handgun instead of an AR.

Diego in Seattle wrote:
I'd like to know how many of the 17 might have survived if they had been shot with a handgun instead of an AR.

Compare .223 to .45 . That might give you a clue. Getting shot with any size bullet fucks up your day. Pretty sure you will say well ban all guns now.

Diego in Seattle wrote: A person should have the right to have a gun that can stop a threat, but weapons like the AR-15 go far past that. It's not designed to stop people, but to quickly kill them (which is why it is suited for war).

As versus a .38, .40, .45,.22 caliber. They are just designed to stop people. Got it.

Derron wrote:

Diego in Seattle wrote: A person should have the right to have a gun that can stop a threat, but weapons like the AR-15 go far past that. It's not designed to stop people, but to quickly kill them (which is why it is suited for war).

As versus a .38, .40, .45,.22 caliber. They are just designed to stop people. Got it.

Read the article I linked above, moron.

Diego in Seattle wrote:Rooster;
You talk about suitability for close-quarters combat, fire rate, muz velocity, but don't bother to address one of the most important aspects.

An AR inflicts much more serious wounds than a handgun, resulting in more deaths.

"Stopping power" is discussed all the time when discussing sidearms. I've never heard it mentioned in connection w/ an AR. Why do you suppose that is?

I'd like to know how many of the 17 might have survived if they had been shot with a handgun instead of an AR.

I'd like to know how many would have lived had someone besides one testicularly challenged deputy been on scene with an AR or a glock or even a fucking slingshot.

That cocksucker knew he would not go up against anyone armed for a while. He continued to kill until someone with a weapon did finally challenge him. If he had been plunling them with a glock, he may have killed fewer or he may have killed more. No way to know for sure.

If he had an old M1 garand, he likely would have killed more, assuming his scrawny ass could tote it. The 30-06 round is a nasty mofo. Wayyyyyy nastier than the 223.

smackaholic wrote: That cocksucker knew he would not go up against anyone armed for a while.

This

If he had been plunling them with a glock, he may have killed fewer or he may have killed more. No way to know for sure.

And this.


Who cares what size entry and exit wounds a bullet makes. All of them can be fatal. This discussion is just noise to keep from discussing the real issues. FBI failures, local Barney Fife failures, mental health failures, etc, etc, etc.

smackaholic wrote:

Rooster wrote:What can an AR platform weapon do that a Glock 19 cannot? Shoot accurately out past 20 yards.

ftfy.

I am not saying that someone proficient with a glock couldn't have a nice tight group at 20 yards, but it would likely start going to shit by 50. At 100 yards, forget about it. A mediocre shot would likely be better at 50 yards with an AR than a very good shot with the glock.

Not to quibble, but ringing a steel plate at 100 yards is quite doable once you figure out the elevation— not that I can do it. Shoot, I’m barely able to get a decent grouping at 20 yards, much less 100, but for handgun enthusiasts a 100 yard shot is not difficult. The problem for the 9mm is that its’ power drops off dramatically at that point and a winter jacket could provide enough ballistic protection to keep it from doing you any harm other than maybe a bruise.

Diego in Seattle wrote:Rooster;
You talk about suitability for close-quarters combat, fire rate, muz velocity, but don't bother to address one of the most important aspects.

An AR inflicts much more serious wounds than a handgun, resulting in more deaths.

"Stopping power" is discussed all the time when discussing sidearms. I've never heard it mentioned in connection w/ an AR. Why do you suppose that is?

I'd like to know how many of the 17 might have survived if they had been shot with a handgun instead of an AR.

In a word, hydrostatic shock. The effects the radiologist is describing is that explosion-like reaction to energy. I know, I know, earlier I minimized velocity as a primary inflictor of damage, but the equation someone else posted is correct, yet not the whole story. Everything factors into the damage dealt, but depending on the phase of the bullet’s path (initial, enroute, and terminal— my terms, not some quasi-official terminology), different aspects have greater impact (sorry, bad pun) on the target.

The stopping power in AR-15 ammunition is, as I said in an earlier post, limited to two different types of rounds: Ball and armor piercing. There is a tracer round as well, but that gets lumped in with ball ammo. Many experiments have been done by everyone from amateur enthusiasts to professional armorers to determine the ballistics of the 5.56 round. In general, the NATO round is the all-around performer, but alternate gunpowder loads, lighter or heavier bullets, the shape of the round, and metallurgy all play into ammo selection. The uniformity of the 5.56 round is determined by NATO requirements and the civilian market has embraced that as its’ standard as well.

However, just to show the strength of the AR platform and it the rounds it uses when it is fiddled with, super-engineered, and given the platinum treatment, it is the only long arm in the world to attain the Holy Grail of shooting: hitting 10 targets with 10 rounds in 10 seconds at 1,000 yards. A marksman did this a few years back with a highly modified rifle. No other rifle can or has done this.

I hope this sheds some light on your question.

M-1 Garand was a great rifle. I fired Expert with it in the Army. I hit a target at 600 meters off hand. At that range the bullets were likely tumbling, and still could do lethal damage. The 8 round clip---yes, a clip. limited the ability and if you shot a lot, the barrel would over heat. The M-i Ai Carbine was OK, at least you could have more rounds in its magazine, and fire automatic if needed. For shear "putting the lead out" power, the .45 caliber "Grease Gun" was tops.