California and NY in their newest attempts to whittle down gun rights.

[Matthias]

What would make you think I have no argument?

The strawman that you just lay out after this sentance?

That green part, it undermines your whole argument. Could you find some sources to back that claim up?

http://www.historynet.com/minie-ball

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The Springfield rifle-musket was a .58-caliber percussion weapon that weighed nearly 10 pounds and cost about $15. It was 58 inches long with a 40-inch barrel, and came with an 18-inch bayonet. On the negative side, bullets exited the Springfield's barrel at the relatively slow speed of only 950 feet per second

And that's your more modern rifled musket, complete with the conical minie ball. But, it was .58 caliber, yet it wasn't ripping limbs off like a modern .50 Cal sniper rifle nowadays would, because it had a slow velocity, and its range was much shorter as well.

The increased accuracy and range of the rifled guns, and the fact that they could be fired much faster than older muskets, are what caused the biggest increase in lethality, not the big rounds, which were around for the flintlock weapons as well, and a majority of soldiers hit with the rounds in the Civil War survived (even with the relatively crappy medical care back then) because it wasn't anything like the power you are imagining it to have (not to say that they weren't nasty wounds in their own way).

It does nothing to undermine my argument anyways. My argument is that different types of guns can cause more death in shorter time periods or are better for criminals to use. Your questioning why more old time muzzle loaders aren't used in mass shootings is just... silly. Seriously?

Even if you were to get modern muzzle loaders (which wasn't what we were talking about), the amount of time it takes to reload compared to other weapons means you aren't going to be able to do as much damage in as short a time, I mean, it's like saying the sky is blue.

And that's to say nothing of guns used by criminals, where handguns are best for criminals for a whole slew of reasons, namely being you can easily hide it and be much more mobile with it. There's a reason you don't see many criminals using muzzle loaders as they carr out their crimes.

Here's my source;

Your "source" is a picture of a tree. The fact that you use superficial damage to a tree to determine "lethality" speaks volumes. You might want to ask yourself why the casulties in the Civil War caused by muzzle loaders were mostly injuries and weren't like .50 Caliber sniper rifles taking off whole limbs. It was velocity.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but that would appear to do more damage than the other little pimples, which happen to be .30-06 and .223 (you can see the .223 hole on the far right side of the impact zone [55 grain PMC bronze] and the .22 hole just above the muzzleloader impact on the right side. The .30-06 hole is left over from the beginning of deer season, when us neanderthals were sighting in our rifles. It'd be the darker brown one, since a couple months had passed. )

Most anything will do more damage than a .223, not sure what you're trying to argue or what strawman you're setting up. Large capacity, large caliber, high velocity, quick reloading, accurate modern weapons (like, say, many handguns) will be much more deadly in mass shootings than a muzzle loader from back in the day. Do you have a modern .50 Cal sniper rifle bullet damage from 50 yards out picture? That would be a (slightly) more fair comparison

You play too much Call of Duty. In Real life, weapons are differentiated by their calibers, not how many bad guys you have to kill to unlock them. As it turns out, the higher the caliber, the less Rate of Fire you have, but the higher mass of the projectile (which is really the only "Lethal" thing on a gun, right?).

I don't play Call of Duty, and have no idea why you are being so rude, wtf is your problem? And no, mass of the projectile isn't the only factor about the lethality of the gun. You must not know some basic physics.

Muzzleloaders are $100 a pop. Someone carrying 4 or 5 of them (they're really not THAT heavy) could very easily kill multiple people with one shot, especially in a crowded area. Not to mention, they're scary as hell when they go off.

Now "scary" and cost are lethality factors for you, and now someone has to carry 4 or 5 of them... yeah it's obvious you're trying to backtrack.

Sorry, not buying your argument that all guns are as potentially dangerous as every single other gun and therefore, we shouldn't ban any of them or even place heavier regulations on them.

[Rights of the Individual]

The strawman that you just lay out after this sentance?

Is that not your argument that I outlined?

http://www.historynet.com/minie-ball

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The Springfield rifle-musket was a .58-caliber percussion weapon that weighed nearly 10 pounds and cost about $15. It was 58 inches long with a 40-inch barrel, and came with an 18-inch bayonet. On the negative side, bullets exited the Springfield's barrel at the relatively slow speed of only 950 feet per second

And that's your more modern rifled musket, complete with the conical minie ball. But, it was .58 caliber, yet it wasn't ripping limbs off like a modern .50 Cal sniper rifle nowadays would, because it had a slow velocity, and its range was much shorter as well.

Lol. Why didn't you quote the full paragraph?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The Springfield rifle-musket was a .58-caliber percussion weapon that weighed nearly 10 pounds and cost about $15. It was 58 inches long with a 40-inch barrel, and came with an 18-inch bayonet. On the negative side, bullets exited the Springfield's barrel at the relatively slow speed of only 950 feet per second (about the same as a modern .22-caliber rifle), but the gun's deadly accuracy at long ranges outweighed that shortcoming. Armed with a Springfield, a competent shooter could hit a 27-inch bull's-eye at 500 yards, the best performance to date for a standard-issue infantry weapon. A trained marksman could consistently hit a 4-inch target at 200 yards and a 6-by-6-foot target at 500 yards. At 1,000 yards, he could even hit an 8-by-8-foot target half of the time. That did not mean that the average Civil War soldier could hit anything at the more extreme distances, but improving the old smoothbore's 75-yard range by 125 yards dramatically increased the effectiveness of even the most inept infantryman.

The .50 caliber round doesn't "rip off limbs". That's a ridiculous urban myth; it was developed to hunt tanks and airplanes, which it did very well. Will it kill you? certainly. If you are hit in the arm, will it come off? That depends on the placement. you'll very likely lose the arm due to mass trauma and fracturing, but that would probably be up to the surgeon in charge.

If it did as much damage as hollywood says it does, the military wouldn't have put explosive charges in 25mm and 30mm ammunition. (those WILL rip your limbs off)

Again, this all comes down to bullet placement. As you've already proven, the 1860's era Springfield rifle is a contender at 500 yards. How lethal the weapon is depends on the shooter

The increased accuracy and range of the rifled guns, and the fact that they could be fired much faster than older muskets, are what caused the biggest increase in lethality, not the big rounds, which were around for the flintlock weapons as well, and a majority of soldiers hit with the rounds in the Civil War survived (even with the relatively crappy medical care back then) because it wasn't anything like the power you are imagining it to have (not to say that they weren't nasty wounds in their own way).

All of this is irrelevant. You can't compare the data to anything except later wars fought by the US, which are incomparable due to a number of different factors, such as tactics, technology, the quality of troops, ect.

Secondly, I don't believe I ever said that it would rip you in half, just that it would kill you

It does nothing to undermine my argument anyways. My argument is that different types of guns can cause more death in shorter time periods or are better for criminals to use.

It does undermine your argument. You said that lower velocity ammunition is less lethal, and I have yet to see anything that says so. Higher velocity ammunition is more accurate and has a better trajectory, which makes it better for long range shooting, however that says nothing about its "lethal-ness".

Even if you were to get modern muzzle loaders (which wasn't what we were talking about), the amount of time it takes to reload compared to other weapons means you aren't going to be able to do as much damage in as short a time, I mean, it's like saying the sky is blue.

According to the Joe Biden, it takes an average of 2 minutes for a normal American to change AR-15 magazines.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mA_g...ature=youtu.be

Old, ignorant retards aside, I was originally being satirical, though last december an Ohio college student went on a rampage with a crossbow.

And that's to say nothing of guns used by criminals, where handguns are best for criminals for a whole slew of reasons, namely being you can easily hide it and be much more mobile with it. There's a reason you don't see many criminals using muzzle loaders as they carr out their crimes.

So why not ban handguns instead of "assault weapons"?

Your "source" is a picture of a tree. The fact that you use superficial damage to a tree to determine "lethality" speaks volumes. You might want to ask yourself why the casulties in the Civil War caused by muzzle loaders were mostly injuries and weren't like .50 Caliber sniper rifles taking off whole limbs. It was velocity.

So the shots going completely through 4 inches of solid hardwood don't have the power to kill someone?

Most anything will do more damage than a .223, not sure what you're trying to argue or what strawman you're setting up. Large capacity, large caliber, high velocity, quick reloading, accurate modern weapons (like, say, many handguns) will be much more deadly in mass shootings than a muzzle loader from back in the day. Do you have a modern .50 Cal sniper rifle bullet damage from 50 yards out picture? That would be a (slightly) more fair comparison

But if most anything will do more damage than a .223, why are you trying to ban the rifles that use them? As I later said, the only advantage it has is weight, where it beats out both the .30-06 and .308 cartridges. It has less recoil, but does less damage. Therefore it is equal

I don't play Call of Duty, and have no idea why you are being so rude, wtf is your problem? And no, mass of the projectile isn't the only factor about the lethality of the gun. You must not know some basic physics.

You clearly misinterpreted what I was saying. Is the projectile not the most lethal part of the firearms equation? Are weapons not differentiated by calibers? Do projectiles of a higher caliber not have a greater mass, but close to the same velocity as other, subordinate calibers?

Now "scary" and cost are lethality factors for you, and now someone has to carry 4 or 5 of them... yeah it's obvious you're trying to backtrack.

Lol. I don't buy any of this lethality nonsense. the only "lethal" part of a gun is the shooter. Everything else is secondary and generally irrelevant.

Sorry, not buying your argument that all guns are as potentially dangerous as every single other gun and therefore, we shouldn't ban any of them or even place heavier regulations on them.

So why don't you explain this to me, since I'm clearly not getting it. Since calibers are no longer relevant, what makes an AR-15 more deadly than any other semi-automatic rifle that accepts a detachable magazine?

[Matthias]

So why don't you explain this to me, since I'm clearly not getting it. Since calibers are no longer relevant, what makes an AR-15 more deadly than any other semi-automatic rifle that accepts a detachable magazine?

I never said calibers aren't relevant, just that velocity is also relevant. Yes, being more accurate and having better range are things you want in "lethality", and indeed, imparting more force (through higher velocity) to the target will always cause more damage if you are using the same type of bullet, that's simple math. Some guns will be much better at killing more people in a short amount of time than others. Of course it depends on the shooter, that kinda goes without saying, but if you have the same shoother with the same talent, yes, guns are different.

I'm all for banning most semi-automatic weapons and handguns. It won't happen in my lifetime, I just think it's good policy because they are not necessary for what guns are used for and are very dangerous in the hands of criminals/insane people. That leaves many types of rifles out there for target shooting, hunting, and home defense if you really want it. Yes, people can still kill with those weapons, they're just not as capable in many ways as doing it quite so efficiently or to multiple targets. It's balancing between the usefulness of guns (which, practically speaking, only really goes towards hunting for some, and home defense for some, the rest is just entertainment purposes) and the inherent danger of them, like anything else.

The reason criminals have access to so many of these guns where they don't in near the same numbers in other nations with gun control stricter than here is because of our lax gun control laws and enforcement and widespread availability of all sorts of guns.

[The spartan]

Actually, a muzzleloader would be most "lethal". The round it fires would literally turn you into and end result worthy of SAW III, and virtually anyone can get ahold of them. Quite frankly, I have absolutely no idea why no one has decided to use one in a "mass shooting".

Over dramatize much? A musket ball would not cause a person to explode or anything, it would just put you on your ass quick. Not to mention "lethality" has a lot of factors to it, good luck killing someone when you have 1 shot ever 45 seconds and can't hit anything beyond close range.

I'd like to think you know something about guns, but the "ease to operate" line has forever tainted your credibility. Just for the record, the militias in Africa use AK-47's just as much as they use old HK 93's. They do so because they perform best in that climate, where supplies are few and far between. In Columbia, the preferred weapon is of the M-16 lineage, while Mexican and Brazilian cartels tend to favor Sub Machineguns and handguns.

The bold part just tickles me so much. Ease of operation and maintenance is perhaps one of the most desirable factors of a firearm. Ask anyone with military training or service, if you can't operate the weapon properly, you can't do a whole lot with it. The whole AK series is known for being easy to operate and maintain, making it a favorite among low resource and low educated military forces. Hell, it is known to be the "best weapon for a child" because it can be abused so much and still function.

What you're essentially saying "Africans use them; they must be simple to operate". Quite frankly, anyone with an ounce of brainpower can operate any firearm of their choosing with very little expertise on the matter.

No, just no. M16 variants are harder to maintain properly and therefor not as ideal for militia and informal forces. As Dr. William Atwater put it: "If I took an American soldier out today, I could teach him to clean, field strip, and maintain an AK in about four hours. The M16? I am going to need to take a week. It is that simple."

Not necessarily. That actually has more to do with the projectile's mass than the speed at which it fires, if we're talking about lethality.

Just to clarify, a slower moving bullet will actually do MORE damage than a faster moving, armor piercing round.

Powder has a lot to do with penetration, as well as the bullet itself. And no, a slower moving bullet doesn't just "do more damage". A faster moving bullet has more energy to it. Now, what you are referring to is that a bullet passing completely through a target doesn't transfer all of its energy and therefor some of it is wasted, that's why bullet design is important.

A fun fact; The first round developed by China for the AK-47 was found to do very little damage to the human body. It quite simply passed straight through, only really causing issues if it nicked an important organ because it was so fast. Their second adaptation sought to fix the problem, and is most effective at tearing massive holes in people when they're not wearing a bullet proof vest. It happens to be the only version available in the US, the former being banned by the ATF.

I was aware of this, see above.

Yes but we're not talking about technology from the 1800's. Please, tell me how a round meant for gophers is somehow more lethal than the two rounds which preceded it, both of which designed specifically for hunting enemy soldiers.

A flat nose round is meant for gophers? Please.

For the vast majority of firearms, the gun will always be more accurate than the user. AK-47's, when used with an ounce of brainpower, have the accuracy to be used at 300+ yards effectively, the same as an M-16.

That isn't how it works. Accuracy is dependent on the operator AND the firearm in tandem. And becoming a good shot is only a matter of "having an ounce of brainpower".

My point was that it doesn't matter their intentions. If they're in your house, you have a right to kill them simply because their intentions aren't known and could very well include raping your wife and murdering your children. Will that be their intention? I don't know. The moment you wake up and find a stranger holding a suspicious looking object in your bedroom is hardly the time to ask.

So you are saying entering someones home is a death sentence? This is also what I am talking about, this paranoia that someone who breaks into your home automatically wants to rape your wife and murder your children.

Before you say "the likelihood of that happening is very low", is the likelihood of someone using such a weapon in a mass shooting higher?

The likelihood of that happening is very low. I am not talking about mass shootings, I am talking about paranoia.

[Rights of the Individual]

Over dramatize much? A musket ball would not cause a person to explode or anything, it would just put you on your ass quick. Not to mention "lethality" has a lot of factors to it, good luck killing someone when you have 1 shot ever 45 seconds and can't hit anything beyond close range.

Springfield muzzleloaders from the 1860's are accurate out to about 300 yards. Exactly what is your definition of "close range"?

The bold part just tickles me so much. Ease of operation and maintenance is perhaps one of the most desirable factors of a firearm. Ask anyone with military training or service, if you can't operate the weapon properly, you can't do a whole lot with it. The whole AK series is known for being easy to operate and maintain, making it a favorite among low resource and low educated military forces. Hell, it is known to be the "best weapon for a child" because it can be abused so much and still function.

How odd. I had no idea that pulling the trigger on an AK-47 was so much easier than on an M-16

No, just no. M16 variants are harder to maintain properly and therefor not as ideal for militia and informal forces. As Dr. William Atwater put it: "If I took an American soldier out today, I could teach him to clean, field strip, and maintain an AK in about four hours. The M16? I am going to need to take a week. It is that simple."

You're acting as though switching from one weapon platform to another is like switching from a bicycle to an airplane. Stop over-complicating this; basic firearms techniques are applicable for all weapons, regardless of where they come from or what cool toys you mounted on the bottom.

Case and point: The US Marine Recruit learned basic rifle techniques in the 1960's on an M-14, but was sent into combat with an M-16. Many didn't get a chance to shoot the latter until they were "in country".

As far as "properly cleaning, field stripping, and maintaining" a rifle goes, it realistically takes about an hour of hands on instruction, if that. While I respect Dr. Atwater's experience, his hyperbole is woefully overstated.

Powder has a lot to do with penetration, as well as the bullet itself. And no, a slower moving bullet doesn't just "do more damage". A faster moving bullet has more energy to it. Now, what you are referring to is that a bullet passing completely through a target doesn't transfer all of its energy and therefor some of it is wasted, that's why bullet design is important.

Was that not what I said?

A flat nose round is meant for gophers? Please.

Flat nose round..? Ehhh what? There's no such thing.

That isn't how it works. Accuracy is dependent on the operator AND the firearm in tandem. And becoming a good shot is only a matter of "having an ounce of brainpower".

you essentially repeated what I just said, while saying I was wrong.

So you are saying entering someones home is a death sentence? This is also what I am talking about, this paranoia that someone who breaks into your home automatically wants to rape your wife and murder your children.

It sounds an awful lot like you're blaming the victim. Can you definitively prove that this hypothetical person isn't there to kill them? Is it really so wrong to blame someone for considering that this person might have ill intentions?

The likelihood of that happening is very low. I am not talking about mass shootings, I am talking about paranoia.

So is owning a fire extinguisher and a first aid kit with a defibrillator paranoid?

[Ciabhán]

Flat nose round..? Ehhh what? There's no such thing.

Wadcutter rounds and the semi-wadcutter style rounds(JFP/JSP/JSN/LFN/LFP/LSWC/LWC among others) are examples of flat nosed rounds. The .40 FMJ is an example of one.

Being less aerodynamic they have more energy dump on impact and hit harder at shorter ranges. They are often used(lead wadcutters generally excluded as they are target shooting rounds) for big game hunting because of this.

[The spartan]

Springfield muzzleloaders from the 1860's are accurate out to about 300 yards. Exactly what is your definition of "close range"?

That isn't a musket, that is a rifle that uses a miniball. I said musket using a round ball, get your weapons straight.

How odd. I had no idea that pulling the trigger on an AK-47 was so much easier than on an M-16

Yes, because pulling the trigger is the only part of operating a firearm.

You're acting as though switching from one weapon platform to another is like switching from a bicycle to an airplane. Stop over-complicating this; basic firearms techniques are applicable for all weapons, regardless of where they come from or what cool toys you mounted on the bottom.

Case and point: The US Marine Recruit learned basic rifle techniques in the 1960's on an M-14, but was sent into combat with an M-16. Many didn't get a chance to shoot the latter until they were "in country".

Weapon systems differ greatly depending on what it is. Yes, assault rifles operate in a similar manner to other assault rifles, but that doesn't mean they are equally reliable or that the sights work the same on every weapon, ask anyone with military experience. An m16 and AK47 "handle" differently.

As far as "properly cleaning, field stripping, and maintaining" a rifle goes, it realistically takes about an hour of hands on instruction, if that. While I respect Dr. Atwater's experience, his hyperbole is woefully overstated.

Since I don't personally have military experience, I am going to take his word over yours, no offense.

Was that not what I said?

You said powder doesn't have much to do with penetration?

Flat nose round..? Ehhh what? There's no such thing.

Ciabhan handled this.

you essentially repeated what I just said, while saying I was wrong.

No, you said the gun is almost always "more accurate" than the user. I was saying that the accuracy is a combination of how the gun works and user's experience.

It sounds an awful lot like you're blaming the victim. Can you definitively prove that this hypothetical person isn't there to kill them? Is it really so wrong to blame someone for considering that this person might have ill intentions?

Can you definitively prove the intruder isn't also an alien from the planet Grimnok? Again, if a person looks like they are going to do you harm, by all means, protect yourself (no, being black doesn't mean the person is automatically do you harm). A person being in your house does not mean they are going to do you harm, in fact, they will probably try to flee once they know they have been spotted. The moral of the story; protect yourself, but don't just go blowing people's heads off.

So is owning a fire extinguisher and a first aid kit with a defibrillator paranoid?

The potential of a fire occurring nearby or someone has a heart issue nearby is much more likely than a person breaking into your house with intent to do harm. Not to mention, a gun also has a higher risk of causing harm the owner than a fire extinguisher or a defibrillator. So no, that wouldn't be paranoid.

[Rights of the Individual]

That isn't a musket, that is a rifle that uses a miniball. I said musket using a round ball, get your weapons straight.

You can use both in a rifle-bored musket. I interchange them on a regular basis, because the "round balls" are about 5 times cheaper than Sabots. Now if we're talking about a weapon built in the 1700's that's only available to collectors who are willing to pay thousands of dollars...

Yes, because pulling the trigger is the only part of operating a firearm.

Well, if it's an evil assault rifle look-a-like, it has the funny magazine release and of course that weird collapsible stock thingy.

Weapon systems differ greatly depending on what it is. Yes, assault rifles operate in a similar manner to other assault rifles, but that doesn't mean they are equally reliable or that the sights work the same on every weapon, ask anyone with military experience. An m16 and AK47 "handle" differently.

Again, you're using the bicycle to airplane mentality. Switching rifles is akin to changing cars; Yes, they have their subtle differences in speed, turning radius, and "touchy" ness when it comes to steering, yet you use the same basic concepts you learned in that old Drivers Ed Toyota. Of course, all these cars "handle" differently, yet they're all the same when it comes to functionality. When you buy/rent a new car, you don't spend days learning to drive all over again, you spend a few minutes getting used to its features, generally while you're using it to go somewhere.

The exact same concept applies to firearms, as it does to bicycles, airplanes, skateboards, and anything else that comes in multiple versions.

Since I don't personally have military experience, I am going to take his word over yours, no offense.

Taking an obvious hyperbole (I also happened to watch the Tales of the Gun AK-47 episode on youtube) as absolute fact? Yikes.

You said powder doesn't have much to do with penetration?

Penetration =/= "lethality". I said the shape and weight of the round have more to do with its measurable damage than the speed at which it fires, which is true. A .30-06 fired at the same velocity as a 5.56 x 45mm FMJ will do more damage to a person/game/whatever because it's a larger round even thoughthe FMJ round is built to penetrate armored targets.

Ciabhan handled this.

Actually, he didn't. Wadcutter rounds are not only not available in .223, they're almost exclusively used in pellet guns that use compressed air.

Secondly, Ciabhan clearly outlined it as a hunting round. I thought you said that the idea of it being used on gophers was pathetic

No, you said the gun is almost always "more accurate" than the user. I was saying that the accuracy is a combination of how the gun works and user's experience.

Yes, a combination that weighs far more heavily on the user than the gun. (which would be almost exactly what I said)

Can you definitively prove the intruder isn't also an alien from the planet Grimnok? Again, if a person looks like they are going to do you harm, by all means, protect yourself (no, being black doesn't mean the person is automatically do you harm). A person being in your house does not mean they are going to do you harm, in fact, they will probably try to flee once they know they have been spotted. The moral of the story; protect yourself, but don't just go blowing people's heads off.

If you kill the intruder, of course you can prove they're not an alien because you'll have the body in hand.

As far as "meaning to do harm", the moment they're charging you with a weapon is, again, not the time to come to that conclusion. If you're ever in a situation where you have the option to ask their intentions, feel free to do so, however do not limit the right of people to shoot first should they find an intruder in their house.

This armchair general scheme is growing tiresome. If you don't want to keep anything greater than a small handgun for protection, then don't. People have a right to defend their homes with whatever firearm they chose, regardless of your opinion. Their property is not communal property, and those with the intention of breaking in for whatever reason are obviously not there for the benefit of the homeowner. Whether it be defending their possessions or their teenage daughter, the homeowner (or renter) has a right to use lethal force.

The potential of a fire occurring nearby or someone has a heart issue nearby is much more likely than a person breaking into your house with intent to do harm. Not to mention, a gun also has a higher risk of causing harm the owner than a fire extinguisher or a defibrillator. So no, that wouldn't be paranoid.

Actually, the probability of your house being ransacked is about 22 times higher than it burning down.

In 2011, there were 399,000 house fires, over 9,000,000 property crimes (non violent), and 751,000 aggravated assaults (the US classification for attacking the homeowner, but certainly not limited to it.).

Soooo you're technically more paranoid if you own a fire extinguisher than if you own a firearm for home defense.

Source

[Vanoi]

Springfield muzzleloaders from the 1860's are accurate out to about 300 yards. Exactly what is your definition of "close range"?

Up to 300 yards. Its varied from 100 to 300.

But the point your trying to make about muskets sucks. The musket is missing three things that a modern weapon exceeds it greatly at. Rate of fire, accuracy, and reliability.

[Rights of the Individual]

Up to 300 yards. Its varied from 100 to 300.

But the point your trying to make about muskets sucks. The musket is missing three things that a modern weapon exceeds it greatly at. Rate of fire, accuracy, and reliability.

That opinion varies depending on the person. Muzzleloaders are extremely popular for hunting because they're very powerful, but I should think most of that has to do with the season being twice as long as rifle season.

I personally favor them because it's almost a guaranteed kill on the spot. Anything besides a headshot or a direct hit on the Atlas joint in any North American deer ensures your target is going to run, sometimes for days depending on the shot placement.

[Ciabhán]

Since I don't personally have military experience, I am going to take his word over yours, no offense.

Honestly I could figure out how to maintain any firearm made by mankind, to date, in the matter of a few hours or less. The parts are all basically the same. Once you know how to do it well with one model you can do it with any model. This is for a basic competance. Getting to the point that one can do it very quickly, under multiple conditions, takes practice not training. I can only assume that your quote is referring to a soldier meeting (unofficial)time standards not a soldier being able to do it in general. Those time standards don't really matter in the cases we're referring to as a maniacal spree shooter has plenty of time to figure it out.

That being said I'm talking about basic field maintanence and cleaning. Advanced repair or rebuilding is a different story and best done by an armourer with specific training. However any armourer could figure out how to do so with most any weapon given a little time to sit down with it.

I've handled hundreds of models of firearms since even before my time in the service. For the most part I've had them broken down, cleaned, and back together in half an hour with no formal training on the particular model. One's I'm familiar with or that are from the same basic family of weapons in half that time or less. Something like an M4 that I've done it with countless times I can do it very thoroughly in 5 minutes. For a basic field strip and reassemble 1-2 minutes at most. In fact I can do it blindfolded these days.

[The spartan]

You can use both in a rifle-bored musket. I interchange them on a regular basis, because the "round balls" are about 5 times cheaper than Sabots. Now if we're talking about a weapon built in the 1700's that's only available to collectors who are willing to pay thousands of dollars...

A "musket" typically implies the weapon is smooth bored, not rifled. If it is rifled, you call it a rifle.

Well, if it's an evil assault rifle look-a-like, it has the funny magazine release and of course that weird collapsible stock thingy.

No, just no. Sights, recoil distribution, and how the magazine loads/sits all matters with how you handle the gun effectively. Way to oversimplify guns. You might as call any douche who can poke something with a sword a warrior (in b4 'all swords work the same').

Again, you're using the bicycle to airplane mentality. Switching rifles is akin to changing cars; Yes, they have their subtle differences in speed, turning radius, and "touchy" ness when it comes to steering, yet you use the same basic concepts you learned in that old Drivers Ed Toyota. Of course, all these cars "handle" differently, yet they're all the same when it comes to functionality. When you buy/rent a new car, you don't spend days learning to drive all over again, you spend a few minutes getting used to its features, generally while you're using it to go somewhere.

The exact same concept applies to firearms, as it does to bicycles, airplanes, skateboards, and anything else that comes in multiple versions.

No, that is a pretty good example you gave, it is like switching cars. They follow the same method of operation, but the AK is a much 'easier' car to handle effectively. Reliable, simple, forgiving, all things you want in a simple and effective weapon.

Taking an obvious hyperbole (I also happened to watch the Tales of the Gun AK-47 episode on youtube) as absolute fact? Yikes.

Absolute fact? No. I just don't think he is lying about the strengths of the AK 47.

Penetration =/= "lethality". I said the shape and weight of the round have more to do with its measurable damage than the speed at which it fires, which is true. A .30-06 fired at the same velocity as a 5.56 x 45mm FMJ will do more damage to a person/game/whatever because it's a larger round even thoughthe FMJ round is built to penetrate armored targets.

I never said penetration WAS lethality. I said it contributes to lethality.

Actually, he didn't. Wadcutter rounds are not only not available in .223, they're almost exclusively used in pellet guns that use compressed air.

1. Wadcutter rounds to come in many different calibers.

Wadcutters have also found favor for use in self-defense guns, such as .38 caliber snub-nosed revolvers, where due to short barrel lengths, maximum bullet velocities are usually low, typically under 900 ft/s (274 m/s), and improved lethality is desired.

2. Not all flat nosed rounds are wadcutters.

Secondly, Ciabhan clearly outlined it as a hunting round. I thought you said that the idea of it being used on gophers was pathetic

Lol, did you read all he said? BIG GAME. I suppose if you want to explode a gopher into a nice red mist you would use it on gophers.

Yes, a combination that weighs far more heavily on the user than the gun. (which would be almost exactly what I said)

No, not always. Some guns are easier to handle their recoil than others.

If you kill the intruder, of course you can prove they're not an alien because you'll have the body in hand.

As far as "meaning to do harm", the moment they're charging you with a weapon is, again, not the time to come to that conclusion. If you're ever in a situation where you have the option to ask their intentions, feel free to do so, however do not limit the right of people to shoot first should they find an intruder in their house.

I though I was clear if the intruder is charging you you can use any force you wish? If they are fleeing for their lives, you shouldn't be able to chase them down and shoot them in the face or "execute" them if they surrender.

This armchair general scheme is growing tiresome. If you don't want to keep anything greater than a small handgun for protection, then don't. People have a right to defend their homes with whatever firearm they chose, regardless of your opinion. Their property is not communal property, and those with the intention of breaking in for whatever reason are obviously not there for the benefit of the homeowner. Whether it be defending their possessions or their teenage daughter, the homeowner (or renter) has a right to use lethal force.

I see it as a breach of justice if you kill someone for trying to take your stuff. According to our law, burglary or even robbery is not punishable by death. For any random dude with a gun to dish out his/her own "justice" is just crazy and ignores the whole point of having society and laws.

Actually, the probability of your house being ransacked is about 22 times higher than it burning down.

In 2011, there were 399,000 house fires, over 9,000,000 property crimes (non violent), and 751,000 aggravated assaults (the US classification for attacking the homeowner, but certainly not limited to it.).

Soooo you're technically more paranoid if you own a fire extinguisher than if you own a firearm for home defense.

No, you just love to abuse the poor statistics till they cry. "Aggravated assault" is a huge category, and I am guessing a very tiny percent is "home owners being attacked by intruders". Even a smaller percent would be being attacked by a stranger in their home (way more likely someone you know). Similar with property crimes, that is a GIGANTIC category that goes from shop lifting to large scale burglary. So really you have no accurate numbers there at all. Also, you dismissed the whole thing of "you aren't going to hurt yourself with a fire extinguisher but are much more likely to hurt yourself with a gun".

[AUSSIE11]

Hey All,

I'm just going to premise my post by stating that I am a sporting shooter and gun owner and whilst i can understand the desire to own weapons for selff defence i do not in the slightest understand the american mindset when it comes to the ownership of firearms.

I do not advocate dis-armament of the populace however i find this fear of any regulation both concerning and not entirely understandable. I am going to state that i feel similarly to The Spartan upon this matter.

i think that lethality has to do with the function, scope and capability of the weapon combined with its projectile and calibre. None of these can be judged individually as being of obviously military a purpose with exception of possibly magazine capacity but more on that later. I have great respect for guys like Ciobhan who can handle themselves and their firearms safely, and have no personal objection to the possession of firearms for self defence, what i do object to is the absence of any mechanism that controls the capacity, capability and suitability of gun owners. The fact that as far as I can tell no proficiency or understanding of even the most rudimentary safety standards is required is actually what scares me the most about firearm ownership in the USA. As an experienced shooter this scared me. the fact that a guy i was going to hunt with in Oregon tossed me an AR platformed hunting rifle straight out of the gun cabinet without checking the breach, magazine or safety scared me. I know this is a single example yet it made an impression on me.

I just struggle to understand why Americans have no objection to regulations upon car licenses, motorcycle helmets, or miriad other subjects (for example i remember reading somewhere that a US report on public safety devoted 6 pages to the safe use of ladders and yet only 2 pages to the use of firearms which cause something like 20x more accidental deaths, sorry i don't have a reference), yet the mention of any form of regulation seems to send the internet, and the news channels, crazy.

and @ Rights of the Individual, I have used muzzle loaders on game and i don't know where your mythical killing abilities come from. A 30-06 or 270 or even smaller like a 260 Rem or 6.5x55 will drop a deer just as quickly as a .58 ML, with the added benefit of a follow up shot. Here muzzleloaders don't get any where near the extra concessions they do stateside and are no-where near as popular.

[Vanoi]

That opinion varies depending on the person. Muzzleloaders are extremely popular for hunting because they're very powerful, but I should think most of that has to do with the season being twice as long as rifle season.

The opinion is fact, during the Civil War their accuracy was tested and was found to not be as good as once thought. Black powder decreased its accuracy greatly because of how unreliable it was.

I personally favor them because it's almost a guaranteed kill on the spot. Anything besides a headshot or a direct hit on the Atlas joint in any North American deer ensures your target is going to run, sometimes for days depending on the shot placement.

Assuming you hit. Then if you miss, you don't get to take another shot because reloading takes so long.

[Rights of the Individual]

No, just no. Sights, recoil distribution, and how the magazine loads/sits all matters with how you handle the gun effectively. Way to oversimplify guns. You might as call any douche who can poke something with a sword a warrior (in b4 'all swords work the same').

This is based off what, exactly? EDIT:

Secondly, we're no longer talking about the gun, we're talking about the shooter. Any douche can own an AR, but that doesn't make him a soldier, the same way it doesn't make them a mass killer psychopath. The gun is inanimate, the skills you obtain through practice are not.

No, that is a pretty good example you gave, it is like switching cars. They follow the same method of operation, but the AK is a much 'easier' car to handle effectively. Reliable, simple, forgiving, all things you want in a simple and effective weapon.

Actually, the AK-47 and AR-15 are polar opposites when it comes to how they work. Though they operate different, the skills required to use either are the same.

The perks you named are all opinions that belong to you. the AR series is more accurate, more modular, has less recoil (along with a built in recoil buffer), and it's far easier to change mags with. Therefore, I find it's more effective than an AK-47. The point here is this is my opinion, and though it is based off factual evidence, cannot be used to determine the "lethality" of a given weapon.

Absolute fact? No. I just don't think he is lying about the strengths of the AK 47.

Except you're using his quote as an absolute and not the hyperbole it obviously is.

I never said penetration WAS lethality. I said it contributes to lethality.

Now you're back-tracking. You attacked my argument that more penetration =/= higher "lethality", which we've established as the truth. (my argument)

1. Wadcutter rounds to come in many different calibers.


2. Not all flat nosed rounds are wadcutters.

So we're admitting that flat nosed and wadcutter bullets don't come in .223, right? Secondly, this entire claim, even if it was true (its' not), is still a red herring. Clearly, because they developed a tracer round in .30-06 means that there is no conceivable reason to use any weapon chambered in that caliber for hunting, right?

Lol, did you read all he said? BIG GAME. I suppose if you want to explode a gopher into a nice red mist you would use it on gophers.

You're going to use an Air Rifle or a .38 on big game?

No, not always. Some guns are easier to handle their recoil than others.

So a gun with a decent kick is less accurate?

I though I was clear if the intruder is charging you you can use any force you wish? If they are fleeing for their lives, you shouldn't be able to chase them down and shoot them in the face or "execute" them if they surrender.

And if someone comes to the conclusion that the person who broke into their house is a threat before they begin charging?

As far as "executing" goes, you're defending the criminal, not the victim. If the criminal didn't wish to be "executed", maybe he should've made the life decision that didn't involve breaking into someone's house.

I see it as a breach of justice if you kill someone for trying to take your stuff. According to our law, burglary or even robbery is not punishable by death. For any random dude with a gun to dish out his/her own "justice" is just crazy and ignores the whole point of having society and laws.

So what you're saying is that as long as they don't threaten you, anyone can steal or deface your property? We also do not punish rapists with a death penalty, nor those convicted of attempted murder.

No, you just love to abuse the poor statistics till they cry. "Aggravated assault" is a huge category, and I am guessing a very tiny percent is "home owners being attacked by intruders". Even a smaller percent would be being attacked by a stranger in their home (way more likely someone you know). Similar with property crimes, that is a GIGANTIC category that goes from shop lifting to large scale burglary. So really you have no accurate numbers there at all. Also, you dismissed the whole thing of "you aren't going to hurt yourself with a fire extinguisher but are much more likely to hurt yourself with a gun".

So we should stop people from owning guns on the off chance they might hurt themselves?

The statistics are facts, your speculation is not. 9,000,000 property crimes, 399,000 house fires. You're more likely to get robbed, end of story.

and @ Rights of the Individual, I have used muzzle loaders on game and i don't know where your mythical killing abilities come from. A 30-06 or 270 or even smaller like a 260 Rem or 6.5x55 will drop a deer just as quickly as a .58 ML, with the added benefit of a follow up shot. Here muzzleloaders don't get any where near the extra concessions they do stateside and are no-where near as popular.

What exactly were you hunting? I bagged a 5 point Mule deer in one shot through the heart and both lungs last season. My dad did the same on a 6 point and it ran over 300 yards through thick brush before it went down during rifle season with a .243. (forgot to add that part at first)

As far as popularity goes, I didn't say they were "more" popular than rifle hunting. I'm not exactly sure where you live, but where I'm located, Muzzleloaders have the same as archery season, which is a full 3 months before rifle season begins.

Follow up shots depend on the deer. I've never taken more than 2 shots with a muzzleloader, but more than one person i've met has commented on taking 3 or more shots with a muzzleloader at an animal. Before the "no, deer run away after the first shot", here's a video I've found after about 5 minutes of searching on youtube. skip to 1:54


(notice the rabbit flying through the air after the first shot)

[AUSSIE11]

Typically I hunt Sambar Deer, which are the same size as an Elk, so 2 to3 times the size of a Mule Deer and on them I’ve used a 30-06, 270 and a 303 all of which are capable. Here seasons are the same for everyone except dogs, most deer here don’t have seasons either it’s mainly due to the fact the Hunting is done in National Parks and State forests that they introduced seasons. On private land you can shoot them as pests. I’ve also shot Red Deer with a .270, Fallow deer with a 30-30 and a 6.5x55 and hogs with all the above calibres.
All I can say after that video and ur stories is damn your deer are tame. The click of a bolt being closed is enough to send ours to the Hills sometimes, though ours are rarely hunted in open country. I cannot vouch for different people and everyone has their story of when a deer didn’t go down despite them putting lead through both lungs. All I know that History and my own experience has shown high velocity cased projectiles to be a more practical, functional and lethal tool than a Blackpowder ML. I’ll be honest and state I’m not a big fan of the .243 as a big game cartridge but a 300m run from a fatally hit deer is not uncommon. I remember tracking a fatally hit sambar for about that distance after 400 grains from a .416 Rigby had completely vapourised one lung and shattered a shoulder after two shots from my mates DB rifle.

However this is off topic.

[The spartan]

This is based off what, exactly? EDIT:

Based off of a simple understanding on how a gun operates?

Secondly, we're no longer talking about the gun, we're talking about the shooter. Any douche can own an AR, but that doesn't make him a soldier, the same way it doesn't make them a mass killer psychopath. The gun is inanimate, the skills you obtain through practice are not.

Why aren't we talking about the gun anymore?

Actually, the AK-47 and AR-15 are polar opposites when it comes to how they work. Though they operate different, the skills required to use either are the same.

The perks you named are all opinions that belong to you. the AR series is more accurate, more modular, has less recoil (along with a built in recoil buffer), and it's far easier to change mags with. Therefore, I find it's more effective than an AK-47. The point here is this is my opinion, and though it is based off factual evidence, cannot be used to determine the "lethality" of a given weapon.

Right, that is why more people have died to the AK than any other series.

Except you're using his quote as an absolute and not the hyperbole it obviously is.

Absolute? How? I just take what he says over what you say. Him and a lot of weapons experts for that matter.

Now you're back-tracking. You attacked my argument that more penetration =/= higher "lethality", which we've established as the truth. (my argument)

Uh, I made the claim that penetration influences lethality.

So we're admitting that flat nosed and wadcutter bullets don't come in .223, right? Secondly, this entire claim, even if it was true (its' not), is still a red herring. Clearly, because they developed a tracer round in .30-06 means that there is no conceivable reason to use any weapon chambered in that caliber for hunting, right?

What the heck are you talking about? You are making it increasingly clear you actually know little about firearms. I said there were flat nosed rounds, you said they don't exist; it was made clear that they do exist, you said they only exist in small caliber and air based weapons; it was made clear that flat nose rounds exist in many calibers and is commonly used in hunting big game, now you are claiming it isn't used to hunt big game.

No you are talking about some red herring? wtf?

You're going to use an Air Rifle or a .38 on big game?

What the hell are you talking about? It was stated that wadcutter rounds and flat nosed rounds in general are used in big game hunting in general.

So a gun with a decent kick is less accurate?

When trying to place repeated shots, yes, yes it is.

And if someone comes to the conclusion that the person who broke into their house is a threat before they begin charging?

Depends on how they came to that conclusion, i.e. if the intruder had a weapon or not.

As far as "executing" goes, you're defending the criminal, not the victim. If the criminal didn't wish to be "executed", maybe he should've made the life decision that didn't involve breaking into someone's house.

So you are alright with petty criminals being killed execution style? Interesting. It seems you have no sense of justice whatsoever. You do know that criminals are actually people to, right?

So what you're saying is that as long as they don't threaten you, anyone can steal or deface your property? We also do not punish rapists with a death penalty, nor those convicted of attempted murder.

No...no, that is not what I said at all. If someone is actively stealing your property, shouting at them is almost always sufficient to get them to flee the scene. By all means, pull your gun too, but if you shoot someone without even giving them a chance to flee, that is just immoral.

So we should stop people from owning guns on the off chance they might hurt themselves?

Once again, not talking about banning, talking about paranoia.

The statistics are facts, your speculation is not. 9,000,000 property crimes, 399,000 house fires. You're more likely to get robbed, end of story.

My lerd, learn something about statistics before you say "statistics are facts". Ever heard the adage "If you torture the data long enough, it will confess."?

[Rights of the Individual]

Based off of a simple understanding on how a gun operates?

No sources?

Why aren't we talking about the gun anymore?

Because you changed the focus of the conversation when you brought up douchebags and their swords.

Right, that is why more people have died to the AK than any other series.

27 Million Russians died during WW2. By your standards, Mausers should be the deadliest gun, not an AK

Absolute? How? I just take what he says over what you say. Him and a lot of weapons experts for that matter.

It was a hyperbole

Uh, I made the claim that penetration influences lethality.

Still back-tracking, I see.

What the heck are you talking about? You are making it increasingly clear you actually know little about firearms. I said there were flat nosed rounds, you said they don't exist; it was made clear that they do exist, you said they only exist in small caliber and air based weapons; it was made clear that flat nose rounds exist in many calibers and is commonly used in hunting big game, now you are claiming it isn't used to hunt big game.

So without any sources or ammunition dealers to back up any of the claims you've made, along with the pathetic attempt at throwing a Wikipedia article that only mentioned pistol rounds (specifically the .38) into the fray, your conclusion is that I don't know anything about firearms? Lol.

Curious how Cheaper than Dirt, Midway USA, Gunbroker, and even Google have no mention of any flat nosed rounds for .223 caliber weapons.

Now if you were talking about a Varmint Grenade, you're clearly referring to a round developed uniquely for small game and predators.

What the hell are you talking about? It was stated that wadcutter rounds and flat nosed rounds in general are used in big game hunting in general.

By who and from where? Have you posted any sources saying this? (no)

When trying to place repeated shots, yes, yes it is.

That's an odd conclusion (one that again, rests more on the shooter than the gun).

Depends on how they came to that conclusion, i.e. if the intruder had a weapon or not.

This really isn't a discussion about legal matters anymore. We seem to be debating your opinion of what you should do in a home invasion, not what should be law in a home invasion.

So you are alright with petty criminals being killed execution style? Interesting. It seems you have no sense of justice whatsoever. You do know that criminals are actually people to, right?

Clearly, the criminals are the victims in the case of someone shooting in defense in their property and family

Quite honestly, I have no business playing armchair general and critiquing the decisions of someone who was being forced to make life-ending decisions over a period of a second or two, and neither do you. The ungodly amount of What-if's at play here is astounding, and these hypothetical scenario's are getting old.

Curiously, Police officers have the right to use Lethal means to enforce even the most trivial of laws. Somehow, it's okay for the man in blue to shoot someone for rolling through a stop sign, though now it's wrong for a homeowner to kill someone who has invaded their house with obvious intentions to commit either violence or burglary.

Your apathy towards the victim in this scenario is rather absurd and ridiculous. You have more mercy for the belligerent than the innocent

No...no, that is not what I said at all. If someone is actively stealing your property, shouting at them is almost always sufficient to get them to flee the scene. By all means, pull your gun too, but if you shoot someone without even giving them a chance to flee, that is just immoral.

yes, opening yourself up to Civil and Criminal lawsuits is clearly the answer. In this scenario, what stops the criminal from calling police and coming up with some wonderful story about how you held them at gunpoint and intended to execute them?

Not only are we talking about possible Civil and Criminal cases against the victim, the notion that you must "shoot to warn" is ridiculous. Temporarily disabling yourself and possibly putting your family on the receiving end of a bullet is now "moral" means to defending your house? Excuse me, but breaking into an innocent family's home is hardly moral to begin with.

I must ask, how many gun-fights/home invasions have you been in that let you come to this conclusion?

Once again, not talking about banning, talking about paranoia.

So owning a gun for home defense due to home invasion/robbery/burglary being one of the most popular crimes in the country is paranoia?

My lerd, learn something about statistics before you say "statistics are facts". Ever heard the adage "If you torture the data long enough, it will confess."?

You're dancing around the facts

[Lazarus]

If you're terrified that a marauding band of Vikings is going to knock down your door, rape your possessions and steal your family you don't need a gun. You need to get the hell out of that neighbourhood.

[Rights of the Individual]

If you're terrified that a marauding band of Vikings is going to knock down your door, rape your possessions and steal your family you don't need a gun. You need to get the hell out of that neighbourhood.

Yes, because clearly financial ruin is the best answer