Thread: Whats your opinion on automatic weapons?

Everyone should own at least two. ( for those who aren't aware of it, here's a nice downloadable pdf reference: Gun Facts - Gun Control | Facts | Debunk | Myths )

Originally Posted by gssixgun

snip...


Also it sounds as if the media even Fox is playing the "Armor Piercing Rounds" card, I am calling BS on that statement, I very very very seriously doubt that he was shooting Teflon Coated bullets, or Tungsten Core Black Tips... I could be wrong and this guy had deep pockets...

Does M855 "penetrator" with its steel core count as armor piercing? I'm wonder if someone identified it as that or as those evil Full Metal Jacketed bullets that are oh so evil and media being media just decided to call them bad.

Originally Posted by bharner

Does M855 "penetrator" with its steel core count as armor piercing? I'm wonder if someone identified it as that or as those evil Full Metal Jacketed bullets that are oh so evil and media being media just decided to call them bad.

Either a standard FMJ or the M855 Mild Steel core, will punch through soft armor (Most any rifle bullet will unless they are "High Expansion") but when you start throwing around the armor piercing card then it really means Teflon coatings, or the M955 Tungsten core gliding metal... My understanding is that neither will penetrate Trauma plates without multiple hits in the same area... The facts get a liitle vauge here, and I think the Media exploits that

Hmmmm

http://www.firequest.com/G12-001.html

I guess perhaps the media isn't at fault as much as I think, perhaps marketing is

edit: Turns out with more searching just on this one that the rounds are useless but they are marked Armor Piercing

Anyway I guess the Media is entitled to make assumtions too

Originally Posted by Jimbo

But surely you can mitigate the *severity* of the carnage? I mean, if guns were not one of the most efficient, useful and easy methods of killing things, why are they still being manufactured? I'd like to have seen this nutjob do the same amount of damage in the same amount of time with a knife, for example. Bombs? Sure, bombs will do the trick, but it is my understanding that you have to have a certain level of knowledge and skill to set up bombs and not kill yourself doing so (probably can google it nowadays, but still...). Seems to me anyone can pull a trigger with little to no prior knowledge.

And before we get too carried away with "studies that show...." I'd like a good look at their funding sources and credentials please, because the argument is illogical. Less guns through gun control has to, by definition, reduce *gun crime* as there are less of them. The fact that it might not is nothing to do with the gun control law, and everything to do with the (lack of, or inept) policing of that law.

James.

As terrible as the shooting at the movie was, it pales in comparison to this incident.

Rather than quote the article, I'll link it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Norway_attacks

That particular nut job, followed all the rules, Norway's firearms ownership laws are much more restrictive than those of the US, yet he managed to slaughter 8 people with his IED's and shoot and kill 69 more.

Yes, he had a legally purchased semi auto Ruger Mini 14. If I understand it correctly, he wasn't using high volume fire to kill his victims.

I would say that Holmes was an amateur and we should be thankful that more were not killed and wounded.

On the subject of "repressive gun laws vs. levels of violence"; from this link: Want to avoid gun massacres? Australia shows how ; comes this quote:

You missed the obvious
Posted by BambiB
01/31/2011, 11:18 AM
According to the University of Leiden study on violence, Australia and Britain have the highest levels of violence in the western world. The US isn't even in the top 10.

The obvious point that the author misses is that on the day of the Tuscon shooting, 138 million armed Americans didn't shoot anyone.

Given that Australia's restrictions on firearms have led to much higher violent crime rates, while America's violent crime rates have been in decline (the disparity is much greater now than when the U of Leiden did its study), ...

I include the quote in case the link becomes inactive at a later time.

Of course, there are many studies and the source always needs to be considered. I have no idea who commissioned the U. of Leiden study.

Originally Posted by Wullie

As terrible as the shooting at the movie was, it pales in comparison to this incident.

Rather than quote the article, I'll link it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Norway_attacks

That particular nut job, followed all the rules, Norway's firearms ownership laws are much more restrictive than those of the US, yet he managed to slaughter 8 people with his IED's and shoot and kill 69 more.

Yes, he had a legally purchased semi auto Ruger Mini 14. If I understand it correctly, he wasn't using high volume fire to kill his victims.

I would say that Holmes was an amateur and we should be thankful that more were not killed and wounded.

Yes, that incident was a heinous one.
It is also a good argument for the fact that strict regulations on weapons work. To me at least.
there aren't many willing and able to go to such preparations and sacrifices to obtain his goals.
He literally spent years working solely on these acts of terror.
I have read his entire manifest, a document of about 1600 pages, and one has to give him this; his preparations were pretty darn maticulate.
We as a society cannot guard us completely against sickos like Breivik, but we can sure try our very best.
As a result of our rather stringent regulations, he had to cross many obstacles, use a lot of money, and use years to get this thing done.

It is my belief that these regulations will deter quite a few potensials from actually managing to repeat such acts anytime soon.

Originally Posted by gssixgun

Either a standard FMJ or the M855 Mild Steel core, will punch through soft armor (Most any rifle bullet will unless they are "High Expansion") but when you start throwing around the armor piercing card then it really means Teflon coatings, or the M955 Tungsten core gliding metal... My understanding is that neither will penetrate Trauma plates without multiple hits in the same area... The facts get a liitle vauge here, and I think the Media exploits that

Hmmmm

Firequest 12 Gauge Armor Piercing Rounds - 3 Units Per Package - G12-001

I guess perhaps the media isn't at fault as much as I think, perhaps marketing is

edit: Turns out with more searching just on this one that the rounds are useless but they are marked Armor Piercing

Anyway I guess the Media is entitled to make assumtions too

Glen --
You just hit the nail on the head, my friend! The media are experts at condensing data and stories. I see this all the time in regard to scientific reports. The media will often quote the abstract and conclusion(s) of a scientific paper without delving into the design of the study itself, and are usually quite ignorant of how that statistical procedures were selected and interpreted.

Originally Posted by Birnando

Yes, that incident was a heinous one.
It is also a good argument for the fact that strict regulations on weapons work. To me at least.
there aren't many willing and able to go to such preparations and sacrifices to obtain his goals.
He literally spent years working solely on these acts of terror.
I have read his entire manifest, a document of about 1600 pages, and one has to give him this; his preparations were pretty darn maticulate.
We as a society cannot guard us completely against sickos like Breivik, but we can sure try our very best.
As a result of our rather stringent regulations, he had to cross many obstacles, use a lot of money, and use years to get this thing done.

It is my belief that these regulations will deter quite a few potensials from actually managing to repeat such acts anytime soon.

Yet if we had a more respectable system of gun laws such as they have in many states of the US, that sicko would never have gotten as far as he did. I'm ashamed of the stance that was taken after that sad day. And what's worse is that all the gun control laws put in place that day have need to be made stricter and stricter as they find that they just aren't doing the job that they were supposed to i.e. keep guns out of the hands of criminals. They sure do make it hard for lawful citizens to obtain a firearm though. Prior to this there was a licensing system in Australia where the firearms were registered, that system was changed to include the owners details as well.
And here's a news flash...In 1996, after that event, John Howard(the PM at the time) enacted a massive gun buy back programme, where law abiding citizens including myself, handed in all the firearms suddenly designated as illegal, even though they were bought quite lawfully. It seems that quite a few never made it to the crushers. Over the years they have been turning up in the hands of criminals. Just today they found another three in the hands of gang members. Do I trust the government to do the right thing? Hell No. Not anymore! I often wonder if my nice little stainless steel Mini 14 has ended up in the hands of some low-life due to the ineptitude of our government and the ridiculous laws enacted by a tyrant Prime Minister. End of rant.


Mick

Originally Posted by Birnando

Yes, that incident was a heinous one.
It is also a good argument for the fact that strict regulations on weapons work. To me at least.
there aren't many willing and able to go to such preparations and sacrifices to obtain his goals.
He literally spent years working solely on these acts of terror.
I have read his entire manifest, a document of about 1600 pages, and one has to give him this; his preparations were pretty darn maticulate.
We as a society cannot guard us completely against sickos like Breivik, but we can sure try our very best.
As a result of our rather stringent regulations, he had to cross many obstacles, use a lot of money, and use years to get this thing done.

It is my belief that these regulations will deter quite a few potensials from actually managing to repeat such acts anytime soon.

I will agree with you that gun control does work but only to a certain point after which it does little more. There is a point of diminishing returns for everything. Even in a country such as yours with an extremely high standard of living and extremely tight gun control regulations you had an horrific incident take place. I don't think any country could have done more to prevent that yet it still happened. Largely because people do go insane and commit such acts and there is not much that can be done about it. Also consider that Norway has a population of roughly 5 million and the US has a population of roughly 313 million. No single such incident, that I have been able to find, in the US has had such a high death count either. I am not good at statistics but seems to me there would had to have been about 62 similar such incidents in the US for the US to equal Norway in the mass murder by an insane gunman category. That is just for this one type of incident and things may very well be different in your garden variety homicides and suicides by firearms, not to mention deaths by accidental discharges too. Point is that no matter what you do or don't do for deterrents these acts of mass murder by an insane person cannot be guarded against 100% successfully.

Bob

Originally Posted by MickR

Yet if we had a more respectable system of gun laws such as they have in many states of the US, that sicko would never have gotten as far as he did. I'm ashamed of the stance that was taken after that sad day. And what's worse is that all the gun control laws put in place that day have need to be made stricter and stricter as they find that they just aren't doing the job that they were supposed to i.e. keep guns out of the hands of criminals. They sure do make it hard for lawful citizens to obtain a firearm though. Prior to this there was a licensing system in Australia where the firearms were registered, that system was changed to include the owners details as well.
And here's a news flash...In 1996, after that event, John Howard(the PM at the time) enacted a massive gun buy back programme, where law abiding citizens including myself, handed in all the firearms suddenly designated as illegal, even though they were bought quite lawfully. It seems that quite a few never made it to the crushers. Over the years they have been turning up in the hands of criminals. Just today they found another three in the hands of gang members. Do I trust the government to do the right thing? Hell No. Not anymore! I often wonder if my nice little stainless steel Mini 14 has ended up in the hands of some low-life due to the ineptitude of our government and the ridiculous laws enacted by a tyrant Prime Minister. End of rant.


Mick

At least you had a buy back. We did not have that here when that happened.

Bob