|
Guns... are cool. Shooting young Palestinians with them is maybe not. Maybe not even shooting Israeli's with them is cool. What do you think, D&D?
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2015 09:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 17:40 |
|
|
pointsofdata posted:Who gives a poo poo about how TFR wants to define an assault rifle or any other weapon. Normal people include semi-autonatics: If so, normal people are wrong. It is a technical term with a specific meaning. People are probably trying to refer to the "assault weapon" term which includes terrifying features such as bayonet lugs (because of all those bayonet murders the US suffers from). Also Wikipedia, the US Army, and a huge number of cites agree. quote:An assault rifle is a selective fire rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine.[1][2][3][4][5] quote:In a strict definition, a firearm must have at least the following characteristics to be considered an assault rifle:[18][19][20] RE calling Ruger 10/22s "Sniper Rifles" due to one incredibly rare use care - if I use a shoe to bash some nails in, no-one arguing in good faith would call it a hammer.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2015 10:26
|
|
|
Are people seriously arguing whether a marksman using a scoped rifle to fire upon civilians is or is not a sniper? Who loving cares!? The context is that they're using a rifle to snipe civilians, whether or not they're true snipers. Same goes for the argument as to whether a .22 is more or less lethal than a rock launched from a sling; not every rock throwing event involves slings and, even if they did, the greater point is that the .22 was originally brought in to target the legs of "key protesters." The fact that they're wildly inaccurate after a short distance should stand alone as a reason why such a weapon ought never be used for precise targeting of key figures in the first place. ESPECIALLY protesters. Unless we're going along the same crazy train logic that leads to the homes of Gazan police officers being HAMAS safehouses simply because a government employee unaffiliated with the military goes there to sleep and live and raise a family. Why does anything gun/Israel related make people go insane?
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2015 10:28
|
|
|
There's not much to debate because no-one in their right mind supports Israel in this. If someone is actually threatening your life you end the threat with a real gun, not a bloody 10/22. If they're not, trying to shoot them in the legs is a terrible idea.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2015 10:31
|
|
|
tumblr.txt posted:There's not much to debate because no-one in their right mind supports Israel in this. If someone is actually threatening your life you end the threat with a real gun, not a bloody 10/22. If they're not, trying to shoot them in the legs is a terrible idea. You're King Pedant in this thread, so I'll just nod and agree.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2015 10:36
|
|
|
Please don't take your own life.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2015 10:37
|
|
|
One of those definitions implies there's no such thing as a 7.62 assault rifle because 7.62 isn't really an intermediary cartridge as far as rifles are concerned. Technically it's a battle rifle cartridge, but that is a truly worthless level of pedantry.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2015 10:46
|
|
|
That's what many people in the industry believe, yes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2015 10:48
|
|
|
Faffel posted:One of those definitions implies there's no such thing as a 7.62 assault rifle because 7.62 isn't really an intermediary cartridge as far as rifles are concerned. Technically it's a battle rifle cartridge, but that is a truly worthless level of pedantry. It's stuff like that which makes it really hard to shoot people with an "assault rifle", keeping us all safe. Safety features built right into the definition!
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2015 10:49
|
|
|
tumblr.txt posted:That's what many people in the industry believe, yes. AKM isn't an assault rifle?
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2015 10:49
|
|
|
Faffel posted:AKM isn't an assault rifle?  7.62x39 is an intermediate cartridge. To clarify: I was picturing NATO 7.62x51, which packs a wallop and is very difficult to control when firing full-auto. 7.62x39 on the other hand does not have the same energy due to a slower muzzle velocity. Compare the 7.62x54R (commonly fired by bolt-action rifles) and 7.62x39 (AK-47 and friends). The size difference is a big giveaway. e: OK I am kind of sperging out a bit, and will withdraw from this thread. tumblr.txt fucked around with this message at 11:01 on Sep 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2015 10:55
|
|
|
As a gun nerd I also find it hard to not sperg on this coming from the other direction and ultimately nobody gives a poo poo, so, yeah, gently caress it. I still can't believe they're trying to talk about shooting people in the leg as a good idea. These are some impressive marksmen, since killing some civilians over a hurled rock would be unacceptable and a political disaster on the global stage. lol
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2015 11:15
|
|
|
"Modern sporting rifle."
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2015 13:28
|
|
|
Israel sees Palestinians as less-than-human, purchases hunting rifles for their next Gaza Strip Safari.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2015 17:43
|
|
|
Birdshot used to be common in riot control, you would just aim it at the street in front of the crowd so the pellets would bounce up. Nobody ever lost an eye.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2015 18:00
|
|
|
Aliquid posted:This is the worst. Especially since this is one of those times the gun and its use actually meets TFR pedantry. It's a scoped gun that is intended to be used by a prone, secured marksman from a distance to take out high-profile protest targets (they claim with nonlethal kneecaping, but .22's are dinky enough that they can ricochet and deal immense bodily harm) Its actually funny in a very, very sadistic way; "lethal" ammunition and weapon would be more likely to cause a clean exit wound, and be less likely to miss and hit soneone else. Ensuring its intended function (which is still horrible; protesters do not deserve to be shot in the legs for throwing rocks at what are essentially riot police with a military hardon).
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2015 20:50
|
|
|
What real relevance do the specific technical details of a real gun firing real bullets have when it is being used by fully-equipped soldiers to fire upon unarmored civilian protesters wielding makeshift weapons at best? Would Kent State have been acceptable if the cops had been wielding .22s instead of whatever guns they had? It's not like it's okay to shoot protesters with actual bullets as long as the bullet wounds aren't fatal.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 14:59
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:What real relevance do the specific technical details of a real gun firing real bullets have when it is being used by fully-equipped soldiers to fire upon unarmored civilian protesters wielding makeshift weapons at best? Would Kent State have been acceptable if the cops had been wielding .22s instead of whatever guns they had? It's not like it's okay to shoot protesters with actual bullets as long as the bullet wounds aren't fatal. No, but gun fanatics continually argue that .22LR is designed 'only for shooting paper targets' and is 'ineffective at killing people' in spite of mountains of evidence to the contrary. This bit of news is another blatant example of the cognitive dissonance regarding the purpose of firearms in modern society.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 16:13
|
|
|
LeeMajors posted:No, but gun fanatics continually argue that .22LR is designed 'only for shooting paper targets' and is 'ineffective at killing people' in spite of mountains of evidence to the contrary. Someone better tell Mossad and CIA that. They love the subsonic .22
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 16:49
|
|
|
LeeMajors posted:No, but gun fanatics continually argue that .22LR is designed 'only for shooting paper targets' and is 'ineffective at killing people' in spite of mountains of evidence to the contrary. You really get hung up on this poo poo. Nobody in the gun community advises using the 22LR to defend yourself when there are more powerful calibers out there unless you just can't handle them; simultaneously .22LR is one of the (if not the most) common calibers used in gun murders, a .22 pointed your way by someone intending you harm is lethal threat that can 100% justify lethal response, and is in no way "less-lethal" in the sense that a Taser is. None of these positions are in any way contradictory and if you think they are, it's because you don't know what you're talking about.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 16:54
|
|
This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!
|
LeeMajors posted:No, but gun fanatics continually argue that .22LR is designed 'only for shooting paper targets' and is 'ineffective at killing people' in spite of mountains of evidence to the contrary. Who cares what gun fanatics say? It's an utter distraction, whether or not it's true. A real bullet wound by a real bullet from a "less lethal" caliber that won't kill you is still a loving bullet wound. You can't just walk that off and be fine half an hour later like it's pepper spray or something. Merely seriously injuring civilian protesters isn't really meaningfully better than killing them!
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 17:00
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:What real relevance do the specific technical details of a real gun firing real bullets have when it is being used by fully-equipped soldiers to fire upon unarmored civilian protesters wielding makeshift weapons at best? Would Kent State have been acceptable if the cops had been wielding .22s instead of whatever guns they had? It's not like it's okay to shoot protesters with actual bullets as long as the bullet wounds aren't fatal. Main Paineframe posted:Who cares what gun fanatics say? It's an utter distraction, whether or not it's true. A real bullet wound by a real bullet from a "less lethal" caliber that won't kill you is still a loving bullet wound. You can't just walk that off and be fine half an hour later like it's pepper spray or something. Merely seriously injuring civilian protesters isn't really meaningfully better than killing them! The ballistic properties of a particular caliber effects accuracy and the amount of energy imparted to who or what is being shot. Accuracy and energy (among other things) effects the placement and severity of the wound. "Seriously injuring" includes a whole number of possibilities, from a "through and through" flesh wound, which would only require first aid and basic after care, to striking a long bone or joint, which could require multiple major surgeries and extensive physical therapy. The bullet could also destroy the femoral artery and cause exsanguination in minutes. Whether any of those injuries are "meaningfully" better than any other is not for me to say, but I'd reckon that a person so injured would have an opinion. Like I argued before- "shooting to wound" is a bad practice in general, and I think the use of 22lr in particular increases the likelihood of debilitating or life-threatening injuries. This is because the ballistic properties of subsonic 22lr that cause it to create relatively less traumatic wound channels also cause it to be relatively inaccurate at the ranges where you'd expect them to be used.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 18:46
|
|
|
It's also worse even in cases where it does hit its target because, y'know, you kind of want hundreds-miles fast pieces of metal out of your body instead of pinballing around. Basically "less traumatic impact" only really matters in cases where both compared bullets/weapons are guaranteed to leave your body. Also we should really cut down on the hostility. This is one of the cases where gun owners should be welcome to discuss without coming under fire for their hobby; no american gun enthusiast (on Something Awful atleast) is going to support using guns as casual crowd control, and they offer a wealth of information on the subject.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 19:45
|
|
|
Dilkington posted:"Seriously injuring" includes a whole number of possibilities, from a "through and through" flesh wound, which would only require first aid and basic after care, to striking a long bone or joint, which could require multiple major surgeries and extensive physical therapy. The bullet could also destroy the femoral artery and cause exsanguination in minutes. Whether any of those injuries are "meaningfully" better than any other is not for me to say, but I'd reckon that a person so injured would have an opinion. Likewise, the classic protester suppression method of throwing protesters of "throwing them to the ground and beating them with a club" can cause a wide range of possible injuries, from bruising and soreness, to a broken bone, to various forms of accidental/"accidental" death. Is it really all that relevant how thick or accurate the jackbooted thugs' bludgeons and skull-crackers are?
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 20:49
|
|
|
Kind of, because it points to a couple of weird things that are going on. One is that the small arms industry is apparently marketing rimfires for crowd control. That's interesting. Another is that Israel apparently doesn't need to make very many concessions to the world community before they shoot protesters.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 21:09
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Likewise, the classic protester suppression method of throwing protesters of "throwing them to the ground and beating them with a club" can cause a wide range of possible injuries, from bruising and soreness, to a broken bone, to various forms of accidental/"accidental" death. Is it really all that relevant how thick or accurate the jackbooted thugs' bludgeons and skull-crackers are? I may have misunderstood you before. I think I know what you're getting at. If a police officer intends on beating you to death, likely he'll manage it regardless of what kind of club he's got. Likewise if an Israeli police officer shoots at you with the intention to kill. But that was always a possibility since Israeli police already carried sidearms- the ostensible purpose of the 10/22s was to "shoot to wound," specifically targeting the legs. If that is the shooter's intention, then the ballistics of subsonic 22lr matter for the reasons pointed out previously. SedanChair posted:...the small arms industry is apparently marketing rimfires for crowd control. That's interesting. I have an old anti-Ruger prejudice- this is another thing that vindicates me Dilkington fucked around with this message at 22:26 on Oct 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 22:13
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:You really get hung up on this poo poo. Nobody in the gun community advises using the 22LR to defend yourself when there are more powerful calibers out there unless you just can't handle them; simultaneously .22LR is one of the (if not the most) common calibers used in gun murders, a .22 pointed your way by someone intending you harm is lethal threat that can 100% justify lethal response, and is in no way "less-lethal" in the sense that a Taser is. None of these positions are in any way contradictory and if you think they are, it's because you don't know what you're talking about. 22LR is continually brought up when it comes to the argument that guns are designed to be deadly weapons. All the gun-toting dickheads in here smugly point to the 22 as some kind of sublethal round when it emphatically is not. Main Paineframe posted:Who cares what gun fanatics say? It's an utter distraction, whether or not it's true. A real bullet wound by a real bullet from a "less lethal" caliber that won't kill you is still a loving bullet wound. You can't just walk that off and be fine half an hour later like it's pepper spray or something. Merely seriously injuring civilian protesters isn't really meaningfully better than killing them! I agree? I'm a gun-control/gun-ban advocate. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 22:20
|
|
|
LeeMajors posted:22LR is continually brought up when it comes to the argument that guns are designed to be deadly weapons. All the gun-toting dickheads in here smugly point to the 22 as some kind of sublethal round when it emphatically is not. I've never heard of .22LR being described in that way. The very first thing my father told me when he was teaching me to shoot was that the Mossberg .22 I was holding was more than capable of killing someone.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 22:30
|
|
|
Volcott posted:I've never heard of .22LR being described in that way. The very first thing my father told me when he was teaching me to shoot was that the Mossberg .22 I was holding was more than capable of killing someone. When it comes to military/paramilitary use (or even self defense or police or whatever), if someone is presenting an imminent threat, they shouldn't be shooting them with .22, if someone isn't presenting an imminent threat, they shouldn't be shooting them at all.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 22:42
|
|
|
Volcott posted:I've never heard of .22LR being described in that way. The very first thing my father told me when he was teaching me to shoot was that the Mossberg .22 I was holding was more than capable of killing someone. This has been an argument by the gun retards on here every time guns are mentioned as tools designed to purely for the act of killing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 22:54
|
|
|
LeeMajors posted:This has been an argument by the gun retards on here every time guns are mentioned as tools designed to purely for the act of killing. Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 23:19 on Oct 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 23:16
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Sort of like how stabbing someone to death with a kitchen knife doesn't make J.A. Henckels an arms manufacturer. Unless the round is specifically sub-sonic (which some shooting galleries used) its still designed as a weapon, and many concealed carry handguns are designed around .22LR. Comparing it to a kitchen knife isn't remotely fair. Might as well say that #2 Pencils might accidentally be considered a lethal weapon. quote:The Israeli military used a suppressed .22 LR rifle in the 1990s for riot control and to "eliminate disturbing dogs prior to operations", though it is now used less often as it has been shown to be more lethal than previously suspected.[15] Some other examples include the use of suppressed High Standard HDM pistols by the American OSS, which was the predecessor organization of the CIA.[12] Francis Gary Powers was issued a suppressed High Standard for the flight in which he was shot down. Suppressed Ruger MK II pistols were used by the US Navy SEALs in the 1990s. Its a gun. Its not a BB. All guns are designed to be lethal. No gun is designed to be less than lethal (outside of bean bag guns or other such specific designs). CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 23:45 on Oct 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 23:42
|
|
|
Why does anyone care what guns were designed for? Guns would be exactly as dangerous (which is very) regardless of whether they were designed to kill people or as unicorn mating calls, changing the intent of a design changes nothing, it's the actual design that matters.
twodot fucked around with this message at 23:52 on Oct 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 23:48
|
|
|
LeeMajors posted:This has been an argument by the gun retards on here every time guns are mentioned as tools designed to purely for the act of killing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2015 00:11
|
|
|
BarkingSquirrel posted:Then you should be able to bring up a citation no problem. Right? You. calling people retarded for asking for advice in the Firearm Newbie thread.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2015 00:15
|
|
|
I calls it how I sees it. You don't wanna be called a retard? Don't be a retard. Also that wasn't a citation at all. I'm starting to think you don't have the slightest clue what you're spouting off about.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2015 00:29
|
|
|
BarkingSquirrel posted:I calls it how I sees it. You don't wanna be called a retard? Don't be a retard. Also that wasn't a citation at all. I'm starting to think you don't have the slightest clue what you're spouting off about. Maybe you'd like the cite some data that shows .22s are not meant or designed as lethal weapons.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2015 00:32
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Unless the round is specifically sub-sonic (which some shooting galleries used) its still designed as a weapon, and many concealed carry handguns are designed around .22LR. twodot posted:Why does anyone care what guns were designed for? Guns would be exactly as dangerous (which is very) regardless of whether they were designed to kill people or as unicorn mating calls, changing the intent of a design changes nothing, it's the actual design that matters.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2015 00:49
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:If every gun is designed as a lethal weapon, I'm curious why you think Hammerli free pistols exist. A fragile, single shot, falling block pistol sounds like a terrible weapon, I can't understand how they get away with charging $2000 for it. Now, much like a kitchen knife, it's possible to kill someone with one, but it's rather absurd to argue that it was designed for that purpose.. Match pistols are still lethal weapons. Nice goal post shift.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2015 01:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 17:40 |
|
|
not a good comparison at all, israel's purist apartheid state is valid and just because
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2015 01:08
|
|
