Jump to content

Gun control, the constitution and you, let's keep it civil.


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 234
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Island, I think this sums it up pretty well. Just like the Dems will never be in favor of true tort reform as the trial lawyers make huge contributions to their campaigns.

Maybe if those damned ignorant conservatives stopped fighting with the damned whiny liberals we could all sing Kumbya

Can you imagine a scenario where a bunch of billy bob rednecks got all budweisered up, and grabbed their AK -47' & bushmaster assault rifles from the gun racks in their pickups, jumped on their 4

So before I started the response I went back to original post from Doc. I wanted to makes sure that the real original question before us was really about gun control and the shooting from one week ago.

It has been proven that hand guns kill more people than anything else, well that may be true it is not normally a hand gun used in school or mall shootings. So to me that is a mute point and we are talking about a specific type of crime.

We have discussed mental health as an issue. This is very true and I dont know of any country that addresses all mental health issues little own the one I live in. The other thing with mental health is that most people will not understand it unless they have lived through it. And with that being said, the common person would not know what the Red flags are for a person who has the potential to do this crime, but really do any of us. Would the general public start call the authoraties just because someone is acting a little off. So unless there is good help out there for those then really this isn't going to stop. It has been my experience that those with mental health issues start to feel good and then go off the medications that are making the feel that way. This topic as far as I can see is like a revolving door.

Now I think the most dissappointing thing of all is the NRA. They are going to work at having every school have armed guards. They say the only way to stop the bad guy with a gun is to have a good guy with a gun, and lets do the shoot first and ask questions later. I couldn't imagine taking my child to school and seeing the guns. If that happens it would make me feel like it did when I went to Mexico (no offence Defib) seeing the police with automatice weapons, it didn't make me feel safer, it made me feel more afraid. So lets say this happens are we going to be sure that every security guard is going to have the proper clearences and behaviour tests done. Im sure there will be the lets go talk to the neighbours interviews for these security guards, but lets be real, mental health problems can happen later in life and who is to say you just haven't put the gun in the ticking time bomb.

I don't know what the answer is to this and trust me I know Canada has its share of problems. The one thing I like that Toronto is doing is that doors will be locked and there will be camera's at them so if someone wants in the school they have to be let in. Now dont get me wrong there are alot of problems with that idea like for safety in fires etc, and that this gunman shot his way in through a window, maybe we need to have bullet proof windows installed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If that happens it would make me feel like it did when I went to Mexico (no offence Defib) seeing the police with automatice weapons, it didn't make me feel safer, it made me feel more afraid.

No offence taken. You were right be afraid afraid. Most of them have never fired more than 10 rounds in their entire career. Not even in training. In many departments if they discharge their weapon in the line of duty, their pay is docked for the price of the bullets. They are under-educated, under-trained, poorly paid, armed to the teeth and have a badge. The only way you can trust them is to be close personal friends or family with their boss.

Now the same weapon in the hands of an officer you know is trained and educated maybe changes the panorama a little.

Edit: I haven't forgotten that I still owe you a story.

Edited by DFIB
Link to post
Share on other sites

Here I'll clarify on the .223 round. Relatively speaking, the round itself is not particularly large, but the powder charge is designed to propel it at supersonic speeds. You see, right around the Vietnam war, they realized that a bunch of small bullets flying at high speed presents the best chance of scoring a lethal or neurogenicaly incapacitating wound. In other words, this gun was designed to shoot at something that is shooting back at you. That is there purpose. That is why they were built. That's why they are so deadly. Of those 20 children killed, 18 were pronounced on scene. What type of wounds do you think they suffered? What type of wounds would child have to have for EMS providers not even to bother attempting resuscitation? Even in an MCI situation, from what you know about yourself and your colleagues, what type of injury would a 6 year old have to have so that you don't work them? That type of wound? That's what a .223 round does. That's what they were made for. Inflicting catastrophic wounds on human beings.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here I'll clarify on the .223 round. Relatively speaking, the round itself is not particularly large, but the powder charge is designed to propel it at supersonic speeds. You see, right around the Vietnam war, they realized that a bunch of small bullets flying at high speed presents the best chance of scoring a lethal or neurogenicaly incapacitating wound. In other words, this gun was designed to shoot at something that is shooting back at you. That is there purpose. That is why they were built. That's why they are so deadly. Of those 20 children killed, 18 were pronounced on scene. What type of wounds do you think they suffered? What type of wounds would child have to have for EMS providers not even to bother attempting resuscitation? Even in an MCI situation, from what you know about yourself and your colleagues, what type of injury would a 6 year old have to have so that you don't work them? That type of wound? That's what a .223 round does. That's what they were made for. Inflicting catastrophic wounds on human beings.

Children are so small and frail. At close range anything larger than a .22 would be pretty devastating. But you are correct about velocity and damage. Double the mass=double the damage, double the velocity = quadruple the damage.

The .223 round devastating because of the great cavitation it produces. On those tiny children it must have been devastating.

The .223 is a favorite among varmint hunters precisely because of its velocity.

EDIT: It is amazing what people will post on the internet. There is a video of an actual .223 bullet wound on youtube. It is graphic and I don't want to post it, But if you want to know what a .223 round does to flesh, you can look it up

Edited by DFIB
Link to post
Share on other sites

However, a typical hunting rifle say a .270 fires a larger bullet at supersonic velocity and produces devastating effects. Feel free to verify me, but a standard 5.56 (.223) round will have a velocity around 900m/s (vector) and a weight of around 63 grains. A number of .270 rounds exist, but ill take something in the middle like a 130 grain bullet with a velocity of around 900 m/sec (vector). Convert grains to grams or kg and use the macroscopic formula for kinetic energy (KE = MV(2)/2) and you will find the .270 is capable of delivering more kinetic energy.

I do not reasonably think that the round argument is valid. However the ability to load a 100+ round magazine and shoot it off quickly, perhaps that argument carries less inertia than the one above?

Link to post
Share on other sites

However, a typical hunting rifle say a .270 fires a larger bullet at supersonic velocity and produces devastating effects. Feel free to verify me, but a standard 5.56 (.223) round will have a velocity around 900m/s (vector) and a weight of around 63 grains. A number of .270 rounds exist, but ill take something in the middle like a 130 grain bullet with a velocity of around 900 m/sec (vector). Convert grains to grams or kg and use the macroscopic formula for kinetic energy (KE = MV(2)/2) and you will find the .270 is capable of delivering more kinetic energy.

I do not reasonably think that the round argument is valid. However the ability to load a 100+ round magazine and shoot it off quickly, perhaps that argument carries less inertia than the one above?

Any bullet wound to a child is devastating. So yea, the round argument may not be all that valid.

Edited by DFIB
Link to post
Share on other sites

The two most common "assault weapons in the world are the russian designed AK-47 and all it's variants [ produced in a dozen different communist bloc countries. and made by the millions], firing the 7.62x63 cartridge; this round is a heavy bullet that travels at a subsonic rate and carries a good knockdown punch with a fragmentation slug.

And the U.S. designed M-16 and all it's variants such as the bushmaster , Colt AR-15 and a couple other custom gunsmiths that are producing specialty versions, using the .223 cartridge.

The civilian versions of these are semi automatic action , which means a trigger pull for each round fired.

They are available with 20 round standard , 30 round , 50 round & even 100 round extended magazines. These can be emptied as fast as you can pull the trigger repeatedly.

The 223 is a high speed supersonic round with a projectile that is designed to penetrate and tumble around in the body to do maximum damage along with the shock wave effect on tissues. It was designed to maximize the killing capability of our military troops in the police action called Vietnam.

Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...