Gun Rights

[Galla-]

1) Sure there aren't.

That's not replacing it's supplementing.

3) You said an M16 can suppress.

You're lying. I said that hunting rifles can't be used to suppress, not that the M16 can.

1) It is a replacement. CAS is shifting from slow, vulnerable, low-flying aircraft to long-range, high-speed, stealth multiroles with standoff weapons to avoid massive casualties against competent foes. Any conscript with a MANPADS could take down an A-10. It's entirely vulnerable to a modern IADS.

It's being replaced because this isn't the 1970s anymore with shitty Redeyes and Blowpipes, when gun directors from WWII, hooked up to a Bofors 40mm, could take down an A-10.

2) You implied it, and clearly meant it.

That's not replacing it's supplementing.
You're lying. I said that hunting rifles can't be used to suppress, not that the M16 can.

You can suppress with just about anything that shoots, except maybe a crossbow or a single-shot rifle of some sort (too slow). Even most hunting rifles can be used for suppressing fire, for a while - the object is to keep the enemy's head down, not just to continually spray in their general direction. Yes, he might pop back up when you have to reload, but even a machine gun would eventually have the same problem.

One bullet within one metre every second = Military definition of suppressive fire.

A .30-06 bolt action can't suppress competent foes, because either you're taking too long to aim, getting suppressed yourself, or your firing too fast to aim properly.

Actually, even the best body armour won't stop a .30-06 rifle round. Might slow it enough to be less lethal, won't stop it - one solid hit and the Soldier is down. What the current gen armour does is stop ricochets, spalls and fragments that would otherwise maim or kill our soldiers. It's a big advantage, but it's not magic.

Incorrect, high quality ceramic plate will, I even have video evidence
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gA6rC_WYBGM

we just don't give our military the best.

ESAPI can stop anything short of 8mm Lapua Magnum.

If that's not the best, what is?

[Vingtor]

Actually, even the best body armour won't stop a .30-06 rifle round. Might slow it enough to be less lethal, won't stop it - one solid hit and the Soldier is down. What the current gen armour does is stop ricochets, spalls and fragments that would otherwise maim or kill our soldiers. It's a big advantage, but it's not magic.

Except modern body armor with an ESAPI insert (aka what the US gives to its troops) is rated to stop (not slow down or reduce lethality but actually stop) multiple .30-06 AP rounds.

Deal with it.

Even with all that, that it will literally knock him down. Break his neck on the fall.

[Kalaspia-Shimarata]

People should have the right to carry guns to protect themselves

[Vingtor]

People should have the right to carry guns to protect themselves

Right on brother!

[Galla-]

Except modern body armor with an ESAPI insert (aka what the US gives to its troops) is rated to stop (not slow down or reduce lethality but actually stop) multiple .30-06 AP rounds.

Deal with it.

Even with all that, that it will literally knock him down. Break his neck on the fall.

It hasn't happened yet.

Even modern helmets can stop grazing .30-06-class bullets.



US body armour is ridiculously heavy and ridiculously well designed to stop anything short of 8mm Lapua Magnum.

Might even stop that.

[Cameroi]

guns are inanimate objects. living organizims, to the extent rights can be said to exist, have rights. and living, unless your somebody else's lunch so they can live, is quite likely to be one of them.

[Vingtor]

Even with all that, that it will literally knock him down. Break his neck on the fall.

It hasn't happened yet.

Even modern helmets can stop grazing .30-06-class bullets.



US body armour is ridiculously heavy and ridiculously well designed to stop anything short of 8mm Lapua Magnum.

Might even stop that.

It might. It will still knock him down if powerful enough.

[Galla-]

It hasn't happened yet.

Even modern helmets can stop grazing .30-06-class bullets.



US body armour is ridiculously heavy and ridiculously well designed to stop anything short of 8mm Lapua Magnum.

Might even stop that.

It might. It will still knock him down if powerful enough.

Which would be powerful enough to tear the arm off of the shooter. Not even .338 Lapua has the power to physically push a human off their feet. I don't even think .50 BMG could do it. Its not physical, it's psychological. If you're doped on drugs, body armour or no, you probably won't fall over until you actually die.

[Vingtor]

Which would be powerful enough to tear the arm off of the shooter. Not even .338 Lapua has the power to physically push a human off their feet. I don't even think .50 BMG could do it. Its not physical, it's psychological. If you're doped on drugs, body armour or no, you probably won't fall over until you actually die.

Damn, I don't think even coke could brush off, say a 10 ga to the stomache. And how many people snort a line before they start the bussiness of shooting at people?

[Tsal-Kar]

Which would be powerful enough to tear the arm off of the shooter. Not even .338 Lapua has the power to physically push a human off their feet. I don't even think .50 BMG could do it. Its not physical, it's psychological. If you're doped on drugs, body armour or no, you probably won't fall over until you actually die.

Damn, I don't think even coke could brush off, say a 10 ga to the stomache. And how many people snort a line before they start the bussiness of shooting at people?

Unfortunately, there is a ton of opium use in the Middle East - including the terrorist organizations. Luckily, not a whole lot of terrorists have body armor, but you'd still be amazed by what even comparatively weak alcohol can do to toughen up an unarmored user

[Vingtor]

Damn, I don't think even coke could brush off, say a 10 ga to the stomache. And how many people snort a line before they start the bussiness of shooting at people?

Unfortunately, there is a ton of opium use in the Middle East - including the terrorist organizations. Luckily, not a whole lot of terrorists have body armor, but you'd still be amazed by what even comparatively weak alcohol can do to toughen up an unarmored user

A bit of dutch courage isn't going to keep your teeth from getting knocked out.

[Galla-]

Which would be powerful enough to tear the arm off of the shooter. Not even .338 Lapua has the power to physically push a human off their feet. I don't even think .50 BMG could do it. Its not physical, it's psychological. If you're doped on drugs, body armour or no, you probably won't fall over until you actually die.

Damn, I don't think even coke could brush off, say a 10 ga to the stomache. And how many people snort a line before they start the bussiness of shooting at people?

1) Probably not, but at that point there wouldn't be much of a stomach left, and the fellow would die from shock and blood loss.

2) Hajjis do it pretty much all the time, it helps them ignore wounds and pain, and keeps them fighting longer because they aren't dropping after realising they're hit, they're dropping after they're dead.

Soldiers in the -Stan say it takes up to ten-twelve 5.56mm rounds to kill one of them. Whether that's an argument against low recoil, automatic rifles which encourage spraying of rifle fire, an argument against small bore, high velocity bullets, or both, is pretty hard to say. I'd personally say that a large bore, semi-automatic rifle forces marksmanship, as opposed to emptying magazines.

Unfortunately, there is a ton of opium use in the Middle East - including the terrorist organizations. Luckily, not a whole lot of terrorists have body armor, but you'd still be amazed by what even comparatively weak alcohol can do to toughen up an unarmored user

A bit of dutch courage isn't going to keep your teeth from getting knocked out.

It'll keep you from falling over when you're hit by a varmint round from 500-600 meters.

And please, Vingtor, try not to bring up SALVO or SLA Marshall. Both of those are factually inaccurate, given the former is based on the latter, and the latter falsified and fabricated "evidence" to support his incorrect conclusions.

[Tsal-Kar]

Unfortunately, there is a ton of opium use in the Middle East - including the terrorist organizations. Luckily, not a whole lot of terrorists have body armor, but you'd still be amazed by what even comparatively weak alcohol can do to toughen up an unarmored user

A bit of dutch courage isn't going to keep your teeth from getting knocked out.

*Digs out an old book*
Carlos Hathcock (arguably the best American sniper ever) and his spotter, Ron McAbee, were camping out on a hill near Route 4 during the Vietnam War. Along came a Viet Cong soldier, staggering around and singing loud enough to be heard from their position about five hundred yards away - he was obviously drunk or high, or a combination of both. Hathcock shot him once with his Winchester Model 70 chambered for .30-06. The guy dropped to his knees, got up, and charged towards Hathcock and his buddy. Hathcock hit him again, and McAbee began hitting him with his M14 - at least three times. Hathcock took another shot as well, but the bad guy was still running and screaming, and only about three hundred yards away at this point. Hathcock hit him once again, very carefully, in the head. The soldier was still down, but still screaming when Hathcock shot him for the seventh and final time, in the face.
This was paraphrased from Marine Sniper, by Charles Henderson

[Galla-]

A bit of dutch courage isn't going to keep your teeth from getting knocked out.

*Digs out an old book*
Carlos Hathcock (arguably the best American sniper ever) and his spotter, Ron McAbee, were camping out on a hill near Route 4 during the Vietnam. Along came a Viet Cong soldier, staggering around and singing loud enough to be heard from their position about five hundred yards away - he was obviously drunk or high, or a combination of both.

Feels good man

[Arkinesia]

And like an anarchist society, all it take is one person with a gun to render it unsafe. Can you make all guns not exist? No, and until you can, I will prefer to meet deadly threat, with deadly force.

In countries with strong gun laws guns are almost unheard of. People like you just have a fetish for the power to kill. One person with a gun is far safer than a whole nation sitting on their guns, looking nervously at their neighbours and just waiting for an excuse to kill somebody.

if only.

Germany has school shootings more often than never. Same with most of Europe.

I don't walk around in fear of getting shot here even though there's a lot of locals with guns. There's massive penalties and criminal sentences for misuse.

[Columbia America]

Doublepost.

[Columbia America]

You can suppress with just about anything that shoots, except maybe a crossbow or a single-shot rifle of some sort (too slow). Even most hunting rifles can be used for suppressing fire, for a while - the object is to keep the enemy's head down, not just to continually spray in their general direction. Yes, he might pop back up when you have to reload, but even a machine gun would eventually have the same problem.

You're not suppressing with a bolt-action or semi-automatic hunting rifle, there's not enough ammo.

[Columbia America]

1) It is a replacement. CAS is shifting from slow, vulnerable, low-flying aircraft to long-range, high-speed, stealth multiroles with standoff weapons to avoid massive casualties against competent foes. Any conscript with a MANPADS could take down an A-10. It's entirely vulnerable to a modern IADS.

It's being replaced because this isn't the 1970s anymore with shitty Redeyes and Blowpipes, when gun directors from WWII, hooked up to a Bofors 40mm, could take down an A-10.

A 40mm Bofors is not a .30-06. A MANPAD is not a .30-06. This is where this discussion came from, remember? What you're currently doing is a classic Red Herring. And once again, the F-35 is not replacing the A-10, it's supplementing.

2) You implied it, and clearly meant it.

No, I did not. That's a strawman on your part. If you insist on this line of discourse I ask you to quote the part where I implied the M16 was meant for suppressive purposes.

[Galla-]

1) It is a replacement. CAS is shifting from slow, vulnerable, low-flying aircraft to long-range, high-speed, stealth multiroles with standoff weapons to avoid massive casualties against competent foes. Any conscript with a MANPADS could take down an A-10. It's entirely vulnerable to a modern IADS.

It's being replaced because this isn't the 1970s anymore with shitty Redeyes and Blowpipes, when gun directors from WWII, hooked up to a Bofors 40mm, could take down an A-10.

A 40mm Bofors is not a .30-06. A MANPAD is not a .30-06. This is where this discussion came from, remember? What you're currently doing is a classic Red Herring. And once again, the F-35 is not replacing the A-10, it's supplementing.

2) You implied it, and clearly meant it.

No, I did not. That's a strawman on your part. If you insist on this line of discourse I ask you to quote the part where I implied the M16 was meant for suppressive purposes.

1) No, but both the 40mm Bofors and any Igla MANPADS are cheap and old (meaning plentiful), and the A-10 is vulnerable to them, and that is why it is being replaced in the latter-2020s by the F-35.

2) If you're just going to be this intellectually dishonest, there is no possible way you'll be swayed by what exactly you meant in this post:

Do you know what the main differences between a civilian hunting rifle and a current gen M-16 are? The M-16 holds more rounds, and the hunting rifle is more powerful.

The hunting rifle is also incapable of suppressive fire and a lot heavier, unsuitable for CQB as well due to size.

If that sentence, whether you wish to admit your own wrongness or not, you clearly implied that the M16 was capable suppressive fire.

It is not.

[Libersummit]

I believe in a non-agression principle. People tend to break this principle which is why guns need to be legal. To protect oneself and one's property.

[Central and Eastern Visayas]

I believe in a non-agression principle. People tend to break this principle which is why guns need to be legal. To protect oneself and one's property.

Precisely. After all, is not efective self-defense an extension of the natural rights?

[Tsal-Kar]

You can suppress with just about anything that shoots, except maybe a crossbow or a single-shot rifle of some sort (too slow). Even most hunting rifles can be used for suppressing fire, for a while - the object is to keep the enemy's head down, not just to continually spray in their general direction. Yes, he might pop back up when you have to reload, but even a machine gun would eventually have the same problem.

You're not suppressing with a bolt-action or semi-automatic hunting rifle, there's not enough ammo.

Do they have less ammo? Yes, but does that necessarily mean that they will run out of ammo sooner? Considering the rate of fire of a machine gun, I think it's safe to say that the machine gun could easily run out of ammo sooner - even if you're firing in bursts. Remember, despite what the military definition of suppressive fire says (one round within a meter per second), the goal is just to keep the bad guy's head down - this could just mean shooting whenever he tries to pop up.

On a side note (and by no means am I saying that this is the norm), some semi-automatic rifles used for hunting are based on military weapons, and can support magazines of 20-30 rounds - and there are even some (again, I am by no means saying that this is normal, or even that a hunter would do this - I'm just saying the rifle is capable of this) that would accept 70- and 100-round drum magazines

[Galla-]

You're not suppressing with a bolt-action or semi-automatic hunting rifle, there's not enough ammo.

Do they have less ammo? Yes, but does that necessarily mean that they will run out of ammo sooner? Considering the rate of fire of a machine gun, I think it's safe to say that the machine gun could easily run out of ammo sooner - even if you're firing in bursts. Remember, despite what the military definition of suppressive fire says (one round within a meter per second), the goal is just to keep the bad guy's head down - this could just mean shooting whenever he tries to pop up.

On a side note (and by no means am I saying that this is the norm), some semi-automatic rifles used for hunting are based on military weapons, and can support magazines of 20-30 rounds - and there are even some (again, I am by no means saying that this is normal, or even that a hunter would do this - I'm just saying the rifle is capable of this) that would accept 70- and 100-round drum magazines

A trained and disciplined adversary would probably ignore most "suppressive" fire from a lever, bolt, or pump action rifle. A semi-automatic might be able to suppress if you're fighting untrained, undisciplined rabble like Mujahadeen or Africans. A belt-fed machine gun is explicitly made for this purpose.

And most semi-automatic rifles in the USA can accept drum magazines, or have drum magazines made for them.

Your point? A large magazine doesn't make a rifle any closer to an automatic, it just shaves maybe 1.5 seconds off of a reload.

[Tekcirb]

Gun Rights = Gun Wrongs

[NeoGeoCities]

Gun rights=Everyone armed=Criminals too scared to rob a bank cause loleveryonehasagun.