I changed my stance on gun control!!!

[renniks]

No, you do not even understand the argument. I never made that argument. You are simply refusing to listen. Perhaps it is fear on your part.

So far you have not really been paying any attention at all. You only have denial and then you demonstrate that you have not been following the discussion. How are you going to refute anyone with that sort of approach?

You haven't put up anything logical so what is there to refute? And that's exactly the argument you made, that the .223 was too dangerous to be allowed to own.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Would you then be ok if AR15s were chambered in something like 9mm?
Rifle, Resolute 200, Mk9, 9mm Radial Delayed Blowback™ | CMMG - AR 15 and AR 10 Builds and Parts

Two things will probably have to be done to guns. I hated the silly "assault weapon ban" because it was based upon looks and not capabilities. I don't care if a gun "looks bad". I care if it is too destructive. One could limit the velocity of rounds from a standard barrel. I know, up to a certain extent a longer barrel means higher muzzle velocity. I say up to an extent because if you have one hundred meter long barrel the friction against the sides will be more of a factor than extracting every last bit of energy from the burning of the powder. But bullets are effective at over quite a range of muzzle velocities. That would mean that rounds that went into either handguns or rifles would have to be limited based upon the speed from a rifle barrel.

The second limitation that we may need are limited magazines. If you have an old one it will probably be grandfathered in, but there really is no good "self defense" claim for a rifle with more than a standard five round mag.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So you have a worthless, unenforceable law. Again with no point, because you can kill just as easy, even in the unlikely event that criminals chose to obey it. You think criminals won't reload? Weird assumption. And where does it lead? To more laws! What a surprise! More laws that will only hurt those who obey laws. Criminals will still get their powder illegally.

Oh my, still using strawman arguments.

And I explained how it is easily enforceable. When you do not understand ask questions. Don't shout out at the world I DON'T UNDERSTAND!!!" by posting nonsense.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You haven't put up anything logical so what is there to refute? And that's exactly the argument you made, that the .223 was too dangerous to be allowed to own.

Wrong again, and of course I never made that claim.

I know, it would be so much easier to debate if your opponents said what you want them to have said.

 

[Astrid]

I've never thought about encountering a badger in particular but yeah.. that could probably be quite a bit to deal with too.
any time I've gone out in the woods the primary thing I've wanted to be armed for was bears and mountain lions. Bears need the big thing.. I think I'd use the mossberg shockwave with a slug, or at least a .357 Magnum.

Lookee what i found about shooting bears
Defense Against Bears with Pistols: 97% Success rate, 37 incidents by Caliber - Sporting Classics Daily

 

[renniks]

Wrong again, and of course I never made that claim.

I know, it would be so much easier to debate if your opponents said what you want them to have said.

Lol, then why ban anything since you never claimed it was too dangerous?

 

[Aldebaran]

Two things will probably have to be done to guns. I hated the silly "assault weapon ban" because it was based upon looks and not capabilities. I don't care if a gun "looks bad". I care if it is too destructive. One could limit the velocity of rounds from a standard barrel. I know, up to a certain extent a longer barrel means higher muzzle velocity. I say up to an extent because if you have one hundred meter long barrel the friction against the sides will be more of a factor than extracting every last bit of energy from the burning of the powder. But bullets are effective at over quite a range of muzzle velocities. That would mean that rounds that went into either handguns or rifles would have to be limited based upon the speed from a rifle barrel.

Limiting the speed to what level? Velocities of bullets are set for certain performance goals. The faster a bullet travels from a rifle, the flatter its trajectory, and the longer its range. Limit its velocity, and you limit it's performance.
In a handgun, velocity is needed to achieve expansion with a hollowpoint bullet. That allows the bullet to expand in diameter and use up its energy inside the target body, which prevents overpenetration. Limit the velocity, and now you have an underperforming bullet that overpenetrates and lacks stopping power, necessitating more follow-up shots to stop the threat.

The second limitation that we may need are limited magazines. If you have an old one it will probably be grandfathered in, but there really is no good "self defense" claim for a rifle with more than a standard five round mag.

Less velocity and lower mag capacity wouldn't make for a good combination when you're facing a threat to your life.

 

[renniks]

And I explained how it is easily enforceable.

Where? You said they would not manufacture " hot" ammo?
So? It will still be loaded and used.

 

[renniks]

I care if it is too destructive.

But you just said you never claimed that the .223 was too destructive. Perhaps you are having problems with schizophrenia?

 

[Yttrium]

They are hunting rifles...no difference at all. Perfectly legal to use ARs for hunting. Less powerful than a .243...or .30 calibers... you need to actually do some research instead of listening to the MSM.

Hmm. Trying a little research here. From what I can tell, the .223 has a muzzle velocity of 3250 ft/sec. The standard .30 has a muzzle velocity of 1990 ft/sec. Considering velocity is much more important to energy than mass, that makes the .223 more powerful despite its smaller size, and thus capable of doing more damage than the .30. Correct me if my research is faulty here.

 

[Jamdoc]

Lookee what i found about shooting bears
Defense Against Bears with Pistols: 97% Success rate, 37 incidents by Caliber - Sporting Classics Daily

Very informative, I had not known or suspected that 9mm would be effective against a bear, what is pretty telling though, is that the bear spray was ineffective.
That's good info for when anti gun people claim you don't need a gun vs a charging bear on a camping trip and you should just use bear spray.
I'd stick to a gun.
the 1 failure WAS a 357 magnum though

the 357 magnum actually seemed to really underperform, even when it was successful it required multiple shots to kill the bear, the other success the bear ran off. The 45 ACP also kind of seems less than ideal, seeming to take several shots to stop the bears.
the 9mm uses I'm betting were FMJ rounds which normally against a human that overpenetrates but against a bear? better penetration is good. 40S&W and 10mm I think have that same case where they would "overpenetrate" on a human but seem to do well against bear.
Pretty educational stuff.
Bear spray sucks lol

 

[renniks]

Hmm. Trying a little research here. From what I can tell, the .223 has a muzzle velocity of 3250 ft/sec. The standard .30 has a muzzle velocity of 1990 ft/sec. Considering velocity is much more important to energy than mass, that makes the .223 more powerful despite its smaller size, and thus capable of doing more damage than the .30. Correct me if my research is faulty here.

Check and see if anyone is using .223s to hunt elephants. A faster lighter bullet can do lots of damage but it can also fragment and lose power if it doesn't penetrate because of bone, heavy skin, etc.
A shot to the head and you are dead either way. But if you get lucky and the lighter bullet misses vitals, you are more likely to survive because that bigger chunk of lead will take more of you with it on the way out. Again, I've examined enough .243s vs 30.06 holes in deer to see that a smaller bullet generally isn't going to do the same amount of tissue damage.
I've shot hundreds of animals dead with a simple .22, but when it comes to body shots on big game, it's a different story.

 

[RDKirk]

The second limitation that we may need are limited magazines. If you have an old one it will probably be grandfathered in, but there really is no good "self defense" claim for a rifle with more than a standard five round mag.

Sure there is. In a defensive situation, there may be more than one antagonist, they're likely to be moving, and they will be creating an extreme amount of nervous anxiety, all of which will call for more than five rounds in a defender's guns.

 

[Astrid]

Very informative, I had not known or suspected that 9mm would be effective against a bear, what is pretty telling though, is that the bear spray was ineffective.
That's good info for when anti gun people claim you don't need a gun vs a charging bear on a camping trip and you should just use bear spray.
I'd stick to a gun.
the 1 failure WAS a 357 magnum though

Zoology prof at uni had a bear skull, part of one, in his office.
He said that in the day, the boys in camp were always getting
attacked by grizzlie bears. So he took their rifles and gave them
shot-guns.
The bears stopped attacking, except for one.

 

[Yttrium]

Check and see if anyone is using .223s to hunt elephants. A faster lighter bullet can do lots of damage but it can also fragment and lose power if it doesn't penetrate because of bone, heavy skin, etc.

I think you've got that part backwards. If it doesn't penetrate, the faster lighter bullet is always going to do more damage. That's because if a body stops the bullet, then all the bullet's energy is transferred to the body. It doesn't matter if the bullet fragments or not, that energy has to go somewhere. If the bullet passes through the body, then the smaller bullet can do less damage to the body, since not all of the energy is going to be transferred to the body.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Lol, then why ban anything since you never claimed it was too dangerous?

What on Earth are you nattering about? I was very specific as to what was dangerous and why. You seem to want me to have said that all cartridges are too dangerous. I never said that or implied that.

 

[renniks]

I think you've got that part backwards. If it doesn't penetrate, the faster lighter bullet is always going to do more damage. That's because if a body stops the bullet, then all the bullet's energy is transferred to the body. It doesn't matter if the bullet fragments or not, that energy has to go somewhere. If the bullet passes through the body, then the smaller bullet can do less damage to the body, since not all of the energy is going to be transferred to the body.

Because of the speed and light weight, it can also skip off heavy bones instead of penetrating. So all you get is a surface wound. I don't recommend hitting the shoulder bone on a deer but with a 30.06 it will punch a hole through the other side that you can fit a softball through. Now if the bullet of the smaller caliber does make it into the vitals sometimes it will tumble and spin around and cause all kinds of internal damage. We were talking earlier about the dude that Rittenhouse shot in the arm. With a heavier round he might not have had any arm left because it would be more likely to hit and shatter the bone. Like swinging a sledge instead of a ball peen hammer, the power is more spread out.

 

[renniks]

What on Earth are you nattering about? I was very specific as to what was dangerous and why. You seem to want me to have said that all cartridges are too dangerous. I never said that or implied that.

But you want them all limited to some unspecified powder charge. You need to make up your mind. First it was all about the scary AR 15, then it's not... then it is again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Where? You said they would not manufacture " hot" ammo?
So? It will still be loaded and used.

And I explained how that was not that big of a problem. The people that tend to abuse guns are not gun nuts. I know! Hard to believe. Look at the latest school shooting. Some irresponsible parents bought their troubled high school student a handgun for a Christmas present. He took it into school and killed several students. That is not the sort of person that learns how to reload guns.

I am trying to safe and sane gun laws. You want to leave your opponents no choice except to take away all guns.

 

[Subduction Zone]

But you want them all limited to some unspecified powder charge. You need to make up your mind. First it was all about the scary AR 15, then it's not... then it is again.

I never implied the same powder charge for all guns. Where did you get that from? I sited the .223 as an example, not as an absolute limit. A reasonable top barrel speed per bullet in a standard length gun barrel could be decided upon. The charge behind a bullet could still vary, but only up to that limit. If your gun had a shorter barrel length you would have a slower bullet. If you wanted to carry around a gun with a ten foot barrel you would have a higher muzzle velocity.