July 19, 20223 yr 20 minutes ago, ToastJenkins said: Im not the one saying there is no debate with some fake appeal to authority. There is a relevant debate bc its largely emotional nonsense meant to get people against said weapons If anyone wants to get smashed quickly just take a shot every time TJ says "emotional" on this board.
July 19, 20223 yr 7 minutes ago, Paul852 said: If anyone wants to get smashed quickly just take a shot every time TJ says "emotional" on this board. Eeww black rifle scary bad
July 19, 20223 yr 3 minutes ago, ToastJenkins said: Objectively no. Thats simply your opinion. Thus why there is in fact a debate Objectively no, it isn't. You're wrong and frankly it's pretty pathetic to watch you go through the mental gymnastics to pretend otherwise knowing your scientific background. You know better.
July 19, 20223 yr 1 minute ago, DEagle7 said: Objectively no, it isn't. You're wrong and frankly it's pretty pathetic to watch you go through the mental gymnastics to pretend otherwise knowing your scientific background. You know better. You made the claim. Treat alot of bullet wounds as an ob gyn do we? every modern round delivers far more energy than necessary to kill. The advantage of the rifle Is at range which i already stipulated. Think there are alot of 200 yard shots in a food court or office building? Seperate the science from the feels of the shootings.
July 19, 20223 yr 10 hours ago, ToastJenkins said: You made the claim. Treat alot of bullet wounds as an ob gyn do we? every modern round delivers far more energy than necessary to kill. The advantage of the rifle Is at range which i already stipulated. Think there are alot of 200 yard shots in a food court or office building? Seperate the science from the feels of the shootings. Pediatrician. And unfortunately yes, I have treated a fair share. Not that personal experience really makes any difference here. Most pistol rounds have enough energy to kill...IF aimed at vital organs. If not the damage done largely depends on the kinetic energy of the projectile. Rifle ammo tends to have more mass and velocity due to muzzle length. To carry out this nonsense to an extreme, compare a 9mm shot vs a 50 cal: on average which is going to cause more damage? Which is more likely to kill? The answer is simple. And once again you absolutely know better. And yes range and accuracy are hugely important factors. The deadliest mass shooting ever in the US was perpetrated from the 32nd floor of a hotel. Think that shooter is getting anywhere close to 60 dead if he had a pistol?
July 19, 20223 yr 1 hour ago, ToastJenkins said: Im not the one saying there is no debate with some fake appeal to authority. There is a relevant debate bc its largely emotional nonsense meant to get people against said weapons lolwut. You don't even understand the words you're using. Come back when you learn English, please.
July 19, 20223 yr On 7/5/2022 at 5:18 PM, DEagle7 said: Again we're talking about assault rifles. By definition they have higher muzzle energy than pistols. No one is talking about 22 gauge pea shooters. Assault rifles are deadlier weapons than pistols. This really isn't up for debate regardless of what you think the solution to the problem is, or what you think about the legality/efficacy of gun bans etc. It's just a simple fact. I'm not sure why you're fighting this so much. Not to get too far into the weeds, because in a general sense you’re right (giving a good faith interpretation), but it really depends on what pistol and rifle you’re talking about, what kind of ammo, etc. Muzzle velocity and the basic physics of energy on target really doesn’t tell the whole story on lethality. To give an example, there are lots of tests which show 9mm (most common pistol cartridge for self defense) have deeper penetration and more fragmentation than .223 (most common "assault rifle” cartridge, used in the AR-15/M-4). Generally, the penetration, yawing and fragmentation is what makes it lethal — not the energy itself. It’s how the bullet travels after the bullet penetrates into a body. And it’s a bit like a Goldilocks zone — too much speed and the bullet can’t get dynamic before it exits the body, too little and it won’t get dynamic either. Basically, the perfectly lethal bullet would have the minimal amount of energy needed to penetrate the skin, then expand creating a larger surface area, "tumble” end over end, change trajectory within the body to create a "J” or "L” shaped cavity, and then finally fragment into lots of shards which disperse in multiple directions, all without exiting the body. Other than using something like a .50 cal which can take a limb clean off, that’s how you maximize lethality. It’s just too traumatic a wound and too difficult to treat with a greater chance at striking vital organs compared to the pure energy of common ammo. And there are lots of smaller, lower energy rounds that do this better than larger, higher energy rounds. But all that said, yeah, pistols are far less accurate which is the main determining factor in a real life situation.
July 19, 20223 yr 6 hours ago, ToastJenkins said: Objectively no. Thats simply your opinion. Thus why there is in fact a debate There's also a "debate" over whether the earth is flat.
July 19, 20223 yr 7 hours ago, TEW said: Not to get too far into the weeds, because in a general sense you’re right (giving a good faith interpretation), but it really depends on what pistol and rifle you’re talking about, what kind of ammo, etc. Muzzle velocity and the basic physics of energy on target really doesn’t tell the whole story on lethality. To give an example, there are lots of tests which show 9mm (most common pistol cartridge for self defense) have deeper penetration and more fragmentation than .223 (most common "assault rifle” cartridge, used in the AR-15/M-4). Generally, the penetration, yawing and fragmentation is what makes it lethal — not the energy itself. It’s how the bullet travels after the bullet penetrates into a body. And it’s a bit like a Goldilocks zone — too much speed and the bullet can’t get dynamic before it exits the body, too little and it won’t get dynamic either. Basically, the perfectly lethal bullet would have the minimal amount of energy needed to penetrate the skin, then expand creating a larger surface area, "tumble” end over end, change trajectory within the body to create a "J” or "L” shaped cavity, and then finally fragment into lots of shards which disperse in multiple directions, all without exiting the body. Other than using something like a .50 cal which can take a limb clean off, that’s how you maximize lethality. It’s just too traumatic a wound and too difficult to treat with a greater chance at striking vital organs compared to the pure energy of common ammo. And there are lots of smaller, lower energy rounds that do this better than larger, higher energy rounds. But all that said, yeah, pistols are far less accurate which is the main determining factor in a real life situation. This is fair. Particularly with chest/abdominal wounds (gut shots are the WORST to deal with). And there are of course there are exceptions with different types of pistols and assault rifles and scenarios etc. But overall we can agree that one category, on average, is a more effective killing machine.
July 19, 20223 yr 16 hours ago, DEagle7 said: It's just boggling my mind that I've had to have this argument with 2 separate people in here. Our ability to discuss gun violence has become so dishonest that we can't even recognize that kinetic energy is a thing. I walked away from the argument... You were set on comparing specific rifles and pistols whereas I believe I mentioned there are different variations and it really depends on what caliber the ammo is
July 19, 20223 yr 5 hours ago, DEagle7 said: This is fair. Particularly with chest/abdominal wounds (gut shots are the WORST to deal with). And there are of course there are exceptions with different types of pistols and assault rifles and scenarios etc. But overall we can agree that one category, on average, is a more effective killing machine. Yeah, absolutely, but I’d emphasize the focus on accuracy. Not even accuracy at range (the Las Vegas example) but even accuracy at relatively short distances. I don’t think most people have tried shooting a pistol at moving targets. Without consistent practice, it’s difficult. Really difficult. The stock of a rifle provides that third point of contact with the shooters body — your basic triangle for stability along with both hands. For the average gunman who maybe went to a target range half a dozen times or so without any formal training, having that stock in their shoulder probably increases accuracy by double or triple. It’s a monumental difference compared to trying to shoot a handgun.
July 19, 20223 yr 1 hour ago, Mike030270 said: I walked away from the argument... You were set on comparing specific rifles and pistols whereas I believe I mentioned there are different variations and it really depends on what caliber the ammo is While there are some rifles that have higher caliber bullets than some pistols, that is not the case for the vast majority of assault rifles compared to the vast majority of pistols. It also ignores muzzle length, exit velocity, accuracy, range, capacity, and (accurate) rate of fire all of which make assault rifles significantly more effective killing machines. It's a very silly argument.
July 19, 20223 yr 6 minutes ago, DEagle7 said: While there are some rifles that have higher caliber bullets than some rifles, that is not the case for the vast majority of assault rifles compared to the vast majority of pistols. It also ignores muzzle length, exit velocity, accuracy, range, capacity, and (accurate) rate of fire all of which make assault rifles significantly more effective killing machines. It's a very silly argument. There are a lot of different types of calibers. Here's a wiki list. Not sure if it's all of them https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_of_handgun_and_rifle_cartridges There are so many factors to consider. Especially when you can customize handguns and rifles to something other than what was originally bought There are also the different types of ammo that would make a difference Lead Round Nose (LRN) Wad Cutter (WC) Semi Wad Cutter (SWC) Semi-Jacketed (SJ) Full Metal Jacket (FMJ) Semi-Jacketed Hollow Point (SJHP) Jacketed Hollow Point (JHP) Special (RCBD) Soft Point (SP): The tip of this bullet is exposed lead. Armor Piercing (AP): The core is composed of alloy instead of lead. Boat Tail (BT): The rear end of the cartridge is tapered to stabilize the projectile in flight. Boat Tail Hollow Point (BTHP): This is a combination of the boat tail and hollow point features. I think the common one mass shooters are using is .223/5.56 but I could be wrong. I doubt it's a .308 because those aren't as cheap and are bigger
July 19, 20223 yr 59 minutes ago, Mike030270 said: There are a lot of different types of calibers. Here's a wiki list. Not sure if it's all of them https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_of_handgun_and_rifle_cartridges There are so many factors to consider. Especially when you can customize handguns and rifles to something other than what was originally bought There are also the different types of ammo that would make a difference Lead Round Nose (LRN) Wad Cutter (WC) Semi Wad Cutter (SWC) Semi-Jacketed (SJ) Full Metal Jacket (FMJ) Semi-Jacketed Hollow Point (SJHP) Jacketed Hollow Point (JHP) Special (RCBD) Soft Point (SP): The tip of this bullet is exposed lead. Armor Piercing (AP): The core is composed of alloy instead of lead. Boat Tail (BT): The rear end of the cartridge is tapered to stabilize the projectile in flight. Boat Tail Hollow Point (BTHP): This is a combination of the boat tail and hollow point features. I think the common one mass shooters are using is .223/5.56 but I could be wrong. I doubt it's a .308 because those aren't as cheap and are bigger ...and your point is? Yes there are lots of types of ammo. That doesn't change the fact that assault rifles, on average, are much more effective at killing large groups of people than handguns for the many reasons listed. This really isn't debatable. Hell even TEW, who is about as far away from me as possible when it comes to gun control debate recognizes that.
July 19, 20223 yr 4 minutes ago, DEagle7 said: ...and your point is? Yes there are lots of types of ammo. That doesn't change the fact that assault rifles, on average, are much more effective at killing large groups of people than handguns for the many reasons listed. This really isn't debatable. Hell even TEW, who is about as far away from me as possible when it comes to gun control debate recognizes that. My original point was just to say that it depends on what type of caliber ammo was used. It seemed to have done something to you 🤷♂️
July 19, 20223 yr 55 minutes ago, Mike030270 said: My original point was just to say that it depends on what type of caliber ammo was used. It seemed to have done something to you 🤷♂️ Because it's a dumb argument. And to be clear your original point was that if assault rifles were banned shooters would find alternative firearms. My point was that alternative firearms like pistols are a lot less effective at killing. Which is accurate. Are there exceptions where large mass shootings have occured with pistols? Yes. Are there particularly powerful pistols that can cause more damage than particularly weak assault rifles? Sure. Do assault rifles have by in large a massive advantage over pistols when it comes to muzzle force, effective during rate, accuracy, range, capacity and virtually every aspect that makes a firearm more effective at killing large groups of things? Absolutely.
July 19, 20223 yr I honestly don't care enough because I'm not arguing anything. I added additional info and you treated it like an argument and stuck with that I bow out. Have a nice day
July 20, 20223 yr 2 hours ago, Mike030270 said: I honestly don't care enough because I'm not arguing anything. I added additional info and you treated it like an argument and stuck with that I bow out. Have a nice day Mike, you do have a tendency to say something dumb and then either try to walk it back or say it's someone else's fault for misinterpreting it. You did it just the other day when you said it's pointless to mock someone like Trump because he doesn't even know I'm doing it. Like, come on, man, that one was pretty blatant and you just tried to act like it never happened.
July 20, 20223 yr 2 hours ago, we_gotta_believe said: Mike, you do have a tendency to say something dumb and then either try to walk it back or say it's someone else's fault for misinterpreting it. You did it just the other day when you said it's pointless to mock someone like Trump because he doesn't even know I'm doing it. Like, come on, man, that one was pretty blatant and you just tried to act like it never happened. What I said is accurate in this thread. Just google videos of what different calibers can do to just a watermelon. It's pretty cool to see actually what the different varieties can do. There are differences I don't think it was dumb to say it's pointless to mock Trump but that's also just my opinion on that. I also didn't act like it never happened. I just ignored it after you said you liked mocking him. Why keep at it when it was asked and answered?
July 20, 20223 yr 46 minutes ago, Mike030270 said: What I said is accurate in this thread. Just google videos of what different calibers can do to just a watermelon. It's pretty cool to see actually what the different varieties can do. There are differences I don't think it was dumb to say it's pointless to mock Trump but that's also just my opinion on that. I also didn't act like it never happened. I just ignored it after you said you liked mocking him. Why keep at it when it was asked and answered? Ya, and it's a really stupid one.
July 20, 20223 yr 11 hours ago, we_gotta_believe said: Ya, and it's a really stupid one. Says the guy mocking someone on an internet message board that they'll never see... Moving on. Don't know why you even brought it up
July 20, 20223 yr 48 minutes ago, Mike030270 said: Says the guy mocking someone on an internet message board that they'll never see... Moving on. Don't know why you even brought it up Mike, you can't be this stupid. You mean to tell me you've never made fun of a celebrity, politician, athlete, etc without them knowing about it?
July 20, 20223 yr 25 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said: Mike, you can't be this stupid. You mean to tell me you've never made fun of a celebrity, politician, athlete, etc without them knowing about it? I'd appreciate you quit with the name calling and drop it already
July 25, 20223 yr Interesting interview about the mass shooting in LA from over the weekend (don't worry, it's the non-scary, scantly-reported kind of mass shooting): what in the eff?
Create an account or sign in to comment