Gun Statistics

[IceBergSLiM]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: QuantumPion

Originally posted by: theflyingpig

Originally posted by: Auryg

Safe usage of guns leads to no deaths.

Technically, this is incorrect. A properly used firearm will result in the death of a creature. However, some firearms are specifically designed for target shooting, and so, properly used, they will result in no deaths. The fact that most guns are designed to kill cannot be denied. What also cannot be denied is the fact that guns will never be banned from the US. Everyone knows this.

A gun is designed to shoot bullets. If/what you shoot them at is the owner's responsibility.

guns were designed and invented to shoot bullets at people to kill them, stop trying to dance around that fact.

and despite that fact we all have a better chance of dying in a car! stop dancing around that fact.

 

[theflyingpig]

Originally posted by: DLeRium

Let's not name call here. Look at it a different way. Why do you target practice? So you shoot something else with pinpoint accuracy designed to kill. The end goal is the same. Who CARES if he hasn't held a target rifle? I've gone shooting at shooting ranges plenty of times and I've never held a target rifle either, so what is your point?

Bottom line is you can dance around and say the target rifle is meant for target shooting but the only reason they exist is so you can practice accuracy which really matters when you're shooting other firearms. Now you can dance around with the .22 argument that people can get shot 20 times and still live or whatever but honestly if it's just about shooting accurately, you would be talking about air rifles like in competitions.

Is that so? Then using your logic, all Olympic class shooters are training to be snipers then. That is foolish. Some people shoot because they enjoy the precision nature of the sport. They have no desire to kill. There is no dancing around here. I have laid everything out plainly. Everyone knows this.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: theflyingpig
lol. You realized that there are rifles which were designed for nothing but target shooting, so you've changed your question to "what are the mechanical differences...", knowing that the general function of all rifles is the same. Can a target rifle kill? Of course. Was it designed to kill? No. It was designed for target shooting. It is obvious to me that you have never held a target rifle and you have never looked through the sights of one. Your pitiful attempt to win this argument has made you look like a fool.

Aside from having a more expensive scope, a "target rifle" is not substantially different in any way from my AR-15 or my friend's .30-06 deer rifle. In fact, AR-15 rifle with the longer 20" and 22" barrels are widely used in target competitions because they have excellent accuracy and their iron sights are extremely good.

For example, all of these AR-15s are "target rifles". They are all configured for high accuracy and all function extremely well as precision target rifles. In fact, they are all marketed as Target/Varmint rifles (this is because varmint hunting, which requires precise shots on very small animals at long ranges, has the same needs as target shooting). Because both needs are the same, any rifle designed for target shooting is necessarily also designed for varminting.

ZV

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: DLeRium
if it's just about shooting accurately, you would be talking about air rifles like in competitions.

An air rifle is useless for target shooting beyond about 100 yards (and even that takes a very high-end air rifle at which point the projectile is ballistically-identical to a .22LR bullet). When you start doing target shooting at distances of 200 yards or more, no air rifle is viable; the greater projectile weights and muzzle velocities offered by centerfire rifle cartridges are an absolute necessity for long-range target shooting.

ZV

 

[theflyingpig]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: theflyingpig
lol. You realized that there are rifles which were designed for nothing but target shooting, so you've changed your question to "what are the mechanical differences...", knowing that the general function of all rifles is the same. Can a target rifle kill? Of course. Was it designed to kill? No. It was designed for target shooting. It is obvious to me that you have never held a target rifle and you have never looked through the sights of one. Your pitiful attempt to win this argument has made you look like a fool.

Aside from having a more expensive scope, a "target rifle" is not substantially different in any way from my AR-15 or my friend's .30-06 deer rifle. In fact, AR-15 rifle with the longer 20" and 22" barrels are widely used in target competitions because they have excellent accuracy and their iron sights are extremely good.

For example, all of these AR-15s are "target rifles". They are all configured for high accuracy and all function extremely well as precision target rifles. In fact, they are all marketed as Target/Varmint rifles (this is because varmint hunting, which requires precise shots on very small animals at long ranges, has the same needs as target shooting). Because both needs are the same, any rifle designed for target shooting is necessarily also designed for varminting.

ZV

I am well aware of these facts. I have addressed the functionality issue in my post. These rifles you pointed out have a dual purpose. There are target rifles, mainly small caliber, that are specifically designed for target shooting and are nearly useless for anything else.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: theflyingpig

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: theflyingpig

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: theflyingpig
However, some firearms are specifically designed for target shooting, and so, properly used, they will result in no deaths. The fact that most guns are designed to kill cannot be denied.

What are you blabbering about? The above doesn't even make sense. Tell me what a target shooting gun is.

You don't know what at target rifle is? You are a fucking idiot.

Explain it to me. What are the mechanical differences between a killing rifle and a target rifle.

lol. You realized that there are rifles which were designed for nothing but target shooting, so you've changed your question to "what are the mechanical differences...", knowing that the general function of all rifles is the same. Can a target rifle kill? Of course. Was it designed to kill? No. It was designed for target shooting. It is obvious to me that you have never held a target rifle and you have never looked through the sights of one. Your pitiful attempt to win this argument has made you look like a fool.

I think you might be legally retarded. I'm Army qualified with an M16. I can (or at least could at one point) break down and reassemble said M16 with my eyes closed. I own rifles, handguns, and shotguns. I've probably got more experience with firearms than you have experience jacking off, which is doubtless considerable.

Please, tell me how a rifle designed for target shooting differs from one designed for killing. Action? Ammunition?

I'll be waiting, but don't expect me to hold my breath.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: theflyingpig

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: theflyingpig
lol. You realized that there are rifles which were designed for nothing but target shooting, so you've changed your question to "what are the mechanical differences...", knowing that the general function of all rifles is the same. Can a target rifle kill? Of course. Was it designed to kill? No. It was designed for target shooting. It is obvious to me that you have never held a target rifle and you have never looked through the sights of one. Your pitiful attempt to win this argument has made you look like a fool.

Aside from having a more expensive scope, a "target rifle" is not substantially different in any way from my AR-15 or my friend's .30-06 deer rifle. In fact, AR-15 rifle with the longer 20" and 22" barrels are widely used in target competitions because they have excellent accuracy and their iron sights are extremely good.

For example, all of these AR-15s are "target rifles". They are all configured for high accuracy and all function extremely well as precision target rifles. In fact, they are all marketed as Target/Varmint rifles (this is because varmint hunting, which requires precise shots on very small animals at long ranges, has the same needs as target shooting). Because both needs are the same, any rifle designed for target shooting is necessarily also designed for varminting.

ZV

I am well aware of these facts. I have addressed the functionality issue in my post. These rifles you pointed out have a dual purpose. There are target rifles, mainly small caliber, that are specifically designed for target shooting and are nearly useless for anything else.

Really? You are arguing that a heavy-barreled AR-15, which shoots 5.56 NATO ammunition, the same ammunition used by the US Military, and which has 30, 45, and even 100 round magazines, is a target rifle and is "nearly useless for anything else" despite the fact that it is in use by almost every major military power in the world?

That's an awfully blurry line you're trying to paint there.

ZV

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: theflyingpig

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: theflyingpig
lol. You realized that there are rifles which were designed for nothing but target shooting, so you've changed your question to "what are the mechanical differences...", knowing that the general function of all rifles is the same. Can a target rifle kill? Of course. Was it designed to kill? No. It was designed for target shooting. It is obvious to me that you have never held a target rifle and you have never looked through the sights of one. Your pitiful attempt to win this argument has made you look like a fool.

Aside from having a more expensive scope, a "target rifle" is not substantially different in any way from my AR-15 or my friend's .30-06 deer rifle. In fact, AR-15 rifle with the longer 20" and 22" barrels are widely used in target competitions because they have excellent accuracy and their iron sights are extremely good.

For example, all of these AR-15s are "target rifles". They are all configured for high accuracy and all function extremely well as precision target rifles. In fact, they are all marketed as Target/Varmint rifles (this is because varmint hunting, which requires precise shots on very small animals at long ranges, has the same needs as target shooting). Because both needs are the same, any rifle designed for target shooting is necessarily also designed for varminting.

ZV

I am well aware of these facts. I have addressed the functionality issue in my post. These rifles you pointed out have a dual purpose. There are target rifles, mainly small caliber, that are specifically designed for target shooting and are nearly useless for anything else.

By small caliber you mean .223? You're right, the .223 is nearly useless for anything other than targets.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Really? You are arguing that a heavy-barreled AR-15, which shoots 5.56 NATO ammunition, the same ammunition used by the US Military, and which has 30, 45, and even 100 round magazines, is a target rifle and is "nearly useless for anything else" despite the fact that it is in use by almost every major military power in the world?

That's an awfully blurry line you're trying to paint there.

ZV

He's an idiot, backpedaling as fast as his little legs can go.

 

[BoberFett]

I love listening to these arguments centering around the intended use of inanimate objects as an argument for or against their legitimacy.

I have a picture in my mind of an ceremony every time a firearm is created, Norse gods gathered around an anvil, sparks flying, thunder and lightning, declaring each rifle as either a good rifle or a bad rifle. It's like firearm Valhalla.

 

[piasabird]

Maybe there is a direct relationship with the lack of Moral Standards or the decline thereof.

Also there is probably a relationship between gangs and drugs and the black market for drugs.

The introduction of Illegal Immigrants and especially drug gangs from Mexico will probably increase gun deaths in the future.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
guns were designed and invented to shoot bullets at people to kill them, stop trying to dance around that fact.

And knives were originally designed and invented to stab into people and kill them. What's your point?

Both knives and firearms have legitimate uses that cause no harm to anyone despite their initial design impetus.

ZV

knives were most likely invented to cut things other than people. Think plants, animal hides, etc. Guns were invented specifically for their use in war.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
guns were designed and invented to shoot bullets at people to kill them, stop trying to dance around that fact.

And knives were originally designed and invented to stab into people and kill them. What's your point?

Both knives and firearms have legitimate uses that cause no harm to anyone despite their initial design impetus.

ZV

knives were most likely invented to cut things other than people. Think plants, animal hides, etc. Guns were invented specifically for their use in war.

Interesting then that projectile points (spear tips, arrowheads, etc) are found in much greater prevalence than knives. Or that the very first metal knives were daggers, which are much better suited to use as weapons than as tools (knives used as tools are almost always single-edged, while daggers are small, double-edged blades with a hilt, typically used in hand-to-hand combat).

Historical finds suggest that metal knives first originated as weapons rather than tools.

ZV

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I am surprised that no one has brought up the racial component.

Compare murder rates of various countries their ethnic make up and you will see that the more homogenous a country is the lower its murder rate tends to be.
(murder rates are per 100,000 people)

Greece .76 94% Greek
Norway .78 91% Norwegian
Japan 1.1 99% Japanese
England 1.37 84% White British
Belgium 1.5 92% Belgium, but this is tough because like Canada the country has two large groups who speak two different languages
Canada 1.85 at least 20% of the country is non-whites.

And I am not saying this is a white vs. black issue. It is an us vs. them issue.

Look at nearly any place in the world where there is war or violence and you will find two different ethnic or religious groups fighting it out.

Look at murder rates by state and you see this is true. The 'whitest' states generally have the lowest murder rates, while the states with higher murder rates tend to have larger numbers of minorities.

BTW you notice how these anti-gun studies never talk about racial make up? Montana has one of the lowest murder rates link in the country and one of the highest gun ownership rates link while Maryland has a low ownership rate, but has the second highest murder rate.

Montana is 92% white 7% American indian and less about 1% black or asian.
Maryland is 66% white 29% black and 5% asian.

Race is a huge factor, but it isnt worth getting into anything racial here. Lets just say there is some amazing data out there that noone will bring up due to fear of being called racist...

It was brought up earlier, It is a racial issue. Like it or not Blacks and Mexicans kill more people that whites or Asians do. It's sa simple fact. Therefore gun control is racist.

 

[theflyingpig]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
I think you might be legally retarded. I'm Army qualified with an M16. I can (or at least could at one point) break down and reassemble said M16 with my eyes closed. I own rifles, handguns, and shotguns. I've probably got more experience with firearms than you have experience jacking off, which is doubtless considerable.

Please, tell me how a rifle designed for target shooting differs from one designed for killing. Action? Ammunition?

I'll be waiting, but don't expect me to hold my breath.

You are so incredibly obtuse. What part of "designed for target shooting" don't you understand? As I stated earlier, the basic operation of all rifles is the same. Bolt action rifles all operate on the same principles, so do semi auto rifles. The difference is in what they were designed to do. This is a concept you just can't seem to comprehend. A target rifle is not designed to handle the rigors of hunting or combat. They tend to have exposed sights that do not take well to getting banged around. The stocks are designed differently than hunting rifles or combat rifles. Why? Because the intended purpose of the rifle is different. A target shooter does not have to move quickly to get out of harms way, nor does he have to trek through the woods, looking for game. A target shooter just has to maintain a good position and fire the rifle. The sights are designed differently as well. Some target rifles use circular sights that are designed to aim at circular targets at a known distance. These sights are extremely difficult to use while hunting because they are not designed for that purpose. Can you use a target rifle to kill? Of course, but it was not designed for that specific purpose. That is not it's intended use. Do you understand that? A target rifle is designed with the intent of shooting paper targets at a known distance. It's not a hard concept to grasp. Would you strap on air to air missiles to a Concorde and take it out to dog fight with an F22? Sure you could, but it would be stupid. They operate on the same principles, but they are designed for different functions.

 

[theflyingpig]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Really? You are arguing that a heavy-barreled AR-15, which shoots 5.56 NATO ammunition, the same ammunition used by the US Military, and which has 30, 45, and even 100 round magazines, is a target rifle and is "nearly useless for anything else" despite the fact that it is in use by almost every major military power in the world?

That's an awfully blurry line you're trying to paint there.

ZV

No, I am not arguing that a heavy-barreled AR-15 which shoots 5.56 NATO ammunition is nearly useless for anything else. I am arguing that when you convert an AR-15 into a space gun, like the ones you linked to it's primary purpose has changed. Would you seriously take a heavily modified match grade AR into combat? I wouldn't. It would be stupid to do so because even though it is fully capable of killing, it's overall design makes it a poor choice for a combat situation.

 

[theflyingpig]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
By small caliber you mean .223? You're right, the .223 is nearly useless for anything other than targets.

No, you ignoramus. If you weren't being so fucking obtuse you would realize that I was referring to .22 LR target rifles. Anyone with common sense would know what I was referring to. For someone who claims to have so much experience with firearms, your knowledge seems limited.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: theflyingpig

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Really? You are arguing that a heavy-barreled AR-15, which shoots 5.56 NATO ammunition, the same ammunition used by the US Military, and which has 30, 45, and even 100 round magazines, is a target rifle and is "nearly useless for anything else" despite the fact that it is in use by almost every major military power in the world?

That's an awfully blurry line you're trying to paint there.

ZV

No, I am not arguing that a heavy-barreled AR-15 which shoots 5.56 NATO ammunition is nearly useless for anything else. I am arguing that when you convert an AR-15 into a space gun, like the ones you linked to it's primary purpose has changed. Would you seriously take a heavily modified match grade AR into combat? I wouldn't. It would be stupid to do so because even though it is fully capable of killing, it's overall design makes it a poor choice for a combat situation.

All of the firearms to which I linked still fire 5.56 NATO. None are "space guns". In fact, the article explicitly states that the guns are excellent choices for police snipers. Aside from close-quarters combat (i.e. inside a building) where it's barrel length that is the limitation more than anything else, there is nothing whatsoever that would make a match-grade HBAR AR-15 a "poor choice for a combat situation". In fact, it would be a superior choice for any combat taking place in an open environment.

Other than a heavier barrel and aesthetic differences to the handguards, the rifles to which I linked are standard AR-15 flat-top rifles. Even at 8-10 pounds, they are not significantly heavier than a mil-spec version.

ZV

 

[BoberFett]

theflyingpig was dropped on his head as a child. From a third story window.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: QuantumPion

Originally posted by: theflyingpig

Originally posted by: Auryg

Safe usage of guns leads to no deaths.

Technically, this is incorrect. A properly used firearm will result in the death of a creature. However, some firearms are specifically designed for target shooting, and so, properly used, they will result in no deaths. The fact that most guns are designed to kill cannot be denied. What also cannot be denied is the fact that guns will never be banned from the US. Everyone knows this.

A gun is designed to shoot bullets. If/what you shoot them at is the owner's responsibility.

guns were designed and invented to shoot bullets at people to kill them, stop trying to dance around that fact.

and despite that fact we all have a better chance of dying in a car! stop dancing around that fact.

Nothing to do with guns once again. Like I said, make cars safer, make drivers safer, do what you can to limit automobile fatalities, but this doesn't mean we shouldn't at the same time make sure our firearms are being handled in a safe manner.

 

[AAjax]

Originally posted by: Zeppelin2282

Originally posted by: MIKEMIKE
yaaa, lets ban guns... the only fucking thing i would never ever ever ever ever ever ever support...

I'm not saying that we should ever ban them. I would highly support a more rigorous screening process though. It is currently way to easy for idiots to buy guns.

And post on the internet it seems.

 

[Deliximus]

I agree with Zeppelin. I have never ever seen a gun (except in the holster of a cop) for 15 years. I only know one friend that has one because he likes to do target practice. I can go out without locking my door sometimes. I do not buy the argument that guns make you 'safer'. I understand that the Constitution was written in a time of oppression. But today, it seems less necessary for everyone to have a gun just for safety.

 

[theflyingpig]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

All of the firearms to which I linked still fire 5.56 NATO. None are "space guns". In fact, the article explicitly states that the guns are excellent choices for police snipers. Aside from close-quarters combat (i.e. inside a building) where it's barrel length that is the limitation more than anything else, there is nothing whatsoever that would make a match-grade HBAR AR-15 a "poor choice for a combat situation". In fact, it would be a superior choice for any combat taking place in an open environment.

Other than a heavier barrel and aesthetic differences to the handguards, the rifles to which I linked are standard AR-15 flat-top rifles. Even at 8-10 pounds, they are not significantly heavier than a mil-spec version.

ZV

It is clear from your post that you know what space guns are. I was wrong about the rifles in your link, and I already conceded that they were dual purpose guns. Since you know what a space gun is, you know that they are poor choices for anything other than target shooting. Use some common sense, some guns were designed for the sole purpose of target shooting. You can take one look at them and know this.

 

[theflyingpig]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
theflyingpig was dropped on his head as a child. From a third story window.

Looks like you don't have a response to my reply. I have clearly put you in your place. I guess you didn't know as much about guns as you thought. Poor thing.

 

[BoberFett]

If you're going to claim that the furniture makes something a target rifle vs a killing rifle, there's no room for discussion. You're a moron, that's all there is to it.