Why does anyone NEED an assault rifle?

[BotanyBoy]

Trying to teach a liberal the intricacies of firearms is like trying to teach a dog to drink through a straw

Red Hawk firing Buffalo Bore +P+ 340gr bullet = 1649 ft/lbs @ 1478 ft/sec

.223 rifle firing Buffalo Bore JHP 77gr bullet = 1642 ft/lbs @ 3100 ft/sec

While the rifle fires the .223 round at a much higher velocity, the Red Hawk fired a much higher weight bullet, yielding almost exactly the same force. It's math, but then for liberals, math is hard.

Yea, some hand cannons crank it out on par with your intermediate rifle cartridges, or even use IRC's in pistols like the 5.7 and 6.8 even.

But that overlap does have it's limits, and generally speaking is not that common.

Most handguns, especially service weapons are going to be 9mm .40 and .45 which are all at an immediate disadvantage to a .223 or larger semi-auto rifle platform on pretty much every level.

So you CAN do it!! But you'd need to be operator as fuck with your strategy and execution to do it solo.

 

[phrodeau]

Trying to teach a liberal the intricacies of firearms is like trying to teach a dog to drink through a straw

I'll bet you're a fine coach. Your students must be so fortunate.

 

[coachdb18]

Yea, some hand cannons crank it out on par with your intermediate rifle cartridges, or even use IRC's in pistols like the 5.7 and 6.8 even.

But that overlap does have it's limits, and generally speaking is not that common.

Most handguns, especially service weapons are going to be 9mm .40 and .45 which are all at an immediate disadvantage to a .223 or larger semi-auto rifle platform on pretty much every level.

So you CAN do it!! But you'd need to be operator as fuck with your strategy and execution to do it solo.

The average Detroit 'drive-by' with a 9mm cranks out only about an average 401 ft/lbs with JHP, and the dead are just as dead. Reloading your own ammo, you can get a shitload of possible variations that are customizable to yield a cornucopia that will leave the heads spinning of our resident liberals here.

https://i.imgur.com/EecQFir.jpg

 

[Adder4321]

Because handguns are generally pretty weak and lack what is called "stopping power".

True enough, I guess rifles would be necessary then. Still not entirely convinced about automatic or semi-automatic but in the end it isn't my problem.

 

[coachdb18]

Most handguns, especially service weapons are going to be 9mm .40 and .45 which are all at an immediate disadvantage to a .223 or larger semi-auto rifle platform on pretty much every level.

Not at all sure what you mean by being 'at a disadvantage'? There are specific advantages to every weapon... a shotgun has pretty slow fps by comparison, but destroys a wide area in front of it... a pistol is easier to manipulate in at close range ... a rifle is much more accurate at long range... so it isn't just a measure of the how fast or how hard your bullet flies.... it's the skill of the shooter too. Sniper rifles, for example, are great at accuracy, they aren't meant to be rapid fire spray and pray weapons... Numbers are great for measuring 'firepower', but not for usefulness in a given situation.

 

[Blue]

Did you Americans know that in the UK we don't even arm the vast majority of our police?

And of course, society as we knew it collapsed in 1829 when police were barred from carrying guns because then only the criminals could get guns. A man with an antique revolver and two bullets has been ruling the city of Manchester as de-facto king for 50 years now.

 

[KeithD]

Did you Americans know that in the UK we don't even arm the vast majority of our police?

And of course, society as we knew it collapsed in 1829 when police were barred from carrying guns because then only the criminals could get guns.

There was no police force in the UK until 1837.

 

[Blue]

There was no police force in the UK until 1837.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_Police_Act_1829
The national policing policies were modelled on the Met.

 

[My I]

There was no police force in the UK until 1837.

Ummm.... England had constables as early as the 1730s paid constables as early as 1754. Look up Sir John Fielding.

 

[coachdb18]

There was no police force in the UK until 1837.

Ummm.... England had constables as early as the 1730s paid constables as early as 1754. Look up Sir John Fielding.

Don't be too tough on him, after all he's still in grade schools

 

[BotanyBoy]

True enough, I guess rifles would be necessary then. Still not entirely convinced about automatic or semi-automatic but in the end it isn't my problem.

Auto is generally considered a military weapon and tightly controlled.

Semi-auto has been pretty standard for like 160 years. IDK why everyone thinks that means full auto or get's their panties in a bunch about it.

Not at all sure what you mean by being 'at a disadvantage'?

Their weapon (pistols) don't have the penetration, range, stopping power or sustainability that a rifle platform has.

Rifles hit harder, at greater range, with greater penetration and the mag fed ones have more capacity than even some of the smaller cal pistols.

The only advantage pistols have is size/weight for consealment.

Pretty simple.

If you had to get into with a guy or two or three who all had AK's and plates/racks, 700+ rounds and you had a choice between an M1A with an ACOG and a couple of 20 rounders or an .44mag revolver with a couple of 6 rnd speed loaders which weapon would you choose?

IDK about you but I'd grab the rifle with 60 rounds of .308 over the hand cannon with 18 rounds of .44 mag...idgaf if they are +P++++++++++ rounds, the rifle is a superior means of defense.

... it's the skill of the shooter too. Sniper rifles, for example, are great at accuracy, they aren't meant to be rapid fire spray and pray weapons... Numbers are great for measuring 'firepower', but not for usefulness in a given situation.

That's why I said even solo you can overcome armament disadvantages with quick thinking, balls of steel and a dash of luck.

A rifle platform however will almost ALWAYS be the superior armament over pistols or shotties until there is some kind of fundamental shift in weapons tech.

 

[coachdb18]

Auto is generally considered a military weapon and tightly controlled.

Semi-auto has been pretty standard for like 160 years. IDK why everyone thinks that means full auto or get's their panties in a bunch about it.



Their weapon (pistols) don't have the penetration, range, stopping power or sustainability that a rifle platform has.

Rifles hit harder, at greater range, with greater penetration and the mag fed ones have more capacity than even some of the smaller cal pistols.

The only advantage pistols have is size/weight for consealment.

Pretty simple.

If you had to get into with a guy or two or three who all had AK's and plates/racks, 700+ rounds and you had a choice between an M1A with an ACOG and a couple of 20 rounders or an .44mag revolver with a couple of 6 rnd speed loaders which weapon would you choose?

IDK about you but I'd grab the rifle with 60 rounds of .308 over the hand cannon with 18 rounds of .44 mag...idgaf if they are +P++++++++++ rounds, the rifle is a superior means of defense.



That's why I said even solo you can overcome armament disadvantages with quick thinking, balls of steel and a dash of luck.

A rifle platform however will almost ALWAYS be the superior armament over pistols or shotties until there is some kind of fundamental shift in weapons tech.

I'll stick with my answer, I feel that there are advantages to each, and that the main advantage to a rifle is accuracy at distance, the greater force that's derived from a rifle isn't going to help you in the speed of acquiring a target. That's where a closer target is advantage pistol (ie a theater), where swinging a rifle from right to left to hit multiple targets vs the quick acquisition of a pistol is advantageous over the horsepower. You have to hit the target before you worry about exploding it with a high power shot. A 9mm is the most common self defense pistol because it's effective, even though a .357 or a .44 makes a bigger hole.

If a rifle were better for every situation, nobody'd buy a handgun. They sell because they're a better fit for a lot of people for a lot of situations. And most hostile encounters are over in as little as six or seven rounds fired, not 750...

 

[BotanyBoy]

I'll stick with my answer, I feel that there are advantages to each, and that the main advantage to a rifle is accuracy at distance, the greater force that's derived from a rifle isn't going to help you in the speed of acquiring a target.

That's where a closer target is advantage pistol (ie a theater), where swinging a rifle from right to left to hit multiple targets vs the quick acquisition of a pistol is advantageous over the horsepower.

Quick target acquisition is a function of your sights, not the platform it sits on.

You have to hit the target before you worry about exploding it with a high power shot. A 9mm is the most common self defense pistol because it's effective, even though a .357 or a .44 makes a bigger hole.

If you think it's harder to hit a target with a rifle than a hand cannon you've not done much shooting.

If a rifle were better for every situation, nobody'd buy a handgun.

I never said a rifle was better for every situation.

I said it's a superior armament because it is.

They sell because they're a better fit for a lot of people for a lot of situations. And most hostile encounters are over in as little as six or seven rounds fired, not 750...

Mostly because they are lighter and more concealable, the pistol's only true advantages over a rifle.

We were talking about pistols vs. rifle on a rampage situation though, not your average encounter.

If you want to talk about day to day personal defense situation sure....handguns are the standard, but still at a disadvantage vs. rifles.

 

[coachdb18]

If you think it's harder to hit a target with a rifle than a hand cannon you've not done much shooting.

If you want to talk about day to day personal defense situation sure....handguns are the standard, but still at a disadvantage vs. rifles.

Well, damn, now I have to give back all my shooting awards and medals......

Hope your rifle suits you well in the next bar fight LOL

 

[BotanyBoy]

Hope your rifle suits you well in the next bar fight LOL

Jesus fucking christ....you can't read very well can you bubba?

 

[phrodeau]

Well, damn, now I have to give back all my shooting awards and medals......

Hope your rifle suits you well in the next bar fight LOL

Do you carry a gun when you go out drinking? Being armed and drunk doesn't seem to me like a very responsible thing to do.

 

[dan_c00000]

The framers argued for and against including these rights from Natural Law in the body of the Constitution, and those opposed won. But those for inclusion refused to sign, so the compromise was to make them amendments.

Moving the goalposts again I see. If you notice I said that the Constitution can be amended. The right for you to jerkoff to guns is the Second one of those. Just like the 19th one banned alcohol. The 21st repealed the 18th. It is within the realm of possibility to repeal the 2nd one.

In fact, over the years, there's been a whole bunch of proposed ones.

Also, since you failed civics, I might suggest reading what actually happened and how the Bill of Rights (the first 10 amendments) came about. Here's a simple chart to help you out since reading really isn't your thing.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Moving the goalposts again I see. If you notice I said that the Constitution can be amended. The right for you to jerkoff to guns is the Second one of those. Just like the 19th one banned alcohol. The 21st repealed the 19th. It is within the realm of possibility to repeal the 2nd one.

And there is a very strong argument that you can't because it's self protecting, unlike the others.

Also since you failed civics, the 19th amendment didn't ban alcohol...fucking idiot.

 

[LincolnDuncan]

Being a member of a militia is a thankless job. There's no pay, you have to provide your own weapon and you have to be WELL REGULATED.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Being a member of a militia is a thankless job. There's no pay, you have to provide your own weapon and you have to be WELL REGULATED.

Well you don't have to be....and militia is just common folks.

 

[dan_c00000]

And there is a very strong argument that you can't because it's self protecting, unlike the others.

How is it self-protecting? Wouldn't that random word you used apply to free speech or unreasonable search? If you're talking about some garbage like the Heritage Foundation does that's easily disproved by the hundreds of years of prior legal cases that held until Heller. United States v. Cruikshank is a good example. Furthermore, lots of countries have very strict gun laws and volunteer armies, hell there are countries where military service is mandatory and their gun laws are extremely strict. Switzerland is a good example.

The bottom line is this: for every bullshit reason you can come up with for guns I can come up with a million other excellent reasons you don't need one. You second amendment weirdos just really love to jerkoff to/with guns and that's fucking terrible and sad.

 

[Hypoxia]

Back in the Wild West it was common for towns to require folks to "check their weapons" with the constable. Dodge City and other cow towns posted announcements to that effect. Strict gun control kept murders down to a couple a year. The OK Corral thang came when the Clanton boys refused to check their weapons.

http://s3.crackedcdn.com/phpimages/article/3/1/6/177316.jpg?v=1

 

[BotanyBoy]

How is it self-protecting?

Because it explicitly commands the government not to infringe upon that right.

Making any law OR amendment that would do so, unconstitutional.

The bottom line is this: for every bullshit reason you can come up with for guns I can come up with a million other excellent reasons you don't need one.

No, that's your bullshit.

The bottom line is in the USA we have a right to guns and there isn't a fucking thing you can do about it

 

[dan_c00000]

Because it explicitly commands the government not to infringe upon that right.

I figured you'd say something like that and it complete proves my point that you're fucking clueless. Now sit back and get your butt donuts out because you're asshole is going to be gaping in a minute.

The first amendment says exactly the same thing as the second, specifically the "abridging the freedom of speech" part. But there are laws limiting free speech. You can't incite people to violence or suicide, there were (and still are) obscenity laws, lying about certain things, and speech related to intellectual property.

Fucking ruined, badly.

But since you're such a racist piece of shit let me drive an entire truck of butthurt up your ass and say that "there seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms. Of course the right was not unlimited, just as the First Amendment ’s right of free speech was not." You know who wrote that? Your hero Antonin Scalia.

I think it's safe to say I've completely ruined you and can expect you to rage quit now. Thanks for playing, fuckface.

 

[Antryg_Windrose]

I need to seriously assault some asshole neighbors and only a rifle will do, they ignore the shit bombs and air horns. What's my best choice for shooting the fuck out of them?