Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[UMStan White]

Give Geezer a break. It's clear that he suffers from dementia.

[Wild Hoss]

He suffers from bullshit.

The point Rocky was trying to make earlier with this "varmint gun" comment is that the .223ca/5.56mm is a small-caliber round, similar in diameter to the ubiquitous "varmint guns" most of us shot as kids (which top out at 1,000-1,2000 FPS). It doesn't carry the impact effects that the 7.62mm or other heavier rounds do, but he at least gave a nod to the velocity differences.

Geezer then comes along with some literary reference as evidence, and tries to dress up a weapon firing a 3000+FPS round of similar caliber as a "varmint gun". Its semantic bullshit, which is why I made my comments about howitzers. Nobody- not even a person firing a gun for the first time, ever- would confuse the ubiquitous .22 rimfire "varmint gun" for one firing 3000+FPS rounds. It'd be like the difference between getting hit by baseball thrown by your wife, and one thrown by a pro pitcher.

[Da Geezer]

Hoss, all I was trying to do with the Steinbeck reference was to make the point that the AR-15 sold in stores to the public looks like a military-issue weapon but is no different that the gun used in Travels with Charlie.

Quit acting like a jerk because you assumed you know more than your presume "Leftists" and got your ass handed to you. It's nobody's fault but yours that you tried to bullshit us.

Yup, the same old game of declaring victory and changing the subject. Now you are on to the NATO round's velocity and clip size. Why did you post a photo of a .22 round? No one here has ever suggested that a .22 might be a good rifle to use in the situations we are discussing, either for good or ill.

Oh my, you've read a book that I haven't. You are quite the sage.

I suspect there are a great many books I have read that you have not. You did add a new word to my vocabulary, though, derp, originating from South Park, and meaning stupid. Thank you.

[The Oracle]

People helping people.

[Wild Hoss]

But it is different Geez...there's more to the guns that just the rounds they fire. I assume you know this and are being purposefully obtuse, but maybe not...if so, you shouldn't be lecturing anyone on this topic.

The .22 rimfire pic I posted is a representation of an actual "varmint gun" round, used for decades for beginning shooters and controlling small wildlife, in comparison to a high-grain, high velocity military rifle round of similar caliber. The point was to wash away the semantics; neither in terms of common sense or the law are the two considered anywhere remotely equal...only in the world of message boards.

And, apparently, avid readers of Steinbeck. Maybe there's not as much difference between the two as some would like to believe.

[Da Geezer]

Velocity increase examples include: 222 Remington with 50 gr V-MAX at 3,345 feet per second (delivers 223 Remington Ballistics!!) 223 Remington at 3,465 feet per second pushing 53 gr V-MAX bullet that has been optimized for peak performance from the 223 Remington chamber.

That is from a google search of ".222 ammo velocity". first entry. There is also a photo of a .222 round that I am too stupid to cut and paste here.

Hoss, read what I said, and tell me where I was talking about a .22 long rifle. Now you want to change the discussion to velocity. Fine. The .222 is at 3,345 ft/sec and the .223 is at 3,365. The only person on this forum who has brought up a .22 is you. Hey, it's not a hanging offense to not know the difference between a .22 and a .222. How about posting a photo of a .222 bullet and let's see who is trying to bullshit whom.

[SeattleLionsFan]

If its a shitty gun that is the equivalent of 1000s of other guns, lets ban it. Then you can use one of the other 1000 copies.

[Dr. Strangelove]

What's amusing is that some want to portray certain weapons as no threat to anything but prairie dogs but they'll also be able to hold off (for months) the ATF or US Military if needs be with such a powerful weapon

[Jeff Buchanan]

a well armed citizenry stands as a buffer against not only the potential for tyrannical government but from acts committed by crazies like Mateen

Are there examples of this? I do know that if the government WANTED to unleash its power on the citizenry, it would certainly have the resources to do so and easily crush any challenge. ......

I regret having used the sloganism regarding 2ndA rights that circulates among gun proponents.

The 2ndA's meaning regarding the term "Tyranny" and the rights of citizens to bear arms to oppose it is confusing. There is a great deal of misinformation floating about regarding Jefferson's quotes about an armed citizenry being a good thing and discussions of this subject in the Federalist Papers.

I found this article written in 2011 in the Atlantic an informative summation of the influences of the time that it was written and the purpose of the 2ndA, what is meant by Tyranny, who should be armed and why:

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/06/constitutional-myth-6-the-second-amendment-allows-citizens-to-threaten-government/241298/

I'm fine with the 2ndA's provisions regarding the right to own a weapon, affirmed by the Supremes in 2008 and 2010, but I also support reasonable regulation of that right ....... I think that's the part that is missing right now and would have certainly been something Jefferson and the rest would argue in favor of were they around to do so now.

Moreover, the debate about gun control has been confounded by ignorance about firearms nomenclature, misinterpretation of the 2ndA and a lack of reasonable debate about the kind of regulation required in the current circumstances. That's the point I would have liked to have made and didn't.

[Da Geezer]

I'm fine with the 2ndA's provisions regarding the right to own a weapon, affirmed by the Supremes in 2008 and 2010, but I also support reasonable regulation of that right ....... I think that's the part that is missing right now and would have certainly been something Jefferson and the rest would argue in favor of were they around to do so now.

Well said.

What kind of regulation would you favor?

[Ghengis Jon]

Did anyone watch CNN's Fareed Zakaria last night hosting the show "Why they hate us"? Traces the how, when and why's of Islamic radicalism. Very wel done considering it was only an hour. Profiled at the end was Hamtramic and its transformation from "Little Warsaw" to a heavy (Yemeni) moslem influx. If you missed it, catch the rerun.

At 10 this morning, an interview with Putin is also on.

[Jeff Buchanan]

Well said.

What kind of regulation would you favor?

I'm not sure......what I do know from having read a portion of the on-line version of the book I posted a link to up thread is that regulation or more precisely control of the flow of firearms is complex, that it can be influenced at many levels and that control can never be absolute.

For example, enforcement, when gun laws exist, and they do in the US and elsewhere, is key. The lack of it is also a large part of the reason why it is so easy for crazies to legally obtain a firearm.

Federally licensed gun dealers (FFLs) are strictly regulated but I'm not sure enforcement in our own country is that effective ...... Mateen was allegedly reported by a gun dealer to the FBI when he made an inquiry about body armor three weeks before the shooting. I also heard that local authorities were alerted by an FFL when he purchased more than 200 rounds of ammunition. Asleep at the wheel? Lazy? Who knows but in just about every mass shooting, including the one carried out by Mateen, there were opportunities along the way to stop it.

The black market for weapons is another issue all together. It's here that influencing the flow of weapons through political agreements between nations and the purchaser of them in certain ways has the potential to not eliminate this market but make it much harder to obtain firearms. This is dealt with in detail in the book I linked to.

Finally, I've said this up thread but I feel one of the major issues in the ease of obtaining firearms by those intent on committing a crime with them is the difficulty law enforcement has in pursuing leads. This kind of thing was in issue during the years that organized crime flourished. The RICO Act was the step that made it easier for prosecutors to nail the mob bosses and involved relaxed standards of proof before an arrest warrant could be issued by the courts. Admittedly, I'm not an expert here but I don't think this approach is getting enough discussion or light shed on it.

[Jeff Buchanan]

Here's a counterpoint to my view and that of others regarding the need for law enforcement to be better able to pursue leads.

Terror attacks, by design, succeed in terrorizing. If you are a resident of any western country, it is more likely that you will die from a lightning strike than from a terrorist attack perpetrated by a Muslim. Writing in The New Yorker in early this year, the physicist Lawrence Krauss noted that “even if you include 9/11, the total death toll from terrorism amounts to less than one per cent of the death toll from gun violence.”
Hypothetically, there may one day be a threat severe enough to justify rebalancing security and liberty. But terrorism, by every metric, comes nowhere close. It is obviously unfortunate that nobody was able to stop Mateen, but that does not mean the FBI could or should have.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/06/17/the-fbi-was-right-not-to-arrest-omar-mateen-before-the-shooting/?tid=pm_opinions_pop_b

I pretty much disagree with Greenwald. I think we've reached the point where tighter control and more leeway for law enforcement to intervene is appropriate.

[hack]

I think it's wildly optimistic to expect more from our federal security agencies. I mean no disrespect to the people involved, generally, and obviously there is excellence on display in plenty of situations. But in far too many situtations these instutitions are not structured in a way that would enable smart people to make smart decisions. There's just no reason to expect them to do better, and no stomach for the fight to reform them. I think if you're looking for solutions, you have to first ask what we CAN do and choose from that list of options. Starting with what we SHOULD do, and retrofitting the system to accomplish that, is just another opportunity for more wasteful spending.

OP made a point a while back about Israel and terrorism -- they don't make a spectacle out of their own suffering. They clean up the mess and get back to work. I have an uncle who has lived there since 1970. He once compared security concerns to the weather -- that's just what's happening outside, and maybe you need to bring an umbrella today or be aware that certain bus lines in Jerusalem are targets for suicide bombers, but you still go about your business. In America we do the opposite, and everyone who is ready to kill strangers is incentivized by the thought that they might be the ones to get people all ruffled up again. Time to stop taking the bait.

[Rocky Bleier]

Supposedly, there are 1.1 million people on the Terror Watch list. If that's accurate, the government should be distributing weapons to the populace instead of talking confiscation. You or I could be on that list tomorrow and not even know it. There are no doubt more religious zealots waiting for their chance at infamy and 72 virgins. And the answer is to disarm Americans? The Navy Seal was advocating the AR15 as a defensive weapon. Like he said, the same people who want to disarm you are protected by those weapons. You can fixate on any weapon you want, but you aren't stopping these attacks until you root out the cause.

And the .223/5.56 is considered a varmint cartridge:

"However, the most popular and widely distributed of all varmint cartridges, world wide, is the .223 Remington.

http://www.chuckhawks.com/12_rifle_cartridges.htm