quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
While talking about the dynamics of firearms, the effectiveness one one type over another, or which is better for dealing with rampaging "Broad side of Barns", none of these are even 'on topic' for this thread.

I didn't bring it up but was responding to another post or 2 that I took and exception to. Much of it though parallels or expands on the OP.

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

How often do we hear of people who pay attention to their surroundings (from some self defense classes they took), choose not to go down the un-lit alley but instead stick to the crowded streets? Or of the folks who's dog starts barking because he hears not the intruder, but that squirrel that he's been after for a week (yes, the world doesn't always revolve around the criminals as far as dogs are concern)?

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

How often do we hear stories of someone being attacked and the firearm wasn't even used, even though the person is able to own one?

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

Wasn't their some lady who is the president of some major firearm club/organization who was shot dead in her own house?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Focus50

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwynn

I think the depiction there explains the fascination of some in other countries with the guns/US thing. They watch all these movies out of Hollywood that sell on violence and, seeing one after another of these films subconsciously start to assume that's what it's actually like in the US; 'make my day,' 'it's a good day to die,' etc.

I dunno if people are that dumb. Most expect to see action when they watch an action film - it's just that so many are poorly made. The car wreck where inevitably all of its 16 fuel tanks from front to rear explode one after another; the fact that, in American films in particular, they spoil what would be a spectacular visual wreck by burying it in a huge fireball (all those fuel tanks again).

Same with guns.... How many times have we seen military assault weapons making pretty sparks as the bullets deflect harmlessly off car panels? Those who know anything about such weapons know you're not safe hiding behind a car, not even with the engine block between you and the gunman. Lol, I recently watched a re-run of Lethal Weapon II - Danny Glover from waaaay down in the ship's hold and armed with his trusty 2" snub-nose revolver, and the bad guy waaaay the fuck up on the bridge catwalk; and bang, right between the eyes!!!! Anyone whose fired a handgun knows it'd be a 50-50 chance of hitting the freakin' bridge!

I think Hollywood has a lot to answer for re reality (and still make it a decent action film); that it's not necessarily the viewer who's the idiot. Hmmm, Ben Affleck's "The Town" was more representative as to what assault rifles can do - no "pretty sparks" there....

Focus.

quote:

Edwynn

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether



If the person was off topic, you should have said so. Instead, you join the person in being off the topic. Show me how posts 191, 195 and 196 are directly related to the OP?

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin

I'm taking this to mean what kind of chance would a guy with a hand gun have against a maniac with an assault weapon.  A knowledgeable experienced marksman knows that many of the aspects of gun fighting are tactical as well as the ability to make a well placed shot quickly. The maniac will have no idea who might be armed. This is a disadvantage for him as while he's shooting the place up concentrating in one direction the guy with the handgun has his sights fixed on the maniacs head. In a one on one situation, it matters little whether some guy has a semi auto or whatever and the other guy doesn't. The ability of the shooter and a well placed shot matters most. The maniac could easily be taken out by a guy with a flintlock especially if he is the kind of guy who can hit a deer running through the woods. Keep in mind also that semi auto (assault looking military sort of) weapons are a bit over rated. They come in handy for experienced shooters when confronting multiple opponents when seconds or split seconds count and could mean the difference between life and death. If confronting unarmed people it's not likely to make a hill of beans what type of firearm the maniac has. A 12 gauge pump shotgun comes to mind even a double barrel (2 shot) shot gun would suffice and extract as much or more carnage as a semi auto or whatever.

quote:

  Also, just one more clarification needs to be made. Technically there is no such thing as a semi auto assault weapon or assault weapon. Assault weapon is a term coined by gun advertisers and importers to make their particulars semi auto military looking guns sound really bad. The term was then exploited by the media and gun grabber politicians after a similar gun mass murder tragedy in the US in 1989.  Though assault weapon could mean an assault rifle as assault rifles are after all weapons and they have the word assault. Assault rifles are a design concept. One of the concepts for an assault rifle is it must be capable of semi automatic or full automatic fire with the flip of a switch. That Chinese semi auto AK 47 type junk is not an assault rifle. Semi automatics have existed for 100 years.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Focus50



There is no clarification necessary as you likely missed a point I made in an earlier post. That even pre Port Arthur, it has always been illegal for citizens to own, buy or sell fully automatic weapons in Australia. Bryant's main weapon was indeed a Chinese military assault rifle. Where our government deserves a lot of criticism is that they allowed them to be imported at all, albeit in semi-automatic form only. They were popular with pig shooters in particular as they were pretty much a cheap and nasty but affective, high-powered weapon. I think back then you could get one for about 6-7 hundred dollars at a gun store and as little as $500 mail order.

Focus.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Focus50
Ahhh yes, the ol' woulda/coulda/shoulda argument - like Pearl Harbour (tracking the incoming Japanese planes on radar and ignoring it) and all the things that woulda/coulda/shoulda happened that instead enabled the 9/11 tragedy.

If armed, presumably with a handgun, I'm wondering how many "John Citizen"s would've gone one-on-one with a proven stone-killer armed with a Chinese (semi-auto) military assault rifle - amongst other guns, for memory.... Ok, in American action movies we all know the murderous bad guys armed with automatic assault weapons are no chance against a lone Steven Seagal type and his trusty handgun. But would it play out that way in real life?

I'm thinking Americans and esp those who embrace this Second Amendment are also familiar with terms like "collateral damage" and "friendly fire" etc - as being the price of "freedom"? The price is too high....

Focus.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin

Keep in mind also that semi auto (assault looking military sort of) weapons are a bit over rated.

Particularly in the kind of scenario cooked up in the post you're responding to. The "assault" weapon would likely fire either 5.56 or 7.62mm jacketed high velocity rounds that are not stopped by soft tissue and create a clean wound channel. Defense handguns are designed to fire larger (typically 9mm to 45 caliber) expanding or frangible rounds at lower velocity for large wound channel first-shot stopping power with minimal risk of over-penetration. In a face off with an non-full automatic "assault" rifle at close range, assuming equal skill the guy with the .45 has a much better chance of being the one left standing.

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: lockedaway

You are incorrect.  With a Walther PPK, which has a 1.5 inch barrel after the chamber, I can group the whole clip in the circumference the size of a golf ball at 15 yards. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarqueMirror

The thing that amuses me is that you have to go that route because the evidence of what actually did happen -- 36 innocent people killed before cops could even think of arriving -- is something you can't argue with.

quote:

Furthermore, your "Steven Segal" image is nowhere close to how these things play out in real life.

Well duhhhh...!

Next you'll be telling me American cars don't have 16 separate fuel tanks from front to rear.


Focus.

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin

I didn't miss your earlier post but I think you missed *my* point. The point was to clarify your incorrect use of the term assault weapon/rifle or assault whatever.  By definition and by design, an assault rifle is capable of fully automatic fire. The weapon in question is not an assault rifle.

quote:

I disagree. It was stupid and useless. The only thing your government succeeded in doing is disarming law abiding citizens of common semi autos, that is assuming they all turned them in which I highly doubt. I also doubt the crooks disarmed or that they resort to only shooting them at gun clubs. Your government deserves criticism for banning them as do those in our government who want to ban them. Though why should I care what happens over there ?  It's non of my bees wax. Why is it you care so much about what we do over here ?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Focus50
What "amuses" me, and something that 2nd Amendment fundamentalists can and do argue about (denial is a wonderful drug) is that the right to bear arms that enables you to protect yourselves is the very reason you need to. Cause and consequence in one neat constitutional bundle....

quote:

ORIGINAL: Focus50
Well duhhhh...!

Next you'll be telling me American cars don't have 16 separate fuel tanks from front to rear.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

Shot feet,family members and friends also have to be factored in the equation.

You never hear about those stories in the NRA rags.

But you do get adverts for death and dis-memberment insurance there.

quote:

What "amuses" me, and something that 2nd Amendment fundamentalists can and do argue about (denial is a wonderful drug) is that the right to bear arms that enables you to protect yourselves is the very reason you need to. Cause and consequence in one neat constitutional bundle....

quote:

ORIGINAL: WyldHrt
I disagree. If you made every gun disappear from the face of the earth tomorrow, violent criminals would simply pick up knives, tire irons, machetes, baseball bats, etc and get on with the 'business' of assault, rape, robbery, murder, and other crimes. Saying that getting rid of guns will somehow get rid of the criminal scum that currently use them is just silly, particularly since there are plenty of violent crimes committed without guns (sometimes without any weapon at all) worldwide, gun bans or no.

That said, I have a belaying pin next to my bed (banging it on something metal scares wildlife away from the trash). It is solid oak, the size of a small billy club, and perfectly capable of killing a person if used as a weapon.

Still, should someone break into my home while I am there, I will pass on the pin and reach for the 9mm. I have about zero desire to get into a physical fight with a criminal possibly much larger and stronger than myself, whether xhe is armed with a gun, a knife, or nothing at all.

quote:

The other thing he conveniently overlooks is in his own example of gun-free crime, 3 men broke into a home, 2 with knives and 1 with an ax handle. In that situation, what does he expect every home owner to be a Kung Fu master who can take 3 armed thugs single-handed?

quote:

No. I'd be reaching for a pistol too. The criminals make the choice to enter the home for nefarious purposes, they assume the responsibility for what transpires as a result.