You are viewing our Forum Archives. To view or take place in current topics click here.
A look at guns, what can the do? Why do we need them?
Posted:
A look at guns, what can the do? Why do we need them?Posted:
Status: Offline
Joined: Sep 25, 20149Year Member
Posts: 4,817
Reputation Power: 7288
Status: Offline
Joined: Sep 25, 20149Year Member
Posts: 4,817
Reputation Power: 7288
Hey guys, while I'm home I just wanted to go through my guns to make sure they are safe, and let people understand what they do, how they can do one thing, yet can't do another.
Let's get started, so in this post we'll be talking about my Remington model 700 chambered in .270 win, Windham weaponry AR-15 chambered in 7.62x39, and Harden arms AR-150 chambered in .300 blackout. Some of you may notice I'm missing one I've talked about, the AK-47. Sadly I may or may not have put too many rounds down the barrel and it warped so it's at a gun smiths shop right now. Before we get into this, I just want to clarify that I spent the last hour and a half taking these firearms apart, and what I found was astonishing. There is no brain, no heart, no computer programming, no nothing. These firearms are purely mechanical which means something or someone has to manipulate the firearm. These guns can't get up on their own and shoot up a school. I may be lucky in the ones I purchased, but that's what I found.
Let's jump into this. We'll start with the Remington model 700 since it's short and sweet and no one really cares about it. Ok, it can hold 1 round in the chamber, and 4 in the "mag". This firearm takes 13 seconds for me to load, which is 2.6 seconds for each round. I can shoot 1 round in 2 seconds, 4 seconds semi accurately. This means that in 10 minutes, I can shoot 30 rounds.
The 7.62x39 can hold 1 round in the chamber, and 30 in the mag. I can get bigger or smaller mags but that's what I have. This gun takes me 3 minutes and 3 seconds to load, which comes out to 6 seconds per bullet. I can shoot 6 rounds in 3 seconds, or 1 semi-accurately. This means in 10 minutes I can shoot 90 rounds.
The .300 black out on the other hand also can hold 1 in the chamber, but only 20 in this mag. What is cool to note is that this gun with this mag that takes 10 less rounds takes me 3 minutes 16 seconds to load, which means it takes me 9 seconds to load each round. I don't have a fancy clip or any of that, and this is a pretty much new rifle so the springs haven't warn down which means this mag it tough to load. I can shoot 6 rounds in 3 seconds, or 1 semi-accurately. This means in 10 minutes I can shoot 90 rounds.
The bolt action rifle is a lot faster to load, it takes a lot less effort, and is a lot less painful. The other rifles are just faster to shoot, which brings me to my next point. By looking at these rifles, you can see the .300 black out is set up to be a long range rifle, and 7.62x39 is more for home defense on the streets, and the .270 is your general hunting rifle. I went to the range the other day to site in the guns and was honestly disappointed. My .270 can keep a 1" group (of 5 shots) at 200 yards. The .300 black out can't keep a group at 200 yards, but at 100 yards it's about a 2" group. I'm going to attribute this to bad ammo as what we had was not the stuff I like because the store was out of good ammo, I'll have to try it again some time. The 7.62x39 can keep a 2" shot group at 50 yards. Again, I am attributing this to ammo as we couldn't get what I normally do. As far as the accuracy of these firearms, I'm not the slightest bit amazed at the results. My .270 is at the top of it's category as far as the rifle is concerned, and the AR's are both low end guns. Weather or not we attribute the accuracy to the gun or the ammo, it doesn't matter. A shooter who buys his own stuff isn't buying the most expensive AR with premium ammo.
I would be a lot more scared of that .270 than an AR-15 personally. The accuracy isn't there in an AR (as far as my tests conclude), and they don't have the best range which means you have to shoot people in front of people. There is more chance of me being able to defend myself against the person with the AR-15 because I can see him, and deal with him accordingly. The .270 on the other hand is a lot more accurate, and lot more deadly. This gun someone can sit on a rooftop with and snipe people. This is a threat I can't see and have no chance at defending myself against.
So this brings me to my question, I hear a lot of people say that people who owns these types of firearms are bad people. Am I a bad guy. I mean, we established that they are not accurate, and take a while to reload. We also established that a physical entity has to manipulate the gun as there is no heart or brain, and there is no computer electronics.
My point is, yeah there were 11,206 homicides of people who arguably shouldn't have died. I say arguably because who's to decide who should die and who shouldn't? Anyway, usually here in the US 1 shooter, but sometimes we have a whole gang of shooters, so we'll say that 1k people where shooters. Is it honestly fair to say that because 0.003% of the US population suffered from 0.0003% of the population being stupid that the rest of the population should have their firearms taken away? I don't think so.
I know that firearms will never be taken away in the US thanks to the constitution but people just don't understand that and I'm tired of hearing "we need to get rid of guns". I just wanted to put a number on it because 1k and 10k do sounds horrible until you look at 0.003% and 0.0003%.
Oh yeah, while we're at it, I was hiking this past weekend and seen a sobering reminder of why I carry a firearm with me. I was up in the woods hiking with my dogs, same spot I go every weekend when I'm in town and we found a black bear. Now unfortunately I didn't get a picture because honestly I didn't want to stay around too long, but that right there is all the proof I need that guns are fot protection. If you want to try to protect yourself from a bear with a knife, go for it. Someone will bring up bear spray, I know it, but here's a fun fact for you. I always keep bear spray in my truck and I always check it to make sure it's still pressurized before I go hiking. Guess what? No pressure. Brand new can of bear spray and it has no pressure. If I relied on that and an knife, I'd be dead if that bear decided to charge me. Here's kinda the scenario that we were in:
And lastly, if you're scared of a gun yet never shot one, if you find yourself in Washington state, give me a PM and I'll take you our to the shooting range. This isn't just BS, I'm serious, I'll teach you how to use one of these weapons and get you comfortable with one.
Let's get started, so in this post we'll be talking about my Remington model 700 chambered in .270 win, Windham weaponry AR-15 chambered in 7.62x39, and Harden arms AR-150 chambered in .300 blackout. Some of you may notice I'm missing one I've talked about, the AK-47. Sadly I may or may not have put too many rounds down the barrel and it warped so it's at a gun smiths shop right now. Before we get into this, I just want to clarify that I spent the last hour and a half taking these firearms apart, and what I found was astonishing. There is no brain, no heart, no computer programming, no nothing. These firearms are purely mechanical which means something or someone has to manipulate the firearm. These guns can't get up on their own and shoot up a school. I may be lucky in the ones I purchased, but that's what I found.
Let's jump into this. We'll start with the Remington model 700 since it's short and sweet and no one really cares about it. Ok, it can hold 1 round in the chamber, and 4 in the "mag". This firearm takes 13 seconds for me to load, which is 2.6 seconds for each round. I can shoot 1 round in 2 seconds, 4 seconds semi accurately. This means that in 10 minutes, I can shoot 30 rounds.
The 7.62x39 can hold 1 round in the chamber, and 30 in the mag. I can get bigger or smaller mags but that's what I have. This gun takes me 3 minutes and 3 seconds to load, which comes out to 6 seconds per bullet. I can shoot 6 rounds in 3 seconds, or 1 semi-accurately. This means in 10 minutes I can shoot 90 rounds.
The .300 black out on the other hand also can hold 1 in the chamber, but only 20 in this mag. What is cool to note is that this gun with this mag that takes 10 less rounds takes me 3 minutes 16 seconds to load, which means it takes me 9 seconds to load each round. I don't have a fancy clip or any of that, and this is a pretty much new rifle so the springs haven't warn down which means this mag it tough to load. I can shoot 6 rounds in 3 seconds, or 1 semi-accurately. This means in 10 minutes I can shoot 90 rounds.
The bolt action rifle is a lot faster to load, it takes a lot less effort, and is a lot less painful. The other rifles are just faster to shoot, which brings me to my next point. By looking at these rifles, you can see the .300 black out is set up to be a long range rifle, and 7.62x39 is more for home defense on the streets, and the .270 is your general hunting rifle. I went to the range the other day to site in the guns and was honestly disappointed. My .270 can keep a 1" group (of 5 shots) at 200 yards. The .300 black out can't keep a group at 200 yards, but at 100 yards it's about a 2" group. I'm going to attribute this to bad ammo as what we had was not the stuff I like because the store was out of good ammo, I'll have to try it again some time. The 7.62x39 can keep a 2" shot group at 50 yards. Again, I am attributing this to ammo as we couldn't get what I normally do. As far as the accuracy of these firearms, I'm not the slightest bit amazed at the results. My .270 is at the top of it's category as far as the rifle is concerned, and the AR's are both low end guns. Weather or not we attribute the accuracy to the gun or the ammo, it doesn't matter. A shooter who buys his own stuff isn't buying the most expensive AR with premium ammo.
I would be a lot more scared of that .270 than an AR-15 personally. The accuracy isn't there in an AR (as far as my tests conclude), and they don't have the best range which means you have to shoot people in front of people. There is more chance of me being able to defend myself against the person with the AR-15 because I can see him, and deal with him accordingly. The .270 on the other hand is a lot more accurate, and lot more deadly. This gun someone can sit on a rooftop with and snipe people. This is a threat I can't see and have no chance at defending myself against.
So this brings me to my question, I hear a lot of people say that people who owns these types of firearms are bad people. Am I a bad guy. I mean, we established that they are not accurate, and take a while to reload. We also established that a physical entity has to manipulate the gun as there is no heart or brain, and there is no computer electronics.
My point is, yeah there were 11,206 homicides of people who arguably shouldn't have died. I say arguably because who's to decide who should die and who shouldn't? Anyway, usually here in the US 1 shooter, but sometimes we have a whole gang of shooters, so we'll say that 1k people where shooters. Is it honestly fair to say that because 0.003% of the US population suffered from 0.0003% of the population being stupid that the rest of the population should have their firearms taken away? I don't think so.
I know that firearms will never be taken away in the US thanks to the constitution but people just don't understand that and I'm tired of hearing "we need to get rid of guns". I just wanted to put a number on it because 1k and 10k do sounds horrible until you look at 0.003% and 0.0003%.
Oh yeah, while we're at it, I was hiking this past weekend and seen a sobering reminder of why I carry a firearm with me. I was up in the woods hiking with my dogs, same spot I go every weekend when I'm in town and we found a black bear. Now unfortunately I didn't get a picture because honestly I didn't want to stay around too long, but that right there is all the proof I need that guns are fot protection. If you want to try to protect yourself from a bear with a knife, go for it. Someone will bring up bear spray, I know it, but here's a fun fact for you. I always keep bear spray in my truck and I always check it to make sure it's still pressurized before I go hiking. Guess what? No pressure. Brand new can of bear spray and it has no pressure. If I relied on that and an knife, I'd be dead if that bear decided to charge me. Here's kinda the scenario that we were in:
And lastly, if you're scared of a gun yet never shot one, if you find yourself in Washington state, give me a PM and I'll take you our to the shooting range. This isn't just BS, I'm serious, I'll teach you how to use one of these weapons and get you comfortable with one.
#2. Posted:
Status: Offline
Joined: Oct 28, 201310Year Member
Posts: 1,048
Reputation Power: 91
Guns are great for personal protection. A pistol to carry with you and a shotgun for the house is all a person needs imo. If you have a hunting license or work for private security, then you would probably want something more than a pistol or shotgun. People say they own those weapons for self defense, but does it really make sense? When someone breaks into your home, would you grab your AR-15 or your 12 gauge? You would probably grab the 12 gauge. As many people already know, you don't even need to shoot with accuracy for a shotgun to be effective in close quarters.
My point is that people should be free to get guns that they might actually need. If you need an AR-15 to hunt, then you should be free to go out and purchase one. If not, then there is no reason for you to have one imo.
Last edited by 3PT ; edited 2 times in total
My point is that people should be free to get guns that they might actually need. If you need an AR-15 to hunt, then you should be free to go out and purchase one. If not, then there is no reason for you to have one imo.
Last edited by 3PT ; edited 2 times in total
- 1useful
- 1not useful
#3. Posted:
Status: Offline
Joined: Dec 27, 201310Year Member
Posts: 1,147
Reputation Power: 4
Bin them all, guns are bad in every way.
Just use Swords
Last edited by VDK ; edited 1 time in total
Just use Swords
Last edited by VDK ; edited 1 time in total
- 5useful
- 14not useful
#4. Posted:
Status: Offline
Joined: Apr 23, 201212Year Member
Posts: 5,695
Reputation Power: 23724
Motto: Yamborghini: Shawn the pedos are pedoing again #BanMaze
Motto: Yamborghini: Shawn the pedos are pedoing again #BanMaze
Status: Offline
Joined: Apr 23, 201212Year Member
Posts: 5,695
Reputation Power: 23724
Motto: Yamborghini: Shawn the pedos are pedoing again #BanMaze
#5. Posted:
Status: Offline
Joined: Jul 13, 200914Year Member
Posts: 7,815
Reputation Power: 3052
Status: Offline
Joined: Jul 13, 200914Year Member
Posts: 7,815
Reputation Power: 3052
3PT wrote Guns are great for personal protection. A pistol to carry with you and a shotgun for the house is all a person needs imo. If you have a hunting license or work for private security, then you would probably want something more than a pistol or shotgun. People say they own those weapons for self defense, but does it really make sense? When someone breaks into your home, would you grab your AR-15 or your 12 gauge? You would probably grab the 12 gauge. As many people already know, you don't even need to shoot with accuracy for a shotgun to be effective in close quarters.
My point is that people should be free to get guns that they might actually need. If you need an AR-15 to hunt, then you should be free to go out and purchase one. If not, then there is no reason for you to have one imo.
I am a gun enthusiast. I hunt occasionally, and I love going to the gun range. My family owns an AR-15, but we never use it to hunt we only use it at the gun range. We also have a few rifles and pistols we only use at the range, since we go pheasant hunting with shotguns. With your logic, we shouldn't own these guns.
Last edited by Forest ; edited 1 time in total
- 2useful
- 0not useful
#6. Posted:
Status: Offline
Joined: Nov 07, 201211Year Member
Posts: 3,732
Reputation Power: 362
Status: Offline
Joined: Nov 07, 201211Year Member
Posts: 3,732
Reputation Power: 362
C4s wroteInnx wrote Bin them all guns are bad in every way
[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]
I'm not pro-banning guns but that's quite a bad analogy.
When you're analogizing objects they have to be similar in function.
When a police officer responds to a crime worthy of a lethal reaction, they use a gun.
When a fireman is responding to a fire they show up with fire extinguishers but if this was an analogous situation with the police response it would be a much more serious fire, so they show up with a fire truck.
If this analogy were accurate it would say be saying that every person should own a fire truck.
Also, when was the last time someone committed a mass murder with a fire extinguisher?
Once again, i'm not pro-banning guns, but I have yet to see an analogy between guns and something else essential which makes sense.
People in the US need guns for various reasons, hunting, protection, and fun, being the main ones.
They should have access to these weapons if they want them, but they should also have to go through strict training, background checks, mental health evaluations and safety classes to get them, maybe including mandatory safe installment.
And yes, I know that the laws are already very strict but in my opinion it should be as difficult to get a gun license as it is to get a pilot's license.
Any law abiding US citizen who wants a gun should have no problem with this, and if they actually care about guns they should want people to know how to use them so that the stigma is removed from gun owners.
- 6useful
- 2not useful
#7. Posted:
Status: Offline
Joined: Sep 25, 20149Year Member
Posts: 4,817
Reputation Power: 7288
Status: Offline
Joined: Sep 25, 20149Year Member
Posts: 4,817
Reputation Power: 7288
Solus wroteC4s wroteInnx wrote Bin them all guns are bad in every way
[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]
I'm not pro-banning guns but that's quite a bad analogy.
When you're analogizing objects they have to be similar in function.
When a police officer responds to a crime worthy of a lethal reaction, they use a gun.
When a fireman is responding to a fire they show up with fire extinguishers but if this was an analogous situation with the police response it would be a much more serious fire, so they show up with a fire truck.
If this analogy were accurate it would say be saying that every person should own a fire truck.
Also, when was the last time someone committed a mass murder with a fire extinguisher?
Once again, i'm not pro-banning guns, but I have yet to see an analogy between guns and something else essential which makes sense.
People in the US need guns for various reasons, hunting, protection, and fun, being the main ones.
They should have access to these weapons if they want them, but they should also have to go through strict training, background checks, mental health evaluations and safety classes to get them, maybe including mandatory safe installment.
And yes, I know that the laws are already very strict but in my opinion it should be as difficult to get a gun license as it is to get a pilot's license.
Any law abiding US citizen who wants a gun should have no problem with this, and if they actually care about guns they should want people to know how to use them so that the stigma is removed from gun owners.
The analogy is saying if we don't need guns because we have police, then we don't need fire extinguishers because we have firefighters. It literally has nothing to do with a fire truck, yeah firefighters use fire trucks, just like cops use police cars. Just putting it out there.
- 5useful
- 0not useful
#8. Posted:
Status: Offline
Joined: Nov 07, 201211Year Member
Posts: 3,732
Reputation Power: 362
Status: Offline
Joined: Nov 07, 201211Year Member
Posts: 3,732
Reputation Power: 362
002 wroteSolus wroteC4s wroteInnx wrote Bin them all guns are bad in every way
[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]
I'm not pro-banning guns but that's quite a bad analogy.
When you're analogizing objects they have to be similar in function.
When a police officer responds to a crime worthy of a lethal reaction, they use a gun.
When a fireman is responding to a fire they show up with fire extinguishers but if this was an analogous situation with the police response it would be a much more serious fire, so they show up with a fire truck.
If this analogy were accurate it would say be saying that every person should own a fire truck.
Also, when was the last time someone committed a mass murder with a fire extinguisher?
Once again, i'm not pro-banning guns, but I have yet to see an analogy between guns and something else essential which makes sense.
People in the US need guns for various reasons, hunting, protection, and fun, being the main ones.
They should have access to these weapons if they want them, but they should also have to go through strict training, background checks, mental health evaluations and safety classes to get them, maybe including mandatory safe installment.
And yes, I know that the laws are already very strict but in my opinion it should be as difficult to get a gun license as it is to get a pilot's license.
Any law abiding US citizen who wants a gun should have no problem with this, and if they actually care about guns they should want people to know how to use them so that the stigma is removed from gun owners.
The analogy is saying if we don't need guns because we have police, then we don't need fire extinguishers because we have firefighters. It literally has nothing to do with a fire truck, yeah firefighters use fire trucks, just like cops use police cars. Just putting it out there.
The fire truck has the hose. That is what they use when it is a serious fire. Just like the police use their guns when it is a serious situation.
A fire extinguisher would be more analogous with a taser or pepper spray. It's a smaller response for a smaller issue.
I understood what the analogy was saying, i'm saying it's not an accurate analogy.
Edit: I don't want to drown this thread bickering over the accuracy of an analogy so let me try to make it as clear as I can here. If this doesn't convince you then nothing I say will.
If the police are responding to a situation where it would be lawful for any gun owner to shoot the person committing the crime, it would also be lawful for the police to shoot the person committing the crime. Use of deadly force by a gun is the most extreme thing a regular police officer can do.
The most extreme thing a fireman can do is not to run up to a burning building and begin spraying it with a fire extinguisher. The most extreme thing a regular fireman can do is man the hose from his fire truck and begin spraying high pressure water or foam over the building.
These are the most extreme situations a police officer or a fireman can find themselves in
Therefore, a gun is not analogous with a fire extinguisher. A gun is analogous with a fire truck.
Pepper spray or a taser would be more analogous with a fire extinguisher because the situation is obviously less severe. An assailant without a gun, a fire without a building.
That's as clearly as I can put this I think.
Last edited by ProfessorNobody ; edited 1 time in total
- 4useful
- 0not useful
#9. Posted:
Status: Offline
Joined: Apr 23, 201212Year Member
Posts: 5,695
Reputation Power: 23724
Motto: Yamborghini: Shawn the pedos are pedoing again #BanMaze
Motto: Yamborghini: Shawn the pedos are pedoing again #BanMaze
Status: Offline
Joined: Apr 23, 201212Year Member
Posts: 5,695
Reputation Power: 23724
Motto: Yamborghini: Shawn the pedos are pedoing again #BanMaze
Solus wroteC4s wroteInnx wrote Bin them all guns are bad in every way
[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]
I'm not pro-banning guns but that's quite a bad analogy.
When you're analogizing objects they have to be similar in function.
When a police officer responds to a crime worthy of a lethal reaction, they use a gun.
When a fireman is responding to a fire they show up with fire extinguishers but if this was an analogous situation with the police response it would be a much more serious fire, so they show up with a fire truck.
If this analogy were accurate it would say be saying that every person should own a fire truck.
Also, when was the last time someone committed a mass murder with a fire extinguisher?
Once again, i'm not pro-banning guns, but I have yet to see an analogy between guns and something else essential which makes sense.
People in the US need guns for various reasons, hunting, protection, and fun, being the main ones.
They should have access to these weapons if they want them, but they should also have to go through strict training, background checks, mental health evaluations and safety classes to get them, maybe including mandatory safe installment.
And yes, I know that the laws are already very strict but in my opinion it should be as difficult to get a gun license as it is to get a pilot's license.
Any law abiding US citizen who wants a gun should have no problem with this, and if they actually care about guns they should want people to know how to use them so that the stigma is removed from gun owners.
- 2useful
- 0not useful
#10. Posted:
Status: Offline
Joined: Nov 07, 201211Year Member
Posts: 3,732
Reputation Power: 362
Status: Offline
Joined: Nov 07, 201211Year Member
Posts: 3,732
Reputation Power: 362
C4s wroteI agree with you to a point, if you happen to start a small kitchen fire and have a fire extinguisher then you are able to control the situation before it gets out of hand and have to call the fire department. Now lets say someone is trying to break into your house or rob you and you have a handgun or shot gun then you are able to stop that situation in its track or injury the person thats trying to break into the house. It has nothing to do with firetrucks or cops car. Its the matter of being able to control the situation before its gets out of hand and have to call the police or fire department.Solus wroteC4s wroteInnx wrote Bin them all guns are bad in every way
[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]
I'm not pro-banning guns but that's quite a bad analogy.
When you're analogizing objects they have to be similar in function.
When a police officer responds to a crime worthy of a lethal reaction, they use a gun.
When a fireman is responding to a fire they show up with fire extinguishers but if this was an analogous situation with the police response it would be a much more serious fire, so they show up with a fire truck.
If this analogy were accurate it would say be saying that every person should own a fire truck.
Also, when was the last time someone committed a mass murder with a fire extinguisher?
Once again, i'm not pro-banning guns, but I have yet to see an analogy between guns and something else essential which makes sense.
People in the US need guns for various reasons, hunting, protection, and fun, being the main ones.
They should have access to these weapons if they want them, but they should also have to go through strict training, background checks, mental health evaluations and safety classes to get them, maybe including mandatory safe installment.
And yes, I know that the laws are already very strict but in my opinion it should be as difficult to get a gun license as it is to get a pilot's license.
Any law abiding US citizen who wants a gun should have no problem with this, and if they actually care about guns they should want people to know how to use them so that the stigma is removed from gun owners.
That's fair enough. If someone is trying to break into your home and you fire a shot from a pistol they are much more likely to turn and run away than if you shout that you have a taser.
You may have just broken the run of crap gun control analogies I have seen.
- 0useful
- 0not useful
You are viewing our Forum Archives. To view or take place in current topics click here.