seems obvious to me. you got a cold or something?
-
Happy Birthday ICMag! Been 20 years since Gypsy Nirvana created the forum! We are celebrating with a 4/20 Giveaway and by launching a new Patreon tier called "420club". You can read more here.
-
Important notice: ICMag's T.O.U. has been updated. Please review it here. For your convenience, it is also available in the main forum menu, under 'Quick Links"!
HOW MANY CHILDREN NEED TO DIE BEFORE GUN LAWS CHANGE IN THE USA
- Thread starter Hammerhead
- Start date
- Status
Lol dont be scared just say it I've got no clue , u cant express your feelings when triggered?
The only difference is a switch. AR or similar are designed after the same guns used in war to inflict as much damage to as many people as possible. Their main purpose is to kill lots of people nothing more. Using them for hunting/self defense is lame. There are far better choices for both. Their only use has been to shoot targets and kill people. There are too many people with mental issues that seem to get them with no issues.. I love my guns, but I love people more and wouldn't shed a tear if the public didn't have access. From where I'm sitting there are more people with mental issues than not.
another horses ass thinking he "triggered" someone.
i'm sorry if your life is so dull and pitiful that you come to the internet to pretend anyone gives one skinny little fuck about what you say or think...
kills you that not everyone wants/needs/can handle a .340 Weatherby Magnum bolt-action to hunt deer, doesn't it? women, smaller men, and children like the AR-15 because of its negligible recoil in smaller calibers. this, in turn, makes them better shots, and more ethical hunters, as well as being more humane to the animals and destroying less meat. you better get used to not getting to tell folks what is best for them. are you a Republican by any chance? they have problems with that as well...the main purpose of a combat rifle is to WOUND, not kill. if you kill someone they don't tie up resources trying to help them. the more folks wounded and in hospitals, the fewer shooting back at you. if killing them outright was the point, military personnel would be using .300 Win mags & hollowpoint bullets...which, by the way, are against the Geneva Convention.
It is what can be expected of a society that promote normalisation of mental illness. And so it is not guns but the mentality and composition of people in a society that is the problem.
moose eater
Well-known member
Deinstitutionalization, esp. circa 1970s to 1990s, was conducted for a couple reasons. The gov proposed to be doing it for human rights and quality of care issues, some of which were -very- valid points of concern, but the primary motivation in that, from the perspective of a participant in newly formed community outplacement operations, was a gullible belief on the gov's part that they were saving money; mostly they didn't, and sometimes the costs could go way up.
Then there were the idealists and advocates who saw 'normalization' as a key ingredient to better care and better outcomes, failing to accept or fully consider that there were many different levels of function among patients. Not all could handle even semi-independent living.
And the conditions in some facilities were not always on par with what the exterior of the building or the manuicured lawn implied. Many abuses, involving physical and sexual abuse, unnecessary (or worse) Rx drug treatment and other treatments that caused harm (electro-shock therapy and drug therapies sometimes used punitively) and other issues, all gave compelling credibility for the idea of deinstitutionalization..
Some got out and went into community placement settings and did quite well. Others faded into the wood-work and died or became an issue elsewhere for others. Some ended up in forensics blocks in various prisons of different statuses. Some returned to the now limited psychiatric facilities.
Just another historical lesson in the often inappropriate nature of 'blanket policies' where one size rarely fits all, but blanket policies are that much easier or convenient to flesh out for the bureaucrats.
And another example of hypothetical constructs and idealism not always fitting well with reality.
Last edited:
moose eater
Well-known member
No, but there's always the .270 and similar calibers (.243, etc.) that a person can handle with limited recoil, and which 'work' on surprisingly large (and small) animals (and people, too).
sounds much like San Fran and other big cities
i agree, but this is a choice folks make for themselves. ,223 or .243? bolt , semi auto, or lever action? Ford, Chevy or Tesla? i'm against elimination of wildly popular options for bullshit political reasons that won't hold water... i'll say it again...the time will come when a couple of maniacs are going to walk into a crowded venue with pump shotguns (available with 8 shot tubes) loaded with buckshot and make folks wish they had brought AR-15s instead. 8 to 12 .33 cal pellets in every shell, and they are ALL going to hit someone in a crowded room. THEN what?
Still haven't answered, is it because u just talk random insane chit and really dont have an answer?
moose eater
Well-known member
It was pervasive in both positive and negative results, and covered the continent.
I did an internship at a group 'hospital' facility for (chronically unstable) adolescents (technically they were ineligible for the chronically mentally ill label). A state-of-the-art facility of its type in the later 1980s.
Some of the youngsters there (a 10-bed facilty with JCAH accreditation) were products of social environment and stories I won't ruin your breakfast with. Others, perhaps, more organic issues in nature.
I re-wrote and constructed psychosocial evals on all of them as part of my duties, which meant I got to read/research every Rx drug and placement these youngsters had ever been in. At least, what was on paper.
Mind blowing in some cases.
A 15-year-old young woman, sexually abused, with 4 pages of pschotropic medications in her rear-view. In her case, I envisiond a crew of frustrated shrinks in a dark pool hall, tossing darts at a board with Rx drugs labelled where numbers otherwise would've been, and saying "Try THAT one!!"
Another one of those, whose mother had molested him, and who had faced a -lot- of social pressure in schools and elsewhere, was a young man who was on a behavioral program that when he defied instruction for things as simple as returning to inside his room, (i.e., not extending any part of his body outside of the door jam) during a time out, he was given an IM injection of Thorazine. There was more than one time I saw him more or less tackled in the administration of that shot.
Most troubling, beyond the nature of some of the programs or plans themselves, was that the otherwise well-intentioned folks adminstering these 'programs' for him and others' plans, were people that I thought were good folks; an aging gypsy male nurse, a musician, who was more or less a hippie in any other setting, as one example. I liked that guy, but the method of enforcement of the plans dimmed that light a bit..
Another note in life's journal involving the world defying simplistic categorization. Unsettling in many ways.
Last edited:
moose eater
Well-known member
I think reloading, versus extended capacity mags in mass shootings differentiates some of those weapons.
But in reality, high-capacity mag bans (nationally), in the past, have tended to grand-father legality for possessing those mags already in circulation, which served primarily to raise the price on those already out and about, with the magazines in reference already 'out and about' and more or less still widely available.
Even the gov knows how difficult it would be to go door-to-door confiscating every high cap mag out there, let alone the rifles or handguns that match them. An impossible and fairly challenging/potentially dangerous assignment.
Last edited:
Sure you can make the argument for such a strategy but not everyone would make the same choice of strategy. Why do you even worry about the Geneva Conventions? Didn’t you used to be one of those slava ukraini before the moderator banned me. It is all appropriate to promote war as long as you promote the right side, or the left. Of course, showing the consequences of it is not.
These are all issues that are better than nothing.. As we all know dealing with the gov is like pulling teeth. There are bad examples in every aspect of health care. Something is better than nothing. The lack of mental care is the #1 reason we are here. With the mental state of the USA someone better do something quick. IT'S ONLY GONNA GET WORSE.
RobertFripp
Active member
There are slight differences in the bullets an AR15 shoots, and a NATO 5.66 round.
In reality in close quarters, the regular AR15 5.66 non NATO round is more powerful, ( has a higher muzzle velocity ) but the NATO round is more accurate at long distances. Though you can get an AR15 designed to shoot NATO ammunition. The NATO round has higher barrel pressure, and the neck on the NATO round is longer. The NATO round has 1 more grain of powder vs the AR15.
And as far as semiauto, and fully auto, in an extended firefight, you cannot shoot an M16/M4 fully auto, or youll burn the barrel up. For all intents and purposes, both rifles will shoot 45 rounds a minute in an extended firefight. The M4/M16 are probably less prone to jam. But as far as destructive capabilities in a firefight, theyre the same.
Also the 5.56 bullet is designed to do more than maime. One of the first design targets was to be able to penetrate a helmet at 500 yards. Hardly sounds like it was only meant to maim. And the high velocity of the 5.56 does tremendous tissue damage.
The 7.62 makes "bigger" holes but doesn't make stuff explode apart like 5.56 does. At closer ranges you can't tell the difference between 5.56 and 7.62 wounds in flesh besides everything in a goop pile. 5.56mm will leave wounds every bit as nasty as a 7.62mm NATO inside 100-150m. Beyond that it degrades a lot, but is still deadly. It does not punch through cover as well, but it's plenty effective for a general purpose round. What it does to flesh is just straight trauma. Hydrostatic shock/fragmentation/cavitation......
This is what one shot with a 5.56 NATO round will do at 150 yards. And as was stated. At 150 yards an AR15 has slightly higher muzzle velocities vs a NATO round. And also as stated. You can buy semiautos that are chambered for NATO 5.56 rounds.
Looks to me like id way more than wound this man. Split his fucking head in half at 150 yards.
This was done with an M193 ammunition, and you can buy the equivalent for an AR15. And 855 Green Tip ammunition can do even more damage, but isnt as reliable to fragment.
Dont be fooled into thinking the AR15/M16/M4 was developed to wound. In close quarters, it does as much damage as a .308.
In reality in close quarters, the regular AR15 5.66 non NATO round is more powerful, ( has a higher muzzle velocity ) but the NATO round is more accurate at long distances. Though you can get an AR15 designed to shoot NATO ammunition. The NATO round has higher barrel pressure, and the neck on the NATO round is longer. The NATO round has 1 more grain of powder vs the AR15.
And as far as semiauto, and fully auto, in an extended firefight, you cannot shoot an M16/M4 fully auto, or youll burn the barrel up. For all intents and purposes, both rifles will shoot 45 rounds a minute in an extended firefight. The M4/M16 are probably less prone to jam. But as far as destructive capabilities in a firefight, theyre the same.
Also the 5.56 bullet is designed to do more than maime. One of the first design targets was to be able to penetrate a helmet at 500 yards. Hardly sounds like it was only meant to maim. And the high velocity of the 5.56 does tremendous tissue damage.
The 7.62 makes "bigger" holes but doesn't make stuff explode apart like 5.56 does. At closer ranges you can't tell the difference between 5.56 and 7.62 wounds in flesh besides everything in a goop pile. 5.56mm will leave wounds every bit as nasty as a 7.62mm NATO inside 100-150m. Beyond that it degrades a lot, but is still deadly. It does not punch through cover as well, but it's plenty effective for a general purpose round. What it does to flesh is just straight trauma. Hydrostatic shock/fragmentation/cavitation......
This is what one shot with a 5.56 NATO round will do at 150 yards. And as was stated. At 150 yards an AR15 has slightly higher muzzle velocities vs a NATO round. And also as stated. You can buy semiautos that are chambered for NATO 5.56 rounds.
Looks to me like id way more than wound this man. Split his fucking head in half at 150 yards.
This was done with an M193 ammunition, and you can buy the equivalent for an AR15. And 855 Green Tip ammunition can do even more damage, but isnt as reliable to fragment.
Dont be fooled into thinking the AR15/M16/M4 was developed to wound. In close quarters, it does as much damage as a .308.
Last edited by a moderator:
nope. bye...
LOL! not one in a hundred average infantrymen could hit a helmet at 500 yds. solid jacket military ammo is not supposed to fragment, that is why it has a solid jacket. if it does, it is a shitty bullet. you get hit in the forehead with ANY decent round, your head will look like that (or worse) unlucky bastards does. you don't get minor "flesh wounds" in your forehead, lol. the .223 is nothing special, they went with it because the recoil was lighter thereby increasing accurate fire & a grunt could carry many more rounds with him. embarrassing as hell to be in a firefight & have to say "well fuck! I'M out of ammo.. TIME OUT!"
Dime
Well-known member
I'd say the average person would take pills not blow their own heads off,they are easier to get than a gun as well. Got a stat on pills vs gun suicide?
moose eater
Well-known member
The opinions of those who were in the field in combat zones in SE Asia, at the time of the switch to MacNamara's M-16 and the 5.56 NATO round, leaving behind the M-14 and the NATO 7.62 x 57, was that it was an inferior round, and MacNamara's claim of being able to carry 7 times the ammunition was a miscalculation involving the on-the-ground experience that more ammuniton was required to achieve the same outcomes.
Not to mention that the early M-16's, absent the forward assist feature that came later as a matter of necessity, were more than a little problematic in less than clean environments.
The CAR Shorties (i.e. XM177E's) had nearly fatal flaws in design, initially (sometimes literally fatal) re. ammunition-feed and gas cycling of the bolt, requiring Colt to redesign the flash suppressor to the extent that BATF would later regard their flash suppressor as a suppressor.
The cylcic rate for most of the government-purchased/contracted 5.56 mm weapons, to include the lesser known Ruger AC556F and AC556, as well as the early Colt M-16s, was closer to 730 to 750 per cyclic minute (some can be modified to run faster), though some weapons, to include the Rugers, had 3-possition selector switches that allowed for semi-auto, 3-round burst, and full-auto fire..
The AK-47 (7.62x39, a preferred weapon for various reasons) is closer to 900 rds/minute. The GE Mini-guns run at about 4,000 rds/minute cyclic rate.
An original Ingram/RPB/SWD MAC-10 in either .45 acp or 9mm cycled at about 960/cyclic minute, and the original Ingram/RPB MAC-11 .380 cycled at ~1200/cyclic minute.
Never heard of a barrel being burned up on a M-4, M-16, or an XM177E, though who knows? Most were trained to limit bursts for muzzle control/targeting and preservation of ammunition.
Browning belt-fed 1919A4 or the Browning M2 HB .50, yes, they could fry a barrel under extended firing..
That aside, few of those weapons are routinely involved in any mass shootings in our current mayhem as a supposedly civilized Nation.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status
