Ok...I agree. They were nutjobs ..... except for the whiskey rebellion
Hey, why should they pay their taxes when the Founders didn't want to?
Another shooting spree...
- Thread starter GK4Herd
- Start date
Hey, why should they pay their taxes when the Founders didn't want to?
Don't mess with my bourbon dammit.Hey, why should they pay their taxes when the Founders didn't want to?
If armed men caused the government to back down from tyranny, sure. Swaying public and official sentiment. A couple thousand die on each side, I think the rest of the nation would get the message; this shit has got to stop. I would hope that would be the worst of the worst case scenario for our great nation. Frankly that would be horrific enough.
Again, I believe 99.999999% of gun owners do not fantasize or entertain such thoughts. A rational man does not plot to overthrow even a decent government. But a rational man would consider taking up arms if his life and the life of his nation were on the line. Hell, some of the very top Nazis tried to murder Hitler.
I served as well. I get that. But, you are talking a shit hit the fan scenario and you are saying in that situation the entire US military and leadership would be against its own entire populous. Likely not going to happen.
Reduce gun violence? We need mental health help. That's a good start.
Exactly. There would never be a way to disarm this country and let's say a POTUS ordered the Joint Chiefs of Staff do it. Sir, with all due respect go F yourself, my oath is to the constitution.
Then so on down the line.
I never get how people think the entire US military would turn on its own population.
I was referring to the part where we, as Americans, find other means to resolve our differences. In other words, only nutjobs take up arms against the govt. Thankfully, thats mostly true. we can't buy fully automatic weapons, grenades.. tons of weaponry. Many are simply looking to eliminate weapons that have proven to be devastatingly harmful to the public at large. Actually, at this point, they're hoping for better background checks...to attempt to keep them out of the hands of whack jobs. I'm the one talking about "assault weapons" (no offense).
what if you get shot in the head or bunghole? Then, you just wasted money on a useless backpack.
why is the US military looking seriously at replacing the 5.56?
The US military chose the 5.56 as a NATO round and it was lighter and you could carry more ammo and make a smaller lighter rifle with less recoil.
The soldier and marine could now carry a combat load of 250 or 500 rounds a 30 round magazine(s) in a very light rifle that has a very tiny amount of recoil.
The US Army is looking at seriously at replacing the 5.56 round as it has become outdated as data from multiple wars show that it can be less than desirable in terms of stopping power and killing power.
--------------
At or above impact velocities of 2500fps in human flesh, the 55-68gr 5.56 bullet tends to penetrate 4-10″; then break up into several large high velocity fragments, similar to small shotgun pellets. This creates very bloody, very messy wounds, and may cause vital damage.
With a 20" barrel, the standard NATO loads stay above 2500fps well past 200 yards, and will fragment on penetrating a body; but below 2500fps, this doesnt happen, and the 5.56 has about the same wounding capability as a sharp pencil.
The thing is, even if fragmentation occurs, it isn't a reliable mechanism for producigng disabling wounds. If hit near the face, throat, heart, lungs, or liver it's very likely that the target will go down; but in other locations, even fi fragmentation occurs the reuslt will usually jsut be a loss of mobility. In burst fire modes, where there are multiple impacts, those impacts are usually spread around the body, resulting in far greater potential for a vital hit, and more overal shock from blood loss etc... but that is counting on multiple hits, which is only likely at short range, ro when time is taken to establish proper aim.
This is why the 5.56 rounds is a very good killer, but a poor stopper (the enemy dies, but they may be able to shoot back at you for several minutes before they do); and why our short barreled assault carbine, the M4, has a problem at long range. The bullet starts out with a lot less velocity to begin with (about 2700-2900fps), and loses it faster than the same bullet would fired from a longer barrel.
Thus, the problem with the 5.56 is one of consistency. If hit with three rounds above 2500fps, a target is going down quick. Just one or two rounds, or below 2500fps… maybe yes, maybe no.
So, what about the myth?
Actually, near as I can tell the myth originated as a slander against our troops in Viet Nam. It was made up by a reporter to portray the U.S. as cruel heartless baby killers. The Russians even filed protests, saying we were using ammunition that was designed to cause undue suffering.
But it wasn't at all true.
The reason the 5.56 was adopted wasn’t this inconsistent wounding mechanism, designed to wwound not kill; it was because the 5.56 is light weight, compact, cheap, and has very little recoil.
This means that a soldier can carry a lot more ammunition for less weight (more than twice as much as with 7.62 nato), and less money; and they can fire their weapon a lot faster, and more controlably (especially in full auto). Also, the weapon itself can be shorter, lighter, and cheaper; because it doesnt have to resist the forces of a larger, more powerful round.
Yes, we adopted the 5.56 with a flawed wounding model, but in fact McNamara and the DOD didn't care about the counding model at all. What they were concerned about was that the 5.56 was light, and cheap. A soldier could carry 2.55 times as much 5.56 as 7.62 nato, but they cost the same.
Combined with the incorrect wounding model thought to apply to the round at the time, and the defense department (though not the military itself, especially the Army Ordnance Board), thought it was a win-win situation.
Well, it turns out they were wrong; and they knew they were wrong pretty quickly.
The DOD forced the army to adopt 5.56 as the official service round in 1964; also forcing it on NATO that same year; jsut ten years after foring our allies to adopt the 7.62 round they didnt want.
Well, our allies in the main refused to change to the round (except for Japan and Taiwan, who had the most trouble with the 7.62 round and their smaller statured soldiers), until the early to mid 80s.
In fact, even then most of them didn't want to adopt the round, preferring to redevlop the intermediate chamberings they abandoned when they were forced to adopt the 7.62 in the first place; or to concetrate on developing even smaller, higher velocity loadings for use in personal defense weapons with very high rates of fire, that depend on large numbers of hits for their wounding mechanism.
By 1968, the U.S. had already gathered enough data to know that the 5.56 wasn't working as advertised. In fact, starting in 1974, we began looking for a replacement. We've been looking every few years ever since.
Recently, the Army has been testing the 6.8spc round; a development off the old .35 remington cartridge, by Remington, for special operations forces. They've found that their MK262 heavy 77gr high pressure loadings in 5.56 were quite effective, and wanted to follow that trend a bit farther to see where they could balance out the needs of an assault rifle for power, range, wounding capability, light weight, and ease of controlability.
----------------------------------------------------------------
https://anarchangel.blogspot.com/2007/02/okay-so-why-did-we-choose-556.html
Regardless any firearm can kill. But, to say the 223(5.56) is the best designed killing bullet is not true.
If they could figure a way out to get 30/06 rounds in a lighter rifle with limited recoil then ever marine and soldier would have one.
The beauty of the M16/M4 is that it is light has small recoil(next to none really) and it is easy as hell to shoot. I like it personally and I am not giving mine up.
Last edited:
The lighter the bullet the more deadly? FFS.
It's not JUST muzzle velocity. It's weight and velocity that creates kinetic energy. Cavitation is everything, and a heavy bullet with less velocity is much more deadly than a 223.
Exactly. Just use some common sense that most of us are aware of. Most people don't deer hunt with a .223. Not that a .223 won't kill a deer but there are much better options. Most of them involve a heavier bullet. In addition when using a .223 for deer hunting most experts recommend going to the heavier bullet for it.
Snipers use 7.62(308) or other rounds for a reason.
How many Iraqis, Vietcong, taliban, etc were wearing modern body armor?
The article does not prove your point.
You are in way over your head on this subject. Why would I choose not to hunt deer with a .223? .223 is basically considered a varmit round.
Last edited:
Thank you. Research seems solid and very surprising to me. It does not address the obvious increase in mass shootings in which people killed are not known by the killer. Find it hard to believe that, as a country, we cannot develop a strategy to reduce these occurrences.
I know literally hundreds of deer hunters. Zero of them use a .223 round. They would laugh at you for suggesting it.
Does not prove your point. Most deer hunters in WV(and many other places) don't take long range shots. Not very many at all use a .223. I don't know anybody that uses one. Not saying that it can't be used. You can kill a deer with a .22 rifle if you put one on the head just right.
You are stating that the .223 is a great killing machine round. The reason it is popular is it because it was adopted by the military and many people used it like any other military round(30.06, 308 etc.). I gave you the reasons that the 5.56 was adopted. Again, the military was looking at the overall package which was how can we get a lightweight round that troops can pack a lot of in a lightweight rifle which for many years and decades was a good overall choice. It wasn't because they said OMG the 223 is the most effective man killing round ever produced.
I was in the Army from 68-71. I was trying to communicate the same. To think that sworn in military personnel would join a citizens resistance is highly unlikely. Not sure where you read into comments suggestion for disarmament. Do you believe that nothing can be done to reduce mass shootings? Do you believe that the U.S. has more mentally ill people than any other developed country in the world, hence our leading the world in mass shootings? Do you think we simply accept them?
We probably do have more mentally ill here, but only due to population size. I'd say we medicate more too. No, I don't want to simply accept this as a new norm but I don't believe in punishing the majority for the crimes of a few. We don't do that for any other cause of mass death.
Neither of these weapons received great utilization. While they did provide increased firepower, up to nine rounds per minute, only 2 puckle guns, and 200 Ferguson breech, were produced. There were numerous problems with both and certainly do not compare to current automatic weapons. We did win the revolutionary war. Neither weapon provided an advantage to the British.
We do not have a higher percentage of mentally ill compared to other developed countries. According to research completed by Adam Lankford, professor of Criminology Professor at the University of Alabama (hardly a liberal, left wing instutution), the only variable to explain our high rate of mass shootings is extreme number of guns owned by citizens. Only Yemen has a higher percentage of mass shootings and are only second to us in percentage of citizens owning weapons.
We make up 4.4 % of the world population and we own 42 % of the weapons. He controlled for mental illness in his research and debunked that as an explanation. Other developed countries that experienced mass shootings have taken legislative action to control gun ownership, i.e. Australia and England. There is middle ground that can improve school and public venue safety. Second amendment is not the issue. We have limits to our 1st amendment right and we need to do the same with the second. We license drivers, fishing, hunting: seems reasonable to do something similar with gun ownership.
key words, "within its limitations". those limitations are precisely why more hunters than not do not use the .223 round. i used a .223 bolt action years ago, killed over 100 deer with it. 99% were head shots, though. majority of those that i couldn't get a head shot on were either never found or had to be trailed for a distance. the one that caused me to shelf the gun was a huge buck chasing a doe and i put three rounds in its neck. how do i know i hit every time? every time i squeezed the trigger, the deer would go down then get back up and keep going. never did find that damn deer. i still have it but changed over to a .25-06. have yet to shoot a deer in the head with it, have yet to have a deer get away.
Wrong. You’re either very stupid or a liar.
https://www.thetrace.org/2018/12/gun-violence-facts-statistics-2018/
I do know of one guy(now that I think about it) that used a .223 bolt action which also has a longer barrel than the M4/M16. He was hunting for meat always and would only take neck or head shots with it. But, most of the time he would use a .270.
You're all over the place, I don't even know where to begin.
Mental illness was debunked? WTF? I don't think mentally healthy people go around committing mass murders. That's ludicrous.
We do have limitations on the 2A, a hell of a lot more than the 1st. For some BS reason I can't string claymores around my property, I can't buy a 240 at Toys R Us, I asked Christian at Herd Tactical to order me a 320 to mount under my AR and he says he can't. I can't legally carry a weapon across state lines without notifying the government. I can't carry into certain regulated areas (you know, where most mass shootings take place), that sounds like limitations to me.
I don't give 1/1024ths of a fvck what Aussies and the neutered Brits did. They never had a Constitution that defined basic gun rights, so that argument is invalid.
We have 22,000 gun laws on the books, and in most cases mass shooters violated them and should never have had access to a weapon to begin with. Fix that before fvcking with me.
did this wizard take into consideration that less than 30% of the population in the US own all the guns? or, that 3% of the population own half of the total guns owned in the US? probably not. and, anybody discounting mental illness as a cause of mass shootings are more fukt in the head than the shooters, nothing more than dumbasses sucking their thumbs at night screaming orange man bad to get themselves to sleep. and, sheeple like you are fukt even harder in the head for slobbering that trash up.
hell, i own over 20, myself, have one friend that easily doubles, maybe triples the number of guns i have, and another friend that has around 130.
Sorry you took the post personal. Certainly not my intent. Research does not support your contention. I ask that you read any or all of the articles from various professionals about mental illness and gun violence listed below. Please do so with an open mind. These are not politicians trying win votes or people trying to win favor with any group. They are professionals doing very good research and coming up with the reverse opinion. I do concur with your belief that something is wrong with someone that would commit mass murder of children or any group of people that have not done them harm. The world's greatest criminologist have not come up a way to predict when someone can become a mass murderer. There does seem to be people in our country predisposed to violence, i.e., alcohol & drug abusers, drug pushers, people that have been abused in childhood, and others.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4318286/
https://namimc.org/untangling-gun-violence-mental-illness/
https://www.amhca.org/blogs/joel-mi...-mental-illnessmyths-and-evidence-based-facts
https://www.sciencealert.com/new-st...-stop-blaming-mental-illness-for-gun-violence
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/01/17/gun-violence-masculinity-216321
https://www.newyorker.com/science/maria-konnikova/almost-link-mental-health-gun-violence
We do not take a back seat to any developed country when it comes to providing services to the mentally ill. It could certainly be improved. But why do we have so many more mass killings compared to other countries with comparable mental health care.
Do you believe that we can come up with any plan to reduce the inordinate number of mass shootings in our country? Do you believe we should be trying to do that? Do you want safe schools and public places for you and loved ones to enjoy life without fear of the gun violence we have experienced in recent years?
Please make an effort to answer these questions for yourself. No need to respond to my post. I am certain we have the ability to do something positive. We do need to have truthful conversations about gun violence and not allow ourselves to be guided by untruths and misinformation.
Last edited:
Not sure where you are getting your data. We have vacillated from 38-47 percent from 1972-2018 and in 2018 sat at 43%. Can you make an effort to explain why we have more mass shootings than any other developed country. The data we are debating does not explain it. Please review my response to Herdfan 76 for a library of references to the contrary about mental illness and gun violence.
Only nutjobs take up arms against the government?
George Washington does not approve that comment.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...merican-adults-own-a-collective-133m-firearms
household gun ownership decline. pay particular attention to the 2 bottom charts in this one.
please review my post that you responded to regarding your references about mental illness and gun violence. also, please review my posts earlier in this thread about the root cause of mass shootings.
apparently, you've never read this forum. if you want to hold dicks and sing koom baya, head for your safe space.
in other words, you don't like the information provided. you asked for the source of the info i posted, not food for thought, and i provided it.
No. Not at all. I did read your reference and there was a 13% difference between the 2 articles. I would surmise a difference in research approaches. I still have a difficult time understanding why we are so different in terms of mass shootings. Do you suggest we have more "Mentally Ill" folks than other civilized nations?
Do you have any suggestions for trying to improve our dismal record. The articles I was referring to are in a response to "76" (6 in number), disagreeing with both of you about the Mentally Ill as the primary perpetrators of mass shootings. Did you read any of them?
I can't get into being disrespectful. I would hope that does not ban me from this form of communication. Is it possible that being disrespectful on social media, to people we do no know, can lead to angry confrontation later?
Right now only a nutjob would, as we are not living under tyranny. Stupidity? Sure. But not tyranny.
the disrespect thing, i get it. everybody on this site tends to disrespect everybody else. just the way it is. perhaps this forum isn't for you.
do you seriously believe that the number of guns in this country is what causes these mass killings? do you seriously believe that mental illness of some form is not a cause? have you looked at drug abuse as a possible underlying factor? do you realize that the USA has one of the largest issues of drug abuse in the world? that it's grown worse over the years, just like mass shootings? did you notice my previous post that shows when mass shootings have occurred and that half of those in the US have occurred over the previous decade?
frankly, no, i didn't read your links or info posted about mentally ill. why? because you've indicated that because the researcher's findings was that mental illness had nothing to do with mass shootings then it must be the guns. this feeds right into the idea that a gun isn't going to do anything unless someone picks it up and controls it. it's not the guns. it's not because 30% of the population own all the guns. it's because the people that do it are fukt in the head. and, again, anybody that thinks that mental illness plays no part in these killings are even more fukt in the head . . . that, or they have a political agenda.
I've been thinking about this since our discussion.....I always looked upon the Blair Mountain war as a huge loss/set back for the miners. Not only did they suffer significant causalities, but the union lost momentum - in fact, they lost members in bulk.
You're right; when the President had to send in troops to breakup the fight - it became an issue that couldn't / wouldn't be ignored.
https://www.history.com/news/americas-largest-labor-uprising-the-battle-of-blair-mountain
The Battle of Blair Mountain is now cited as a pivotal chapter in American labor history, but in the short term, it proved to be a crushing defeat for the miners. The state of West Virginia charged Keeney, Mooney and some 20 other union men with treason, and hundreds of others were indicted for murder. Nearly all were later acquitted, but the legal battles emptied the UMWA’s coffers and hindered its organizing efforts. By the end of the decade, only a few hundred miners in West Virginia were still members. The union wouldn’t reclaim the coalfields until the mid-1930s and the Great Depression, when workers’ rights to organize were enshrined in New Deal legislation such as the National Industrial Recovery Act.
If you don't believe that the number of guns in the US, the style of weapons, and ease of access, do not play a significant role in the number of gun deaths in the US, you're a fool.
End of discussion.......
We have more guns than people in the US. We aren’t walking around in a war zone constantly dodging bullets. We don’t have a gun problem we have a people problem.
