Okay, now is the time for gun semantics

I wish you and yours the merriest of holiday happiness.

This is really what I wish for you and yours.

I hope that you'll have some happy times untarnished by the recent tragedies, and I wish you all the best in convincing people to dream of a better and more peaceful society.

And I wish the very same to you.

Here is an OP that has some terms. I found it educational.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022067188

but I haven't personally seen much talk about firearm injuries, other than deaths, here on DU.

Granted, not everyone drops like a stone but way to many do.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballistic_trauma


This is a more important terminology to learn.

and a good percentage of people who support strong gun control simply want to ban and confiscate all firearms in civilian hands. At the most they might go along with allow hunters to own rifles and shotguns with very limited magazine capacity. All handguns would be gathered up.

If we simply debated the wisdom of this idea, all the terminology would be irrelevant. Everybody would understand what the other side was talking about.

And I, for one, will never vote for it.

When you stop talking about gathering up all the handguns and get realistic, we can talk realistically about "common sense" gun control.

Instead, you feed the stereotype of Dems as gun-grabbers intent on taking everyone's guns away. And that will never happen.

Bake

We'll take one step at a time, and the first is necessarily ... given the political realities ... very modest. We'll have to start working again to strengthen the law, and then again to strengthen the next law and again and again. Our ultimate goal, total control of handguns, is going to take time. The first problem is to make possession of all handguns and ammunition (with a few exceptions) totally illegal."
--Peter Shields, founder of Handgun Control Inc., New Yorker Magazine, June 26, 1976

"We must get rid of all the guns."
-Sarah Brady, Handgun Control, Inc. on the Phil Donahue Show, September 1994 ]

If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an out-right ban, picking up every one of them... 'Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in,' I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here."
Senator Dianne Feinstein CBS-TV's "60 Minutes", February 5, 1995

Now possibly over the years the leadership of the gun control movement has realized that banning all firearms is impossible. If so there may be some hope for making headway on the issue of gun violence in our nation.

No, I did not insinuate that Democrats are gun grabbers. If you read my post carefully you will find that I refereed to "the leadership of the gun control movement" Many Democrats are pro-gun rights.
It's the NRA and the Republicans that foster the stereotype you mention.

I do agree that we will not see gun bans and confiscations any time soon in our nation. Such a law would have no chance of making through the House and only a slim chance of passing in the Senate as many Democrats who come from Red states would never vote for it.

But here on DU I have seen the idea of banning and confiscating all guns mentioned frequently in recent days.

I re-read your post, and you were citing some in the gun control movement. I misread your post the first time.

I too have seen the calls for banning and confiscating all guns. That's what I was reacting to.

Peace,
Bake

They can't come up with a really valid reason for being armed to the teeth, and they can't offer a logical plan for keeping things the way they are and preventing senseless shooting deaths. What else can they do but keep schooling us on the finer points of death-machine technology?

"... schooling us on the finer points of death-machine technology."



Thank you for that!

Which is suppressing fire - "spray and pray". Shooting for lethality is done with single rounds or short aimed bursts.

Sad to have to fight this at Christmas.

Still is my bedtime and tomorrow is going to be a better day ...

Happy Christmas all!

full auto for the "3 round burst". But you are correct that full auto was generally inaccurate for more than that because of the kickback (although the M16 was designed to minimize kick).

For a 3-round burst, you simply squeeze the trigger and release it as fast as possible. The first round hits on-target (if you're any good), the second round is up and to the side because of the kick, and as your muscle memory brings the weapon back down the next shot is again to the side but roughly in line vertically with the first shot. It makes a nice, tight triangle which is almost always lethal.

It takes a little practice, mostly just to learn the release the trigger fast enough to only get 3 rounds. The triangular pattern is more or less automatic if you hold the weapon properly.

On a side note, the first day on the range they gave us a 20-round mag and told us to switch to fully auto and fire, just to get it out of our systems. The clip was empty in no time.

But check RKBA, full auto, where used, describes unlimited fire. Having had a small amount of engineering training I just get very pissed when - errrr - Uncritical Supporters of the Most Unrestricted Interpretation of the Second Amendment* say that semi automatic weapons are not automatic.

As an additional comment I suspect the usage you were taught use may also be the result of the gun industry attempting to make guns cuddly.

_____________________________________

*I must avoid "gun nuts"; many are not nuts just deceived by publicity and preference, but USMUISA is an appalling acronym; it sounds like a character from a bad fantasy novel.

Some of us know the terms. We just refuse to play along. They are meant, at this point, to cow.

That is all there is left...

you should have a working knowledge of what you want to control.

If you have a working knowledge and understanding of the terminology along with function, you have a larger view of where the issues are and how to combat them.

"The Art of War" applies here - "Know your enemy as you know yourself".