Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: My Case Against Assault Weapons [View all]CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)30. Perhaps so.....
As someone pointed out earlier, the number of twists in the barrel is a major determinate of how much a .223 round tumbles after entry. My experience was with the military version of the AR-15 which probably maximized the tumbling for greater take down power.
But I think you will agree that hunters don't need a 30 round mag to kill a deer or a hog.
TopBack to the top of the page
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
ShareGet links to this post
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
Cannot edit, recommend, or reply in locked discussions
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
109 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Sadly, the gun's ability to inflict major damage and destroy internal organs is what attracts yahoos
Hoyt
Jun 2015
#1
I think you have more of an issue with barrel twist and mag capacity then with the gun itself
Kaleva
Jun 2015
#2
A question and some observations: First, how would you pay for them?
friendly_iconoclast
Jun 2015
#106
Welcome to DU :) Please feel free to repost and continue in GCRA if/when this is locked in GD
Electric Monk
Jun 2015
#3
A woman once had two sons. One became a sailor, the other only posted to GCRA.
Nuclear Unicorn
Jun 2015
#93
Wow, you scraped and reposted a cartoon! Is there some "critical mass of ridicule"...
friendly_iconoclast
Jun 2015
#20
Well then, if you feel like you're doing something useful by reposting them...
friendly_iconoclast
Jun 2015
#38
You've never seen a Beretta 92? 15 round magazine, factory standard. How about the Glock 17?...
Marengo
Jun 2015
#94
I do. If we banned semi-autos, gun sales would all but dry up. Revolvers just don't excite gun guys.
Hoyt
Jun 2015
#16
As usual, time spent with gun banners is always good for a few lulz
friendly_iconoclast
Jun 2015
#55
Most states don't allow anything over 5 or so rounds in a rifle while hunting, regardless.
linuxman
Jun 2015
#26
Self-defense is not a sporting event, and imo, there is no moral duty
friendly_iconoclast
Jun 2015
#57
It's the "Empathy", "Forced Justification", and "MGAFYGAE/Uncle Ruckus" ploys
friendly_iconoclast
Jun 2015
#46
You know how else the story is bullshit? The AF never used a "semi-auto AR-15"
friendly_iconoclast
Jun 2015
#88
I am not. The Air Force never had semi-automatic AR-15s. *All* were full-auto
friendly_iconoclast
Jun 2015
#105
.223/5.56mm rounds won't penetrate a steel drum full of water while leaving a fist-sized exit hole
friendly_iconoclast
Jun 2015
#37
I've seen exit wounds on deer and hogs with 62gr 5.56 and the hole is not that big
aikoaiko
Jun 2015
#17
"I'd give myself the odds against 7 intruders with that gun, actually." Oh, please...
friendly_iconoclast
Jun 2015
#71
And what if you're sick? Or just unlucky enough to attract enough warm bodies...
friendly_iconoclast
Jun 2015
#75
The shooting sports sanctioning bodies and most state game departments seem to disagree
friendly_iconoclast
Jun 2015
#53
Yes! The Germans, with some of the strictest gun control in Europe, hate the AR-15 SO MUCH!
sir pball
Jun 2015
#54
Pretty much *anyone* can build an AR15, as they are long out of patent
friendly_iconoclast
Jun 2015
#59
My point was Germany has no "assault weapons ban", as don't most Continental countries
sir pball
Jun 2015
#60
The Charlie Hebdo shooters got *their* weapons from the trunk of some dude's car
friendly_iconoclast
Jun 2015
#65
So far this thread has been a pretty good example of why gun threads are usually limited to the
Electric Monk
Jun 2015
#62
"See you in GCRA" Why? The subject can actually be *discussed* at GC&RKBA:
friendly_iconoclast
Jun 2015
#64
I don't; I prefer vigorous, even heated discussion over crabbed, ever-supicious dogmatism
friendly_iconoclast
Jun 2015
#69
Thank you for helping make my point from post #62. If someone wants fight club, then GC&RKBA
Electric Monk
Jun 2015
#70
Groupthink and an unwillingness to listen to those who disgaree is a recipe for failure
friendly_iconoclast
Jun 2015
#74
And, FWIW, I think his idea has a lot of merit and should be explored in *both* groups
friendly_iconoclast
Jun 2015
#78
It was, a week ago. Discussing it there might be a little ...problematic for the GCRA crew, however
friendly_iconoclast
Jun 2015
#81
You're asking me to trust guns.com? I'll have to sleep on that. I will get back to you.
Electric Monk
Jun 2015
#83
Banning rifles based on how they *look* rather than *function* is absolutely ludicrous.
pablo_marmol
Jun 2015
#72
See reply #62. This part of the discussion is OLD. Been there, done that. NT
Electric Monk
Jun 2015
#80
Apparently, it needed to be repeated in order to remind certain parties
friendly_iconoclast
Jun 2015
#82
Facts like claiming to be 'certified' on a weapon the Air Force never used:
friendly_iconoclast
Jun 2015
#89
With my very first read of the OP I had a feeling it might go this way sooner or later.
Electric Monk
Jun 2015
#90
Did you know that the military has access to armor-piercing bullets that civilians can't own?
friendly_iconoclast
Jun 2015
#107