General / Off-Topic More than 50 killed in Las Vegas terror attack

Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.

Thanks for proving exactly what I was saying. Here, let me do the reading for you too:

[h=3]M16A2[/h]

M16A2​


New rear sight, brass deflector and forward assist of M16A2​


A U.S Marine with an M16A2 on a training exercise at Camp Baharia, Iraq, 2004​

The development of the M16A2 rifle was originally requested by the United States Marine Corps as a result of the USMC's combat experience in Vietnam with the XM16E1 and M16A1. It was officially adopted by US Department of Defense as the "US Rifle, 5.56mm, M16A2" in 1982. The Marines were the first branch of the U.S. Armed Forces to adopt the M16A2 in the early/mid-1980s, with the United States Army following suit in the late 1980s. Modifications to the M16A2 were extensive. In addition to the new rifling, the barrel was made with a greater thickness in front of the front sight post, to resist bending in the field and to allow a longer period of sustained fire without overheating. The rest of the barrel was maintained at the original thickness to enable the M203 grenade launcher to be attached. A new adjustable rear sight was added, allowing the rear sight to be dialed in for specific range settings between 300 and 800 meters to take full advantage of the ballistic characteristics of the new SS109 rounds and to allow windage adjustments without the need of a tool or cartridge.[URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M16_rifle#cite_note-Venola-170"][169][/URL] The weapon's reliability allowed it to be widely used around the United States Marine Corps special operations divisions as well. The flash suppressor was again modified, this time to be closed on the bottom so it would not kick up dirt or snow when being fired from the prone position, and acting as a recoil compensator.[URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M16_rifle#cite_note-171"][170][/URL] The front grip was modified from the original triangular shape to a round one, which better fit smaller hands and could be fitted to older models of the M16. The new handguards were also symmetrical so that armories need not separate left and right spares. The handguard retention ring was tapered to make it easier to install and uninstall the handguards. A notch for the middle finger was added to the pistol grip, as well as more texture to enhance the grip. The buttstock was lengthened by 5⁄[SUB]8[/SUB] in (15.9 mm).[URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M16_rifle#cite_note-172"][171][/URL] The new buttstock became ten times stronger than the original due to advances in polymer technology since the early 1960s. Original M16 stocks were made from fiberglass-impregnated resin; the newer stocks were engineered from DuPont Zytel glass-filled thermoset polymers. The new stock included a fully textured polymer buttplate for better grip on the shoulder, and retained a panel for accessing a small compartment inside the stock, often used for storing a basic cleaning kit. The heavier bullet reduces muzzle velocity from 3,200 feet per second (980 m/s), to about 3,050 feet per second (930 m/s).[URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M16_rifle#cite_note-Miller2002-173"][172][/URL] The A2 uses a faster twist rifling to allow the use of a trajectory-matched tracer round. It has a 1:7 twist rate. A spent case deflector was incorporated into the upper receiver immediately behind the ejection port to prevent cases from striking left-handed users.[URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M16_rifle#cite_note-Venola.2C_Richard_2005-94"][93][/URL]
The action was also modified, replacing the fully automatic setting with a three-round burst setting.[URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M16_rifle#cite_note-Venola-170"][COLOR=#ff0000][169][/COLOR][/URL] When using a fully automatic weapon, inexperienced troops often hold down the trigger and "spray" when under fire. The U.S. Army concluded that three-shot groups provide an optimum combination of ammunition conservation, accuracy, and firepower.[URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M16_rifle#cite_note-174"][COLOR=#ff0000][173][/COLOR][/URL] The USMC has retired the M16A2 in favor of the newer M16A4; a few M16A2s remain in service with the U.S. Army Reserve and National Guard, Air Force, Navy and Coast Guard.[[I][URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed"]citation needed[/URL][/I]]
[h=3]M16A3[/h]The M16A3 is a modified version of the M16A2 adopted in small numbers by the U.S. Navy SEAL, Seabee, and Security units.[URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M16_rifle#cite_note-did-175"][174][/URL] It features the M16A1 trigger group providing "safe," "semi-automatic." and "fully automatic" modes instead of the A2's "safe," "semi-automatic," and "burst."

Does that make it clear enough? And neither of these are the current model - the M16A4 with "Safe", "Auto", and "Burst" are, with "Safe", "Semi" and "Burst" being produced and shipped to our allies overseas, since they're mostly scared of Fully Automatic weapons in the first place. - With love to my foreign bothers-in-arms.
 
Sigh...

The truck attacks are rare, and honestly easier to deal with than gun massacres. They are also outlier cases where a vital piece of transportation equipment is turned into a weapon. Banning trucks isn't an option, but steps are being taken to make this sort of misuse harder.

The guns used in massacres are serving their primary purpose. They are tools for killing, easily and at range. Banning guns, or at least drastically reducing them is an option. It has been done all over the world, and it works.

As for Häyhä, an exeptionally skilled soldier can indeed kill hundreds with a bolt action rifle. In a war, over a long period of time. It has essentially no relevance in comparison to the mass shootings perpetrated in the US.

I don't think I'm the one being dense here.

Breivik disagree with that statement...
 
What would you commend for deerhunting?

7.62 makes big clean hole and can go trough ribs (deer have strong ribcage) for the "Blattschuss" (straight to the heart) and kills game quickly.
5.56 makes small hole and shreds trough tissue resulting in severe inner bleeding and spoiling the meat.
Chevy pickup truck makes tender roadkill.
(we had this discussion before ^^ what you prefer depends on how many teeth you have left)
 

Deleted member 115407

D
Any US citizen is welcome to challenge it, in fact I gather it is legal (1st Amendment) to do so? Whether SCOTUS would let it get past the first 'hearing', or petition -or whatever the correct legal word is- is another matter entirely. I do not know if any citizen or politician has tried to change the first two constitutional amendments in the past or not. Does anyone know?

They can try and we will vote them out of office.

Two thirds of the house, two thirds of the senate, three quarters of the states.

Have at it.
 

Minonian

Banned
That name comes up again and again. A single mass shooter becomes a monster in Europe who becomes famous throughout the world.

When the USA suffers a similar mass shooting it sparks a debate on "what will they do about it this time?"
That's the difference. We did not used to it unlike someones. And after this happens USA say if they try we outvote em from the office? :mad:
 
What would you commend for deerhunting?

I deer hunt with a .444 Marlin, as my state requires hunting rifles to utilize straight-walled cartridges.

I use hand-cast bullets and hand-loaded cartridges to insure maximum knock-down potential, minimal over-penetration, and a clean kill with minimal damage.

In places where I can hunt with bottle-neck cartridges, I use an antique Dragunov TIGR firing hand-cast bullets from hand-loaded cartridges - again, for the same reasons, and a 7.62x54R round gives me considerably more range than .444 cannon.

But this is WAY off the topic - except perhaps for the small detail that, excepting for its antique status, my Dragunov is considered an "assault rifler" because of its appearance. APPEARANCE! It's semi-automatic, has a 10 round box magazine, and little scout scope. But the characteristic buttstock, which is VASTLY more comfortable than nearly any other I have used makes it look scary. Of course, it's also completely legal, was purchased before the ban on Russian imports, and thus exempt from Class III regulations. Yay for "grandfather" clauses. Boo for really stupid legislation "it looks scary".
 
That name comes up again and again. A single mass shooter becomes a monster in Europe who becomes famous throughout the world.

When the USA suffers a similar mass shooting it sparks a debate on "what will they do about it this time?"

My point, guns are not easy to access in Norway, it's very difficult to my knowledge, however it happened anyway, my point again you can't stop if someone what it to happen it will happen.
He is not my hero, he is a sick person and only the rope would be good enough for him, but here you guys punish him with hugs and hot coco [wacko]
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 115407

D
I deer hunt with a .444 Marlin, as my state requires hunting rifles to utilize straight-walled cartridges.

Why? Is it a ballistics thing?

I don't know much about ballistics.

Does anyone know?

Oh, I'm sure that there have been lots and lots of grandstanding measures brought up, but I don't know of any of them actually made it to bill.

As much as politicians love to throw the term "overwhelmin majority" around for simple majorities, the amendment process is no little thing. With two thirds of the house, two thirds of the Senate, three quarters of the States, you literally have to have an overwhelming majority to amend the Constitution.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The genie is out of the bottle it seems. If I were a US citizen (I'm British), I'd sure as heaven like legally gun owning US citizens AND illegally gun owned criminals rather than JUST illegally gun owned criminals ONLY.

Here's the bodycam videos from Vegas:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...from-officer-at-las-vegas-mass-shooting-video

There's no reason at all to have your law enforcement cower in fear for their own life because of a citizen.

Yea, the "solution" would be to equip them with tanks so they can randomly shell high rise buildings because .. reasons.
 
Last edited:
My point, guns are not easy to access in Norway, it's very difficult to my knowledge, however it happened anyway, my point again you can't stop if someone what it to happen it will happen.

Not true. There are plenty of aspiring mass murderers who can't get their hands on firearms. The recent spate of truck attacks demonstrates that.

He is not my hero, he is a sick person and only the rope would be good enough for him, but here you guys punish him with hugs and hot coco [wacko]

It works, for the most part.
 
The Unabomber disagree with that statement.

For the specific aim of hurting lots of people in close proximity who have been taken by surprise, then bombs are more efficient. However guns are concealable, user friendly, mechanically reliable, easy to obtain (in the US), easy to resupply (in the US), much more precise, have easily available training, they don't degrade as quickly and they work at range.
 
The guns used in massacres are serving their primary purpose. They are tools for killing, easily and at range. Banning guns, or at least drastically reducing them is an option. It has been done all over the world, and it works.

It does? Explain this: https://mises.org/blog/gun-control-fails-what-happened-england-ireland-and-canada

"England and Wales: Homicide Rates Show No Connection at All to Gun Control

The United Kingdom is often held up as evidence of the effectiveness of gun control. After all, since 1920, the UK has experienced increasingly restrictive gun control, leading up to an almost-total ban on handguns, and even many shotguns.

And yet, the homicide rate increased for years after gun confiscation was put into effect:
"

england_wales.JPG


[h=4]Ireland: Homicide Rates Have Increased Considerably Since the 1970s[/h]
While homicide rates at least started to decline over the past decade in England and Wales, there is little sign of any such trend in Ireland at this time.

Ireland has a long history of highly restrictive gun control laws, many of them justified on the grounds of combating the IRA and similar organizations. Gun control was stepped up in the early 70s when new legislation was introduced, accompanied by a large-scale gun confiscation operation that occurred when police asked for guns to be turned in "temporarily" for inspection. The guns were never returned by police.

Since then, the homicide rate in Ireland has increased significantly, and in recent years, Ireland has adopted numerous additional gun control laws in the face of growing homicide rates."
murder_ireland.JPG

Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital. ~Aaron Levenstein
 
Not true. There are plenty of aspiring mass murderers who can't get their hands on firearms. The recent spate of truck attacks demonstrates that.



It works, for the most part.

Use of one weapon does not demonstrate an inability to get another.
Using an everyday object has a different sort of terror impact.
 

Minonian

Banned
Agree wholeheartedly. There is a fly in the ointment of criminals, who are alas left with unlawful firearms once legal ownership is made unlawful, the bounders - moreover banning legal ownership entirely in the US is against the law. However I suppose any US citizen or politician can present a case for a ban of legal firearms and turn ownership unlawful. But, of course there's SCOTUS to get past.

The genie is out of the bottle it seems. If I were a US citizen (I'm British), I'd sure as heaven like legally gun owning US citizens AND illegally gun owned criminals rather than JUST illegally gun owned criminals ONLY.

Yes, all of this nice and very true, but how you getting to there? The problem is not there is not enough people who knows this. The problem is the second Amendment. How you get past of that miles thick wall?
because whenever happens something or enough support assembled, all the opposing side have to do to point on it! And against reason common sense greater good, insane number of deaths? Basically anything you can try out?
All chances are gone.

That's the end of it.
 
Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom