What's new

Gun facts: quelling the misconceptions

Mark of Zorro

先輩
4 Oct 2012
2,427
316
98
I had considered opening a thread about the Sandy Hook gun massacre, but honestly, just the little details have been enough to make me even avoid articles about it. It just makes my heart sick to think about it knowing how much American society makes these massacres possible. Please note that that is the inspiration for this thread, and not the subject. I don't want to talk about it here. If you do, open another thread.

But reading comments about the massacre, I was disturbed by one person in particular who had some excellent arguments and points about gun control, but made so many common mistakes about guns themselves and killed his arguments for some people. This thread is to educate people (especially the gun control crowd) on the truth about guns.

That said, I want facts here, not opinions. I also want to hear some common misconceptions.

I will start with an explanation about assault rifles. Many think an assault rifle is the same as an assault weapon. Its not. Generally, an assault weapon is based on an assault rifle. But an assault rifle is fully automatic (machine gun). Assault weapon was a made up term for a piece of American legislation that is now defunct. Probably best to erase it from your vocabulary.

What you should say is that a particular gun, like a semi-auto AK47, is "based on a assault rifle". That shows that it holds many similarities with assault rifles, and they do.

A popular misconception about assault rifles is that they were designed to kill masses of people, and its just not true. Assault rifles were designed to INJURE soldiers on the battlefield, not kill them. Why? Because its easier to injure than kill and injured soldiers generally stop fighting. You can win any battle by injuring the enemy only, and since its easier, its the best way to win. The Germans figured that one out and designed the first assault rifle. It just came to late in the war for them.

In sight of this goal to injure as many soldiers as possible, a prime feature of the assault rifle is use of smaller bullets, smaller shells, and of course, less gun powder, all resulting in weaker ammunition. This allows for higher capacity magazines. So you can shoot a bunch of weaker bullets at the enemy with great potential to wound more soldiers, but less capacity to actually kill them. Older military doctrine called for high power rounds to kill. The assault rifle changed that.

With the semi-auto brothers of assault rifles, you get the same deal with the bullets. They actually have less capacity to kill many than say a sniper rifle. But, of course, how you use it also counts.
 
Another common misconception is that crime will be reduced by reducing the number of guns in circulation or restricting access to gun. Its not true. What goes down is the murder rate, not the crime rate in general.

So you get to take your choice of less guns and more burglaries, or more guns and more murders. I think the choice is pretty easy.
 
How about instead of going after the guns we go after the culture that creates the people who use the guns? While I dont think that anyone NEEDS to own an assualt rifle; IMO greater awareness and treatment of mental health would be a better way to prevent tragedies like what happened at Sandy Hook from happening again.
I also think that perhaps instead of just banning assault rifles, we should go after the ammo. Perhaps, if someone buys large amounts of ammo, we should send a police officer to their home in order to question them about just why they bought so much ammo. Perhaps they are having a shooting party with their friends or going on a hunting trip. Either way, its something that should be followed up on and if the person has a legit excuse, thats cool but at least we will know. If the person is shifty or refuses to talk to the officer, that should raise a red flag and cause that person to be under further surveillance.
Some might say this is an invasion of privacy and is none of the government's business but if it prevents 1 shooting, its worth it.
 
The terms "assault rifles" and "assault weapons" make no sense. Their semi-auto actions are identical to many hunting rifles. It would make make more sense to call the mislabeled assault rifles "black rifles," because what distinguishes them is their cosmetic design. Black, military-style rifles have black finishes and plastic or composite stocks, while hunting rifles usually have blued finishes and wood stocks.

It's not true that wounding the enemy is the main reason for using .223 caliber rounds. The US military went to .223 for lower recoil and so soldiers could carry more ammo (because the cartridge is small).

A wounded enemy can still kill you. Experience with this problem is why the US military is now considering going back to larger, more powerful rifles. In the early 20th Century, the US military used .30-06 Springfield, and was using .30 caliber M-1s in WW II and Korean conflict. They found that some soldiers had problems dealing with recoil and shooting accurately. The military still uses .308 (7.62 mm) and .50 caliber for some purposes, mainly by specially trained snipers.

Some people say that black rifles are only used for attacking people. Any rifle can be used for assault. And a short-barreled shotgun can do more damage at close range than any hand-held rifle.Most US owners use them for target shooting, plinking, and varmint hunting. They're a kick to shoot and the low recoil lets you shoot a lot before your shoulder gets sore.

I disagree strongly that ammo sales should be limited or the government has any right to know how much I have. Being an accurate shooter -- which is vital for hunting and target shooting -- requires a lot of regular practice.

Guns aren't possessed by evil demons, although some people evidently are. A psychopath can find many ways to kill a lot of people with other means, including home-made bombs (look up Timothy McVeigh) or automobiles driven at high speed into crowds. Perhaps we should ban autos and lawn fertilizer.

The real problem is a mental health issue.
 
Mark, thanks for starting this thread, I've been contemplating for long on whether or not to open a discussion on gun control.

I'm not entirely sure how to keep this thread focused on gun-related misconceptions and therefore strongly invite you to open another thread related to the global issue of gun ownership and gun control.
 
I do not like guns, and I do not like idea to have those in my posession. I will be tempting to use it all the time, and, sure, it will be missuse. I beleive that gun will brining the feeling of power, which will became a beleiving. In my case ( I am alcoholic ) that is not good, You know, my brain is damaged by addiction, and I can not predict my behaviour if I will have a gun. So, it is better to stay away.

I know, like other people, who could consume alcohol in safe manner, there are many people who could keep gun safely. I respect those people, but I know exactly, I am not like them.

BTW, I am writing that because I beleive that there should be restriction for weapon ownership. As Mark told before, it will not make serious changes in crime quantity, I do beleive that crime level will even grow up, but it will be good for quality aspect, there will be less mass murder crimes.

And, I do not like when AK-47 is called as assault weapon. That is just a cool weapon, hothing assaulting here :D
 
I disagree strongly that ammo sales should be limited or the government has any right to know how much I have. Being an accurate shooter -- which is vital for hunting and target shooting -- requires a lot of regular practice.
Why? What is the harm in a police officer coming to your home, questioning you about what you are buying so much ammo, you explaining to him that you are an avid hunter and like to practice all the time and the officer says, "Ok. Have a nice day, sir."


The real problem is a mental health issue.
Now theres something we can agree on! 😄
 
Mark, thanks for starting this thread, I've been contemplating for long on whether or not to open a discussion on gun control.

Why hesitate?

I'm not entirely sure how to keep this thread focused on gun-related misconceptions and therefore strongly invite you to open another thread related to the global issue of gun ownership and gun control.

Well, I think its already too late.

It seemed like a simple enough focus to me. I guess if we have learned anything its who is too scatter-brained to focus on the topic at hand. I mean, I can fully understand digressions and tangents, and the need for them. But who here yet said anything on topic besides Roland? (You are forgiven because you obviously are not confused about what the topic is, but Roland threw a hell of a lot of rather random opinion into his post, too much.).

And this clearly shows how other topics got mangled as well. Seriously, some people need to figure how scatter-brained they are and do something about it.

---------- Post added at 10:26 ---------- Previous post was at 09:36 ----------

A tidbit about the first assault rifle and why it was made:

While the StG44 had less range and power than the more powerful infantry rifles of the day, Heer studies had shown that few combat engagements occurred at more than 300 m and the majority within 200 m. Full-power rifle cartridges were excessive for the vast majority of uses for the average soldier. Only a trained specialist, such as a sniper, could make full use of the standard rifle round's range and power.

StG 44 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I don't remember which country did the study, but it was found that the army that fired the most bullets tended to win gun battles. And these are all reasons why assault rifles and their semi-auto variants are generally chambered for rounds between full power rifle cartridges and pistol ammo.

Some people say that black rifles are only used for attacking people. Any rifle can be used for assault.

I cannot say if that is a misconception, a misunderstanding on your part, or a straw man.

Sure, any rifle can be used for assault, but which ones tend to be used in reality? Darth Vader type black rifles and shotguns, or rifles and and shotguns with finished wood stocks and duck engravings? I have no links, but I bet a pinkie that most guns used in assaults are the ones that the violent types think look cool, and those are the Darth Vader type.

Its the same reason why balisong (butterfly) knives are banned some places. Because gang punks think they are neat. In reality, a better knife for killing people can be found in the kitchen drawer.

Some people address this reality, but a lot of people don't understand it or misstate the case. So I don't know if you are repeating someone else's mistake, or making your own.

But yes indeed, it is a fact that gun control advocates need to be aware of: the mystique factor. It counts. It also goes a bit of a way to explaining why guns are so often used in mass attacks rather than bombs. Where is the mystique and cool in using bombs for the average American wanna-be mass killer today?

Of course that could change some day, but we are talking about today. Today is what needs addressing. Prevaricate all day long, but guns are used in mass attacks and general murders more than bombs and knives. Its a fact. And we need to address facts before maybes, what ifs, and generally ignored potential.

---------- Post added at 10:49 ---------- Previous post was at 10:26 ----------

The real problem is a mental health issue.

In a way I don't even want to address this because it demeans the purpose of the thread.

But the simple fact is that we have no divination to determine who all the nuts are before they act, nor do we know which nuts will pick up a gun given the chance and start killing people. Wish for that crystal ball all day long, its not going to come.

What we do know is that the gun is the weapon of choice for both sane and insane murderers in America. Its a fact.

Besides, even if we address the mental health issue more, even those with issues will mostly not be cured. Some will be more stable for meds, but once they stop taking their meds for any reason, BLAM, they are nuts again.

With human beings there are just too many random factors to control, and the mind is not a tangible thing that we really can control. Besides, we have rights and freedom to consider. Guns and ammo though? Those are real, tangible things. Its really not a mystery why gun control advocates want to focus on guns rather than people and mental heath. Its because they want gun control be effective rather than a mess of loopholes, mistakes and failed attempts at mind reading and future predicting.

What you suggest is a trap and dead-end, both in reality and conceptually.

---------- Post added at 11:02 ---------- Previous post was at 10:49 ----------

Some gun control advocates think semi-auto assault rifle variants cannot be used for hunting. This is false. They can, but because the cartridges are of weaker power, they are less useful for bear and deer hunting, and more useful for fox and rabbit hunting.

And accuracy is just fine for hunting. (bear in mind that these are not fully automatic (machine) guns we are talking about. Only semi-auto (one shot at a time) guns are legal to own in America and Canada by the general population).
 
I don't see how you could hope to keep a thread with so many complexities and nuances strictly on a single track. One thing I don't want to talk about are these recent shootings, because they sicken me.

I'm not going to allow the cops to come searching my house or demanding info about ammo or anything else. We have a Fourth Amendment right to be free of unreasonable searches; they can only search if they have reasonable cause to believe you've committed a crime. The right is too important to waive over public hysteria or convenience. History shows that allowing the police to bypass this right quickly leads to abuses of power.

I'm not interested in what Wikipedia has to say on the subject, particularly when they're misusing a term like "full-power cartridges." A given cartridge is full-power when it's loaded to the maximum pressure possible without risking case separation or blowing up the rifle action. Any cartridge can be loaded to maximum, including the .223 cal/5.56 mm.

It's true, I think, that black rifles are in vogue with these young psychopaths. I'm convinced this is because of the casual, glamorous, and irresponsible way these guns are used in movies and video games. But violent movies and games do seem a bit off subject.

I'm also convinced that banning these rifles would do nothing to stop the psychopathic killers. One, there are already millions of these rifles in private ownership in the US, and two, the psychopaths would just go to shotguns or bombs if they couldn't get their hands on a black rifle.

It's not true that you can't get a full-auto rifle or pistol if you want one. Besides passing the usual FBI background check, you have to buy a federal transfer stamp and register it with the federal government. I never got one because hand-held full-autos are terribly inaccurate due to recoil. I never had any use for spraying a lot of bullets around. I take pride in making one-shot hits.
 
I'm not interested in what Wikipedia has to say on the subject, particularly when they're misusing a term like "full-power cartridges." A given cartridge is full-power when it's loaded to the maximum pressure possible without risking case separation or blowing up the rifle action.

How about you stop being so whiny for a second and just back up and try to educate us on what are facts and what are errors? Nobody said Wiki was perfect and nobody expects it to be. Nothing and nobody is perfect, but among them, Wiki is pretty fcking good. If we are going to reject any and all sources because of one misuse of terminology, we won't have any sources but ourselves. And sorry, but I have learned by experience not to trust you that much.

Now, you claim that they misused the term "full power cartridge". You seem to believe it is a fixed, and commonly used term (as opposed to a specialist term) that the people who post on Wiki should be fully aware of. Well I am no expert. And guess what? That is what this whole fcking thread is about! Its about educating people who are not experts, not going off on whiny bitchy rants about how not everybody is or can be an expert and how Wiki is crap for not getting every word correct according to your standards.

So, what should they have said to briefly and simply explain the fact of the cartridges being of lesser power than standardly used rifle cartridges of the time and not get you so upset?

And would you mind proving the contention that "full power cartridge" has a fixed and common definition that is inviolate?

I looked it up and found this:

In fact, the British army only adopted the L1A1 because of the intansigence of the US army who were determined to force the adoption of what became the standard NATO 7.62 x 51mm calibre ammunition. This "full power" cartridge (ballistically the same as the US 1906 cartridge meant for long-distance combat) meant that firing fully automatic with a rifle light enough for soldiers to carry comfortably was not possible.

The Museum of Technology, the Great War and WWII"

Found that and not much more. Seems to agree with Wiki except for the quotation marks. Can't see how nitpicking over it will help anyone in any case.

And let us not forget that what I quoted from Wiki backs up some of what you said. What does that say about your contentions then?

---------- Post added at 12:36 ---------- Previous post was at 12:18 ----------

It's not true that you can't get a full-auto rifle or pistol if you want one. Besides passing the usual FBI background check, you have to buy a federal transfer stamp and register it with the federal government.

Now THAT is more like it!

We have a Fourth Amendment right to be free of unreasonable searches; they can only search if they have reasonable cause to believe you've committed a crime. The right is too important to waive over public hysteria or convenience.

Off topic really, but its nice to hear someone point it out anyway.

That said, GG said question, at your door, not search. Its a massive difference.




---------- Post added at 13:06 ---------- Previous post was at 12:36 ----------

I don't see how you could hope to keep a thread with so many complexities and nuances strictly on a single track.

I don't. I expect them to post a factual misconception about guns and set it straight. Already two people utterly failed to do that. I also expect people not to spend more words rambling than setting a factual misconception straight. Is it really that hard?
 
You're rambling and whining more than anyone.

What is your and Wikipedia's alternative definition of "full power rifle cartridges," anyway? If you don't like mine, then you must have some other definition to offer.

A .308? .458 Winchester Magnum?

How about a .577 Tyrannosaur or a .50 BMG?

You can't say, can you? The term as you and Wiki are using it is meaningless.
 
Last edited:
I'm not going to allow the cops to come searching my house or demanding info about ammo or anything else. We have a Fourth Amendment right to be free of unreasonable searches; they can only search if they have reasonable cause to believe you've committed a crime. The right is too important to waive over public hysteria or convenience. History shows that allowing the police to bypass this right quickly leads to abuses of power.
How is it unreasonable if you are purchasing a large amount of ammo. To me, thats perfectly reasonable because most people dont buy thousands of rounds of ammo at a time.
They dont need to believe that youve committed a crime and probable cause can be anything. Just as a cop can search your car for drugs just because youre acting weird.
You could also make the argument that it has nothing to do with the 4th amendment because they arent entering your home to search for ammo, they are simply questioning why you bought 5,000 rounds of ammo the other day. Its no unreasonable at all, really.
I love it when people complain about being sickened by things like this but are unwilling to endure even the slightest inconvenience that may prevent things like this from happening again.

---------- Post added at 02:46 ---------- Previous post was at 02:44 ----------

I expect them to post a factual misconception about guns and set it straight. Already two people utterly failed to do that. I also expect people not to spend more words rambling than setting a factual misconception straight. Is it really that hard?
Careful about trying to use Wikipedia links to back up any so-called, "factual" claims.
 
Should the government be able to come to your house and interrogate you if they think you've bought too much gasoline or lawn fertilizer?

Or too many golf clubs because of the remote chance you might want to bash a bunch of people on the head?

1. The reason most shooters buy 1,000-round cases of ammo is that it's much cheaper bought in bulk. And hard to find in cases, so when you find it you might just want to get five cases. I don't need that many rounds at once myself, but many competitive shooters use up that many rounds in a month.

2. Another reason to buy in bulk is as a hedge against inflation. The cost of copper, used in most bullet jackets and solid-copper bullets, has gone through the roof in recent years. Today, copper is valuable enough that you'll find people stripping old houses and buildings to sell copper water pipes and even electrical wiring for recycling.

3. No psycho is ever going to be able to carry 5,000 rounds, or even 1,000 rounds, of ammo anywhere to kill people. Do you realize how heavy this stuff is? Bullets are made of LEAD and copper alloy. (Again, weight consideration is one of the main reasons the military went to the small .223.) Most people have false ideas about ammo because we see BS movies where heros and bad guys are shooting endless quantities at each other.

Btw, how are things in Columbus? I was there in October visiting my parents. Got to see the OSU-Purdue game. Pretty lousy game until the last 47 seconds and OT. But I digress. . . . :)
 
Well, you're rambling more than anyone.

Your latest post definitely puts you in the lead.

Gun advocates often throw sand in your eyes by saying that the murder rate in rose in Washington D.C. when handguns were banned there in 1976. What they won't tell you is that the homicide rate remained pretty stable for 9 years after, even dropping. Only after that time did murder rates rise out of control and spike suddenly in the 1980s. When did crack cocaine become available? 1984. And at the same time its use went out of control, so did the murder rate in D.C. I will let you draw your own conclusion as to the connection.

By the time the D.C. handgun ban was repealed, the murder rate had dropped to pre-crack cocaine levels. But don't take my word for it. Scroll down to the first line chart by this pro-gun org. Gun Control - Just Facts

See that? Stable for 9 years then BOOM. But they say nothing about crack cocaine. You cannot trust people like this. And its a gun advocate favorite so be ready for it.

---------- Post added at 18:47 ---------- Previous post was at 18:39 ----------

Careful about trying to use Wikipedia links to back up any so-called, "factual" claims.

Or Britannica, or Americana, or Colliers. Feel free to post your own links to disprove anything I say, cause I am getting pretty sick of all this unsubstantiated distrust of Wikipedia as if its on the very low level of conservapedia or some crap.

---------- Post added at 18:54 ---------- Previous post was at 18:47 ----------

3. No psycho is ever going to be able to carry 5,000 rounds, or even 1,000 rounds, of ammo anywhere to kill people. Do you realize how heavy this stuff is?

Van - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hand truck - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Charles Whitman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Whitman wheeled a rented dolly carrying his equipment toward the Main Building of the University.

Its amazing what one man can carry when he has the right tools for the job!
 
You didn't answer my question. What is your proposed definition of "full-power rifle cartridges"?

I still marvel that you expect us to believe you are a lawyer!

Since its YOU that had an issue with the definition, it is up to YOU to prove that there even is one, as you say, and only that one, before demanding I come up with an alternate. It is patently obvious that we start from square one.

Its called a link dude.

And I am NOT proposing a definition for the term. I don't remotely think its necessary that the term have a hard and fast, strict definition. I understood the Wiki perfectly well and so did you. You are just nitpicking.
 
You're rambling again without answering the question.

Well, your constant attempts to turn the table, despite how stupid they are, do smack of being a lawyer at least.

Your question is moot and groundless. It was not me, but YOU who insisted there was or should be a definition to the term "full power cartridge" that can only be a cartridge filled to capacity with powder. Your question accuses me of having a contention I did not have, so its moot and stupid. Its YOU with the contention and you refuse to prove it. At this stage, a judge would be finding you in contempt of court.

---------- Post added at 11:59 ---------- Previous post was at 10:37 ----------

I think a lot of gun control advocates don't understand shotgun gauges. I will not go into detail, but the smaller the gauge number, the larger the shotgun. You don't want to look a fool for thinking a 16 gauge is more powerful than a 12 gauge. Its not.



Shot-Gun-Gauge.jpg
 
From what I know, low calibre automatic weapons were created to reduce wall penetration for urban environments. Something that, apparently, the COD people didn't understand. Not to incapacitate, or to reduce the likelihood killing of the target.

People are responsible for their own actions. That's something that many of you have failed to state. It's not the fault of the government that there are psychopaths out there, just as it is not the fault of any government that there are pedophiles.
 
Zorro, you, the expert on everything it seems, introduced that term to the discussion. If you can't even say what you think it means, why are you babbling on and on about this?

I never said the term means filling the case to capacity. In some cartridges and rifles, that would blow your action up. Go back and read what I said until you understand it.
 
I never said the term means filling the case to capacity. In some cartridges and rifles, that would blow your action up.

Of course I meant not to exceed that capacity. Its like filling your car engine to capacity with oil. Of course I do not mean fill it to the top!

Zorro, you, the expert on everything it seems, introduced that term to the discussion. If you can't even say what you think it means, why are you babbling on and on about this?

I quoted Wiki. YOU took issue. If you have an issue, prove your God damned case already or shut up. It was you who claimed the term had one specific and different meaning, not me and not Wiki. YOU, damn it. YOU! I am prepared to accept your definition ALSO, as I make NO CLAIM to a single specific definition. Figure it out!
 
"From what I know, low calibre automatic weapons were created to reduce wall penetration for urban environments. Something that, apparently, the COD people didn't understand. Not to incapacitate, or to reduce the likelihood killing of the target."

That's somewhat true, but penetration is more a factor of bullet design. In urban environments, the military-style full-metal jacket bullets will over-penetrate, going right through a bad guy or wall and putting others at risk. Much safer to use hollow-point or other frangible bullets that mushroom or break-apart on impact. The military can't use these because they're banned by Geneva convention.

"People are responsible for their own actions. That's something that many of you have failed to state. It's not the fault of the government that there are psychopaths out there, just as it is not the fault of any government that there are pedophiles."

I agree with you, but in their current hysteria the public wants to do SOMEthing.
 
Interesting article from the Atlantic, which just came in the mail the other day.
Headline is 'The Case for More Guns (And More Gun Control)'
Concealed-carry permit holders commit crimes at a lower rate than the general population.

The Case for More Guns (And More Gun Control) - Jeffrey Goldberg - The Atlantic

There was also an article in the NYT which, to my surprise, was arguing that mental health really isn't the issue, since only a small portion of the mentally unhealthy are mass murderers. Obviously, it is an issue, and an important one, but the author thought it was given too much weight.
 
[video=youtube;LORVfnFtcH0]
says it all really -
US gun laws are silly


Only a four month old thread... I'll agree though, US gun laws are silly; they should be more like Switzerland; who have incredibly low crime rates.

If you want ridiculously silly, look to the U.K. and Australia, and compare their previous crime rates (especially homicides via gun) to AFTER their gun control overhaul. :3 No, seriously, go look it up.
 
Back
Top Bottom