Have we become used to or immune to mass shootings?

[Undertoad]

OK fine. So your point to me about rabidity and gun control is what. What's your point, out of all the posts you've made.

[Flint]

Why don't you tell me, buddy? Wait, you already did. You packaged the answer right there inside the question. What's my point about the thing that you just told me is what I'm talking about? Masturbator.

[Undertoad]

Alrighty. Well you win, I'm out.

[Flint]

wait is was rabidity

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by tw

Nobody needs guns that shoot NATO rounds (ie AR-15). Those exist for only one purpose - to kill people.

No, NATO rounds are designed to wound people. A wounded enemy takes one or two, sometimes more, enemy out of the battle to tend him/her.
NATO rounds are too small for most game hunting, only good for practice.

[tw]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

No, NATO rounds are designed to wound people.

NATO rounds will even penetrate light armour. A problem for amphibious armour used by the Marines.

NATO rounds will penetrate cars. And two LA bank robbers demonstrated when shooting through cars to hit so many policemen.

NATO rounds will blow through game doing massive damage. Hunters use smaller caliber munitions - not NATO rounds.

No civilian needs guns that fire military munitions - NATO rounds. Those exist only to kill people. Not wound them. Kill them.

Where was this week's mass shootings?

[fargon]

The .223 Remington round is the same as 5.56mm NATO round.

[Happy Monkey]

That does not appear to be the case.

[xoxoxoBruce]

ut, which NATO round, the 5.56mm NATO round fired from the same rifle as the .223?

I agree, terribly dangerous, civilians should stick to the old safe 30:06, or maybe 45:70.

[sexobon]

Trying to demonize the use of NATO spec. ammo is a fools errand, sensationalism used by whacko leftist extremists to delude an uneducated audience.

Military ammo is not designed to be more lethal than its civilian counterparts. NATO ammo actually makes compromises in lethality to effect a reduction in maiming (less fragmentation), make for greater portability (lighter weight) and easier marksmanship training of soldiers (less recoil). It's loaded to higher pressures to increase reliability in cycling firearm mechanisms under adverse conditions, not to be more lethal. Many civilian hunting rounds are potentially more lethal (all else being equal) than NATO rounds which can actually be more humane.

There are specialty rounds like armor piercing bullets designed to defeat body armor (bullet proof vests). Soldiers may find that their enemy is wearing body armor. Civilian criminals have also worn body armor during the commission of crimes. Hunters may find that those bullets better negotiate intermediate obstacles like leaves on branches with less deviation from their target. These are not; however, magic bullets and can be less lethal in their target because they don't expand on impact. They just give the bullet a better chance of reaching the target. Marksmanship is more important. This has all been well documented for decades. Only a neophyte wouldn't know this.

NATO ammunition and the firearms chambered for it could be the more humane choice for those who achieve the necessary skill in marksmanship and that skill is transferable between military, police, and civilian walks of life.

[tw]

Originally Posted by fargon

The .223 Remington round is the same as 5.56mm NATO round.

Minor difference exist. But the bottom line remains. Its purpose is to kill people. Even the .223 was designed for that purpose.

These are not rifles for sportsman. These are for the thrill of killing people - in reality or just to pretend on a rifle range. Neither reasons justifies these guns - and the so many who do kill because these completely unnecessary weapons inspire it.

So what was the massacre of the week?

[sexobon]

That's a lie evidenced by the fact that you can't get 2/3 of the eligible vote to change the Constitution to accommodate your delusion. You still believe the right to own these things requires further justification. It doesn't. All you've succeeded in doing is demonstrating that you're incapable of understanding their place in society and how changes in American society works. You're still that same old developmentally impaired misfit.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by tw

These are not rifles for sportsman. These are for the thrill of killing people - in reality or just to pretend on a rifle range. Neither reasons justifies these guns - and the so many who do kill because these completely unnecessary weapons inspire it.

I would suggest that if you are going to have these arguments learn basic facts so the other side doesn't derail your arguments. It is a common tactic used when control advocates use sloppy terminology like "assault rifle". My rifle shoots a larger round than the AR-15. It is meant to kill large game with one round. The heavy kick is a reminder of the seriousness of what I'm engaged in. Learn about the weapons and focus on what you (and many of us) believe makes them inappropriate for civilian use like semi-automatic fire, high capacity magazines, and ammunition appropriate for war and targets but not for big game hunting.

[sexobon]

Originally Posted by Griff

I would suggest that if you are going to have these arguments learn basic facts so the other side doesn't derail your arguments. ...

Griff, his eyes open.

Allow me to demonstrate how important this is:

[Rhetorical] What is the purpose of military small arms and ammunition?

[Paraphrasing] XoB says it's to wound and thereby further burden the opposition with caring for the wounded.

[Paraphrasing] Tw says it's only to kill.

The purpose of military small arms and ammunition is to incapacitate, to render someone who was a combatant a noncombatant, whether they live or die is secondary. This is evidenced by the Laws of Land Warfare.

If you shoot and wound an opponent; but, they continue hostilities, you can legally continue to shoot them until they cease hostilities even if it kills them. Wounding is not the primary objective.

If you shoot and wound an opponent who then ceases hostilities, you cannot legally continue to shoot them until you have killed them. Killing is not the primary objective.

Military small arms and ammunition are designed around incapacitation in adherence with the Laws of Land Warfare and reflected in their tradeoffs in lethality for other considerations (e.g. non-maiming ammunition).

There's been many a soldier who's wished that their small arms were designed only to kill; but, that's not the way it is in reality.

There are rare exceptions for elite military units that have narrowly defined missions which require the assured instant incapacitation that killing an opponent provides. They use specialized firearms and ammunition.

US policy and the international agreements to which we're signatory prohibit designing military small arms and ammunition only for killing; unless, there's a consensus that a specific situation falls outside the parameters of conventional warfare.

Claims that military small arms and ammunition are designed only for killing are categorically discredited; but, that doesn't stop the ignorant from making those claims nor does it stop whacko leftist extremist propagandists from preying on the ignorant who can't be bothered to learn facts.

As Griff said, learn basic facts. It will help keep those like tw from preying on you for their own self aggrandizement.

[BigV]

Subscibed.

Also, good luck.