cookingwithrage said:
You are wrong, and Australia shows clearly that weapon substitution (of the kind you mention) does not take place.
Australia banned the more lethal types of firearms in 1997 (and handguns in 2003).
Australia has not had a mass shooting murder since.
That's more to do with the society rather than weapon bans. Go look at murder rate stats, they probably haven't dropped drastically, if at all by any major amounts. The UK murder rate per every 100,000 is higher than Canada's, and its much easier to get guns here (not saying its easy.). Some places in the U.S.A its way, way to easy to get guns. You should be able to defend yourself, but at the very least prove you're responsible to carry a weapon. Don't bother replying. (in hindsight I shouldn't have even posted in this thread; knowing how threads about fire arms go, which is nowhere)
No point in arguing with him.
He specifically said "the more lethal types of firearms". It's a statement that attributes killing potential to the weapon itself rather than the cartridge it fires.
I have argued about the drops in suicides. Single shot weapons were not affected by the buybacks and to my knowledge you don't usually plan on shooting more than once if you are going to kill yourself.
Some people just want to be fed governmental bull.
Liquidacid23 said:
again you must have never seen any action because you sound like your just going off of Wikipedia entries... the 5.56 was not DESIGNED with the purpose of wounding.. it was designed to simple be a lighter and easier to manage round... the actually effect it had is that it is a wounding round and not a killing round and pretty much every single trainer will explain this to you before you go into the field... so they adopted the "wounding is just as good" crap to cover the rounds poor performance...
No-no-no-no I said find me official documents that state the superior effects of wounding. Ask any fudd and he will tell you 5.56 was designed to be a varmint hunting round. A lot of people still think it's like getting shot by .22LR.
So far, I have never found said documents. Besides, we all know the proving grounds for 5.56 were in South East Asia. If it was a "wounding" round it would not receive over 90% of approval rate from the soldiers.
If no official document confirms this "belief" that wounding is better than killing exists, then "hearsay" doesn't make it true.
Liquidacid23 said:
the reason it has not been replaced has nothing to do with the effectiveness... it has to do with money... we have massive stockpiles and of course the epicly large production contracts... it's easy to understand if you have a single clue about how military procurement works... it's why even tho the m60 has officially been replaced in the core by m240s you still see more m60s in action.. hell they have had better designs than the Ma Deuce laying around since the 50s and the military still hasn't seen it's way to replacing them
Correct, but there is a more important part of the problem.
NATO wouldn't be very pleased. If you chose to issue 6.5 or 6.8, you would be forced to issue 7.62x51.
No two ways to it. You would spend a ridiculous amount of money replacing all the 5.56, without the advantage of eliminating the dependency on a separate caliber. Basically, same shit different name.
The whole NATO would say "Oh, really, faggots? I'm sorry US, but you shitheads can't figure what to do and you just spent 20 million dollars developing M855A1.. What the shit, guys?"
Liquidacid23 said:
oh and the 5.45×39mm was praised for it's tenancy to "tumble" after impact because of it's lower velocity... not to blow limbs off lmao...
Yeah, I have the scans from an 80's issue of Soldier of Fortune. You know, when the Americans were heavily interested in the new "secret" round, and hopped around from doctor to doctor interviewing them to have details about it?
Here's how tumbling works. Front of boolit slow, back of boolit fast. The slower a round is, the less it tumbles. Otherwise, 5.56 would increase lethality with range. 5.45x39 is praised for a higher chance of tumbling - derivative from actual boolit design which allows it to do so at slower speeds than 5.56.
It's basic physics, throw and object into water and the faster it goes the more it changes direction.
Same thing with cars. Drive over road and get into dirt. You'll change direction because your back tires are still on tarmac. The faster you go, the more you lose control.
Liquidacid23 said:
and even that has been dropped as ineffective and the Russians have mostly jumped on the NATO standardized 5.56x45mm rounds simply again because of the better performance against armor (which is smaller rounds actually contributes to it's lower killing power), money and procurement
The AK101 and 102 are primarily for export, the Russians are not jumping into NATO standardization.
I suppose I don't have to mention it, but 5.56 is a non-tapered cartridge and AK 5.56 magazines SUCK.
There is no point in making an AK less reliable. AK's don't like non-tapered cases and rubbish magazines don't help.
Liquidacid23 said:
that is probably the dumbest thing I've heard all day no offense... if guns did not make killing easier than any other object we would not use them and would still be fighting with swords... cause well by your logic they are just as easy to use... damn the whole reason they were invented and we use them is because they are an easier, better and more efficient way to kill than what we used before...
My logic? My logic is that any kind of weapon can be used offensively.
You are here, trying to tell me that 5.56x45 hardly kills anyone. I suppose a broad sword would stop them in one hit. However "my logic" doesn't involve trying to get armed forces to issue baseball bats and kitchen knives.
We use guns because they are lethal at range and cause casualties up to a mile. Not because they are specifically "easy". They are "easy" to someone who knows how to operate them.
