rs7 - you're confusing accuracy and destructive capability. The two are not mutually exclusive. First off - the M16's .223 round IS the same round used in various small animal hunting rifles. It's not typically used for deer or things of that size because the .223 tends to damage rather than quickly kill larger animals (that's the reason the .223 load was used in the M16 - it tends to severely damage rather than instantly kill personnel - exactly what you want in a war zone because it sucks up additional personnel to deal with the wounded). As far as the M16 not being accurate - would you choose it to do a head shot at 1,000 meters? No. But equip it with a zeroed in high power scope and you can hit a 50 cent piece at a couple hundred meters. Popping prairie dogs out to about 300 meters with a scoped M16/AR15 is pretty easy.
Yeah, sure, the hell with the Geneva Convention. Early 16's had some problems that were easily (and intentionally) solved by changing the bore twist.
Optional777 - Exactly what kind of non-lethal weapons are you talking about and do you understand their limitations? Can a bean bag gun be used to neutralize more than one opponents or give you a second chance in case you miss? - Nope, you might get one but then you're dead. Can a bean bag gun effectively stop an attacker on drugs? - No. Police officers have been killed by attackers on PCP even after they emptied their .38 caliber revolvers into the attacker. That's one of the reasons cops started going to 9mm, .40, and .45s - you can induce the kind of hydralic shock in the attacker's body that will put him on the floor and keep him there. Can a stun gun be used without having to get close to the person? - A conventional stun gun requires proximity to your opponent, thereby increasing your danger. A taser can fire an electrified barb a short distance, but it can't be used effectively against more than 1-2 opponents (no more than 1 if the other opponent is more than about a 45 degree arc from the first target). You got an effective non-lethal weapon that can be used reliably multiple times quickly against multiple targets of any size or drug induced strength - that would be great. Otherwise, you don't understand the issue.
I took the following from www.jpfo.org MYTH #2: Bullets from modern assault rifles and their semiautomatic civilian look-alikes are vastly faster and more powerful than bullets from other small arms, and capable of heretofore unheard of horrendously extensive wounding effects. FACT #2: This modern-day urban myth is patently false. Assault rifle ammunition by definition has a power level that is in between that of pistol ammunitionand full power battle rifle ammunition (e.g., .30/06, 7.62x51 NATO). Furthermore, military issue ammunition for these guns is of full metal jacket configuration. Such bullets are generally less disruptive than expanding sporting bullets. Russian and Chinese 7.62x39 Ball ammunition for the AK-47 features full jacketed steel-cored, pointed boat-tail bullets that generally exhibit no deformation and minimal yaw for about 10 inches of soft tissue penetration, after which significant yaw generally commences. These bullets frequently are able to penetrate the torso with no more tissue disruption than low speed non-deforming .30 to .32 caliber pistol bullets. When loaded with expanding hunting bullets, the 7.62x39 round is considered only marginally adequate for deer at short to medium ranges, and is somewhat less powerful than the popular .30-30 Winchester which was developed in the 1890's. The 55 grain full jacketed, lead alloy cored M193 bullet loaded in the 5.56x45 (.223 Remington) Ball cartridges used in the M-16 in Vietnam is generally more disruptive at close range than the Russian AK-47 bullet because it yaws after an average of only 4 inches and fragments. However, this bullet may penetrate over 7.5 inches before any significant yaw and fragmentation takes place. When traveling through soft tissue point forward, the full jacketed M-16 bullet exhibits about the same tissue disruption as a low velocity, non-deforming .22 rimfire bullet. With expanding sporting bullets, the .223 is not considered an adequate general purpose deer cartridge and most game departments forbid its use on deer on the grounds that it is not disruptive enough for consistent results. For sporting use when loaded with expanding bullets, the .223 is viewed primarily as a good "varmint"round for pest animals up to the size of coyotes. However, there are several other common non-military .22 caliber centerfire pest cartridges such as the .22-250 and .220 Swift whose performances greatly exceed that of the .223. Snake .
Actually, I get that kind of reaction from lots of people. They feel it's morally correct for someone to die helpless versus dying trying to defend yourself with a gun. It just doesn't make sense to me.
As a trader... isn't it imortant to have a strategy for just about any scenario? Gotta have a plan just in case the market collapses right? What if we go into war, how would that affect your market? Is this being paranoid? I guess... but I feel it's important to be ready. To be prepared. If that's being paranoid. Then I am paranoid. At least when the sh!t hit's the fan, I'll be ready. Who knows when some crackhead is going to try and rob you. Who knows when someone is gonna start blasting people away in a restaurant. I live in Oregon... remember about the shooting at the high school? What about all the shootings in schools across the states? It happens... real innocent people die. How do you know if you're not going to be next?
Reality is that there are just too many guns already on the streets and in possession. So the issue is really irresolvable. All that can be done is a progressive tightening of restrictions, and maybe someday guns will no longer be a part of our society. there are "too many" guns, that's probably true. but the conclusion that i reach is that therefore a progressive tightening of restricitions will ensure that only the "baddies" will be able to get them. check out any country with such tight regulations and you'll see that criminals or those with criminal "tendencies" somehow manage to beat the odds and end up with guns... As far as the comments regarding "liberals" as anti-gun, yes, this is generally true. It is also generally true that "conservatives" are pro guns, "pro life" except for the death penalty, pro big tobacco, and against the separation of church and state. So using the constitution is no great argument on their behalf. The right wingers are just as guilty of trying to make the constitution fit their beliefs as any "liberal" or any fanatic of any kind. no doubt about it. libs aren't the only ones reading their desires into the consitution.. just let's not get carried away and lump everyone that's pro gun into the conservative, religious right camp.. cos you well know my thorough disgust of religion yet i'm steadfastly in favor of an armed citizenry... and on rational grounds, mind you.. and something else u mentioned... this obviously IS an emotional issue.. no two ways about that... however that doesn't mean that it can't be approached and argued dispassionately. so, in the context of where america is at right now, would eliminating or restricting gun ownership be safer for the public at large in terms of a) safety from violent crime and b) from unconstitutional dictatorial takeover, or wouldn't it, is the question that needs to be answered. facts about this CAN be discerned, but, lamentably, it's going to require a level of emotional maturity that is noticably absent in participants currently debating the issue.. (not referring to this discussion on ET with that..)
Here we have yet another example of why my pal Dan is one of my very favorite all-time "good guy" conservatives. The rare animal....a thinking man's republican (Besides, I DID say "generally", right?) No, restricting or eliminating gun ownership would NOT make the public safer now, because it's too late. The "bad guys" already have the weapons. And (as we agree), there are just too many guns around. So anyone who wants one will get one no matter what the law is. It's just a matter of supply and demand. Prices would go up, but who has more money than criminals? But just MAYBE some of the endless supply of the nasty little .22s would dry up a little. And those are the weapons that get on the streets. As far as an unconstitutional dictatorial takeover...... no, gun control would have no effect one way or the other. We are NOT going to lose our country to a band of armed rebels. Or prevent a takeover by having an armed citizenry. This isn't Cuba in 1959. Those days are long over. Nobody is taking over without controlling the military. Keep 'em coming pal! And it's a good thing that points don't matter....just the overall record.... 6-2-0 6-2-0 But who's hot? (Shit...a lot of posts from me today. I guess it's obvious my wife is away). Peace bro, rs7