We Never Know
No Slack
Two main differences are powder charge and rifling. However its considered safe to shoot a .223 through a 5.56 but not vice versa.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Biden to unveil gun control measures, appoint ATF chief
- Thread starter Stevicus
- Start date
Two main differences are powder charge and rifling. However its considered safe to shoot a .223 through a 5.56 but not vice versa.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
None of that has anything to do with the topic at hand.
McBell
Unbound
That does not answer my question.
In fact, that answer does not make any sense to me.
Curious George
Veteran Member
From an engineer nonetheless...
Curious George
Veteran Member
When one says difference without a negative preceding it, we know we are not talking "=".
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
OK. I'd suggest that you educate yourself then.
McBell
Unbound
I figured you have no idea what you are talking about.
Thanks for the confirmation.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Hardly Sunshine. Maybe not be so intellectually lazy and learn something for once?
An AR 15 is the exact same specs as an M 15. Same caliber, same manufacturer, only difference is the AR 15 has no automatic fire features unless it's modified.
I'd suggest joining the military like I did and then you will be well educated on firearms.
McBell
Unbound
Your left field distraction did not work.
Perhaps you could try again only this time addressing the topic at hand?
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Can't help you then.
PureX
Veteran Member
Are you suggesting that if we couldn't stop this one killer, we shouldn't bother trying to stop any of them?
McBell
Unbound
No, I am flat out asking you to reveal just how your proposed plan would have stopped him.
See, I fail to see how it would have made any difference.
Well, that is not entirely true.
I can see where your proposed plan would have upped the body count.
Making sure he could hit what he was aiming at and all....
One wonders, do you think he gives a crickets fart about the laws?
Do you think he gives a crickets fart about losing the legal right to have a firearm after the fact?
So like I said, I fail to see how your proposed plan would have stopped him.
I am giving you the chance to reveal just how your proposed plan it would have stopped him and not be a post #45 example....
McBell
Unbound
I had no expectation of it.
We Never Know
No Slack
Actually the M15 is made by Classic Army.
The AR-15 and M16 are both made by Colt and the AR-15 is the civilian version of the M16.
The issue was efficacy of the AR-15 as a hunting weapon.
To dwell on teensie differences between .223 & 5.56 is
irrelevant to the discussion.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Quite possibly. However, I think if the Founding Fathers (and Mothers) could see what we are facing now, they'd likely say something like "What the hell are you thinking!!!", imo.
But the Pubs oppose any measures are restricting gun sale, especially since they've long been joined at the hip with the NRA. My father used to belong to them and send donations, and yet he got so upset with them he took his NRA card, cut it up into pieces, and mailed it to them with a note as to where they could stuff it. True story, and he was a life-long Republican.
Nice cliche, but it's mostly it's the guy with the gun who's doing the most killing.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
PureX
Veteran Member
That depends, has he been arrested in the past for threats of violence, stalking, assault, drunkenness, drug possession, domestic abuse, or social disturbance? Would he be able to pass a test involving every aspect of gun ownership and usage, as well as a psyche evaluation? If not, he would be denied a license to purchase, own, carry, or use a firearm. He would have to steal one, which would then be reported, and investigated. Making his desire to commit mass murder much more difficult.
Of course you don't. You're trying very hard not to. You're telling yourself that if regulation can't stop EVERY SINGLE INSTANCE of gun violence, it can't stop ANY INSTANCE of gun violence. Which is patently absurd, of course. But the gun fetish in this country is so powerful that it obscures all sense of reason and proportion. And causes the fetishists to reach for and accept even the most absurd justifications.
No crime can be prevented 100%. But they can all be prevented a great majority of the time with effective policing (regulation). Very few gun deaths are the result of people plotting and planning to kill someone else regardless of the law or the consequences. They are the result of a moment of mental and emotional instability, often brought on by drugs or alcohol, and by innate ant-social tendencies. So the people who tend to engage in this sort of behavior should not be allowed access to firearms. It's that simple. And the fact that you're trying to argue with this logic using the absurd idea that the only acceptable criteria for regulation is absolute perfection makes it clear to me that you aren't thinking clearly about this at all.
It doesn't matter. If everyone around him DOES care about following the regulations, they will not be enabling his violent insanity as they are currently doing, because they will care about the consequences, to themselves, if they're caught.
People used to think nothing of driving drunk. And as a result a lot of innocent citizens were killed and maimed every year on our roads. Eventually we realized that we had to seriously tighten up the regulations involved in driving motor vehicles, and because we did so. we significantly minimized the number of citizens being killed by drunk drivers each year. We didn't stop it from happening completely, but we did significantly minimize it's occurrence. It's just common sense. Some people can't be allowed to drive because they cannot do so safely or responsibly. And the same is true of people owning, carrying, and using firearms.
We Never Know
No Slack
Criminals don't obey laws. Any new laws will be ignored by them.
Also I have never heard of a mass shooter who wasn't emotionally or mentally disturbed at the time of the shooting (whether it was a new onset or a pre-existing one).