Really Biden?

[GermanyChris]

Originally Posted by eric/

Well it's more so used to lay down suppresive fire

The biggest problem I've had with this whole discussion has been with getting facts straight and taking emotion out of it.

When you have guys like our VP (I voted for him) going on air and saying we need to ban automatic weapons, it's just dishonest. Especially when you have to face the fact that these "scary looking weapons" simply are not the problem.

Here are a couple of things we should keep in mind

1. The vast majority of gun related homicides by far are by handguns

2. More than 2/3rds of gun related fatalities are accidents and suicides. 1 you can't fix, the other is a personal choice and/or a problem we can fix

Part A: And what is the point of suppressive fire?

part B: What is the best way to prevent return fire from the enemy?

At what height do you shoot for suppressive fire?

At maximum arc of the bullet from ground over flat ground for suppressive fire?

How about enfilade fire with a machine gun?

Defilade fire with a machine gun?

I knew we were doing it all wrong shooting machine guns trying to kill folks. Next time I go to the range to shoot an M240B I won't worry about shooting at targets because I mean its only for suppressive fire and area targets so bullets down range (that need to be carried along with barrels) are the only thing important.


Please feel free to change the argument and say that's not what you really meant, like before.

[eric/]

Originally Posted by GermanyChris

Part A: And what is the point of suppressive fire?

To flank the enemy

Originally Posted by GermanyChris

part B: What is the best way to prevent return fire from the enemy?

Kill them would be my guess, but if you can't kill them because you can't hit them, keep bullets flying over their heads and keep them pinned down

Originally Posted by GermanyChris

At what height do you shoot for suppressive fire?

At maximum arc of the bullet from ground over flat ground for suppressive fire?

no idea

Originally Posted by GermanyChris

How about enfilade fire with a machine gun?

Defilade fire with a machine gun?

What about it?

Originally Posted by GermanyChris

I knew we were doing it all wrong shooting machine guns trying to kill folks. Next time I go to the range to shoot an M240B I won't worry about shooting at targets because I mean its only for suppressive fire and area targets so bullets down range (that need to be carried along with barrels) are the only thing important.

well you want to be able to kill people and be accurate, but the most important, basic function of the 240, or 249 is to suppress the enemy while your squad moves to flank them. Machine guns aren't very accurate weapons in the first place, their primary purpose is to fire as many bullets as possilbe as fast as possible. So it's much better suited for laying down fire than it is for trying to pick off targets, that's what the M16s are for

Originally Posted by GermanyChris

Please feel free to change the argument and say that's not what you really meant, like before.

[GermanyChris]

Originally Posted by eric/

To flank the enemy



Kill them would be my guess, but if you can't kill them because you can't hit them, keep bullets flying over their heads and keep them pinned down



no idea



What about it?




well you want to be able to kill people and be accurate, but the most important, basic function of the 240, or 249 is to suppress the enemy while your squad moves to flank them. Machine guns aren't very accurate weapons in the first place, their primary purpose is to fire as many bullets as possilbe as fast as possible. So it's much better suited for laying down fire than it is for trying to pick off targets, that's what the M16s are for

Right, you don't have any idea what you're talking about.

Again what is the best why to suppress enemy fire? To kill the person shooting. Machine guns are surprisingly accurate if you don't close you eyes and hold the trigger which is why carry extra barrels and "talk your guns".. the express intent of company level crew served weapons is to provide small unit fire support. M240B and the M60 are accurate enough to have IR laser sights you hide them off the objective and they kill anything that moves within their sector of fire.

You want to keep heads down while taking a bunker there are mortars, AT4's and the suppressive fire each team lays down for the other while moving..The guns are most likely scanning the back of the objective taking out the target you don't see.

I'll bring yesterdays wiggling when you really weren't clear about what you were talking about. Like today you know what suppressive fire is but not what it means or how it's employed.

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1530861

[MacNut]

Originally Posted by spork183

If you live in Oakland, or any other number of high gun violence cities around the country, probably doesn't feel like 6 wasted weeks. When you looking at over 1000 shootings/year, and whole segments of the population afraid to go outside, probably feel like 6 weeks is a drop in the bucket if it knocks down future gun availability. Of course we don't have to worry about that, because it's NIMBY.

The eventual backlash from the Gun Lobby's unwillingness to be reasonable will be disproportionate, and then all we'll hear is how unreasonable the Liberal hardliners are. There is no happy medium with extremists driving rhetoric on both sides.

You call it 6 wasted weeks without focusing on "real problems", but then you make veiled threats about what will happen (election wise) to people who don't vote the gun lobby line. Are you really willing to make a yea or nay on gun control the all-important litmus test for congressional competence? Let me know how that works for you.

analyzing-gun-violence-in-oakland/

How do you stop gang violence. The root of the problem is not the guns they have, it's the culture they are in. You need to get to these kids before the gangs recruit them. Why are the inner cities so bad, they were not this way 50 years ago. Gun violence is the result but not the cause.

[TSE]

Originally Posted by Prof.

I used to support the "assault" weapons ban, until I talked with a friend who is ex-military. I'm now siding with gun owners. There's no such thing as an Assault rifle. It is just a term liberals coined to scare people into agreeing with them when it came to banning big scary guns.

We need to work on improving our mental health system. The mental health of our country is horrible. 1 in 5 adults has a mental illness - that is asinine. Finally, we need to work on reducing the socioeconomic gap that gets wider and wider every day. Crimes are committed due to the ever increasing lack of opportunity in this so-called land of opportunity.

One last note: mandatory military or public service; we need to do it. two years in the military or two years in a public works job.

For the record, I'm a liberal.

I like pragmatism and I like the thought of increasing research and funding for mental health services, and no this doesn't include giving Timmy the 16 year old whose depressed and socially awkward a bunch of Prozac and Xanax.

None of these school shootings have been committed with an automatic weapon. Banning these sorts of guns isn't going to stop these school shootings.

People forget why the second amendment was put in place. It wasn't for hunting. It wasn't to have Americans look like badasses. It was to protect ourselves from the government if it gets out of hand and to protect ourselves and property.

Anyone who says I'm paranoid just needs to read a history book.

[webbuzz]

Originally Posted by MacNut

How do you stop gang violence. The root of the problem is not the guns they have, it's the culture they are in. You need to get to these kids before the gangs recruit them. Why are the inner cities so bad, they were not this way 50 years ago. Gun violence is the result but not the cause.

Then why do Mayor Rahm Emanueal and Superintendent McCarthy say that they are they problem? In addition to guns, Jesse Jackson blames the banks for "ripping off" the people in inner city neighborhoods.

I do agree with you though.

----------

Originally Posted by TSE

I like pragmatism and I like the thought of increasing research and funding for mental health services, and no this doesn't include giving Timmy the 16 year old whose depressed and socially awkward a bunch of Prozac and Xanax.

None of these school shootings have been committed with an automatic weapon. Banning these sorts of guns isn't going to stop these school shootings.

People forget why the second amendment was put in place. It wasn't for hunting. It wasn't to have Americans look like badasses. It was to protect ourselves from the government if it gets out of hand and to protect ourselves and property.

Anyone who says I'm paranoid just needs to read a history book.

They will only believe what they want.

[MacNut]

Originally Posted by webbuzz

Then why do Mayor Rahm Emanueal and Superintendent McCarthy say that they are they problem? In addition to guns, Jesse Jackson blames the banks for "ripping off" the people in inner city neighborhoods.

I do agree with you though.

Jesse Jackson is a blow hard that likes to hear himself talk. Emanueal is looking to blame anything else but the problem. Yes guns are too easy to acquire and the gangs are running wild with them. But they weren't born with a gun in their hand. Lack of education and no family at home is why gangs have fresh members. Fix the root if the problem and the gun violence will slowly go away.

[webbuzz]

Originally Posted by MacNut

Jesse Jackson is a blow hard that likes to hear himself talk. Emanueal is looking to blame anything else but the problem. Yes guns are too easy to acquire and the gangs are running wild with them. But they weren't born with a gun in their hand. Lack of education and no family at home is why gangs have fresh members. Fix the root if the problem and the gun violence will slowly go away.

Agreed.

edit: One of the issues with the gangs of today, especially in major cities, many are associated with the drug cartels.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_16...es-in-chicago/

http://www.suntimes.com/news/escalon...o-streets.html

[spork183]

Originally Posted by MacNut

How do you stop gang violence. The root of the problem is not the guns they have, it's the culture they are in. You need to get to these kids before the gangs recruit them. Why are the inner cities so bad, they were not this way 50 years ago. Gun violence is the result but not the cause.

I hear you and agree. However, we continue to exacerbate that culture with the availability of guns. Take away guns and you'll still have angry, disenfranchised people try to beat someone to death. But a drive-by beating leaves far fewer casualties than a drive-by shooting. The availability of guns makes it so easy for one nut to incite endless cycles of retribution. People killing people and they don't even remember why.

There is a reason we moved away from the old west model, and it wasn't because open carry/shoot to kill was so successful.

[eric/]

Originally Posted by spork183

I hear you and agree. However, we continue to exacerbate that culture with the availability of guns. Take away guns and you'll still have angry, disenfranchised people try to beat someone to death. But a drive-by beating leaves far fewer casualties than a drive-by shooting. The availability of guns makes it so easy for one nut to incite endless cycles of retribution. People killing people and they don't even remember why.

There is a reason we moved away from the old west model, and it wasn't because open carry/shoot to kill was so successful.

but you do so at the expense of other people

hence the problem

[MacNut]

Originally Posted by spork183

I hear you and agree. However, we continue to exacerbate that culture with the availability of guns. Take away guns and you'll still have angry, disenfranchised people try to beat someone to death. But a drive-by beating leaves far fewer casualties than a drive-by shooting. The availability of guns makes it so easy for one nut to incite endless cycles of retribution. People killing people and they don't even remember why.

There is a reason we moved away from the old west model, and it wasn't because open carry/shoot to kill was so successful.

I agree that we need to get illegal guns out of the hands of gangs. But we also need to get rid of the food the gangs feed off of. Saying guns are the issue is an easy soundbite and makes everyone feel good. They don't want to tackle the big issue because that is political suicide. Have we ever dug down deep and really discussed as a nation why gang violence exists. Is it a group of people that feel disenfranchised of is that their excuse they use to justify killing.

[spork183]

Originally Posted by eric/

but you do so at the expense of other people

hence the problem

Society always puts restrictions on people who didn't need them. I don't drive recklessly, why can't I do a safe 75 when there is no traffic around? I'm always safe around the pool, why must I fence it? I ride my motorcycle carefully, why must I be forced to wear a helmet? The police response time to my house is 60 minutes, why must I pay taxes for police protection?

Then we have the third rail of gun control. Lock and Load. Ain't nobody gonna tell me what I can and can't own...

[webbuzz]

Originally Posted by spork183

Society always puts restrictions on people who didn't need them. I don't drive recklessly, why can't I do a safe 75 when there is no traffic around? I'm always safe around the pool, why must I fence it? I ride my motorcycle carefully, why must I be forced to wear a helmet? The police response time to my house is 60 minutes, why must I pay taxes for police protection?

Then we have the third rail of gun control. Lock and Load. Ain't nobody gonna tell me what I can and can't own...

Sounds like a problem.

[spork183]

Originally Posted by webbuzz

Sounds like a problem.

Yeah, and all the guns are locked up in the safe at my in-laws house, and the dogs are worthless. Batter up!

[eric/]

Originally Posted by spork183

Society always puts restrictions on people who didn't need them. I don't drive recklessly, why can't I do a safe 75 when there is no traffic around? I'm always safe around the pool, why must I fence it? I ride my motorcycle carefully, why must I be forced to wear a helmet? The police response time to my house is 60 minutes, why must I pay taxes for police protection?

Then we have the third rail of gun control. Lock and Load. Ain't nobody gonna tell me what I can and can't own...

Well, the difference between guns and those that you listed is that you can own a firearm on your property without affecting others.

You can go buy a full-auto machine gun, and just put it in your basement, on your private property.
If you want to go drive 75 mph on the highway, you have to do that on public property, which the public has the right to determine rules for use, same with police.

You can not fence a pool in, so long as it's yours on your property.

[spork183]

Originally Posted by eric/

Well, the difference between guns and those that you listed is that you can own a firearm on your property without affecting others.

You can go buy a full-auto machine gun, and just put it in your basement, on your private property.
If you want to go drive 75 mph on the highway, you have to do that on public property, which the public has the right to determine rules for use, same with police.

You can not fence a pool in, so long as it's yours on your property.

In the same way my helmet usage doesn't affect others unless I crash and end up on life support, my gun purchase doesn't affect others unless I get depressed and shoot my family or myself, or someone steals it or (insert other unlikely scenario here). Motorcycles are stored on private property, but laws are broken on public property, hence the restrictions. Same should be true with guns.

I would hazard an unscientific guess that we spend far more a year on patching up gunshot victims than we spend each year on patching up motorcycle riders, yet we are quick to regulate their freedom, but heaven forbid we touch guns.

Quick, hide the children! They've come for the guns!

[zioxide]

Originally Posted by eric/

Well, the difference between guns and those that you listed is that you can own a firearm on your property without affecting others.

You can go buy a full-auto machine gun, and just put it in your basement, on your private property.
If you want to go drive 75 mph on the highway, you have to do that on public property, which the public has the right to determine rules for use, same with police.

You can not fence a pool in, so long as it's yours on your property.

This just isn't true.

First of all, do you have a force field surrounding your property that will magically stop bullets from leaving your property?

And second, you can't just "not fence a pool in as long as its on your property." Most places have building codes and bylaws that require you to have specific fencing and such around pools.

[eric/]

Originally Posted by zioxide

This just isn't true.

First of all, do you have a force field surrounding your property that will magically stop bullets from leaving your property?

What if you never fire it?

Originally Posted by zioxide

And second, you can't just "not fence a pool in as long as its on your property." Most places have building codes and bylaws that require you to have specific fencing and such around pools.

Which you would have agreed to before moving in. My father recently had a 9ft deep pool installed at his home, no fence required.

----------

Originally Posted by spork183

In the same way my helmet usage doesn't affect others unless I crash and end up on life support, my gun purchase doesn't affect others unless I get depressed and shoot my family or myself, or someone steals it or (insert other unlikely scenario here). Motorcycles are stored on private property, but laws are broken on public property, hence the restrictions. Same should be true with guns.

You're still missing the difference. When you are operating the motorcycle, you are operating it on the public road, thus you have to follow public rules. Whether or not somebody is affected makes no difference.

You can modify your bike however you want, but there are certain rules you have to follow once you get on the road.

When you purchase a gun, it's your property on your property, and you can operate it on your property. If you want to take it to a range, you have to follow certain rules on your way to the range and at the range. While it's on your property you can have it hanging from the ceiling if you want, it's yours.

So yes, it's the same with guns.

And somebody stealing your gun isn't taken into consideration here. Might as well argue cars should be illegal/regulated because somebody can steal it from your garage.

[glocke12]

[QUOTE=zioxide;16725684]This just isn't true.

First of all, do you have a force field surrounding your property that will magically stop bullets from leaving your property?

QUOTE]

actually I do...

Its called a 15 foot high, 30 foot wide, 10 foot deep earthen berm.

[zioxide]

Originally Posted by eric/

What if you never fire it?

What's the point of owning it then?

[eric/]

Originally Posted by zioxide

What's the point of owning it then?

Maybe you like the way it looks?

[CalWizrd]

Originally Posted by zioxide

What's the point of owning it then?

What's the point of owning a fire extinguisher if you never use it?

Are you looking to prevent people from owning something if they don't "use" it?

[skunk]

Originally Posted by glocke12

actually I do...

Its called a 15 foot high, 30 foot wide, 10 foot deep earthen berm.

Really?

[zioxide]

Originally Posted by CalWizrd

What's the point of owning a fire extinguisher if you never use it?

Are you looking to prevent people from owning something if they don't "use" it?

Seriously? You're comparing owning a fire extinguisher to owning an M60???


Ridiculous crap like that only hurts your cause.

[webbuzz]

Originally Posted by zioxide

Seriously? You're comparing owning a fire extinguisher to owning an M60???


Ridiculous crap like that only hurts your cause.

How many private individuals do you think own an M60?