General Discussion

spin

(17,493 posts)

142. So what you are suggesting are "some first steps" ....

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 06:48 PM

Jan 2013

Any journey begins with a few first steps. What is your final goal?

For some reason I suspect you hope to journey down a long road and arrive at a time where the civilian ownership of firearms is illegal and all firearms are confiscated. If so, I have no major problem with your goal as many other people in our nation have the same idea and all sides of any issue should be considered.

However I might be wrong so please explain where you hope these first steps will lead to.

If you don't reply I will understand. Many people who are strong gun control supporters will claim that our nation merely needs to ban the sales of weapons similar to the AR-15 and hi-cap magazines and they will be satisfied. Of course the next step will be to ban all semi-auto rifles, shotguns and pistols followed by banning all handguns.

I am merely asking for a little honesty in the debate but I realize that such honestly often hurts of the cause of those who wish to impose gun laws in our nation such as exist in many European nations.

I realize that I am not part of this little discussion you are having with another poster but I have found it interesting.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

168 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

One Photograph, Two Bullets, And 26 Reasons We Need To Take Action For Newtown, Connecticut [View all] Playinghardball Jan 2013 OP

EDIT: I was wrong Recursion Jan 2013 #1

The round on the left looks like a .22 long Buzz Clik Jan 2013 #8

Really? jberryhill Jan 2013 #9

Yes really. There's no round I can think of that much smaller than a .223 long Recursion Jan 2013 #12

Looks right to me jberryhill Jan 2013 #20

isn't the important thing rim fire or center fire? and .220 is smaller than .223... farminator3000 Jan 2013 #10

40 grain? Well if we're going to bring in subsonic ammo, ok Recursion Jan 2013 #16

You are completely wrong jberryhill Jan 2013 #24

People buying the most destructive firearm possible will use Motown_Johnny Jan 2013 #26

Is this more to your liking? Hoyt Jan 2013 #23

Yes, thank you (nt) Recursion Jan 2013 #25

the .22lr seems exactly the same as the original photo Motown_Johnny Jan 2013 #29

You are correct jberryhill Jan 2013 #33

Yes, I was completely wrong. Not sure why this bothered me so much Recursion Jan 2013 #36

The brass is much larger for the .223 than the .22 krispos42 Jan 2013 #136

Maybe it's the penny? I'm not sure. I'm using the gimp and checking that it wasn't resized Recursion Jan 2013 #34

You can eyeball it from the length of the reflection jberryhill Jan 2013 #45

Jesus Christ! sadbear Jan 2013 #2

Why do you want bigger ammo than that? Recursion Jan 2013 #3

Yes, I am ignorant about these things. sadbear Jan 2013 #5

If it is, then the one on the left is absurdly small; it's hard to tell the scale Recursion Jan 2013 #6

see post #10 farminator3000 Jan 2013 #14

Yes. It's a deliberately low-power rifle compared to a 30-06 or 308 Recursion Jan 2013 #17

going through a metal pipe is sufficient penetration in my book farminator3000 Jan 2013 #22

Wth? Heimer Jan 2013 #30

you heard me. farminator3000 Jan 2013 #59

Many states actually ban .223/5.56mm ammo for hunting large game. SQUEE Jan 2013 #106

define many for starters- i think more allow it than not farminator3000 Jan 2013 #113

Ummmm....had to edit :P Puha Ekapi Jan 2013 #39

ummm, had to go to the nra site, thanks... farminator3000 Jan 2013 #62

Excuse me.... Puha Ekapi Jan 2013 #69

the topic is whether .223 is a military round. the answer is yes. farminator3000 Jan 2013 #74

You *could* but it would be illegal. lumberjack_jeff Jan 2013 #41

not everywhere farminator3000 Jan 2013 #63

.22 centerfire, not 22 Long Rifle sir pball Jan 2013 #77

i have a .22LR- if i wanted to shoot a deer DEAD with it, i could. easily. i don't. farminator3000 Jan 2013 #80

You could shoot it easily. And it most likely would suffer. n/t DesMoinesDem Jan 2013 #90

not if i knew what i was doing. farminator3000 Jan 2013 #97

Total BS. DesMoinesDem Jan 2013 #112

not BS at all. why does it say dangerous up to 1.5 MILES on the ammo box? farminator3000 Jan 2013 #128

Yes, it is total BS, and it is clear you don't know what you are talking about. DesMoinesDem Jan 2013 #144

having too much gun is just as bad as not enough gun farminator3000 Jan 2013 #151

And a .22 isn't a big enough round DesMoinesDem Jan 2013 #158

Shenanigans. sir pball Jan 2013 #91

not at all. obviously, the size of the animal, the distance, etc. all matter farminator3000 Jan 2013 #101

It was designed BY the military to be underpowered! sir pball Jan 2013 #82

Two Things wercal Jan 2013 #84

Neither can I, and yet you've seen, they still do BlueCaliDem Jan 2013 #15

The big one looks like the 50 cal bullets they use for experiments on MythBusters. RetroGamer1971 Jan 2013 #4

That round is not a .50 cal. Glassunion Jan 2013 #11

The big one looks like a 30-06 round, the smaller a 22 long rifle... Scuba Jan 2013 #7

no, it looks like post #10 farminator3000 Jan 2013 #19

Bullshit jberryhill Jan 2013 #28

Thanks, that pic makes the scalar difference more understandable. Are you also calling bullshit ... Scuba Jan 2013 #37

I am calling bullshit on two things jberryhill Jan 2013 #43

The "wildly inaccurate" was regarding the claim that the 223 wasn't a good hunting round. Scuba Jan 2013 #51

.223 Puha Ekapi Jan 2013 #52

Yes, posting wildly inaccurate information is not helpful Motown_Johnny Jan 2013 #32

The bullet on the left is a .22 caliber used for shooting beer cans... Playinghardball Jan 2013 #13

A .22 can kill a person very well. NT EOTE Jan 2013 #49

If by action you mean actually doing something beyond pounding a keyboard... OneMoreDemocrat Jan 2013 #18

Here, for an attempt at scale. The .223 is *on the LEFT* in this one Recursion Jan 2013 #21

so a .22 cal rifle isn't a rifle? Motown_Johnny Jan 2013 #35

Fine. The smallest *centerfire* rifle ammunition sold Recursion Jan 2013 #42

Tons of people. JoeyT Jan 2013 #160

why do you keep trying to pretend that .22s don't exist? .22s KILL things EASILY. also .17 cal=small farminator3000 Jan 2013 #38

Well if a guy on Yahoo Answers shot a deer with a .22lr DesMoinesDem Jan 2013 #88

there is supposed to be an element of skill involved in hunting. 50-100 yards, head shot, dead. farminator3000 Jan 2013 #96

You assume that all hunting is done for sport. SQUEE Jan 2013 #108

no, sport means 'only kill what you eat' -true for a lot of people- or at least give away to eat farminator3000 Jan 2013 #124

You think people should be hunting deer with a .22lr from 50-100 yards and aiming for the head? DesMoinesDem Jan 2013 #114

head sounds better than lungs to me, but i'm not a hooved herbivore. ask an expert, maybe farminator3000 Jan 2013 #120

You're obviously not a hunter, and have no idea what you are talking about. DesMoinesDem Jan 2013 #145

i guess i didn't post enough of this professional deer killer guy before farminator3000 Jan 2013 #150

no the first time was too much. DesMoinesDem Jan 2013 #159

Semantics liberal N proud Jan 2013 #79

You gun boys have all lost your UncleYoder Jan 2013 #27

In the interest of some small degree of sanity... JayhawkSD Jan 2013 #31

It is meant for hunting humans. Your using it for prairie dogs does not change Motown_Johnny Jan 2013 #40

That's the point that the gun crowd just keep trying to ignore. Hoyt Jan 2013 #44

It did not start as a military round. Few actually do. hack89 Jan 2013 #60

dead wrong. farminator3000 Jan 2013 #78

It is damn near ballistically identical to the .222 hack89 Jan 2013 #86

i already posted this for you, but here it is again farminator3000 Jan 2013 #94

The .222 Remington is used in semi-automatics hack89 Jan 2013 #100

that is terrible news, something should be done about that. maybe a ban. farminator3000 Jan 2013 #107

I am saying that fixating on the bullets is stupid hack89 Jan 2013 #109

no, you are trying to change the subject- the .223 is designed to be fired semi-automatically farminator3000 Jan 2013 #115

Again, so what? hack89 Jan 2013 #116

the "what" being that .223 ammo is both overkill and not civilian farminator3000 Jan 2013 #130

So what about other civilian rounds - are they ok? hack89 Jan 2013 #133

you can have whatever you want, as long as you are responsible about it, i'd say farminator3000 Jan 2013 #138

I think a Mini-14 in .222 Remington would work fine for me hack89 Jan 2013 #141

that's cool. farminator3000 Jan 2013 #148

the case is ~2mm longer also Motown_Johnny Jan 2013 #95

The fact that you must make false statements to defend this ammunition Motown_Johnny Jan 2013 #92

A modification of .001 inches hack89 Jan 2013 #93

How about to .22 like the OP was comparing it to? Motown_Johnny Jan 2013 #98

I was correct hack89 Jan 2013 #103

The .222 was developed for a bolt action rifle, so how about Motown_Johnny Jan 2013 #104

By that logic every round is bad. hack89 Jan 2013 #105

The OP is a comparison of the two bullets Motown_Johnny Jan 2013 #118

Ok. So a 5.56 is more deadly then a smaller, less powerful round. hack89 Jan 2013 #119

There is no arguing with a zealot Motown_Johnny Jan 2013 #121

What is.... Puha Ekapi Jan 2013 #122

How about until mass shootings are a rarity instead of being common place? Motown_Johnny Jan 2013 #125

So what is that first step? hack89 Jan 2013 #123

First of all, it is impossible for you to know that doing nothing will produce Motown_Johnny Jan 2013 #126

30 years of historical trends make it a pretty safe bet. nt hack89 Jan 2013 #127

More falsehoods. Can't you get anything right? Motown_Johnny Jan 2013 #132

I was talking about all gun violence - not a tiny piece of it. hack89 Jan 2013 #135

So what you are suggesting are "some first steps" .... spin Jan 2013 #142

read my response to this exact same question posted earlier Motown_Johnny Jan 2013 #146

A quick link would have been helpful. ... spin Jan 2013 #156

Well God knows I am here for no reason other than to be helpful Motown_Johnny Jan 2013 #157

Thanks for the link. ... spin Jan 2013 #162

You said you saw my answer to that Motown_Johnny Jan 2013 #163

That's fair you didn't suggest that. ... spin Jan 2013 #164

Stop being paranoid. Nobody wants to do what you think we want to do. Motown_Johnny Jan 2013 #165

I did see that post ... spin Jan 2013 #166

Nobody said stop. Nobody said confiscate Motown_Johnny Jan 2013 #167

But you have never stated what your final goal was. ... spin Jan 2013 #168

here are ALL of the f'in bullets, .22 LR is 4th, and .223 is 16th, i think farminator3000 Jan 2013 #46

Are you a hunter? Puha Ekapi Jan 2013 #50

no, i'm a farmer. i could kill a deer out of season with a machine gun if it was eating my crops farminator3000 Jan 2013 #56

the original one photograph, 2 bullets concept seems to have gone out the window here farminator3000 Jan 2013 #47

U hunt Deer with a 22? One_Life_To_Give Jan 2013 #48

This is the simplest explanation of why banning .223 is pointless Xithras Jan 2013 #54

maybe 30-.06s are for real hunters and .223 are for wanna-be's? farminator3000 Jan 2013 #57

Big game - bigger bullet. Small game - smaller bullet hack89 Jan 2013 #64

more guns + bigger mags = more bullets = more innocent people murdered every day. you again? farminator3000 Jan 2013 #65

So restrict magazine size - problem solved. hack89 Jan 2013 #66

they already restricted it in NY state AS OF YESTERDAY farminator3000 Jan 2013 #68

Every bullet does that - how do you think bullets work? hack89 Jan 2013 #70

every bullet is the same? ha ha ha ha ha. you can find lot on google in 60 seconds farminator3000 Jan 2013 #72

And your point is what? hack89 Jan 2013 #73

the point, from the OP, is that .223 are military rounds farminator3000 Jan 2013 #75

Except for the non-military ones. hack89 Jan 2013 #83

Is the 30-06 a military round? hack89 Jan 2013 #89

Deer... Puha Ekapi Jan 2013 #117

And humans... farminator3000 Jan 2013 #131

Humans aren't.. Puha Ekapi Jan 2013 #139

and deer aren't... farminator3000 Jan 2013 #143

Explain then... Puha Ekapi Jan 2013 #147

i think you can work it out yourself. farminator3000 Jan 2013 #149

I hunt elk Puha Ekapi Jan 2013 #153

"This ammunition isn�t meant for hunting, it�s meant for warfare. " DesMoinesDem Jan 2013 #53

...which was derived from... bobclark86 Jan 2013 #55

The casing makes the bullet look much bigger than it is. bunnies Jan 2013 #58

I am for outlawing the so called asult weopons but the. 223 is a very good round for doc03 Jan 2013 #61

maybe if you are planning on making communist squirrel meatballs farminator3000 Jan 2013 #67

Well dah that's what bullets do. You are not allowed to hunt deer with the doc03 Jan 2013 #134

yes. you are allowed to use it for deer in many states. farminator3000 Jan 2013 #140

You can't in the states I am familiar with and I sure wouldn't doc03 Jan 2013 #152

I preferred the 223 for varmint jdadd Jan 2013 #71

you must enjoy split groundhogs then! farminator3000 Jan 2013 #76

Hollow points fragment..... jdadd Jan 2013 #99

I used a Sako .243 for groundhog shot some at 300 yards doc03 Jan 2013 #129

I hunt deer... Puha Ekapi Jan 2013 #81

Hunters use the same round. Rex Jan 2013 #85

"This ammunition isn�t meant for hunting, it�s meant for warfare." Glassunion Jan 2013 #87

Just MrYikes Jan 2013 #110

Classic misinformation to manipulate the unknowing. aikoaiko Jan 2013 #102

WTF... Puha Ekapi Jan 2013 #111

Nah, haven't you been reading anything? Its about hunting kids, I mean deer. Or maybe coyote's. MichiganVote Jan 2013 #137

Gun nuts want the one on the right to stay legal SWTORFanatic Jan 2013 #154

This one is also legal, even though it serves no actual function it should be SWTORFanatic Jan 2013 #155

There's no such thing as a benign bullet. nt rrneck Jan 2013 #161