The OK case

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-02-2017, 11:37 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Are M-16s "weapons of war"?

An AR capable of three round burst fire, yes.  An AR capable of full auto, which I understand is not a standard option anymore, yes.  A semi-auto only AR, no.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(04-03-2017, 01:22 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: An AR capable of three round burst fire, yes.  An AR capable of full auto, which I understand is not a standard option anymore, yes.  A semi-auto only AR, no.

A semi auto AR-15 will deliver more effective fire than one with a 3 round burst or auto. So why is the platform which delivers more effective fire not a weapon of war while the platforms which deliver less effective fire are weapons of war? Interestedly enough, we only used the 3 round burst at the range and semi auto during combat.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-03-2017, 01:43 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: A semi auto AR-15 will deliver more effective fire than one with a 3 round burst or auto. So why is the platform which delivers more effective fire not a weapon of war while the platforms which deliver less effective fire are weapons of war?  Interestedly enough, we only used the 3 round burst at the range and semi auto during combat.

As I've said in the past, I'm not really interested in the semantic argument you seem to crave in this thread.  I suppose by your standard the M1 Garand my father owns is a weapon of war.  In essence you've just made an argument that all magazine fed semi-auto rifles are "weapons of war"  That just seems to be... dumb.


On the other hand the K98 is a Wizard of Wor!

[Rotobeast]

(04-02-2017, 07:27 PM)Dill Wrote: Actually, I didn't serve, though I have spent years living in a deployed military environment (I retired in 2012).

Like you I would prefer a handgun. (I have one but it is not much good for home defense since it is a black powder revolver and messy to load.)  In a house, any long-barreled gun might be cumbersome. And someone might grab the barrel at close quarters.

My comment about intent was based on years of living around people buying military-style weapons and talking about what they would or would like to use them for.  I grew up in rural Montana, where everyone hunts. We mostly used a Springfield (1917) 30.06, which was a "military-style" weapon when we first got it. Then my dad cut the stock down and put a scope on it. Much lighter. Most of the people we hunted (including my father) with were WW2-Korea vets. Hunting was a means of getting food and guns were tools for doing that. They were modified to make them more practical tools. Some were highly polished and a little decorated. No one talked about "home defense" or spent time imagining what he would do if he caught someone in the garage at night, etc.

I was in Europe for most of the '80s, and when I returned in '93 things had changed.  I saw more people, mostly younger, getting military-style weapons that looked automatic. I think an M-4 is a good weapon for today's soldiers, who have to get in and out of cramped vehicles all the time and sometimes need to fight house-to-house.  I can understand why a former military person who used one might want one because he is very familiar with it or just out of nostalgia. No problem there. I concede one might be good for home defense--less cumbersome than any of the hunting rifles and shotguns in my parents home. Faster rate of fire than bolt action or pump, too. 

But every year I meet people who bought one or more because they want the "cool" automatic weapon look. And they don't just talk about hunting with them. They imagine what they would do if the government tried to take them away or someone broke into their house. So what concerns me is the way the guns bolster an imagined "tactical" identity, and perhaps help the owners act it out. E.g., I find it uncomfortable sitting at a bar with off-duty police men (in a town of 14,000) who have never been in combat rattling on about the neat new tactical gear they are personally purchasing or watching others at the local target range firing at man-shaped targets.  When I was a teen, no one shot at man-shaped targets in my circle of acquaintances. Only police used them on their range. Why would anyone else want to do that hour after hour?

For me, it is less about that weapon itself than why many people want them.

Thank you for your thoughts and clarification.
My apologies for my misrememberance (is that a word ?).

I can understand your concerns over people's intentions and bellowing bravado.
I'm not sure that it will make you feel any better, but it's been my experience that dudes in bars "dick-wagging" about their gear are generally overcome with fear.
In these proclamations, they are hoping to ward off anyone in earshot and bolster their own confidence.
Now, mind you, there are some gun-geeks that do the same.
They tend to be enamored by the engineering aspect and the thrill of crunching the numbers for performance of different cartridge loads.
I will admit, I find delight in the mechanical aspect.
I try not to talk about how many or what specific weapons I have, anymore.
The world has changed a lot in the past 10 years.

But anyway, I'll reiterate the continued value of having an AR, as it is modular and can perform many tasks, depending on configuration.
That saves some money, sometimes.

Meh... to each their own.
Opinions for and against tighter regulation and all.
I'll get beat up by my Libertarian buddies, but I'm actually in favor of qualifying for gun ownership (multiple ascending levels, ie: single shot, bolt-action, pump/lever-action, semi-auto, etc..), as I believe Bfine is.

Oh..... and I have to toss in the obligatory "The NRA sucks !".
I didn't care for them before, but when they endorsed Twat-waffle Trump over the stronger pro-gun candidate (Johnson), it made me despise them and harass them on Facebook.

[Rotobeast]

(04-03-2017, 01:43 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: A semi auto AR-15 will deliver more effective fire than one with a 3 round burst or auto. So why is the platform which delivers more effective fire not a weapon of war while the platforms which deliver less effective fire are weapons of war? Interestedly enough, we only used the 3 round burst at the range and semi auto during combat.

You never used 3 rnd burst for cover fire ?
Granted, you guys probably had a SAW along for that, but I'd imagine situations came about where you might need the other option.

Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

[Rotobeast]

(04-03-2017, 01:52 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: As I've said in the past, I'm not really interested in the semantic argument you seem to crave in this thread.  I suppose by your standard the M1 Garand my father owns is a weapon of war.  In essence you've just made an argument that all magazine fed semi-auto rifles are "weapons of war"  That just seems to be... dumb.


On the other hand the K98 is a Wizard of Wor!

OMG.... Xxlt can't keep you to himself, now.
You've won me over !

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(04-03-2017, 01:58 AM)Rotobeast Wrote: You never used 3 rnd burst for cover fire ?
Granted, you guys probably had a SAW along for that, but I'd imagine situations came about where you might need the other option.

Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

Never. You'll get more accurate suppressive fire from semi than burst. For every one round of accurate fire on burst, you'll get two rounds that aren't accurate.

[*michaelsean*]

Anyone questioning the headline? Stand your ground law may be tested? The stand your ground proponents are hoping the opponents use this case.

[BmorePat87]

Don't see the controversy.

Masked intruders broke in and were shot. Homeowner is in the clear.
Getaway driver seemed to arrange the whole thing and under OK law she can be charged with their deaths. If anything, I could see the charges being reduced to 2nd degree or manslaughter

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(04-03-2017, 01:52 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: As I've said in the past, I'm not really interested in the semantic argument you seem to crave in this thread.  I suppose by your standard the M1 Garand my father owns is a weapon of war.  In essence you've just made an argument that all magazine fed semi-auto rifles are "weapons of war"  That just seems to be... dumb.


On the other hand the K98 is a Wizard of Wor!

A semantics argument based upon a selector switch just seems to be . . . "dumb." If you want to continue the insults I'm more than willing to accommodate.

Does a selector switch affect the wound characteristics? No. The ballistics? Other than an uncontrollable rise in the muzzle, no. Rate of fire? Yes, with a resultant decrease in accuracy. Accuracy? Yes, adversely.

So a weapon with selector switch with a 3 round burst will delivery a higher rate of fire less accurately than semiauto fire without any affect on the wound characteristics. And what's the number one factor when determining the morbidity and mortality of a GSW? Shot placement. What's the number one factor involved with shot placement? Marksmanship. The wasted ammo from the inaccurate automatic fire is what prompted the switch from auto to burst. But, the principle which prompted the switch still applies to burst; higher rate of less accurate fire. The decreased accuracy adversely affects shot placement which decreases its effectiveness at killing.

I would consider any standard issue battle rifle for an infantryman used for combat a "weapon of war." Just because an M1 is obsolete compared to a M-16 doesn't change the fact the M1 was a standard issue battle rifle for an infantryman.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(04-03-2017, 09:43 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Anyone questioning the headline? Stand your ground law may be tested? The stand your ground proponents are hoping the opponents use this case.

Pretty stupid. Castle doctrine should apply inside one's home, stand your ground outside of one's property. Although I don't know if OK is a Castle Doctrine state and I'm not looking it up.

[*michaelsean*]

(04-03-2017, 10:32 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Pretty stupid. Castle doctrine should apply inside one's home, stand your ground outside of one's property. Although I don't know if OK is a Castle Doctrine state and I'm not looking it up.

Oh yeah that's not even the right scenario.  So it's a really really stupid headline.  

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-03-2017, 10:28 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: A semantics argument based upon a selector switch just seems to be . . . "dumb." If you want to continue the insults I'm more than willing to accommodate.

Does a selector switch affect the wound characteristics? No. The ballistics? Other than an uncontrollable rise in the muzzle, no. Rate of fire? Yes, with a resultant decrease in accuracy. Accuracy? Yes, adversely.

So a weapon with selector switch with a 3 round burst will delivery a higher rate of fire less accurately than semiauto fire without any affect on the wound characteristics. And what's the number one factor when determining the morbidity and mortality of a GSW?  Shot placement. What's the number one factor involved with shot placement? Marksmanship. The wasted ammo from the inaccurate automatic fire is what prompted the switch from auto to burst. But, the principle which prompted the switch still applies to burst; higher rate of less accurate fire. The decreased accuracy adversely affects shot placement which decreases its effectiveness at killing.

I would consider any standard issue battle rifle for an infantryman used for combat a "weapon of war."  Just because an M1 is obsolete compared to a M-16 doesn't change the fact the M1 was a standard issue battle rifle for an infantryman.

With sincere respect, you're making the exact point I made by using the term in the first place.  It's a dumb talking point used by anti-2A types to paint owners of these guns as extremists.  "Weapon of war"?!  We must ban them!  As you correctly point out this could mean a huge number and variety of firearms depending on who is applying the term and why.  We completely agree on this subject.

[BmorePat87]

(04-03-2017, 10:32 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Pretty stupid. Castle doctrine should apply inside one's home, stand your ground outside of one's property. Although I don't know if OK is a Castle Doctrine state and I'm not looking it up.

(04-03-2017, 10:33 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Oh yeah that's not even the right scenario.  So it's a really really stupid headline.  

Yea, maybe it's just because the state has a Stand Your Ground law, but I've seen a few stories of homeowners shooting intruders that haven't had this kind of coverage.

It's not like they were outside, backs turned fleeing or that case involving the sheriff who shot the guy texting in the movie theater. 

The only home intruder story I remember having real controversy was that guy who made it look like he wasn't home, hoping his neighbor would try to break in. Guy waited hours with food and drink. Had plastic set up already for the body. When they walked down into the basement, he was positioned to shoot them right when they came down the stairs. He then taunted them as they laid there wounded and shot them point blank in the face. The second teen, he stood over her and shot her 6 times in the chest, dragged her further into his basement, and then shot her in the face. 

That was presented as a question between Castle Doctrine and premeditated murder. 

[BmorePat87]

this one is more controversial

http://abcnews.go.com/US/homeowner-arrested-fatally-shooting-intruder-found-shower-police/story?id=46536513&cid=clicksource_81_null_bsq_hed

Guy notices his door is kicked in and walks in and finds someone in his shower. They exchange words, he leaves, gets a gun, comes back and kills the guy. He's being charged with 2nd degree murder.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(04-03-2017, 10:41 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: With sincere respect, you're making the exact point I made by using the term in the first place.  It's a dumb talking point used by anti-2A types to paint owners of these guns as extremists.  "Weapon of war"?!  We must ban them!  As you correctly point out this could mean a huge number and variety of firearms depending on who is applying the term and why.  We completely agree on this subject.

I only used the term because you did. My impression is you used the term to paint the organizations you referred to as extremists, also.

The M-16 is essentially an AR-15 with a military nomenclature. It was designed for the battlefield and was adopted by the military because it met the specifications they were looking for at the price point they wanted. Can it be used for home defense? Sure. So can a M240B 7.62mm machine gun and a M9 9mm Baretta pistol. Most people won't argue the suitability of those two for home defense. Everything in between is subjective. But, is a standard issue rifle for an infantryman really necessary for home defense? As a former infantryman, I don't believe it is. But, I'm not calling for them to be banned. But, we need a better system than what we have now.

[*michaelsean*]

(04-03-2017, 11:44 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: this one is more controversial

http://abcnews.go.com/US/homeowner-arrested-fatally-shooting-intruder-found-shower-police/story?id=46536513&cid=clicksource_81_null_bsq_hed

Guy notices his door is kicked in and walks in and finds someone in his shower. They exchange words, he leaves, gets a gun, comes back and kills the guy. He's being charged with 2nd degree murder.

"I swear it looked like a gun"

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(04-03-2017, 11:44 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: this one is more controversial

http://abcnews.go.com/US/homeowner-arrested-fatally-shooting-intruder-found-shower-police/story?id=46536513&cid=clicksource_81_null_bsq_hed

Guy notices his door is kicked in and walks in and finds someone in his shower. They exchange words, he leaves, gets a gun, comes back and kills the guy. He's being charged with 2nd degree murder.

A guy taking a shower in your home isn't an imminent threat to cause bodily harm to you or others so deadly force isn't needed to protect yourself or others. Now if the guy taking the shower charged an armed home owner, that's a different story.

An imminent threat is necessary to use deadly force whether it is stand your ground or the Castle Doctrine.

The homeowner left. Then returned.

That's why he is being charged. When the home owner left he was safe. At that point, he should have called the police. That's why they get paid the big bucks to deal with home invasions.

[Rotobeast]

(04-03-2017, 09:38 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Never. You'll get more accurate suppressive fire from semi than burst. For every one round of accurate fire on burst, you'll get two rounds that aren't accurate.

I agree with the accuracy logic, of course.
I also agree with the idea that you CAN suppress with semi-auto.
I guess my thought was that in a scenario where you were outnumbered the 3 round burst may have a psychological advantage in suppression, as it could give your small group an appearance of being larger.
Semi-auto has always made sense to me, logistically and efficiency wise.

[GMDino]

(04-03-2017, 11:44 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: this one is more controversial

http://abcnews.go.com/US/homeowner-arrested-fatally-shooting-intruder-found-shower-police/story?id=46536513&cid=clicksource_81_null_bsq_hed

Guy notices his door is kicked in and walks in and finds someone in his shower. They exchange words, he leaves, gets a gun, comes back and kills the guy. He's being charged with 2nd degree murder.

Yes, but the true issue is what KIND of gun.