Families of Newtown victims sue rifle manufacturer

[Sousuke 1,214]

Enhanced military variants. Code words for more enhanced killing rifles. Got it.

Dude, if you need a rifle to take out a squirrel, something is wrong. You should try close range missiles. They work better.

Do you eat squirrels?

In the history of firearms, rifles were developed with both the civilian and military market in mind. Sometimes they are are adopted by both, sometimes they are favored by the civilian market. An example would be the Henry repeater developed in 1860. They had a capacity of 13 rounds, and in an era when the average US soldier was still using a muzzle loader, they were revolutionary. But the military never really adopted them in any capacity due to cost. Therefore they were primarily a civilian arm.

When you think of military vs civilian in terms of rifles the primary difference is ruggedness. Going back all the way to the 1700s, military muskets were more rugged than civilian counterparts and in fact one could argue less deadly unless used in mass volleys. Through the 19th and early 20th century the primary difference between a military rifle and a civilian rifle is that the military rifle covered every inch of its barrel in wood to make it more hardwearing.

Arguably military weapons are LESS for killing than a civilian weapon because of the Hague Convention and other treaty's. Whereas civilian weapons can shoot whatever ammo you want, the military is restricted to full metal jacket which has a greater degree of survivability. A classic example is the Webley IV 38/200 which was designed to use a 200 grain lead round that would tumble and be lethal. However, Germany objected to the round citing the Hague Convention and Britain switched to a 174 grain full metal jacket which is much less lethal.

[Ban Hammer 13,342]

Enhanced military variants. Code words for more enhanced killing rifles. Got it.

Dude, if you need a rifle to take out a squirrel, something is wrong. You should try close range missiles. They work better.

Do you eat squirrels?

you've never been squirrel hunting it seems. maybe we can get you started with a snipe hunting trip first.

you've never eaten squirrel? must be a city girl.

[Janelle2002 3,865]

In the history of firearms, rifles were developed with both the civilian and military market in mind. Sometimes they are are adopted by both, sometimes they are favored by the civilian market. An example would be the Henry repeater developed in 1860. They had a capacity of 13 rounds, and in an era when the average US soldier was still using a muzzle loader, they were revolutionary. But the military never really adopted them in any capacity due to cost. Therefore they were primarily a civilian arm.

When you think of military vs civilian in terms of rifles the primary difference is ruggedness. Going back all the way to the 1700s, military muskets were more rugged than civilian counterparts and in fact one could argue less deadly unless used in mass volleys. Through the 19th and early 20th century the primary difference between a military rifle and a civilian rifle is that the military rifle covered every inch of its barrel in wood to make it more hardwearing.

Arguably military weapons are LESS for killing than a civilian weapon because of the Hague Convention and other treaty's. Whereas civilian weapons can shoot whatever ammo you want, the military is restricted to full metal jacket which has a greater degree of survivability. A classic example is the Webley IV 38/200 which was designed to use a 200 grain lead round that would tumble and be lethal. However, Germany objected to the round citing the Hague Convention and Britain switched to a 174 grain full metal jacket which is much less lethal.

But we have had military weapons on the ground in the U.S. to control U.S. citizens.

[Ban Hammer 13,342]

But we have had military weapons on the ground in the U.S. to control U.S. citizens.

that sounds ominous.........

[Janelle2002 3,865]

you've never been squirrel hunting it seems. maybe we can get you started with a snipe hunting trip first.

you've never eaten squirrel? must be a city girl.

No. I don't run around killing poor, defenseless creatures of the earth.

Squirrel??? yuck! You guys must be desperate for food out there in the country?

that sounds ominous.........

How? Has this or has this not happened? Wasn't there just recently talk about de-militarizing the police?

[Ban Hammer 13,342]

No. I don't run around killing poor, defenseless creatures of the earth.

Squirrel??? yuck! You guys must be desperate for food out there in the country?

How? Has this or has this not happened? Wasn't there just recently talk about de-militarizing the police?

you don't, but unless you're a vegetarian, someone does it on your behalf.

you guys? i'm offended!

[Sousuke 1,214]

But we have had military weapons on the ground in the U.S. to control U.S. citizens.

Sure, you want to take away their humvees, M4s, RPGs etc by all means.

[Janelle2002 3,865]

you don't, but unless you're a vegetarian, someone does it on your behalf.

you guys? i'm offended!

I mostly eat sea food. And I know someone kills that on my behalf, but not bears, deer, squirrels kangaroos and cute little bunnies.

hahahahahahahahaha hey, I like the country boys. Too bad they don't like me. I love some Blake Shelton, Jason Aldean, Flordia Georgia Line, Luke Bryan.

Sure, you want to take away their humvees, M4s, RPGs etc by all means.

Are Humvees needed by the police to control civilians?

[Sousuke 1,214]

Are Humvees needed by the police to control civilians?

I don't know really. I saw them in Ferguson though. Mind you, you can buy Humvees on the private market. In fact you can by tanks on the private market too.

[Janelle2002 3,865]

I don't know really. I saw them in Ferguson though. Mind you, you can buy Humvees on the private market. In fact you can by tanks on the private market too.

But do the police need to use these to enforce the law in the U.S.?

[Sousuke 1,214]

But do the police need to use these to enforce the law in the U.S.?

Humvees might be useful for rural departments. Can't say regarding urban.

[eieio 1,594]

So people who are poor shots us AR-15s. Ok. Got it.

Quite the opposite. The reason AR-15s are restricted in some states is because they are a lightweight deer load. They just don't have enough killing power to do the job as many of the larger, more powerful deer rifles do. The AR-15 shoots a .223 caliber bullet. It is basically a perfect coyote gun. It will kill deer,but the shot placement must be better.

[spookyturtle 9,465]

But do the police need to use these to enforce the law in the U.S.?

Only in areas where blacks live.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Only in areas where blacks live.

Need those with lots of bling and fancy rims, though. Otherwise, you'll get no respect.

Edited December 16, 2014 by Mr. Big Dog

[lostinblue 1,989]

Quite the opposite. The reason AR-15s are restricted in some states is because they are a lightweight deer load. They just don't have enough killing power to do the job as many of the larger, more powerful deer rifles do. The AR-15 shoots a .223 caliber bullet. It is basically a perfect coyote gun. It will kill deer,but the shot placement must be better.