GDB wrote:johns624 wrote:GDB wrote:
Sure about that?
Or you have no idea of the recent history in your own country?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_A ... eapons_Ban
Please don't try to kid me, kid yourself if you like, the death industry in the US (nothing to do with hunting, unless it's for humans), has marketed rounds to defeat body armour. In fact NATO chose the 5.56mm SS109 in the late 70's in large part due to it's ability to defeat body armour, either steel or composite helmets, which themselves are more effective than body armour worn by say cops.
Plus a hunting rifle, which sane people elsewhere in the world tend to define as .22 calibre from a bolt action weapon, is nowhere near as lethal as a 5.56mm, or 7.62x39mm or worse of all, a 7.62mm NATO. All magazine fed, almost always semi auto. basically semi auto versions of full auto military weapons, which have NO place for hunters, farmers etc, or are the animals hunted packing too?
Or are hunters in the US just really poor shots?
Hook, line and sinker... I was hoping that you would answer like you did. You need to do a bit more research. The AWB of 1994 didn't ban any guns. It banned cosmetic accessories and certain names. The Colt AR15 was still available, it was just called the Colt Sporter. It didn't have an evil bayonet lug or flash hider, and was only available with 10 round magazines, but it was functionally the same gun. The NRA didn't get it repealed, it had a 10 year "sunset" provision and wasn't reauthorized by Congress.
A .22 rimfire is a fun gun, and I own a couple, but it isn't powerful enough to hunt anything bigger than a squirrel. Common medium game (deer, etc.) guns are normally as powerful as a 7.62mm NATO, known in civilian circles as the .308 Winchester. I've owned them, also. If you want to hunt larger game (brown bear, moose, etc.) then the guns become even more powerful.
The 5.56mm NATO needed an anti-body armor round because it is a relatively weak round. For hunting, it isn't used for anything bigger than coyote and fox. The SS109/M855 isn't really needed, because if it's not someone wearing ballistic armor, it actually has less terminal effect.
I'll put the average American gun owner up against the average British army infantryman as far as shooting ability. I remember reading years ago that the British Radway Green Arsenal couldn't even load matchgrade ammo for the Palma international matches because they didn't have the technical know-how. That's how far you've fallen.
'How far we've fallen' you really are far gone.
2 million rounds fired by UK forces in Afghanistan in 2006-7, don't recall any reports on issues with reliability of rounds, which the press would have jumped on. A friend who did 22 years in, leaving as a RSM in 16th Air Assault Brigade has never told me any issues with rounds. He was damn glad the mods from the crappy L85A1 were done (which should have been a major political scandal, the Thatcher government were so keen to priviatize Enfield the serious issues were ignored, the Blair Government's 1998 defence review started the process of either replacing or fixing it, the Canadian M-16 variants already in SF use were a front runner but they went with the extensive mods to create the L85A2 and a bit later, the much wider adoption of the Mimini beyond the SF).
In tests, the L85A2 were rated as reliable as the as the M-16 variants in US service, while retaining the one good thing about the weapon, it's accuracy.
(Didn't have a good start with the M-16 in Vietnam, though the 'far fallen' UK/Commonwealth forces were using it in action in the 1964-66 Borneo confrontation with no such issues. But I digress, not even born then).
I nor anyone in my Company ever have a stoppage due to faulty ammunition, not with the 7.62mm weapons, not the 9mm. (I was a bit 'meh' where the Sterling SMG was concerned, though you were only issued it if you were lugging the 84mm RCL). Still had to know how to use it though.
I note you didn't address what motivated the original, yes very flawed, full of loopholes, temporary legislation.
Answer me this, why then did the the NRA and those they pay, make such a fuss about it, made sure it was repealed, why also did the many families who lost people to those weapons not want it repealed and re-instated, with fewer loopholes?
But they don't count do they?
My point remains, unanswered too, why does a civilian need a AR-15 or similar?
Australia, like the US with large tracts of rural, who see themselves as rugged outdoors types, reacted to the 1996 massacre. A Conservative government there acted. Mass shooting since? No.
What was the weapons of choice for massacres in most US schools, Malls, in Vegas (remember that one?), that one at the cinema?
We something nastily tragic recently, four bodies in a rural area. Mother, Two kids, Father. Police not looking for anyone else.
What's called a 'family destroyer'. But no one is calling for banning shotguns in rural areas. There is a justification for their general use if kept secure.
It's not the anti gun 'nuts' being absolutist, the nuts are in the other camp, not here thank goodness.
Just as an aside, the deadliest mass shooting in recent Western history took place in Paris. Last I checked France has pretty stringent gun control laws.