UN global gun control

Pages: 1234
Now this is what I can't square with gun ownership.

I believe that any civilian that thinks that "guns are meant for killing people" is flat-out wrong
and yet one of the biggest reasons for wanting a gun seems to be for defense. How do you defend yourself and your property with a gun? You point it at the other person and fire.

As an aside, here's a look at how different the firearm culture is in my country. Since the thread title is global gun control :p I have been a volunteer reservist for over a decade in the armed forces; I have met my full training every year, and I have been mobilised and deployed overseas on live shooting-at-people-and-blowing-things-up operations, and I have never touched a loaded firearm in my life.
Guns arnt for killing theyre for amusement, posterity and self confidence, saying theyre for self defence is just the front.

im with modshop on this, theyre part of his culture, you wouldnt ban an amozonian tribes spear or blowpipe, despite the wrong uninitiated brave getting a bit too into exited with one while off his face on toad juice.

i bet they have their version of gun nuts too.

to be pedantic too, guns arnt for killing theyre for maiming, NATOs 5.56 rounds are designed to complete feck you up but not kill you, this way it may take two or three men and a re-routed helicopter to get you home, much more destructive to the opposing armies infrastructure.

then theres self defence, practice in any range and they teach you to do something simlare, shoot someone where he cant move and an ambulance comes rather than blow his head clean off.

something that allways bothered me was reading american news stories,
they chase a bank thief so far it ends in a shoot out the cops win, there nay have been an option to catch them when theyre unarmed but seeing as the gun is there allready theres no will to.

police shoot a lot of unarmed criminals even thought they know theyre not armed too, its like the penalty for running from a crime is death i dont know if its acceptable over their or not.

but im dead against guns in this country now
Last edited on
Guns arnt for killing theyre for amusement, posterity and self confidence, saying theyre for self defence is just the front


Guns have been killing people since the beginning of guns.

to be pedantic too, guns arnt for killing theyre for maiming, NATOs 5.56 rounds are designed to complete feck you up but not kill you, this way it may take two or three men and a re-routed helicopter to get you home, much more destructive to the opposing armies infrastructure.


We don't design ammunition to be used in conflicts to not kill people. The 5.56 NATO does indeed mess a person up. It has a tendency to hit a target, and then change direction and keep moving. Essentially causing a lot of internal bleeding and organ damage. This will kill much more than a clean wound will, and be much harder to fix up.

then theres self defence, practice in any range and they teach you to do something simlare, shoot someone where he cant move and an ambulance comes rather than blow his head clean off.


This is just because of the varying legal implications depending on where you live. For example, I live in a state where if I'm attacked and feel my life threatened, I can kill the person if I need to. But then you have examples such as the Zimmerman case. So it's better to just wound, disarm, and call an ambulance.

police shoot a lot of unarmed criminals even thought they know theyre not armed too, its like the penalty for running from a crime is death i dont know if its acceptable over their or not.


This actually doesn't happen a lot, it's just when it does it makes the news. There are only a few major incidents of this happening in history.
Any gun-owners here ever strip naked and stand in front of a mirror watching themselves stroking their guns? :)

@residentbiscuit found this, this is kind of what i had explained to me.

Re: .223 Caliber - NATO 5.56mm Rifle Round Designed To Maim - Not Kill
OP is totally barking up the wrong tree. There are very good reasons for adopting the smaller round for military applications.

NATO was considering that the majority of its fighting would have taken place in built-up urban areas in Europe. In such situations it is a good idea to use rounds that are less powerful so that they only impact the intended target and do not carry on and make collateral damage to unintended civilians or friendly troops.

Also it is very important to maximise magazine capacity and weight savings in combat. The smaller rounds help this too.


all though recently squadies will start to be armed the old fasioned way, all the poor countries still use old fasioned ammo and nato troops find themselves outranged LOL

@moschops im not allowed a real gun so i have to make do with a plastic one :D
Last edited on
"This is my rifle. This is my gun. This is for fighting, and this is for fun."
@devonrevenge: The idea that the 5.56x45mm is designed to maim has its merit. It was designed with the impression that the enemy you were fighting wouldn't leave a wounded soldier behind. The idea was if you wounded one soldier then two of his squad mates would have to drag him back to safety or at the very least they would have to stay put and wait for extraction. In this scenario you've taken three soldiers out of the fight with one round. That being said there are international laws that require soldiers to use FMJ ammunition which is the real reason for the maiming effect that it has.

The 5.56 x 45mm may have been chosen by NATO because they thought it would be more useful in urban areas but it was picked by America because of the, lighter weight, flat trajectory and tighter MOA over the .308 that was used in the M14.

Oh yeah, and if you think that a rifle designed to fire a .223 will also fire a 5.56 NATO, then you've just discredited everything you claim to "know" about guns.
noooo i just found that quote, i didnt cut it out cleanly.

the only guns ive been introduced too are the multi tuby ones that go boom in farms and the funny green and black one that squadies hate cos it falls apart in your hand when you use it
Last edited on
Yea a .223 and 5.56 aren't the same round, but they have near identical dimensions and most guns designed for a .223 are also made to handle a 5.56. A friend of mine has a mini-14 that's chambered for a .223 but also supports a 5.56 NATO with very minimal work.

I was using the comparisons for people who think 5.56 NATO and 7.62 NATO are meant for only conflict situations. It's a common argument against "assault weapons".
Topic archived. No new replies allowed.
Pages: 1234