>>253

>>Volunteer's untainted Straight blood
>>I gave them a bit of my blood
DOES NOT COMPUTE!

http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/crime/2010/02/24/sot.dan.austin.intv.insession

Some highlights:

>"This rifle seems like a rife you would use when your trying to hit something."
>.223 is for killing lions and elephants
>Never clean a firearm in your house because it's dangerous
>Side folding stock = more dangerous
>The speed of sound is 620 or 680 miles per hour.
>The round is supersonic, so you can't hear it when it's coming towards you, thus it's more dangerous
>Weapon like that should only be possessed by a highly trained specialist, not a civilian.

>>297
I wish I knew more about guns...so I can't really rage at that. I don't even understand what the rage is about? Are we supposed to be for or against this guy? Based on the content on this board I'm thinking against...but the ridiculousness of that picture you posted verges on satire...I just don't know.

>>298
Against, and there's nothing ridiculous about my picture!

This is yet another case of people who don't know what they're talking about going on TV and acting like they're experts, trying to hide the fact that what they're talking about is either harmless or common as though it were the most deadly thing in the world by talking in numbers.

The guy says that the .223 round is meant for hunting big game.. The .223 routinely has trouble killing a human, do you have any idea how many rounds you'd have to put into a fucking elephant or lion before they even began to be more than just annoyed? Lets put it this way.. A .50 caliber bullet is around the size of your thumb and it sure as fuck won't put down an elephant without a good bit of luck.. Why would a bullet that's about half the length of your pinky (and much thinner) be used for hunting elephants?

Plus, in the video, he says something like "It takes between 3 and 7 pounds of pressure to pull the trigger, lets average that out and we'll get 3.5 pounds."

Do the math in your head real quick.

>>297
>>300

I rofled.

.22s have trouble killing humans at most ranges past point blank. (They are excellent assassination tools at close range, especially with .22 revolvers. The bullet will enter the skull cavity, but doesn't have enough energy to exit, so it ricochets around inside the skull. Brain swiss cheese.)

The bullet being supersonic and as such being silent? wow.

>>302
>>The bullet will enter the skull cavity, but doesn't have enough energy to exit, so it ricochets around inside the skull. Brain swiss cheese.

>>300
sorry, like I said, I have literally no knowledge about guns. I did not grow up in an environment that supported them or their use. Again, sorry.

>The .223 routinely has trouble killing a human...
>.22s have trouble killing humans at most ranges past point blank.

*facepalm* The .223 was the basis for the 5.56 NATO, the round used in the M16 and many other assault rifles around the world, including the Galil that was the basis for the weapon in that video; it has no problem killing people.

...It smells like irony in here.

>>306
>it has no problem killing people.

The 5.56mm NATO round has received a large amount of criticism because of its lack of STOPPAN POWAH compared to the ubiquitous 7.62mm round. The 5.56mm still generates more than a bit of debate in military circles due to how often it fails to achieve a kill, incapacitation or knock down on the first shot and it's not exactly uncommon for a 5.56mm NATO round to go straight through a target without yawing or fragmenting as it should. But anyway, this is all going a bit off topic. To summarize.. All bullets can kill a human, just like all knives can. The difference is that some bullets and knives are much better suited for it than others.

>>309
>To summarize.. All bullets can kill a human, just like all knives can. The difference is that some bullets and knives are much better suited for it than others.
I thought the point was that reporters can't get guns right no matter how hard they try.

>>311
Lets put it this way..

If you try to kill an elephant or any big game with a .223, you better get insanely lucky or be a long distance away when you try it.

>>313
Yeah, that's a given. There was a guy who did quite a bit of elephant hunting with the 7mm mauser that is the smallest round ive heard of being used on them. If I was going against something that damn big I'd want a barrett xm109 at the least though i would prefer a howitzer LOL.
BTW, thanks for >>314

What kind of ammunition would it take to take down a Lolarbear?

>>316

Hammer Rounds.

>>297, this guy sounds like he did all his research on /k/.

>>317
Someone has been playing Mass Effect recently..

>>318
Surprisingly enough, the amount of trolling on /k/ has gone down a decent bit since /new/ came back.

>>297
I don't know anything at all about guns, so I'll just talk about the obvious stuff here.

>the speed of sound is roughly what, 620 or 680 miles per hour.
according to wikipedia, the speed of sound (at sea level) is 768 mph. that and I'm pretty sure most bullets go faster than the speed of sound, so that entire comment is pointless.

>sporting rifle, hence it's a knockoff of a military rifle.
really, this doesn't even make any sense to me. at all.

>this is a weapon that kills.
duh. most weapons tend to do that.

>for the basic common citizen to own something like this is ridiculous.
well, there's something I actually agree with him about. I don't see a reason why the average person would need a semi-automatic gun. certainly not for home defense.

>between 3 and 7 pounds of pressure... let's average that out to 3.5
math fail.

>>324
>according to wikipedia, the speed of sound (at sea level) is 768 mph. that and I'm pretty sure most bullets go faster than the speed of sound, so that entire comment is pointless.
There are actually numerous subsonic rounds, but that's not the point. The point is that he's supposed to be communicating facts, not this blatant misinformation.

>I don't see a reason why the average person would need a semi-automatic gun. certainly not for home defense.
...Do you even know what "semi-automatic" means?

>>325
okay, disregard that second point. I'm going to conveniently blame it on me being tired and not remembering that a lot of handguns even are semi-automatic.

but the point still stands that I can't think of a reason why someone would have that unless they were a gun collector or in the military.

>>325
>The point is that he's supposed to be communicating facts, not this blatant misinformation.

Not to mention that rounds that go faster than the speed of sound aren't exactly new to put it mildly.

>>326
>but the point still stands that I can't think of a reason why someone would have that unless they were a gun collector or in the military.

You don't know what semi-automatic means, that's fine. It simply means that every time you pull the trigger, the round in the chamber is fired and the next round in the magazine is loaded. This means that you have to pull the trigger every time you want to send a round down range.

This contrasts an automatic firearm where you only need to hold down the trigger and it will continue to fire, load, repeat until you let go of the trigger or empty the magazine. Needless to say, that getting such a firearm in the US is quite a hassle.

If a firearm is neither semi or fully automatic, that means that every time you squeeze the trigger, you then have to manually reload the weapon.

>>326
>but the point still stands that I can't think of a reason why someone would have that unless they were a gun collector or in the military.
They're fun. That's all the reason we need. I sense trolling, but I dunno.
>>324
>sporting rifle, hence it's a knockoff of a military rifle.
>really, this doesn't even make any sense to me. at all.
Sporting rifles are old military designs. Well, there are some newer designs that aren't, but the main ones are all '98 mauser actions with small changes.

I hear that argument every now and then.

I'll give the short version.

1) I have the right to own them, and because criminals also have them. (big shocker, criminals don't obey the law).
2) They're awesome.
3) Why do people trust police and military more than their fellow citizens? Haven't you ever heard of a police state or military junta?
4)The more lead you get out in any kind of hostile situation the better chance you have of stopping your target.

I don't know if this is rageworhty, lolworthy, or just plain sad.

>>350

Ehhhhh, I sniff troll.

If not, and they actually believe that, then yes, it's sad.

>>351
Based on his emoness of the reply, I'd say it's sad.

>>350

Jeez, I just don't see what this guys problem is. I sure wish I had enough nuclear warheads to shame the Cold War just lying around. I'd sell them off and buy me something nice.

>>359

... He just keeps justifying my hatred...

>>359

Huh, i can't seem to find that thread...

It's in the off topic forum. You can't even see it unless you have 250+ posts.

>>369

That would probably explain it... wait, why do i need 250+ posts just to access it?

>>374
back in the day, there was an off topic and roleplay forum open to all, but people were signing up to just post on those two boards and contribute nothing but their own innane blather

>>375

>>Katbox

>>innane blather

OH YOU THINK YOU'RE FUNNY DONT YOU?!

WELL HOW DO YOU LIKE...


well I can't really do anything to you here. Rats.

(And nothing of value was lost.)

>>378
You rang?

>>378
I am God here, ID!

yes,yes,well.....

1. FaceNuke

When doing a facepalm isn't enough there is facenuke. Basically a facenuke is something you do when you are in the presence of extreme stupidity.
Narby CSS player:

"Liek hwo do ay bai gun?!?! pls answar pls plox pls."

Random player: *Facenuke*

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=facenuke

Makes me rage like no tomorrow.

>>481
This is such bullshit. Are they even thinking of the kids? Dammit, planning to cash in on his inheritance? That is really low.

>>483
Wait. I just checked out the website nomarriage...I think I'm raeging for the wrong reasons now.

>>536

ALL of my hate..

>>576

>>579