which is the deadliest round?

[beergood]

the .223, 30-06, 40 s&w, or 12 gauge?

[DonP]

1. In terms of number of fatalities, I've read its the humble .22 LR

Also the favorite for Chicago mob hits as well.

But mainly due to the low cost and sheer number of guns that shoot .22s, it makes sense.

[freebrew]

2. I was told a while back...

that the 9mm has surpassed the .22. Sort of makes sense, it's the easiest to get hold of nowadays.

No data though, just sayin'.

[beergood]

4. should all semi-autos

be banned?

[freebrew]

17. nope

[beergood]

3. than why is the ar 15

chambered in .223 the most controversial firearm?

there are plenty of semi auto .22lr.

[Waldorf]

18. Because it looks scary and people think its an automatic weapon that the military uses. n/t

[DonP]

5. .22 has been around the longest too

If I recall it dates back to the 1860's for the .22 short rimfire?

[beergood]

6. thats for the first

smokeless powder brass cratinge? correct?

[DonP]

7. I think it was for a Smith & Wesson pocket pistol

A brass cased .22 short (today's sizing) rimfire cartridge pocket pistol.

They sold a lot of them to Union officers as a back up pocket gun in the Civil War and the convenience of the self contained cartridge really helped drive the development of larger cartridges.

[beergood]

9. agreed

self contained, repeating firearms were highly desired.

[DonP]

10. My great, great grandfather bought his men Henry's and Sharps

His diary goes into detail on how he "loaned" his men the money to buy Henry rifles and Sharps. He also goes into detail on how good the Sharps was for "keeping the Rebs at a distance" and how "no human could withstand the volley of fire the Henry produces".

He bought the ammo through his store and had it shipped privately to him along the Mississippi. He didn't trust the Army supply people to get it to them in time. So his wife became the "supply department" for his unit and his adult sons the delivery team by steamboat and wagon.

He was a Captain of Infantry and his unit fought on the Western campaign with Grant, then with Sherman after Vicksburg.

The Sharps were used for distance work out to 300 yards and the Henry's for close quarter battle.

If I had a choice I'd want the guys around me to have the fastest shooting repeating rifles available too, even if I had to go into hock for them.

[beergood]

11. screw you

the 2nd amendment only allows for muzzleloading muskets.

and the nra was founded to facilitate an overthrow of the government.

[DonP]

12. I wish I'd inherited just one of those Henry's or Sharps

I could retire comfortably on what it would sell for at an auction today.

[Eleanors38]

13. Quite a tale, DonP. ^^^

[pablo_marmol]

22. Thanks for sharing interesting family history DonP! NT

[beergood]

8. will someone

who is not banned from the other group please post this?

[GreydeeThos]

20. Consider it done

http://www.democraticunderground.com/126211608

On edit I now find myself on the ban list. I am not sure if this is a good thing, or a bad thing. It only took 21 minutes from post to ban.

Such is life

[Duckhunter935]

21. They do not like any discussion in that group

And they think we are scared, lol

[beergood]

31. not a suprise

whats screwy is that, these two groups should work together to end gun violence.

im a bisexual atheist who detest violence, i do not own firearms to cause harm, but rather to defend myself and loved ones.

folsom street fair was awesome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folsom_Street_Fair, i want to attend sf pride eventually. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Pride

[flamin lib]

14. The one that hits you. nt

[benEzra]

24. Some data on which bullets hit the most people was just released today...

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2015/crime-in-the-u.s.-2015/tables/table-20

Rifle rounds were once again responsible for the fewest deaths in 2015: 252 by rifle (including "assault weapons&quot , 269 by shotgun, 6447 by handgun.

[flamin lib]

25. Great. Since hand guns kill 5 times more than rifles do

it makes sense to ban them instead of assault rifles.

Just applying gunner logic.

[benEzra]

26. The prohibitionists have certainly tried.

But given that people with violent felony records commit 10-20 times more gun murders (almost exclusively with handguns) than people with clean records do, and there is widespread consensus that violent criminals shouldn't be allowed to commit mayhem with guns, maybe we should focus the interdiction efforts on the already-identified bad actors rather than trying to take away the rights of background-checked, squeaky-clean noncriminals, homeowners, sport shooters, etc., no?

I think the organized gun control lobby really doesn't give a crap about gun misuse, since it is primarily fighting to demonize and criminalize the people with clean records, jobs, training, often prior military/LE experience, government licensure, even security checks/clearances, etc., while giving violent criminals a free pass. How often do you guys demonize concealed-carry licensees or AR-15 owners/shooters, vs. violent felons?

The thing is, legislating rifle stock shape, or making it a felony as serious as rape for 60+ million people to possess the circa-half-billion magazines currently in their gun safes, or curtailing where vetted concealed-carry licensees can carry, isn't going to do a damn thing about the few tens of thousands of felons who actually commit the overwhelming majority of murders and gun-involved assaults in this country. But that isn't really the point, is it?

[flamin lib]

27. I just turned your own logic on it's head.

Ya wanna go some more? Ok since it makes no sense to ban assault weapons by definition, let's ban the function that makes them so lethal. No semi auto weapons with interchangeable magazines, period. Stop pussy footin round with hand grips and bayonet lugs. Just ban the things that make them more lethal than wheel guns and bolt actions.

I'm good with that. You've made a good case for it.

Let us proceed . . .

Oh, and Marengo or whatever, you're on ignore so post your ass off.

[beergood]

30. have you evevr

studied ww1?

[Straw Man]

32. Ah yes, the slippery slope.

I just turned your own logic on it's head.

Ya wanna go some more? Ok since it makes no sense to ban assault weapons by definition, let's ban the function that makes them so lethal. No semi auto weapons with interchangeable magazines, period. Stop pussy footin round with hand grips and bayonet lugs. Just ban the things that make them more lethal than wheel guns and bolt actions.

Actually, what you've done is reveal your true agenda.

Wheel guns and bolt actions were a huge step forward in lethality in the 19th century. So let's stop pussyfooting around and ban all repeaters. Back to single shots! Wait, what's that you see? Breech-loading is faster than muzzle loading? And cartridges load faster than powder and ball? OK, back to powder and ball. Percussion caps? Nay, I say! Flintlock or nothing!

Wait -- why do we let commoners have guns anyway?

[Marengo]

33. As for ignition systems, the firelock was a significant improvement over the matchlock,

Which itself was a significant improvement over applying flame or heated wire by hand to a touch hole. I think maybe we're down to halbards.

[benEzra]

35. Thank you. We agree on something. That's a start.

it makes no sense to ban assault weapons by definition

Thank you. We agree on something. That's a start.

let's ban the function that makes them so lethal.

They're not "so lethal". Rifles account for fewer deaths than any other type of weapon in the United States, even though detachable-magazine semiautos are the most common rifles in U.S. homes, and by far the most common rifles used in the shooting sports.

No semi auto weapons with interchangeable magazines, period.

Haha, now you sound like the Catholics who demand a ban on all hormonal contraceptives. Run the numbers. That'd be one of the fastest ways I can think of for your movement to slide completely into irrelevance.

Not many members of your personal echo chamber may own semiautos, but that doesn't mean semiautos as a group aren't the most popular rifles on the market. I don't have the numbers handy, but I'd expect that two thirds or more of the civilian rifle market is semiauto---not just all the modern-looking centerfires and .22's, but the old-fashioned ones like the Mini-14, the 10/22, and all those Remingtons and Savages and Marlins. Not. Going. To. Happen.

Mini-14's aren't even banned in California, Massachusetts, or New York City, for Pete's sake. Mini-14's, AR-15's, 10/22's, and all manner of other detachable-mag semiautos are legal in Canada and most of Europe, and you think you're going to outlaw them in the United States?

Stop pussy footin round with hand grips and bayonet lugs. Just ban the things that make them more lethal than wheel guns

They're not "more lethal than wheel guns (sic)"; revolvers kill ten times more Americans annually than all rifles combined, not just those with detachable magazines. All told, semiauto rifles of any type account for maybe a third as many annual deaths as bicycles do (722 people died riding bicycles in the most recent year I have stats for). Once again, you're forgetting that all rifles combined account for less than 350 deaths/yr out of 13,500 or so, and semiautos are only a subset of that.

By discarding the silly handgrip-aesthetic rules (which even you admit are ludicrous) and going after all detachable-mag semiautos, all you've done is expand the number of people you want to threaten with prison for rifle ownership, from the ~25-30 million who own modern-looking rifles to the, what, 50-60+ million who own any detachable-magazine semiauto rifle?

But that doesn't matter, because you hate rifles and the people who own them, so you don't give a fuck about inconvenient facts like the FBI data on weapon misuse.

As to handguns, how many of your fellow citizens own handguns now---70, 80 million? You're not going to ban them, period. So you might think about focusing on getting them out of the hands of the few thousand urban criminals that commit 80% of U.S. murders (ever heard of Project Ceasefire?), rather than trying to take them away from the lawful and nonviolent. But of course, your posts make clear that you despise vetted carry license holders far more than you despise the felons who actually commit most homicides.

[flamin lib]

36. You are beginning to sound batshit crazy.

I do not hate rifles. I do not hate guns. I do not hate gun owners. I do not hold all cc holders in disregard, just the 95% (my estimate based on personal observation) that are just paranoid, agoraphobic, racist and too foolish to know what they are doing.

Not going to happen? Give me and my movement the 46 years your movement has had and see where it goes.

Fling all the numbers ya' want on the wall. They'll only stick for so long. Gun owners are in the minority of voters in the US. The numbers are shrinking. The number of hard core 'cold dead hands' gun owners are dying off at a rapid rate.

We won't win tomorrow and maybe not in my lifetime--I only have 20 or so years left--but we will win. It happened in Australia and in most of the rest of developed nations.

Conversation over. We agree to disagree. No point in continuing.

You have, however, made a compelling case to ban pistols and ban based on function.

[GreydeeThos]

37. flamin lib advocates voting away citizen's right to keep and bear arms

In your opinion flame, what other rights need to be voted away?

[flamin lib]

38. I thought the other guy was a bit off. Now I get you.

Well recognized gungeon tactic: can't have a conversation with just one gunner, have to take them all on.

FYI, like it makes a difference, I have not advocated taking away a right. The sacred second does not grant the right, in Saint Scalia's words, the right to have any gun for any reason in any place at any time.

There are NO unlimited rights. Embrace the concept.

[GreydeeThos]

39. The Second Amendment to the Constitution does not grant a right

The Second Amendment to the Constitution puts a restriction on the Federal Government not to diminish the right to keep and bear arms. The right to bear arms is a preexisting right that precedes the formation of our Government and thus cannot be "granted".

[flamin lib]

41. In that case please stop citing the second amendment and the bill of rights.

The restriction on the 'right' is interpreted by the SCOTUS. I paraphrased Scalia in Heller.

Who or what granted the 'right' you speak of?

[GreydeeThos]

48. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is a natural right

The right has existed as long as there have been humans. The right was never granted.

[flamin lib]

49. Okay. Natural law (or rights) stems from a philosophical tradition and is based on nothing

other than that. Like any other religion or superstition it has no basis in fact and cannot be proven to be valid.

If something can be taken from you that thing is granted to you by the authority that can take it away. Gun rights can be taken from you for committing a felony, having a restraining order or for being adjudicated mentally unfit. Therefore the governing agencies in these instances grant you the right to own guns. They also define what kinds of guns you can have or, for that matter, any other means of self defense, i.e. large knives, nun-chucks etc.

You can *claim* natural law but I can reject that claim as fatuous.

All that aside just embrace the fact that no right is unlimited.

[GreydeeThos]

50. flamin lib makes up their own definition of "natural right"

Then talks themselves around in a circle, and arrives back at voting to remove citizen's rights.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

51. Should one decide unilaterally that it's a good idea to ban most or all semi-auto arms...

...why should it be suspect when that the same individual should differ with numerous attorneys, legislators, statesmen, political scientists and any of the other countries of the world acknowledging innate and preexisting human rights? It has been said that the US Constitution is the most valued thinking to have been shared with the world by the US.

Since that seventeenth day of September 1787, a one-document constitution has been deemed an essential characteristic of nationhood. Today, of the 192 independent nations of the world, all but a very few have such a constitution or are committed to having one.
.....
The U.S. Constitution has withstood the test of time. U.S. constitutional research is a major project in at least a dozen countries, as its value is being analyzed with a view to the writing of new constitutions.

Albert P. Blaustein was professor of law at Rutgers (The State University of New Jersey) School of Law. He authored numerous scholarly works on the subject of constitutionalism including a six-volume work on the U.S. Constitution entitled Constitution of Dependencies and Special Sovereignties. Blaustein helped draft more than 40 constitutions worldwide and visited many of those countries. In 1991, he helped to write the constitution for the Russian Republic. Professor Blaustein died in 1994.
http://iipdigital.usembassy.gov/st/english/article/2004/04/20040402110801maduobba0.7845575.html

A person writing on the internet has now convinced me that all of that is just BS.

For perspective, imagine you left your car window open with your favorite pair of hiking boots on the seat next to the window. Since I can reach in as I walk by and take them, does that imply that I gave them to you? Or that somehow my respect for your property and not taking them gives me some share in your skill, sacrifice or work to acquire them?

[flamin lib]

52. You are not worth my time.

You have, however, set a record for the fewest posts to get to my ignore list.

[GreydeeThos]

53. Twenty one minutes to get banned and four post to go on ignore

I am either on some kind of roll, or I am skidding down a steep slope to utter ruin.

Maybe I am being influenced by Mercury in retrograde.

[beergood]

56. "Okay. Natural law (or rights) stems from a philosophical tradition and is based on nothing"

"If something can be taken from you that thing is granted to you by the authority that can take it away."

excellent we can now ban that same sex marriage ruling, as well as that pesky right to choose. after all any authority that can grant rights can also take them away. to hell with human/natural rights. the authoritarian body determines which rights we plebs get to enjoy.

[flamin lib]

58. Yep. Just like slavery and the way we have treated (and still do) Native Americans.

The SCOTUS granted the right to same sex marriage. Prior to that the States had the power to restrict that right and did so.

The Federal Government placed enough restrictions on full auto and short barreled rifles to make them all but illegal. Sawed off shotguns and any other number of things as well.

I know beer is good but you should clear your head and see the world as it is, not how you want it to be.

[beergood]

60. "I know beer is good but you should clear your head and see the world as it is, not how you want it"

agreed that is why i read everything and anything.

you should as well.

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/12/gun-rhetoric-vs-gun-facts/

&list=PLOOwSORhCX7a6L8Quj6fa5d5mRJUmUdQ1

http://www.planetebook.com/ebooks/1984.pdf
http://msxnet.org/orwell/animal_farm.pdf
http://www.idph.com.br/conteudos/ebooks/BraveNewWorld.pdf
http://www.secret-satire-society.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Ray-Bradbury-Fahrenheit-451.pdf
http://www.greatwar.nl/books/meinkampf/meinkampf.pdf

http://www.cpofohio.org/PDF/Book-KJVBible.pdf
https://www.alislam.org/quran/Holy-Quran-English.pdf
https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems-and-poets/poems/detail/43521
http://www.neshaminy.org/cms/lib6/PA01000466/Centricity/Domain/380/text.pdf
http://www.scuc.txed.net/webpages/cmatthews/files/beowulf.pdf

[flamin lib]

61. *sigh* Everything you cite here is just more philosophy.

Some of it very good and inspiring but just philosophy based on nothing but somebody's deep thoughts. It has all the validity of any other superstition like the one that has a guy die, lay dead for three days, get up and meet with his old buddies and then fly away to become an imaginary friend in the sky.

Believe what you want, I can't change that but know that if the government wants to ban a kind of gun they can and will. Natural law is no match for duly passed criminal and civil law.

I'm not going to change your mind and you damn sure aren't going to change mine. Now have the last word, declare victory and go away.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

62. Don't you know that good and evil is all in your mind?

The idea that one act is innately good and another innately evil is just determined by whatever philosophy you chose to adopt. Personally, my philosophy is that those subscribing to the aforementioned philosophy are better off ignored.

I don't involve myself in debates with someone claiming that water isn't wet either.

[beergood]

59. am i in the ignore list?

or are you refusing to reply?

[DonP]

40. "Well recognized gungeon tactic: can't have a conversation with just one gunner" Nah, not true.

Sure you can, it's called using a PM.

This is a group and anyone can chime in on a post.

Unlike some other censored "safe havens" with only 3 active participants.

Now, please point out who ever said "any gun, any reason, any place et.al"?

That's another example of just making shit up then pretending someone here actually said it.

It's called a straw man argument in polite circles or just lying in others.

[benEzra]

42. Most Western nations DON'T ban detachable-magazine semiautos...

It happened in Australia and in most of the rest of developed nations.

Most Western nations" don't ban detachable-magazine semiautos, a fact that you appear to have overlooked. Semiauto rifles with detachable magazines are popular among sport shooters in Canada, most European nations, New Zealand, etc. etc., as well as in the strictest gun-control jurisdictions in the USA (NYC, MA, CA, NJ). The UK and Australia are extreme outliers, and even the UK allows semiauto shotguns of unlimited capacity, including detachable-magazine Kalashnikovs.

http://www.guncity.com/firearms/all-firearms/centrefire/semi-auto/223-rem (New Zealand)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=189580 (Germany, Denmark, Sweden, France, Norway, Hungary, etc...)

http://www.rusmilitary.com/html/firearms_saiga12.htm (United Kingdom)

http://calibremag.ca/colt-canada-worth-the-wait/ (Canada)

Canadians can even own a couple detachable-magazine semiautos that Americans cannot, such as the Norinco T97, and the civilian Tavor was in Canadian homes long before Tavors were imported into the United States. The amount of background checking and red tape to own guns varies from country to country, but few Western nations ban the rifles you are trying to outlaw.

We won't win tomorrow and maybe not in my lifetime--I only have 20 or so years left--but we will win.

I am a Gen-X'er (40's now!); most "assault weapon" enthusiasts are a lot younger than you are. The Baby Boomers preferred bolt-actions and the occasional wooden-stocked M1A, but my generation and younger are the primary aficionados of more modern, smaller-caliber designs, and AR ownership definitely skews younger than bolt gun or M1A/Mini-14 ownership. And guess what kinds of target guns millenials most gravitate to. Even Bloomberg himself hasn't gone out on the limb you are standing on; he made no moves to try to ban detachable-magazine semiautos while mayor of NYC, nor has he since. Rifle bans were a gamble by Josh Sugarmann and the VPC to try to build momentum for new handgun restrictions, and that gamble backfired spectacularly and is still doing so.

As far as ownership numbers, states that actually license ownership and hence actually count lawful owners (IL, MA) show that gun ownership in those states has substantially *increased*. Most polls also show an upswing in the number of gun owners nationwide, making U Chicago's non-anonymous General Social Survey quite the outlier. NFA licensure and carry licensure are also up sharply since the 1990s and early 2000s, even as gun crime has fallen by half.

The rifle-ban efforts in this country in this country are primarily driven by a few wealthy Baby Boomers, and has dramatically less popular support now than even 20 years ago, thanks in large part to *precisely* the same damn-the-facts irrationality we are currently discussing. The gun confiscation movement in 2016 is sustained primarily by the gigabucks of a certain authoritarian Wall Street kingpin and old-money corporate media, not the grassroots.

I do not hold all cc holders in disregard, just the 95% (my estimate based on personal observation) that are just paranoid, agoraphobic, racist and too foolish to know what they are doing.

And yet carry license holders are dramatically *less* likely to commit violent crimes than the unlicensed, and dramatically less likely to wrongfully shoot someone than police officers are (even though we outnumber police officers by something like 20 to 1). I think your characterization of us as "95% paranoid, agoraphobic, racist and too foolish to know what we are doing" pretty much validates my point, does it not?

We agree to disagree.

That's *precisely* what I'm advocating---the right to disagree with you, and live peaceably and responsibly by my own choices regarding gun ownership. I respect your choices and your beliefs; I simply ask to be free to live by my own rather than yours.

[flamin lib]

43. Live by your own?

Yeah, like the guy who drives 110 on the freeway. Like the guy who makes a living selling child porn. Like the guy trafficking human beings.

When the majority decides that your beliefs are outside the norm for a healthy society they have the right and responsibility to change what is acceptable.

We all live with societal restraints on our impulses. There is usually a reason for it.

Have a good rest of your life.

At least you don't seem to believe that some imaginary friend in the sky gave you the right to own any particular king of gun.

[benEzra]

44. That you consider rifle ownership to be comparable to human trafficking and child porn...

pretty much explains where you are coming from on the whole ban-rifles thing. And again, most developed nations don't view rifles that way.

One of the founders of the modern gun-control lobby had something to say about rifle restrictions, back when rifles killed more than twice as many people annually as they do now:

&quot O)ur organization, Handgun Control, Inc. does not propose further controls on rifles and shotguns. Rifles and shotguns are not the problem; they are not concealable."

--Nelson T. "Pete" Shields, head of what is now the Brady Campaign 1978-1989 (Guns Don't Die--People Do, Priam Press, 1981, pp. 47-48).

I think a more relevant comparison is probably alcohol, even though alcohol kills 250 times as many people annually as rifles do. The initial attempt at prohibition, the resulting civil disobedience and political backlash, and the shift away from prohibition toward a "responsible use with enforcement to deter misuse" model is instructive for those who do actually care about reducing harm from violence.

[flamin lib]

45. Excuse me but I seem to have missed something.

Where did I advocate banning rifles? Are we talking past each other? It would seem so.

[Straw Man]

47. Yes, you have.

Excuse me but I seem to have missed something.

Where did I advocate banning rifles?

Right here:

No semi auto weapons with interchangeable magazines, period.

There's a whole lot of of rifles that fit under that umbrella, hoss. Rifles that you want to ban. You just said it.

[benEzra]

55. You have been advocating banning people's rifles all up and down this thread,

while studiously ignoring the fact that you're talking about banning guns that even Canada and most of Europe don't ban.

If you mean you haven't advocated banning *all* rifles, true. Just like the Volstead Act didn't ban *all* alcoholic beverages. But you are asking to ban a majority of rifles, e.g. detachable-mag semiautos, even though they account for less than 250 murders a year out of 13,500+.

Plus, since detachable-magazine pump-actions and lever-actions can deliver comparable rates of aimed fire to a semiauto, your putative semiauto ban would be pretty useless if you didn't also ban detachable-mag levers and pumps, too. Here's one detachable-magazine rifle that would be completely exempt from your proposed ban:







Pump-action, 5.56x45mm or 7.62x51mm, STANAG magazines, folding stock since it has no buffer tube.

The Australian gun-control lobby got pump shotguns banned for exactly that reason (rate of fire), and started going after lever-action shotguns hard last year. Australians can still own pump rifles like the Troy PAR on an ordinary Class B certificate, though, and the prohibitionists are very unhappy about it.

[flamin lib]

57. Ya' left out the semi auto pistols.

I'd like to see them go to.

[benEzra]

63. I'm sure you would. And undoubtedly revolvers, and "riot guns", and "sniper rifles"...

If all semiautos were to magically disappear overnight, the professional gun-control lobby would dust off their "Saturday Night Special" talking points (nobody needs small, low-powered revolvers, ban them); their "Vest Buster" and "Big Boomer" talking points (nobody needs large, high-powered revolvers, ban them); and their "Sniper Rifles" talking points (nobody needs high-powered bolt-actions, ban them). Then there'd be "Combat Shotguns" and "Riot Guns" (nobody needs .729 caliber military-style weapons of mass destruction, ban them), and "Silent Killers" (nobody needs .22LR assassin's weapons, ban them), and "Cop-Killer Bullets" (nobody needs any modern rifle caliber at all, ban them).

I'll pass. We'll keep our Title 1 civilian guns, thanks. All of them.

[friendly_iconoclast]

65. Gun control advocacy attracts bullshit artists, like all prohibitionism. DU is not exempt

They come in several varieties. All are (according to them) the smartest, most concerned/caring
person in the room and purport to "know" what others do and do not "need"

Some are of more than one type:

*The Royalist Gun Owner- "*My* firearms are just fine- it's *those people* (and/or
their guns) that are the problem!"

*The Veteran- "I was (Army/Navy/Air Force/Marines) and (carried/served on) (Weapon
System X). Nobody needs an assault rifle/weapon!"

*The Fudd- Inevitably mentions that they do not own any firearm with post-19th Century
technology and declares that no one needs a gun designed after 1900. If pressed, may grudgingly
accept M-1 Garands.

*The Expert- Knows far more about guns than you ignorant sociopathic racist peasants do,
and is not a bit shy about letting you know that.

If confronted by evidence that they in fact do *not* know what they are talking about
(or are simply flat-out wrong) they press on as if they never saw it, a la Donald Trump.

[beergood]

66. agreed

"That's *precisely* what I'm advocating---the right to disagree with you, and live peaceably and responsibly by my own choices"
exactly! thats what we all want, to be left alone and live in peace. how each of us chooses to live our lives is nobody business. pro-gun or anti-gun, black or white, gay or straight. religious or atheist. pro pot or anti pot. republican or democrat. regardless of your beliefs and life choices, as long as you aren't causing harm to others than you should have the right to do it. isn't that the liberal ideology?

[Duckhunter935]

28. But they are not trying too

They are obsessed with scary black plastic semi-automatic rifles

[melm00se]

15. the well aimed one that hits the target

is the deadliest one.

[Littlepawkitty]

67. I'd add..

Vital organs of a living target.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

16. You're short on criteria

By deadliest do you mean the round which has historically killed more than any other?
If so, over what chronological period or of all time without limits?

Are you considering geography as in only homicides and acts of war in the US or is anywhere in the world (or the whole world) fair game?

Are you actually asking which round has the potential to do the most ballistic damage per shot?

Did you have combination of those criteria in mind? (e.g. most homicides in the US during 2013)

(Sorry, I'm an engineer.)

[ManiacJoe]

19. ^^^ Exactly this.

[pablo_marmol]

23. ^^ Yup. NT

[beergood]

29. good questions

[The Green Manalishi]

34. I have a 300 Winchester Magnum

its' a 30-06 pumped up

Meant for one thing, really. Elk. I'm sure that a 200 grain bullet at about 2800 FPS would not be a healthy thing to be hit by, but that has nothing to do with why I bought it (in a bolt action Winchester model 70, holds all of four rounds)....

[gejohnston]

46. I think a lot of it depends on placement and skill

of the shooter. Back in the day, Israeli air marshalls carried .22 LR Beretta 70s.

During the incident that took place in February of 1969, Israeli Sky Marshal Mordechai Rachamim engaged several heavily armed Arab terrorists as they attacked an EL Al airliner on a snow covered runway in Zurich. Despite the odds against him, the young Israeli sky marshal expertly used his issued Beretta Model 70 pistol to kill one of the Palestinian terrorists, moments before the Zurich Police arrived and took the remaining terrorists into custody. The three surviving male Palestinian terrorists received 12-year jail sentences for attacking a commercial airliner with machine guns and explosives that resulted in the killing and wounding of several passengers and crew. Sky Marshal Mordechai Rachamim became an instant hero at home in Israel.

http://www.talkofthevillages.com/forums/villages-florida-general-discussion-73/shooters-world-break-ground-new-store-gun-range-villages-206124/index4.html

[deathrind]

54. The one that

Kills its target 🎯 ... just a guess.