Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You cannot easily convert an AR15 to full auto...there is no room for the sear.
A person with the equipment an expertise to make the conversion has the expertise and equipment to build an automatic weapon from scratch.
You cannot easily convert an AR15 to full auto...there is no room for the sear.
A person with the equipment an expertise to make the conversion has the expertise and equipment to build an automatic weapon from scratch.
It's more deadly on semi-auto.
You cannot easily convert an AR15 to full auto...there is no room for the sear.
A person with the equipment an expertise to make the conversion has the expertise and equipment to build an automatic weapon from scratch.
It's more deadly on semi-auto.
You cannot easily convert an AR15 to full auto...there is no room for the sear.
A person with the equipment an expertise to make the conversion has the expertise and equipment to build an automatic weapon from scratch.
It's more deadly on semi-auto.
Less deadly than a standard police pistol in close quarters.
You cannot easily convert an AR15 to full auto...there is no room for the sear.
A person with the equipment an expertise to make the conversion has the expertise and equipment to build an automatic weapon from scratch.
It's more deadly on semi-auto.
You are exactly right. Many police SWAT teams get M16's from the Dept of Defense surplus program, and they disable the "full auto" function for just that reason. "Spray and pray" is great for mass warefare. But in close quarters, its far better to be very selective of your target and conserve ammo.
For example, if I had an M16 on full auto with 3 x 30 round mags, I'd have 90 bullets. Lets say there are 80 bad guys coming at me. On full auto, I hit maybe 30 of 'em before running dry. On semi-auto, I hit over 50, maybe 60, if it is within 50 yards.
Semi-auto is great, because it doesnt waste ammo. Full-auto is for mass warfare, nothing more.
Many school systems have a School Resource Officer Program. These are real police officers that are assigned to a school. They provide a degree of protection for students but it's not their primary role. (See the write-up below.)Just for the record, Im all for putting a cop in a school. But not a security guard, not for THIS purpose.
Yes, security guards have been in the inner city schools for a while. They mostly babysit a metal detector (BTW, how come no one is talking about metal detectors in schools????). They dont take action. Why? THEY DONT HAVE AUTHORITY TO. When they see something, they call the cops. Because they aren't cops.
But for the purpose of stopping an active suicidal shooter, do you want a $10 an hour fatass who couldnt get a job with the military or police, and who has not been put through a lie detector or psych eval like cops have to go through? Is THAT who you want in your school to protect you kids? OR, is the extra money to go ahead and hire some off duty cops worth it?
OR...how about this: Every state has a constable or reserve police program. We have so many ex-military guys out there. Get them sworn in, deputized, and let them man the schools if they want.
But I bet people aren't willing to work for free...not for too long. Right now its emotional. But what happens in 4 years when things have calmed down and people are worried about other shit?
It's more deadly on semi-auto.
Less deadly than a standard police pistol in close quarters.
Then why do SEALS and Rangers make close quarters room entry....with M16/M4 rifles (same bullet as an AR15) rather than a pistol?
Im just sayin...the military does it best. And they enter close quarters rooms with an M4/M16 that shoots a 5.56 NATO bullet...the exact same bullet the AR15 shoots.
The suggestion by NRA is to place armed guards at schools...not everywhere. We have armed guards elsewhere in the form of policemen who patrol the streets in uniform and as undercover agents.
The schools, being recognized as "gun free zones" lend themselves to shooters now and then. The armed guards would likely decrease the number of victims by taking out the shooter early in his rampage...or might even prevent the whole thing by recognizing a suspicious person and checking him out.
Who employs the guards is not as important as how well the guards are trained and equipped. A guard with a S&W six shot revolver will be no match for a loon with an AR-15 30-shot clip. The guard needs to have armor vest and lots of firepower and radios that can talk to the local police...plus lots of savvy.
I visualize new companies arising from this.
Less deadly than a standard police pistol in close quarters.
Then why do SEALS and Rangers make close quarters room entry....with M16/M4 rifles (same bullet as an AR15) rather than a pistol?
Im just sayin...the military does it best. And they enter close quarters rooms with an M4/M16 that shoots a 5.56 NATO bullet...the exact same bullet the AR15 shoots.
Because the military uses and trains with long range weapons...a rifle can be used for long range and short range, but a pistol, while more lethal is short range only.
A .223 caliber (5.56 in standard) bullet is the same diameter as a .22lr...it's longer, and roughly twice as heavy, and pointed (spitzer) not hollow point...and it's got a HUGE powder charge pushing it...Maybe five times that of a .22lr...meaning it's moving fast.
That is really good for you if you are close to it...that means it is going in and out without expanding and the wound is going to be very narrow in diameter.
Why? Because it's designed to engage targets at 300 meters.
It is all a function of muzzle velocity, sectional density and expansion after impact.
A .40 caliber, or 9mm is designed for close range.
They have a much higher sectional density and the charge is calculated for maximum expansion of the Hollow Point at a penetration of 7 to 10 inches.
This opens an enormous wound cavity, and creates hydrostatic shock (ballistic shockwaves).
Just youtube some ballistic gel tests and you'll see exactly what I am referring to.
When it comes to conservative partisans, their hypocrisy angers me. It's constant. So, it's not as if you have to try to find it like you're on a scavenger hunt.
But the blatant contradictions of conflicting fears is actually kind of comical.
Everyone, I'm sure has heard the NRA's proposed solution to school shootings of placing armed guards in all schools. Well, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that kind of a solutions lends itself to armed guards being stationed in increasing numbers of public places in order to assure that they're safe (if you believe the NRA contention that more guns make people safer).
Well, I knew it was just a matter of time until some public figure publicly embraced armed guards being placed everywhere. I heard it today in my car on a short drive when Mike Gallagher advocated it.
Now, for ALL those conservatives who worry about a police state, and tyranny, and an erosion of freedoms, how is it that this kind of solution that advocates placing armed guards (probably licensed by the state, and maybe even working for the state) in increasing numbers of public places (along with the idea that surveillance cameras should be placed in more public places) doesn't bother you MORE than a few sensible gun restrictions?
You want to talk about a loss of freedom and the potential for gov't having TOO MUCH power over the people, placing armed guards in more public places should worry you more than increased background checks and limiting the availability of high capacity magazines and/or assault-style semiautomatic rifles.
The only question at this point is how long it will be before someone on the right postulates that this was the "liberal plan" to take away the rights of citizens all along.
The world that a lot of conservatives seem to want, exists. I live 30 miles from Mexico. I cross the border regularly. As soon as one does that, one is confronted with pickup trucks loaded with federales, each of who is carrying an assault rifle. They are virtually everywhere. Sometimes, they set up check points and stop anyone driving down that street. They also have public shootouts with drug cartel members, which often involve 10 or more people gunned down in the street.
The answer to the gun problem is not more guns. It is less guns.
Secretly, many far right wing gun nuts hold the Waco folks up as heroes.
Why do the armed guards have to be provided by the state?
When i was bumming around South America in my youth every business had armed guards watching their doors at night and from what I could see none of them were employed by the government. And I doubt if any of those places were ever robbed
I didn't say that they all would be provided by the state. But you can darn well believe that they'll have to be licensed by the state. And if and when they're on gov't property, they will either be state employees or contracted for BY the state.
But there will be plenty of people who will want to hire trained professionals as opposed to the ubiquitous 'mall cops' we've come to know over the years.
Time and the human propensity to get more bang for the buck out of the investment of this expenditure in the hope of preventing more crime in general would only serve to give the people who hire these 'armed guards' (who are supposedly there for the protection of the general public) more reason to train these guards to spot suspicious behavior among the general public that they're supposedly protecting -- all in the name of protecting the general public.
Secretly, many far right wing gun nuts hold the Waco folks up as heroes.
The world that a lot of conservatives seem to want, exists. I live 30 miles from Mexico. I cross the border regularly. As soon as one does that, one is confronted with pickup trucks loaded with federales, each of who is carrying an assault rifle. They are virtually everywhere. Sometimes, they set up check points and stop anyone driving down that street. They also have public shootouts with drug cartel members, which often involve 10 or more people gunned down in the street.
The answer to the gun problem is not more guns. It is less guns.
No one makes you carry a gun. If you don't like them, don't use them. You have no right to regulate my property or tell me what I need.
Then why do SEALS and Rangers make close quarters room entry....with M16/M4 rifles (same bullet as an AR15) rather than a pistol?
Im just sayin...the military does it best. And they enter close quarters rooms with an M4/M16 that shoots a 5.56 NATO bullet...the exact same bullet the AR15 shoots.
Because the military uses and trains with long range weapons...a rifle can be used for long range and short range, but a pistol, while more lethal is short range only.
A .223 caliber (5.56 in standard) bullet is the same diameter as a .22lr...it's longer, and roughly twice as heavy, and pointed (spitzer) not hollow point...and it's got a HUGE powder charge pushing it...Maybe five times that of a .22lr...meaning it's moving fast.
That is really good for you if you are close to it...that means it is going in and out without expanding and the wound is going to be very narrow in diameter.
Why? Because it's designed to engage targets at 300 meters.
It is all a function of muzzle velocity, sectional density and expansion after impact.
A .40 caliber, or 9mm is designed for close range.
They have a much higher sectional density and the charge is calculated for maximum expansion of the Hollow Point at a penetration of 7 to 10 inches.
This opens an enormous wound cavity, and creates hydrostatic shock (ballistic shockwaves).
Just youtube some ballistic gel tests and you'll see exactly what I am referring to.
TACTICAL EDGE PRODUCTS, LLC - Home of Extreme Shock 223 Subsonic
Extreme Shock .223 (5.56 mm NATO) High-Velocity, Tactical Round, 62 grain, Hollow point, frangible ammunition. 3,024 fps, 1,173 ft. lbs., Pack of 6
The High Velocity Tactical (HVT) round is a M855 lead-free replacement, with tactical capability far superior to the M855. Accuracy and range are the same as the M855, yet the HVT offers enhanced tactical features, such as reduced exit, instant capacitation and ricochet reduction. Will deliver 1/2 MOA accuracy at 100 yards.
$17.99
Extreme Shock .223 (5.56mm NATO) Short Range Tactical Round, 55 grain, Hollow point, frangible ammunition. 2,425 fps, 715 ft. lbs., Pack of 6
The Short Range Tactical (SRT) round was designed for agencies needing maximum termination capability while defeating bullet-proof vests, yet not damaging structures with excess penetration. Excellent for power plants, airports, correctional facilities and other CQB situations. The SRT round will not damage steel targets or shoot houses. At the same time, it offers the same expansion capabilities and stopping power as the Fang Face and Air Freedom round. Will deliver 1/2 MOA accuracy at 100 yards.
$17.99
And they work really good in crowded school rooms with small targets.
