What makes me laugh is that through all the shootings in the US, they've totally failed to get a grip with banning any or certain types of firearms. One serious shooting and NZ have banned them in a week, its pretty remarkable.
Assault rifles and military-style semi-automatics have been banned in New Zealand
- Thread starter [FnG]magnolia
- Start date
All fair good, but not all .22 rounds are the same though. That you posted looks like a .22LR rimfire which, whilst being a small round, is perfectly capable of killing a person with ease. However, this is also a .22 - a polymer tipped .22-250 Remington to be exact (muzzle velocity is ~4000fps) and would most definitely give you a bad day if you get hit by one.
The cartridge on a 22-250 is a "necked" down .308 cartridge, thats a huge amount of powder for such a small round, thats how it achieves its 3650fps.You wouldnt belive the damage it does to foxes at 250 yards.Small vermin literally evaporate when.Some countries even use it as a sniper rifle in an urban enviroment due to the lack of riccohet.
I've never really got the argument over magazine capacity - it doesn't really make any odds in shootings like this - it might modify the way the shooter approaches the situation but won't impact much on the outcome - the only time it might be relevant is in some situation where someone is mag dumping 100 round drums at 100s of RPM fully automatic.
The most important aspect is rate of fire but is often one of the last considered aspects in kneejerk reactions to these kind of events. Also for the most part it is one aspect that impacts the least on gun enthusiasts and those that shoot for pleasure, etc. who are mostly fine with such restrictions the odd nutcase aside.
Why do you think that is?
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Apr 2013
- Posts
- 13,619
- Location
- La France
And that's a good thing, because .22 is a civilian round, whereas .223 is military.
The .22 (left) has a speed of ~1,600 feet per second. It creates small entry and exit wounds. The .223 (right) has a speed of 3,000 feet per second. It creates a larger wound as it enters, tumbles inside the body for maximum damage, and causes additional trauma on exit.
Which would you prefer to be hit by?
.223 Remington was (and still is) a civilian cartridge long before a young Eugene Stoner decidied it would make an effective intermediate range round with a tweaks when fired through the new lightweight rifle he was designing in the 1960s.
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Apr 2013
- Posts
- 13,619
- Location
- La France
Can’t speak for NZ, but Australia has a huge feral pig problem and a semi automatic rifle with good ergonomics and decent magazine capacity is ideal for culling them. Ask a rural Texan if you don’t believe me.
Clearly you've not seen Black Sheep!
Luckily NZ doesn't have the kind of gun nuts that the US does. Many won't mind ditching them if they are getting their money back.
I don't see why anyone needs an assault rifle at home, it won't protect you from the government like rednecks claim. They will just drone your house if they really wanted to get you.
I don't see why anyone needs an assault rifle at home, it won't protect you from the government like rednecks claim. They will just drone your house if they really wanted to get you.
The assumption is a large scale uprising against the government not the odd nut job having a stand off.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 1 Dec 2010
- Posts
- 53,766
- Location
- Welling, London
Why are people seemingly criticising it for being reactionary? Most gun bans in history have been reactionary. Looks at the UK, we only banned semi automatic rifles and repeating shotguns after Hungerford, and it took the death of many kids to get handguns banned. Statistics would no doubt show that those bans haven’t done us any harm, and probably saved many lives. The only mass shooting since was Bird in Cumbria, but there’s nothing more really that can be done with our gun laws.
Still won't really help you much unless you can convince a large portion of the military to join in
Not weird at all. NZ gun laws have always been more relaxed than Australian gun laws.
Please identify the 'extreme restrictions' in this new legislation.
It is, but only if you're careful enough to hit a vital spot. With a .223, almost anywhere qualifies as a vital spot because the damage is so much greater.
He did, because there's absolutely no valid logic in that argument.
Which would fail spectacularly.
