Law Snoll Posted December 15, 2012 Share Posted December 15, 2012 Rogue15, wow, i think i even didn't see even half of you list of weapon. In Army we had training with foreign firearms that were very interesting. Every day in training time each of us got a new foreign gun with scheme page of it (new gun every day). We had 5 minutes to disassemble it without help from aside, and if we were unsuccessful, then we could ask help of instructor. As i remember only two guns caused troubles for me - it was M60 machine gun and then German G3 rifle... too exotic for me. That one who disassembled a gun successfully, got a piece of chocolate, so that caused discuss between soldiers about guns (because of today you get M16, for example, and tomorrow i will get this gun). Then we were needed to load these weapon, go to shoot with it, return to class, disassemble weapon again, clean it, assemble and return to gun depot. So i was able to have work with lot of foreign guns of various eras (including pistols, revolvers, sub-machine guns, various rifles, including relatively modern assault rifles systems, machine guns and other). And, of cause, we learned to operate with Russian firearms too. Heh, and i remember one funny and scary episode, right about elk. Little group of soldiers with full ammunition were on their back to military camp at winter. I actually don't remember well where from did they goes, but they were fully equipped. There were three or four of them, i don't remember. It was very hard time for whole Russia and especially for those "post-Soviet" army, we often had even no food, so... Soldiers suddenly detected an wild elk who wandered near, so they decided to shoot it and drag to military base. Damn, lot of meat! So one of those soldiers aimed with his AK-74 and committed single shot. And then those soldiers understood how many of hidden possibilities there is in their bodies. One of those guys climbed on tree with all his winter ammunition and ski wear on. He never could to understand later HOW did he done it. Other soldiers were very fast to learn how to run on 1.5 meter deep snow with speed higher than their running speed in training camp. Thing that saved them from rage of elk was swamp. Elk did not trailed soldiers there. Later i saw one of AK-74s of those guys, that elk stepped on. It was really scary to see, rifle was just bended like a beer can. All of those idiots survived. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rogue15 Posted December 15, 2012 Share Posted December 15, 2012 yeah we have in our training time standards on clearing, disassembly, reassembly, then functions check. the M4/M16 is easy i didnt touch one from 2004-2011 (2004 i went to basic the first time, didnt make it so they chaptered me out, and last year i was able to go back in the military after doing a bunch of stuff trying to get back in) and in that time i still remembered exactly how to disassemble and reassemble it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Law Snoll Posted December 15, 2012 Share Posted December 15, 2012 Sure. We have standard for AK-series: partial disassemble of it for maintain in 20 seconds with closed eyes. It's simple as auto-pencil with button. What about American AR15 family... well, hard to say. IMHO it's generally not better and not worse than AK series. It's just another. Weapon of another military doctrine. I had no problems with disassemble and reassemble of it, it's simple and obvious. M16A2 has more "gentle behavior" than AKM or AK-74, a little more comfortable to handle it, but there's some of disadvantages in comparison to AK series. First - AR15 rifles are very strict about maintaining and cleaning. Rifle can easily make a defunkt right in the wrongest moment. More, when you cleaned rifle in warm room and then go to shoot outside where it is -40C... well, rifle won't shoot. Frost, dust, dirt, ash and burn affects American rifles too much, and that's bad. And second is - American rifles are very strict about quality of ammo. For example - hunting .223 rounds with metal painted cases (like this) are absolutely not appropriate to shoot with M16s that i saw, these rifle wants only cartridges with brass cases. But shooting process itself are very comfortable with M16, it feels like sport 22LR rifle, almost no recoil, while AKM jumps pretty roughly. Accuracy of single shots of both rifles are approximately same, everything depends on that one who shoots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rogue15 Posted December 15, 2012 Share Posted December 15, 2012 the m4/m16/ar15 shoots like a .22 squirrel hunting rifle really just with a louder bang. honestly i'd prefer the ak because of its durability...and you are absolutely right about the thing jamming at the worst times. happened to me at qualification, you have to constantly clean it even when you don't use it. and i hate when they make us train with blanks because that is a pain in the ass to clean out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Law Snoll Posted December 15, 2012 Share Posted December 15, 2012 Oh, right, they now started to test those new AK-12 assault rifle that looks much comfortable and advanced... but i yet can't tell anything about it because of i never see it. By the way, Rogue15, does people around you saying anything about Syria now? You know, i have here lot of media messages about success of Syrian troops against terrorists, people says it can cause rage of NATO who hope to overthrow legal Government of Syria. Lot of Russians started some sort of "information war" against NATO again, posting videos of terrorists atrocities on YouTube and other video channels. Looks like it became hot... at least here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rogue15 Posted December 15, 2012 Share Posted December 15, 2012 nothign than what i see on the news, i don't know i just hope they dont use their chemical weapons. but it looks like we are preparing launchers to shoot them down, from what i gather from whats on tv anyways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Law Snoll Posted December 15, 2012 Share Posted December 15, 2012 Oh, alright, it mean western media does not changed their position. Russian point of view is pretty passionate. Media says about those "American puppets" like Saudi Arabia (that always was source of Islamic extremism) and Qatar now provides huge support for the USA and NATO to destroy any opposition of their in Muslim world. Russian media says and show actual videos that is about lot of foreign mercenaries and terrorists now fighting against Syrian Government and Syrian Army. Damn, they said even about Chechen terrorists who is still survived, now fights against Syria! One Russian volunteer said he killed 2 of them yesterday and asked why doesn't Russia send UAVs and strike aviation into Syria to support locals to fight terrorists back. People seems very outraged with lying position of those so called "Friends of Syria" who said about terrorists as about "only legal Government of Syria" and especially about the United States that prepares themselves to provide a military operation against Assad. Also there's said about those economy and financial troubles of America when the United States rapidly looses their hegemony, already standing on edge of collapse because of huge debt and uncontrolled financial structures (well, we everybody know that Federal Reserve doesn't belongs to US Government and American people, it's private structure that fraudulently occupied right on printing of USD and killing American democracy in fact). It echoes with wish of Russian civilization to reunite (at least we have to talk about re-union of Russia, Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan), when Washington's officials directly lies about it, saying it is "resurrection of the Soviet Union", "creation of Putin's USSR-2" and "rise of imperial ambitions of Moscow", while it has nothing common to the reality. We are same people, same folk, same nation, same civilization, so we simply have no reason to live in many different states, with separated economies, different currencies and laws, many armies, so we here wishing to reunite all of them into one. It is not rebuilding of the USSR, it's just restoration of our country. Not less, not more. But it frights US Government who doesn't wants to see Russian space united and strong, doing everything to don't let it happen, and it being understood in Russia as direct hostility and wishing to exterminate Russian civilization. So people already says about "time to bleed nose of those uncle Sam a little to wean him intrude into not of his business". Well, of cause, there's also much being said about "ban dirty green paper in Russia", "never buy US bonds anymore", "no collaboration to those terrorists supporters in Washington". Why do i writing this? I'm really afraid those situation around Syria can became last drip that overflow "the jar of patience" of Russians, and then NATO will face not Kremlin rage, but rage of Russian people. I'm afraid even to think about the consequences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LukA_YJK Posted December 15, 2012 Share Posted December 15, 2012 Ah, again that Russian "same folk, same nation..." song. These songs are to keep your nationalistic morale high, Ivan, and distract you from the major things happening. Waste riches of whole countries (including yours) are looted by mafias. It is not US or EU or West or East, this is rather a closed global criminal circle... Iran is next in the list - this is really bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Law Snoll Posted December 15, 2012 Share Posted December 15, 2012 LukA_YJK, don't even start, i know every load that you can say. Just watch and enjoy, we are now on our way to collect last one critical element of "the puzzle", it will be nice show. What about your place... well, you may join Turkey, they will teach you how to love freedom, i guess lol. Azerbaijan was always by itself, so you may choose your way. P.S. And, you know, my name is not Ivan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LukA_YJK Posted December 16, 2012 Share Posted December 16, 2012 You should admit that it was a nice try, thou - there is a 0.47 % probability that your name would be Ivan, no offense was intended (my name is not Mamed, you know). Yet it is so sad to see that majority of people of such a rich culture eat all this chauvinistic propaganda. Good example: You were all so happy to hear your recently "reelected" leader start talking as a criminal boss back then. What have you got in Chechnya after years of war and thousands of young people killed? - an imaginary loyalty of another Chechen mafia clan! It is obvious that oil-rich Iran is the next target. As for Azerbaijan - cannot choose anything - the first retaliation attack by Iran will target Azerbaijan, refugees will flood the streets. You did not know that there are more than 20 million ethnic Azerbaijanis living in Iran, did you? Last week Russia lost the good old Soviet radar station capable of tracing any flying object in the radius enough to cover Indian Ocean - they could not agree on paying the rent to Azerbaijan. It is a very bad sign, I think. Ironically you personally are in the same position, you don't decide anything, so let's "watch and enjoy". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Law Snoll Posted December 16, 2012 Share Posted December 16, 2012 LukA_YJK, well, of cause you right from certain point of view, but anyway it doesn't changes my position generally. You know, i visited Sevastopol in last autumn (my friend who with i served in same platoon now living there), and i saw there people just on edge of mass riots and protests against independence of the Ukraine. Russian (and sometimes Soviet) flags there are everywhere, on every house, on every building. People draw "Three-color" Russian flag on their cars (pfff... sometimes they draws Hammer and Circle, you know...), draw it on walls of buildings, that ones who dare to try speak in those so called "movah" (well, you maybe know, it is those "language of westerners", that more looks Polish being written by Cyrillic symbols, that now being said as "true Ukrainian language") being obstructed. People directly says "Украине - НЕТ, ЮЗФО - ДА" (Юго-Западный Федеральный Округ; "Ukraine - NO, SWFD - YES, South-Western Federal District (of Russia)" - comment for our English-speaking friends) and they really wants to rejoin to Russia back. Same situation i saw in Donetsk, in Kharkiv, in Lugansk. I saw it in Odessa when we visited it with my friend together. When i said about us as about same folk and same civilization, i mentioned exactly core of Russian civilization that is located on territory of currently of three different states - Russia, Belarus and Ukraine. We have no one reason to live in different states and we will imminently rejoin these 3 countries into one. What about Middle Asian ex-Soviet Republics, well, everything depends on wish of people there. If they wants to live independently, then they are welcome. If they wants to rejoin to Russia back... well, we will see is it possible or not. About problems in Chechnya... well, i never told there's no problems. Of cause, there's yet much do be done, but anyway, problems there is not a reason to cut away own head and scream "It's all over, it's hopeless". Those statement about "Russia feeds Caucasus" i personally treat as delirium, because of Russia has another subsidized regions where much more of funds being invested. It's absolutely normal practice in any country, and let's don't walk long for an example. Look on the United States, for example. People in Texas now shouts "Enough to feed Washington". Is it problem? Yes. Is it catastrophe? No. And also i'd say these problems with Chechnya in modern Russia are very overestimated. Some media shows it like "national disaster" of Russia, while it's not like that. You know, i working for more than 10 years already, now operate with two bushiness, and i never had troubles with organized crime, and especially with Chechens. About Iran... why do you think it should attack Azerbaijan? Yes, of cause i know about huge population of ethnic Azerbaijanians in Iran, but i was always thought it is good reason for friendship and good relations between Iran and Azerbaijan, not a war! Am i wrong? And about those radar in Gabalah. You know, i'm not a specialist in this question, but i heard something like "Russia doesn't needs those old station anymore". Radar there is obsolete, Russia now have more advanced, powerful, compact and mobile versions of it, so Daryal-class stations become "technological yesterday". I'm really ensured that Russia just has no right to leave Azerbaijan alone, but... time will tell how will it be. Me and you, we don't know exactly what happening there around those station. Officials says there will be enough of station in Armavir to watch for flying objects in sky over Persian Gulf, but abandoning of Azerbaijan is wrong move anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rogue15 Posted December 16, 2012 Share Posted December 16, 2012 drove for a long time today...saw some things. lol getting irritated by people now i guess cause im tired...getting pissed about **** that happened last year so i'm going to go work out my stress at the gym. wish i would have went active, i have no idea what to expect or do with my life after i get home from here. its bugging me really bad....hopefully all of my bills get paid off from the money i make here so i can start fresh. if i stay guard i can disregard being deployed for up to 2 years and focus on college or finding a wife. or both. meh. probably going to stay out of the bar scene when i get back, and not resort back to being an alcoholic. well i'm out, starting to get pissed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keyan Farlander Posted December 17, 2012 Author Share Posted December 17, 2012 Grilled up some nice steaks for dinner last night. Goes great with eggs at breakfast the next day! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rogue15 Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 i really hate american media and politics. our president is using these events as tools to strip our 2nd amendment rights, and the media keeps playing it over and over and over and over like really find something new to report you ****ing *******s. lol realising that this is why i dont have cable/satellite tv back home. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K_Kinnison Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 The NRA spent a lot of money in the last election against Obama, because they were worried he might appoint a Supreme Court Justice that would be for more gun control. Yet during his term before the last election The president signed bills allowing guns in national parks and on Amtrak. He has not pushed for the reinstatement of the assault weapons ban Yet ROmney, while running for Senate in Massachusetts in 1994, Romney supported background checks and a ban on some assault weapons. “That’s not going to make me the hero of the NRA,” he said. Running for governor in 2002, he said, “We do have tough gun laws in Massachusetts — I support them. I won’t chip away at them. I believe they help protect us, and provide for our safety.” As governor, in 2004, signed an assault-weapons ban in the state. However, that law won support from some gun-rights advocates by making it easier to get and renew a firearms license. Romney also raised the state’s gun-registration fee from $25 to $75. But later before running for President he decided to join the NRA, to make everyone with a gun know he was part of the club. I don't think it is an issue of 2nd amendment rights. It is about trying to prevent loonies from getting guns and shooting up a bunch of innocent people and get their name in the news. Maybe it is better background checks, or holding the previous gun owners partially responsible. or having better mental health care for those people on the edge of going postal. I highly doubt a ban on weapons, except maybe assault weapons, is ever going to happen. But that isn't going to stop gun lovers from fearing that the Democrats, liberals or the current president is going to take way their weapons Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edlib Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 Barely slept last night. Maybe a whole hour if I'm lucky. Start work at 7am. Get through sometime around midnight. I'll be fine. 3 separate 2+ hour concerts today, with rehearsals/ soundchecks in-between. All grade school and high school age kids. Hundreds of them. Noooooo... It won't be a long day at all. And as far as gun-control is concerned: Both sides need to stop all the shouting and posturing and sit down to have a rational conversation about the future of gun ownership regulations in this country. Obviously, guns are never going completely away... but things like this have to stop happening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keyan Farlander Posted December 17, 2012 Author Share Posted December 17, 2012 Obviously, guns are never going completely away... but things like this have to stop happening. Unless guns DO go away completely, this is still going to happen. And even if they do go away completely, it would probably still happen. Maybe they could do less damage per incident, but people would still die. It seems like in this particular case, having asylums back would have made a bigger difference. But the hardest thing for us to accept is that, even if there were no guns, and even if there were places to lock up crazy people, this would still happen. People would still be killed. Human beings are problem-solvers, and we don't like to hear that we can't fix a problem completely, but I'm afraid that's something we all have to accept... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rogue15 Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 heh after second thoughts i could give a damn if they ban them, less for me to worry about if there's a "revolution"! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edlib Posted December 18, 2012 Share Posted December 18, 2012 Unless guns DO go away completely, this is still going to happen. And even if they do go away completely, it would probably still happen. Maybe they could do less damage per incident, but people would still die. It seems like in this particular case, having asylums back would have made a bigger difference. But the hardest thing for us to accept is that, even if there were no guns, and even if there were places to lock up crazy people, this would still happen. People would still be killed. Human beings are problem-solvers, and we don't like to hear that we can't fix a problem completely, but I'm afraid that's something we all have to accept...That's true... but up to this point we haven't even had an honest national conversation about what's happening,.. let alone made any kind of an effort to start working towards solutions. I don't think there are easy answers or complete solutions... but I also don't think that doing absolutely nothing at all towards trying to change the situation is ever going to improve things either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keyan Farlander Posted December 18, 2012 Author Share Posted December 18, 2012 That's true... but up to this point we haven't even had an honest national conversation about what's happening,.. let alone made any kind of an effort to start working towards solutions. What do you mean? There have been a lot of gun control debates and gun laws passed in this country. There have also been discussions about school violence, particularly since Columbine. And there have been definite changes. I remember that when I was in high school, anyone could just walk in the building. Now the doors are locked and you can't get in without identifying yourself and having your reason for being there verified. I don't think there are easy answers or complete solutions... but I also don't think that doing absolutely nothing at all towards trying to change the situation is ever going to improve things either. Every time something like this happens, we all want to start thinking about how we can stop it from ever happening again. But I don't think we can. Unless every step we take is constantly monitored and controlled. And I don't want to live in that world. A school shooting (or any public violent act) is a tragedy, but it's not exactly an epidemic. This isn't happening every day. To be honest, I don't really think our laws on this or the policies of our schools are defective. If we want it to happen even less, the changes have to come at a personal level - we have to strive to be a virtuous society that produces virtuous people, and we aren't exactly doing that now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edlib Posted December 18, 2012 Share Posted December 18, 2012 What do you mean? There have been a lot of gun control debates and gun laws passed in this country. There have also been discussions about school violence, particularly since Columbine. And there have been definite changes. I remember that when I was in high school, anyone could just walk in the building. Now the doors are locked and you can't get in without identifying yourself and having your reason for being there verified.What I mean is that one side always seems to take the "ban everything!!!" position, and the other always takes the "From my cold, dead hands... people kill people!... zero regulation!" position. Neither side ever wants to give any credit to the other for strongly held and legitimate positions, and neither side ever wants to give the slightest bit of ground in a compromise... so like in most situations, we always seem to nationally meet in stalemate, and nothing realistic ever gets done. Again: I don't have the answer or solutions... but it sure doesn't feel to me like anyone has ever dropped their posturing on either side to bother to try to make things better in a long time. Every time something like this happens, we all want to start thinking about how we can stop it from ever happening again. But I don't think we can. Unless every step we take is constantly monitored and controlled. And I don't want to live in that world. A school shooting (or any public violent act) is a tragedy, but it's not exactly an epidemic. This isn't happening every day. To be honest, I don't really think our laws on this or the policies of our schools are defective. If we want it to happen even less, the changes have to come at a personal level - we have to strive to be a virtuous society that produces virtuous people, and we aren't exactly doing that now. We will never eliminate violence as long as humans continue at the current level of evolution... but we can see if there are things that can be done to detect and help those prone to it earlier... before they act out their schemes. And there must be some things we can do to lessen the devastation when it does happen. Do average citizens really need military-spec firearms for hunting or self-defense? I dunno... I don't like the idea of being told what I can own or not own... but maybe it's something that needs to be considered again. Ultimately, you are right: If someone gets it in their head to commit an atrocity, they will find a way and the gear to do it. But does it need to be so easy as it currently is to equip for one? With lesser weapons at their disposal, will they be as widespread or deadly? With sufficient roadblocks to getting the gear it would take, would they drop the plan altogether? A thought: We threw the entire military might of our nation against a loose band of terrorists with ill-defined goals scattered across foreign soil on the opposite side of the globe after a single devastating attack. We could have said: Well, what can you do? After all, this doesn't happen every day... But obviously, some kind of action needed to happen. Realistically: It won't ever stop terrorism. But ignoring it and looking the other way wasn't an option. I think in this instance it's similar. Anything we do won't eliminate occasional mass violence in this fashion. But it feels like this time we can't just throw up our hands this time, coast along, and not attempt to address it nationally in some way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rogue15 Posted December 18, 2012 Share Posted December 18, 2012 i saw something on facebook i dunno a reagan quote maybe it said the criminals should pay the price for their crime, not society. i think schools should have better security, more jobs for people! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keyan Farlander Posted December 18, 2012 Author Share Posted December 18, 2012 What I mean is that one side always seems to take the "ban everything!!!" position, and the other always takes the "From my cold, dead hands... people kill people!... zero regulation!" position. Neither side ever wants to give any credit to the other for strongly held and legitimate positions, and neither side ever wants to give the slightest bit of ground in a compromise... so like in most situations, we always seem to nationally meet in stalemate, and nothing realistic ever gets done. Well, when the two sides are diametrically opposite one another ideologically, there isn't much room for compromise. It's a matter of philosophy, not degree or practicality. But still, there has been legislation passed. There was the assault weapons ban and the waiting periods, for instance. It's been discussed, and things have been done. Obviously it varies from state to state. Again: I don't have the answer or solutions... but it sure doesn't feel to me like anyone has ever dropped their posturing on either side to bother to try to make things better in a long time. One thing I noticed is that people often criticize politicians for using tragedies to "further their political agendas". And while certainly tact and timing must be observed, using a tragedy as an example of why your ideas are right is not a bad thing - it's how you present evidence for your position. I guess if it's something you really believe in, that's one thing, but if it's your political agenda simply because you're in someone's pocket, well...not so much. Do average citizens really need military-spec firearms for hunting or self-defense? I dunno... I don't like the idea of being told what I can own or not own... but maybe it's something that needs to be considered again. Ultimately, you are right: If someone gets it in their head to commit an atrocity, they will find a way and the gear to do it. But does it need to be so easy as it currently is to equip for one? With lesser weapons at their disposal, will they be as widespread or deadly? With sufficient roadblocks to getting the gear it would take, would they drop the plan altogether? If you can reduce, say, 20 deaths from this kind of violence per year down to 2, is that worth all the extra laws and regulations that would have to be made and enforced? Some might say yes, since that's a 1000% improvement. But it has no significant impact on the percentages of people actually getting killed. Your chances of getting killed in a school shooting like this are ridiculously low. And sure, if it's your kid that actually got killed, you feel like any action is worth it. But, being practical instead of emotional about it, I'm not sure that we can actually do anything here that is worth it. A thought: We threw the entire military might of our nation against a loose band of terrorists with ill-defined goals scattered across foreign soil on the opposite side of the globe after a single devastating attack. We could have said: Well, what can you do? After all, this doesn't happen every day... But obviously, some kind of action needed to happen. Realistically: It won't ever stop terrorism. But ignoring it and looking the other way wasn't an option. I think in this instance it's similar. Anything we do won't eliminate occasional mass violence in this fashion. But it feels like this time we can't just throw up our hands this time, coast along, and not attempt to address it nationally in some way. I was thinking about this the other day. Did we really have to do what we did? A concentrated effort to find those responsible was reasonable, but was the mass action that we took out of a sense of justice? Or was it revenge? Or just a need to DO SOMETHING? Or give the appearance that we were? Sometimes the most reasonable course of action is to just take your bloody nose, heal up, and check your defenses for next time. A tough pill to swallow, granted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rogue15 Posted December 18, 2012 Share Posted December 18, 2012 im safer in kuwait than in america, you guys are savages over there! lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edlib Posted December 18, 2012 Share Posted December 18, 2012 i think schools should have better security, more jobs for people!Then the question becomes: "How are we going to pay for it?" If not by raising taxes, then what are we going to cut? That's where the argument starts up again... Where it always falls down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.