Man orders high-definition TV, gets high-caliber gun instead

[Nothing Here]

Nah I don't want a socom 2 I just want a regular M1A, that looks like a 16 inch barrel too, I want the 22 inch.

You know your stuff.

[DocM]

Amazon.com sells Assault Rifles ? Since when ?

1) it's not an "assault rifle" because it isn't capable of selective fire (full auto or 3-round bursts), which means it's functionally the same as a semi-auto hunting rifle. People just panic over the functional look of such rifles when there are hunting rifles & shotguns that can do far more damage - especially shotguns in close quarters.

2) Amazon just hosts the ads for outside retailers - in this case a gun dealer. I've bought magazines, scopes. laser sights, extra pistol barrels etc. this way.

[Noir Angel]

Most 30 calibre weapons can pierce the blastproof plastic they use on Mythbusters, and fire at around 2,700 ft/s. More than enough power to be classed as high calibre weapons.

[Southern Patriot]

I get a kick out of the thread title saying "high-caliber" when it nothing of the kind. It's a .30 caliber, the same as most medium caliber rifles made since the .30-30 Winchester came out in 1895 and used by the vast majority of deer hunters in one form or another; .30-06, .300 Mag, .308 Winchester, .30-30, etc.

Wanna talk high-caliber? Talk a .50 BMG, .416 Barrett or .338 Lapua.

I was surprised you didn't mention that in your first post. That was going to be my first comment, but you beat me to it. More media hype trying to demonize a gun that is virtually identical to any ordinary hunting rifle.

[Southern Patriot]

Most 30 calibre weapons can pierce the blastproof plastic they use on Mythbusters, and fire at around 2,700 ft/s. More than enough power to be classed as high calibre weapons.

Which just goes to show your own ignorance of guns. Caliber is the size of the bullet, period. While related to the power of the gun, it isn't the measure used for that. And the "Bulletproof" episode you are referring to on Mythbusters just proved that the stuff they were using wasn't actually adequate for the purpose they were using it for. It wasn't rated as bulletproof in the configuration they were using. I've watched that episode several times.

[Noir Angel]

Irrelevant really, a gun of that power is still incredibly dangerous regardless of the size of it's bullet.

[BajiRav]

Man, why cant that kind of mistake happen to me?

It happened to me last month. I bought ~$50 worth of diapers from amazon.com and UPS guy delivered two packages. One had diapers while the other had a $500 ****ty Toshiba laptop. :p

[Solid Knight]

I get a kick out of the thread title saying "high-caliber" when it nothing of the kind. It's a .30 caliber, the same as most medium caliber rifles made since the .30-30 Winchester came out in 1895 and used by the vast majority of deer hunters in one form or another; .30-06, .300 Mag, .308 Winchester, .30-30, etc.

Wanna talk high-caliber? Talk a .50 BMG, .416 Barrett or .338 Lapua.

Every gun is high-calibur, high-powered, and an assault weapon as far as the media is concerned. It could be shooting .22 with a break-open breech and it'd still be a high-powered, high-calibur, assault weapon.

[SupportGeek]

Irrelevant really, a gun of that power is still incredibly dangerous regardless of the size of it's bullet.

Do you ever get tired of spewing FUD?

A Firearm by itself is not dangerous in any way, they don't suddenly jump up of their own volition and start shooting, much less shoot people.

Here is a handy link by some concerned citizens to prove this http://assaultweaponwatch.com

In someones hands like DocM, KingCracker, RoadWarrior or myself, its as safe or as dangerous as we would need it to be, depending on use and circumstance.

Oh and that "blastproof" plastic? Its not blastproof at all, so its not a terribly good benchmark.

[ncoday]

Odd mistake since firearms are not legally allowed to be sent direct to your doorstep...

It depends on many factors, including the local laws and why the gun is being shipped

[Solid Knight]

Irrelevant really, a gun of that power is still incredibly dangerous regardless of the size of it's bullet.

Ignorant. All the "power" comes from the ammunition so it entirely dependings on how much and what kind of propellent is used inside the "bullet". The gun can only--at best--be efficient.

[Praetor]

SIG Sauer SIG716? I'll take it :)

better than ANY HDTV!

[Noir Angel]

Do you ever get tired of spewing FUD?

A Firearm by itself is not dangerous in any way, they don't suddenly jump up of their own volition and start shooting, much less shoot people.

Here is a handy link by some concerned citizens to prove this http://assaultweaponwatch.com

In someones hands like DocM, KingCracker, RoadWarrior or myself, its as safe or as dangerous as we would need it to be, depending on use and circumstance.

Oh and that "blastproof" plastic? Its not blastproof at all, so its not a terribly good benchmark.

Of course it is, it is a weapon designed with the intent to kill. And given the attitudes I've seen all 3 of those people display I wouldn't trust them in my neighbourhood so really it's all pretty relative.

Ignorant. The powder in the casing for the bullet provides the "power" so it is entirely dependent on the "bullet". The gun itself is just a platform for controlling the ammunition--it doesn't provide any power. All it can do is make efficient use of the power.

Given the fact that bullets lose 90% of their power and are in most cases not even lethal when set off outside of a gun that's a pretty laughable statement to make. The 2 go together to kill.

[Solid Knight]

Given the fact that bullets lose 90% of their power and are in most cases not even lethal when set off outside of a gun that's a pretty laughable statement to make. The 2 go together to kill.

Most cases isn't lethal? Really? Ever seen an ammo dump get hit by a rocket? I have. The rounds that cook off still have plenty of destructive power and are very much lethal. Yeah, they lost power but they're far from "non-lethal" or "non-lethal most of the time". Why do you think the military's protocol is to stay really far away from the burning ammo dump?

Second, all the power comes from the bullet. The gun makes more efficient use of that power by containing the explosion and giving it only one easy path out. This isn't really a hard concept.

Your statement, as I said earlier, was extremely ignorant.

[SupportGeek]

Of course it is, it is a weapon designed with the intent to kill.

Yet the video at the link provided proves you wrong pretty conclusively.

Just because you want something to be the way you think it is very very badly,doesnt mean that it becomes such by repeating your opinions over and over.

And given the attitudes I've seen all 3 of those people display I wouldn't trust them in my neighbourhood so really it's all pretty relative.

I would agree, it is relative, I would love to have any one of them as a neighbour, its nice to have knowledgeable people who share interests as friends.

Given the fact that bullets lose 90% of their power and are in most cases not even lethal when set off outside of a gun that's a pretty laughable statement to make. The 2 go together to kill.

Had you not included the whole "to kill" bit of rubbish, I would have agreed with the part that the 2 go together.

His statement is correct, the firearm is simply a means of controlling and directing the chemical reaction, the power comes from a combination of the propellant (type and amount) and usually the weight (not caliber) of the projectile.

[Noir Angel]

People who die from ammo dumps going up are killed by the shockwave from the explosion, or by flying shrapnel / structural collapse not errant bullets from their casings. For a bullet to attain lethal velocity it has to be fired from some sort of pressure containing barrel... IE a gun. As a weapon they're useless without each other.

Had you not included the whole "to kill" bit of rubbish, I would have agreed with the part that the 2 go together.

His statement is correct, the firearm is simply a means of controlling and directing the chemical reaction, the power comes from a combination of the propellant (type and amount) and usually the weight (not caliber) of the projectile.

Guns were created to kill things. That was the primary intention of their design.

[KingCracker]

People who die from ammo dumps going up are killed by the shockwave from the explosion, or by flying shrapnel / structural collapse not errant bullets from their casings. For a bullet to attain lethal velocity it has to be fired from some sort of pressure containing barrel... IE a gun. As a weapon they're useless without each other.

Guns were created to kill things. That was the primary intention of their design.

Please... The gun does only what the human intends to do with it. Guns do not kill anything on their own. I have 8 firearms none have ever killed any living thing. I don't care if they were "designed to kill" that means nothing especially when the person that owns the guns has no intent to kill. I'm looking at buying a car that can go 150mph, will I drive that fast? No. Stop spewing that same old crap about oh guns are meant to kill gibberish. Guns can't kill by themselves. I know you've heard that before and it still hasn't sunk into your brain yet and I don't think it ever will.

[123456789A]

Guns were created to kill things. That was the primary intention of their design.

My gun only shoots out a flag that says "bang"

[Noir Angel]

Please... The gun does only what the human intends to do with it. Guns do not kill anything on their own. I have 8 firearms none have ever killed any living thing. I don't care if they were "designed to kill" that means nothing especially when the person that owns the guns has no intent to kill. I'm looking at buying a car that can go 150mph, will I drive that fast? No. Stop spewing that same old crap about oh guns are meant to kill gibberish. Guns can't kill by themselves. I know you've heard that before and it still hasn't sunk into your brain yet and I don't think it ever will.

Nor will it ever, because guns are designed to kill. So you use them for something other than their intended purpose? have a frickin medal. They're still weapons, they were still designed to kill. I've seen you readily admit you value your guns more than other people's lives (in that you admit you think pretty much any amount of death is worth having as long as people can keep having guns) so please just drop the 'upstanding and sensible' act because I'm not a moron.

[KingCracker]

Nor will it ever, because guns are designed to kill. So you use them for something other than their intended purpose? have a frickin medal. They're still weapons, they were still designed to kill. I've seen you readily admit you value your guns more than other people's lives so please just drop the 'upstanding and sensible' act because I'm not a moron.

Hate to break it to you but the majority of people that own guns don't kill and they shoot metal and targets :). You've seen me admit that I value my guns over human lives? Really? Quote me, tell me where I said I value my guns over human lives. You're making things up now. I value freedom. I think everyone has the right to do as they wish as long as its not hurting anyone. You however, you want to take away the things I enjoy even though I haven't done anything wrong. Tell me what have I done wrong? Why should I lose my right to enjoy myself?

[SupportGeek]

As a weapon they're useless without each other.

Ah, so you DO agree that by itself a firearm is not dangerous, in fact "useless", well done, you might turn this around yet!

Guns were created to kill things. That was the primary intention of their design.

I would disagree, different firearms serve different uses PRIMARILY.

A Starters pistol is not designed to kill PRIMARILY

Movie guns are not designed to kill PRIMARILY

Olympic target pistols and rifles? Not designed to kill PRIMARILY

Skeet shotguns are not designed to kill PRIMARILY

Flare guns? Avalanche guns? Water guns?

Maybe you get the picture.

Things can be diverted from their PRIMARY purpose however with those that have the will.

[Noir Angel]

Your 'rights' come at a great cost to the safety of others. I'm not going to regurgitate the statistics again, I've already done it plenty of times. Regardless of whether or not you can see it, you're still just as big a part of the problem as the criminals because your desire for freely available weapons increases their availability overall.

So prove me wrong. Tell me, how many people would have to die from gun violence before you admitted guns are dangerous. 100,000 a year? A million a year? Half of your population? Or would you continue to loudly trumpet gun ownership even if every single person around you was dying from gun violence? Because frankly the sums are pretty easy to me, if you can simply shrug off violence like it's not a problem then you don't value human life you value the perpetuation of violent cultural imperatives.

[Solid Knight]

People who die from ammo dumps going up are killed by the shockwave from the explosion, or by flying shrapnel / structural collapse not errant bullets from their casings. For a bullet to attain lethal velocity it has to be fired from some sort of pressure containing barrel... IE a gun. As a weapon they're useless without each other.

Errant bullets from rounds cooking in a fire--e.g. a burning ammo dump--have killed people and can easily do so. Either way, it's a moot argument since the original point was that firearms do not supply power. If you put a bullet with no propellent into a firearm it will not go anywhere hence the gun itself has no power. At the most basic level, a gun is merely a tube with one end capped.

[Noir Angel]

Errant bullets from rounds cooking in a fire--e.g. a burning ammo dump--have killed people and can easily do so. Either way, it's a moot argument since the original point was that firearms do not supply power. If you put a bullet with no propellent into a firearm it will not go anywhere hence the gun itself has no power. At the most basic level, a gun is merely a tube with one end capped.

The gun makes the process a hell of a lot easier though. Point and squeeze and somebody dies. I'd like to see someone do that with the same level of efficacy with just the bullet and no gun. And trying to claim that a gun isn't designed to kill because it needs a bullet is like trying to claim that a car doesn't drive because it needs petrol.

[Solid Knight]

The gun makes the process a hell of a lot easier though. Point and squeeze and somebody dies. I'd like to see someone do that with the same level of efficacy with just the bullet and no gun.

That's cool and all but remember what the subject of our argument was. You said the bullet was irrevelant. You were wrong. End of story.