Reply to multiple previous comments:



Re:
"Literally no different from a pistol other than it can have better accuracy and sometimes higher caliber"

.38 (9mm), .40, .45 are the calibers you will see used by police pistols

.223 (5.56mm), .300, .308, are the calibers you will see used by police rifles

Unless an officer is using a personal firearm at work, the pistols should all be higher caliber.

The major difference is muzzle velocity damage.
The pistol cuts a tunnel the diameter of the [expanded] bullet.
The rifle leaves an exit wound multiple inches across, and at point blank will grenade the exit side of the target, painting the wall with gibs.





Re:
"Can you tell me why you believe it's "not a great idea" when the criminals already all have guns too?"

Because police should be there to protect citizens lives, at the cost of their own if needed. (Hence the "hero"/"Public Servant" status they so like to remind us of)

If they protect their own lives, at the cost of citizens if needed, then they become a part of the problem they are supposed to be solving.

Just imagine the uninvolved bystander down the street struck down for no fault of their own.

The better path forward is full head to toe level 4 body armor for police, not heavier police firepower in packed suburbs.

That way they have the option to hold fire and assess the situation without shitting their pants and hosing the place down with lead "just in case, so they minimize the risk of getting hurt".

Full L4 body armor means that when things like the VT shooting happen, the police don't pitch tents outside and wait for SWAT (who actually has armor) to show up while people are likely getting killed inside.

Full L4 body armor means that when police open a door to a bathroom with an intruder inside (or a vacuum), they don't have to be thinking "kill or be killed".





Re:
"You are assuming it's a high velocity rifle. It's likely only 9mm, meaning minimal impact and penetration"

The video shows shots of the rifle magazine. It's not a 9mm pcc (pistol caliber carbine) magazine. It's the standard form factor. Meaning it is likely to be one of common the off the shelf calibers for that form factor :
.223/5.56
.300 blackout
6.8 spc
.224 valkyrie
6.5 grendel
None are 9mm. And other than a subsonic .300 blackout variant (used with suppressors/silencers), all pack a world more hurt than a 9mm.






It's true that a faster/heavier round will pass through more walls, and more houses.

Not sure it matters though, as 9mm ball will go through plenty of sheetrock layers, and rifle ammo stands a chance at fragmenting on impact with obstacles.
Which goes farther for any given shot will depend on what each one strikes along the way, and if it's bullet is of type FMJ/ball or HP or frag or penetrator or whatever.

-scheherazade

Printable guns are another scare tactic. We are talking about guns that can only fire small caliber rounds and that still require at least a few metal components. There is no such thing as a totally untraceable, all plastic gun. Technically, if there were such a thing, it would be illegal under existing law.

Ghost guns are another freak out buzz word. It's a grey area that is quasi legal as long as you only make it for yourself. If you plan on making them and selling them, you are fucked.

Hell, I can go down to Lowes and buy materials to make a higher caliber zip gun that is actually going to be deadlier than a plastic printed one. With a cork, some glue,plastic vanes, a nail, and a shotgun shell I can make a grenade. With some matches, pipe from Lowes, a firecracker fuse, and threadlocker I can make a pipe bomb.

The point being, you can make damn near anything deadly with some work and access to everyday components. If you want to frighten a gullible populace with a scary plastic 'gun' to further your agenda against guns in general, it's child play to do so.

WTF?
I watched it happen in real time....and I've seen many documentaries about it since.
The Fed's were there because a delivery guy found a box of live grenades being shipped to them, not because they tried to get on tv.
They were armed to the teeth with illegal arms, they said in part to defend against intrusion by the government, and they used those arms for that purpose....and lost massively.

The Fed's aren't well known for allowing those in the middle of an armed standoff a time out to do tv interviews. What kind of nonsense are you talking about?!

For this years annual Easter egg hunt we've replaced the usual chicken eggs with incendiary hand grenades, let's see if the kids can tell the difference.

@eric3579 -- I agree that that is a sticking point. I have trouble buying it because there are already limitations on the "right to bear arms".

The 2nd amendment:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.


Certainly, one could argue that licensing / registration of firearms would count as infringing on the right to keep and bear arms. However, "arms" is rather unspecific. Merriam Webster defines it as "a means (such as a weapon) of offense or defense; especially : firearm".

The government has already decided that limiting the access to some "arms" is fine, and doesn't infringe on the constitutionally guaranteed right to bear arms. For example, in many states it is "legal" to own a fully automatic, military use machine gun. BUT:
1) It had to be manufactured before 1986
2) Said machine gun has to be registered in a national database
3) The buyer has to pass a background check

So there's 3 things already infringing on your constitutional right to bear a specific kind of "arm". A firearm -- not a missile, grenade, or bomb or something "obviously" ridiculous. And actually, even "destructive devices" like grenades are technically not illegal to own, but they require registration, licenses, etc. that the ATF can grant or refuse at their discretion. And their discretion generally leads them to NOT allow civilians to exercise their right to bear that particular sort of "arm".

If those limitations / exceptions aren't an unconstitutional infringement on the right to bear arms, certainly reasonable expansion of the same sort of limitations might also be OK.

I empathize with pro-gun people's fear of "slippery slope" escalating restrictions; the potential to swing too far in the other direction. But at some point you gotta see the writing on the wall. To me, it seems like it would be better for NRA-types to be reasonable and proactive so that they can be part of the conversation about where and how the lines are drawn. In other words, accepting some reasonable "common sense" limitations (like firearm licensing inspired by driver's licensing) seems like a good way to keep any adjustments / de-facto exceptions to the 2nd amendment reasonable (like the laws about machine guns). Otherwise, you're going all-in. With a not particularly good hand. And that's when you can lose everything (ie., 2nd amendment removal rather than limited in sane ways that let responsible people still keep firearms).

Standard load for the US military is 7 thirty round mags. You can carry more or less, but that is the general amount.

My biggest complaint would be that if we are assuming these to be WW2 Marines, there is no way a force of 300 would all be carrying Thompsons. In general, they would be using BARs or M1 Garands. If they were Korean era, M14s. These would have used a much more deadly projectile that easily could penetrate multiple targets packed close together.


Could a force armed correctly for the time period indicated actually kill that many targets? Numbers would suggest they would run out of ammo with some Romans still alive. However, we then run into some intangibles.

One must factor the sheer shock value of a force literally laying your fellow soldiers out in windrows. I would suspect that even highly disciplined Roman soldiers would begin to break and flee at some point.

Assuming they did not break ranks, the soldiers would still have bayonets, grenades, and personal sidearms. The Romans would still also be attacking an elevated position. As the Korean war showed us, it could go either way, but the likelihood is that the elevated position would eventually triumph in hand to hand combat. Not to mention that the Romans would be dealing with typically healthier, larger, and better trained soldiers.

Now if this was 300 current era Marines, it would be a slaughter. They would be using highly accurate 5.56 weapons with around 63000 rounds of ammo.

I used to use my 400watt Klipsch subwoofer for my game seat. You could really feel the grenade launcher and shotgun.

The framers didn't specify rifle, or any other specific weapon. They thought a person should (not just be able to) own a standard soldier's armament of the day. Today that would include grenades and automatic weapons. Back in the day owning a person was legal. That didn't change because the Supreme Court decided that the definition of a person had evolved, the constitution was amended. There's no reason it shouldn't be for this topic as well.

And after more viewings of video, the rate of fire was not that great and sustained, and could have been pulled off by 2 or 3 weapons.

Spider grenades

"Non-lethal"?

What is a lethal car immobilizer? Grenade launcher?

Jesus, well that sound they make at the end is terrifying. Probably be great for "riot control."

Step two is presumably to get a hand-grenade's worth of explosives on each one and then be able to remotely assign them individual targets. Maybe just use facial recognition.

I surrender.

I agree that the feeling that Trump is a political hand grenade likely had a lot to do with his winning, but so did the (well founded) feeling that Clinton is underhanded and deceitful.

Given a decent candidate, in any party, I think we would have seen the biggest landslide victory in American election history, but both major parties, and the 3 largest 'minor' parties all put up candidates that only appealed to their base (and often not even them). We had one, Sanders, and the Democrats shot themselves in the foot by smearing and cheating him out of a nomination....and now they reap the rewards for those actions, and we all suffer for it. Anyone involved in the Clinton campaign should retire from politics today, they are now forever tainted and will hurt any future candidate if they are involved. Chelsie should stay out too. That may not be fair, but it's reality. This campaign has made their name unelectable, due in large part to how they ran it, not what her opponent said about her.

Always nice to see a family of biological hand grenades out enjoying the summer.