Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(YouTube)   Police officer demonstrates the differences between fully automatic assault rifle, semi-automatic rifle, hunting rifle   (youtube.com) divider line 158
    More: Interesting, semi-automatic rifle, assault rifles  
•       •       •

7854 clicks; posted to Video » on 18 Dec 2012 at 1:18 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



158 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-18 07:45:21 AM  
But what about burst mode - won't someone tell me what that is? Probably something about firing a burst of two or three rounds with one pull of the trigger.
 
2012-12-18 07:45:56 AM  
Yay. It's Obvious Man
 
2012-12-18 08:03:12 AM  
Wow. Can someone wake me when he gets around to discussing the difference between milk fat percentages?
 
2012-12-18 08:08:46 AM  
This video is very good about not saying things. They made a point to not say the things that may be damning, but the main guy narrating, the police officer, was very good in his explanation of things.
 
2012-12-18 08:37:31 AM  

Vodka Zombie: Wow. Can someone wake me when he gets around to discussing the difference between milk fat percentages?



I think the higher the percentage, the higher the fat content of the product.
Yay. Obvious Man
 
2012-12-18 08:52:11 AM  
Obvious Man is boring and outdated.
 
2012-12-18 09:23:54 AM  
Does he shoot himself in the thigh in the end?
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-12-18 09:38:36 AM  
This is another option. 

gunkings.com
 
2012-12-18 10:31:16 AM  
Without watching that I knew that whn he demonstrated the semi-auto he was going to pull the trigger... wait... pull the trigger... wait... pull the trigger...

Why look folks, it's just a simple tool for hunting.
I wonder what this police officer would think facing a gunman with a semi-auto AR?
I also wonder how his department feels about him taking to YouTube.
 
2012-12-18 11:23:10 AM  

propasaurus: Without watching that I knew that whn he demonstrated the semi-auto he was going to pull the trigger... wait... pull the trigger... wait... pull the trigger...

Why look folks, it's just a simple tool for hunting.
I wonder what this police officer would think facing a gunman with a semi-auto AR?
I also wonder how his department feels about him taking to YouTube.


It's actually illegal to hunt with an AR-15 in many states because the round is too small.

Not a reason to ban them, though.
 
2012-12-18 12:09:29 PM  
I have one of these sitting in a box underneath my bed right now. It's in a box because I bought it yesterday and haven't had a chance to shoot it yet:

i.imgur.com

It's chambered in .22 caliber, and will be banned sometime next year. For those without any significant firearms experience, the cartridge it shoots looks like the one on the LEFT:

i.imgur.com

The one on the RIGHT is the .223 cartridge. It is fired by, among other rifles, the Bushmaster used in last week's killings. The .223 round has approximately 10 times the muzzle energy of the .22 round. But the gun at the top, chambered in .22, will be banned. This gun, chambered in .223:

i.imgur.com

Will not. The reason has absolutely nothing to do with the respective killing power of the guns. It has to do with the fact that the one at the top looks "scary". And has a "pistol grip". And a "flash suppressor". And an adjustable shoulder stock. And connection points for a carry sling. Yes, all of those are features which identify an "assault weapon". None of them have to do with the gun's ability to kill. Yes, the one at the top has a 25 round magazine, but the 10-round version is also on Pelosi's list o' bad guns.

My point is that we're about to ban a bunch of guns based on stupid reasons.
 
2012-12-18 01:02:20 PM  

dahmers love zombie: I have one of these sitting in a box underneath my bed right now. It's in a box because I bought it yesterday and haven't had a chance to shoot it yet:

[i.imgur.com image 850x442]

It's chambered in .22 caliber, and will be banned sometime next year. For those without any significant firearms experience, the cartridge it shoots looks like the one on the LEFT:

[i.imgur.com image 149x338]

The one on the RIGHT is the .223 cartridge. It is fired by, among other rifles, the Bushmaster used in last week's killings. The .223 round has approximately 10 times the muzzle energy of the .22 round. But the gun at the top, chambered in .22, will be banned. This gun, chambered in .223:

[i.imgur.com image 639x292]

Will not. The reason has absolutely nothing to do with the respective killing power of the guns. It has to do with the fact that the one at the top looks "scary". And has a "pistol grip". And a "flash suppressor". And an adjustable shoulder stock. And connection points for a carry sling. Yes, all of those are features which identify an "assault weapon". None of them have to do with the gun's ability to kill. Yes, the one at the top has a 25 round magazine, but the 10-round version is also on Pelosi's list o' bad guns.

My point is that we're about to ban a bunch of guns based on stupid reasons.


Maybe if you want to make the point that the .223 is more deadly than the .22 you should choose an example that doesn't compare a bolt-action to a semi-auto. Just a thought.
 
2012-12-18 01:03:24 PM  

TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: It's actually illegal to hunt with an AR-15 in many states because the round is too small.


It depends on what caliber your AR-15 is. You can get them chambered for:

5.56mm/.223
5.45x39
.22 Long Rifle
7.62x39
6.5 Grendel
6.8 SPC
.450 Bushmaster
.458 SOCOM
.50 Beowulf

Also, if I'm remembering correctly, some states will only allowing hunting with an AR if you use a magazine that can only hold a few rounds (3-5 rounds maybe, not sure)
 
2012-12-18 01:15:19 PM  

pizen: Maybe if you want to make the point that the .223 is more deadly than the .22 you should choose an example that doesn't compare a bolt-action to a semi-auto. Just a thought.


Okay. Here's one

i48.tinypic.com

and this is the exact gun, except now it's an "assault weapon" because it has a folding stock and pistol grip

i46.tinypic.com
 
2012-12-18 01:17:10 PM  
Forgot to mention that those are both Ruger Mini-14s, which are chambered in .223
 
2012-12-18 01:31:35 PM  

dahmers love zombie: My point is that we're about to ban a bunch of guns based on stupid reasons.


Wait. Which one of those is the one used in Connecticut? The AR15 looking one or the M14 looking one? Or are you just solely talking about the rounds used?

/it's been ages since I paid much attention to weaponry
 
2012-12-18 01:40:08 PM  
What this all means to me is just much higher security at schools. None of those guns look like something you'd be able to "sneak" into the school unless you were wearing a trenchcoat or something of the sort. Between having cameras at all entrances and major hallways with someone in a control room, automatic alerts when something like a pane of glass breaks, and a roving plain clothes patrol officer, something like what happened on Friday would have been shut down pretty quickly. You know, like almost EVERY major store has so someone doesn't steal a $4.95 pair of earbuds.
 
2012-12-18 01:42:02 PM  
Always use the wooden "hunting style" semi auto for home defense. It looks much less scary at the jury trial.
 
2012-12-18 01:57:23 PM  

dahmers love zombie: My point is that we're about to ban a bunch of guns based on stupid reasons.



Are there good reasons?

What would be good reasons?
 
2012-12-18 02:04:37 PM  

dletter: What this all means to me is just much higher security at schools. None of those guns look like something you'd be able to "sneak" into the school unless you were wearing a trenchcoat or something of the sort. Between having cameras at all entrances and major hallways with someone in a control room, automatic alerts when something like a pane of glass breaks, and a roving plain clothes patrol officer, something like what happened on Friday would have been shut down pretty quickly. You know, like almost EVERY major store has so someone doesn't steal a $4.95 pair of earbuds.


so say all the alarms went off when he walks in. School was pretty small and it probably took him less than 60 seconds to reach his mom's classroom. Who do you think could have intervened in that time? The custodian making $6/hr?
 
2012-12-18 02:19:23 PM  

bikerific: dahmers love zombie: My point is that we're about to ban a bunch of guns based on stupid reasons.


Are there good reasons?

What would be good reasons?


My point (you may have missed it, or more likely I didn't make it clear) is that the earlier Assault Weapons Ban banned a host of weapons based on reasons unrelated to their lethality or ease of use in perpetrating homicides. If we were actually interested in restricting a type of gun used in MOST homicides in this country, we'd be banning handguns. Rifles ("assault" or no) account for around 10 percent of the gun homicides in a given year. Banning/restricting rifles of any sort whatsoever is a ridiculous misdirection.

If we want to actually curtail the number of homicides caused in a given year, ban handguns, give everyone in the US 30 days to turn them in, then make possession a mandatory one-year prison sentence and forfeiture of all long guns/shotguns for life. Gun violence will IN FACT be reduced if you do this. Politically, it's impossible. Well, that's not true -- if we were to have another mass shooting of children within a week or so, and it was perpetrated by someone using handguns, I can see it happening. Not otherwise.

(I own three handguns, five rifles, and three shotguns, and I don't want to see any of them banned. What I want is logical, legitimate conversation regarding the issue, which isn't coming from either extreme.
 
2012-12-18 02:20:40 PM  
Just wanted to say that I am sure the differences in the gun types and firing speed probably really matters to the parents of dead children right now.
 
2012-12-18 02:37:29 PM  

crzybtch: Just wanted to say that I am sure the differences in the gun types and firing speed probably really matters to the parents of dead children right now.


Exactly and I'm pretty sick of all the asshats posting about their rights to own weapons. What about all of those six years olds' right to be alive?
 
2012-12-18 02:43:44 PM  
Magazine size is what needs to be delt with. IMO. Left out the H on purpose.
 
2012-12-18 02:44:29 PM  
I fell asleep. Did something end up happening?
 
2012-12-18 02:44:35 PM  
Also mental illness. BTW.
 
2012-12-18 02:49:00 PM  
It's a little irrelevant without at least mentioning the implications of a gun you can load high numbers of rounds into and fire as fast as you can pull the trigger (which, with little training, is pretty fast).

I mean it's a decent overview of the modes of firing in a general sense, I guess...
 
2012-12-18 02:52:23 PM  
The truth about "Assault Rifles", and how mainstream media...


Aaaaand, close the tab.

Yea, yea. I know you gun nuts get all pissy about the semantics like you're so much smarter than everyone else. Everybody understands the difference, you're the only morons who can't tell what the generically used term "assault rifle" means given context.

uberaverage: Magazine size is what needs to be delt with


There are a lot of things that need dealt with gun problem and otherwise, and that's just one of them. Capacity, rate of fire, type of ammunition, who gets guns, how gun sales are tracked, how lost or stolen guns are tracked and the fact that until Obamacare fully kicks in getting mental health treatment in this country is farking harder than getting plastic surgery half the damn time.
 
2012-12-18 02:54:20 PM  
They will refer to this (picks up hunting rifle) as a fully automatic weapon. Clicks out of link*
 
2012-12-18 02:55:53 PM  

LasersHurt: It's a little irrelevant without at least mentioning the implications of a gun you can load high numbers of rounds into and fire as fast as you can pull the trigger (which, with little training, is pretty fast).

I mean it's a decent overview of the modes of firing in a general sense, I guess...


Nah. Those few tenths of a second make all the difference
 
2012-12-18 03:00:34 PM  

colinspooky: But what about burst mode - won't someone tell me what that is? Probably something about firing a burst of two or three rounds with one pull of the trigger.


Burst mode (aka as selective fire) is still an automatic weapon, it won't be found on semi-automatic weapons.

In addtition, some folks claim that semi-automatics can be converted to fully automatic weapons. In some cases this statement is true, however this modification isn't made by the average citizen and should only be performed by a qualified gunsmith.
 
2012-12-18 03:05:05 PM  

dahmers love zombie: My point (you may have missed it, or more likely I didn't make it clear) is that the earlier Assault Weapons Ban banned a host of weapons based on reasons unrelated to their lethality or ease of use in perpetrating homicides. If we were actually interested in restricting a type of gun used in MOST homicides in this country, we'd be banning handguns. Rifles ("assault" or no) account for around 10 percent of the gun homicides in a given year. Banning/restricting rifles of any sort whatsoever is a ridiculous misdirection.

If we want to actually curtail the number of homicides caused in a given year, ban handguns, give everyone in the US 30 days to turn them in, then make possession a mandatory one-year prison sentence and forfeiture of all long guns/shotguns for life. Gun violence will IN FACT be reduced if you do this. Politically, it's impossible. Well, that's not true -- if we were to have another mass shooting of children within a week or so, and it was perpetrated by someone using handguns, I can see it happening. Not otherwise.

(I own three handguns, five rifles, and three shotguns, and I don't want to see any of them banned. What I want is logical, legitimate conversation regarding the issue, which isn't coming from either extreme.


You seem reasonable, so what would you think of an Australian type law were all semi-automatic weapons are for the most part banned?
Link for info
 
2012-12-18 03:11:44 PM  

Komplex: dahmers love zombie: My point (you may have missed it, or more likely I didn't make it clear) is that the earlier Assault Weapons Ban banned a host of weapons based on reasons unrelated to their lethality or ease of use in perpetrating homicides. If we were actually interested in restricting a type of gun used in MOST homicides in this country, we'd be banning handguns. Rifles ("assault" or no) account for around 10 percent of the gun homicides in a given year. Banning/restricting rifles of any sort whatsoever is a ridiculous misdirection.

If we want to actually curtail the number of homicides caused in a given year, ban handguns, give everyone in the US 30 days to turn them in, then make possession a mandatory one-year prison sentence and forfeiture of all long guns/shotguns for life. Gun violence will IN FACT be reduced if you do this. Politically, it's impossible. Well, that's not true -- if we were to have another mass shooting of children within a week or so, and it was perpetrated by someone using handguns, I can see it happening. Not otherwise.

(I own three handguns, five rifles, and three shotguns, and I don't want to see any of them banned. What I want is logical, legitimate conversation regarding the issue, which isn't coming from either extreme.

You seem reasonable, so what would you think of an Australian type law were all semi-automatic weapons are for the most part banned?
Link for info


Edit for less jackassness: I want to stress if you disagree with the Australian gun laws you are still reasonable. Whatever your response, it will make me think.
 
2012-12-18 03:18:22 PM  

rtaylor92: dletter: What this all means to me is just much higher security at schools. None of those guns look like something you'd be able to "sneak" into the school unless you were wearing a trenchcoat or something of the sort. Between having cameras at all entrances and major hallways with someone in a control room, automatic alerts when something like a pane of glass breaks, and a roving plain clothes patrol officer, something like what happened on Friday would have been shut down pretty quickly. You know, like almost EVERY major store has so someone doesn't steal a $4.95 pair of earbuds.

so say all the alarms went off when he walks in. School was pretty small and it probably took him less than 60 seconds to reach his mom's classroom. Who do you think could have intervened in that time? The custodian making $6/hr?


Anytime glass breaks (and some other events that could also trigger it), the alarms go off, all classrooms doors close and lock immediately, automatically. Almost all inside rooms lock, except for a few that are designated as "safe rooms" that staff gets people in hallways to ASAP and then they lock themselves. Even without auto locking doors though... with your 60 seconds, where do you think the teachers are that they wouldn't have their door closed and locked themselves within 10 seconds of hearing the breach alarm? Unless he had an exact plan to beeline to a specific room, I'm guessing that would have prevented a lot in this case.

Also, his mom wasn't a teacher at the school... false initial report.
 
2012-12-18 03:27:12 PM  

Pokey.Clyde: and this is the exact gun, except now it's an "assault weapon" because it has a folding stock and pistol grip


If you advance the video to about 5:20, the narrator does almost exactly the same thing. He takes a semi-automatic hunting rifle chambered in .223 and swaps out the stock and grips. Suddenly the hunting rifle is an "assault" rifle with absolutely no functional difference.colinspooky:

But what about burst mode - won't someone tell me what that is? Probably something about firing a burst of two or three rounds with one pull of the trigger.

Most fully automatic weapons have a three firing more: Safety (gun won't fire), semi-auto (gun fires one round per trigger pull) and full auto (gun fires repeatedly with single trigger pull).

Some of them* also have a burst mode that fires exactly the way you describe: Two or three rounds with each trigger pull. Some weapons -- e.g., M16A2 -- don't have a full-auto mode at all.

This is generally how automatic weapons are supposed to be used anyway. The M16A2 replaced and M16A1 during the Vietnam war for just that reason -- soldiers were wasting enormous amounts of ammo by failing to use burst fire methods for suppression.

*Some AR-15 models, SIG SG 550, etc.
 
2012-12-18 03:29:43 PM  

dahmers love zombie: ban handguns, give everyone in the US 30 days to turn them in, then make possession a mandatory one-year prison sentence and forfeiture of all long guns/shotguns for life


Once we accomplish that, we can win the war on drugs, halt childhood obesity and get Jews and Muslims to divide Jerusalem right down the middle and stop fighting.
 
2012-12-18 03:30:29 PM  
Question:

Isn't the "ban" on assault rifles that cop was speaking of, long since over?

So, was the bushmaster used by Lanza fully automatic? I'm assuming it would have had to have been?

Thanks.
 
2012-12-18 03:34:50 PM  

Sensei Can You See: have a three firing more:


Three firing modes. Sorry.
 
2012-12-18 03:35:32 PM  

danielscissorhands: Question:

Isn't the "ban" on assault rifles that cop was speaking of, long since over?


Yes.

So, was the bushmaster used by Lanza fully automatic? I'm assuming it would have had to have been?

Thanks.


No. It was a semi-auto.
 
2012-12-18 03:41:28 PM  
I don't get the fascination with magazine size. If i have thousands of rounds of ammo, the particular magazine size of one of my particular weapons isn't that much of a limiting factor.

I end up arguing with my friends who are advocates of a firearm ban, not because I disagree with them fundamentally, but because I can't help but feel that the level of passion expressed in their arguments is going to result in anything other than disappointment, when faced with the reality of what a firearms ban will accomplish, vs. what they imagine the term means. I can't help but get the feeling that the majority of folks talking about an "assault weapons ban" think that means outlawing the ownership or trade of the millions of assault rifles that are already in American's hands, which is a near impossibility. Perhaps the best example of the results and effectiveness of such a ban is the fact the rifle and magazine Adam Lanza used in his shooting were acquired under Connecticut's already standing assault weapons ban (the rifle legally, and the clip illegally, as far as I've gleaned from the ridiculously inaccurate coverage, that may support or contradict my "facts" at any moment).
 
2012-12-18 03:46:59 PM  

crzybtch: Just wanted to say that I am sure the differences in the gun types and firing speed probably really matters to the parents of dead children right now.


There is a discussion about banning things, and your statement is intended to shut down a rational debate on the facts with an appeal to emotion.
 
2012-12-18 03:49:46 PM  

Komplex: Komplex: dahmers love zombie: My point (you may have missed it, or more likely I didn't make it clear) is that the earlier Assault Weapons Ban banned a host of weapons based on reasons unrelated to their lethality or ease of use in perpetrating homicides. If we were actually interested in restricting a type of gun used in MOST homicides in this country, we'd be banning handguns. Rifles ("assault" or no) account for around 10 percent of the gun homicides in a given year. Banning/restricting rifles of any sort whatsoever is a ridiculous misdirection.

If we want to actually curtail the number of homicides caused in a given year, ban handguns, give everyone in the US 30 days to turn them in, then make possession a mandatory one-year prison sentence and forfeiture of all long guns/shotguns for life. Gun violence will IN FACT be reduced if you do this. Politically, it's impossible. Well, that's not true -- if we were to have another mass shooting of children within a week or so, and it was perpetrated by someone using handguns, I can see it happening. Not otherwise.

(I own three handguns, five rifles, and three shotguns, and I don't want to see any of them banned. What I want is logical, legitimate conversation regarding the issue, which isn't coming from either extreme.

You seem reasonable, so what would you think of an Australian type law were all semi-automatic weapons are for the most part banned?
Link for info

Edit for less jackassness: I want to stress if you disagree with the Australian gun laws you are still reasonable. Whatever your response, it will make me think.


I'm not ignoring you -- I'm on the clock and I gotta go get my kid from school. If I get a chance I'll come back and we can continue talking. If this thread dies, I'll probably be stirring up shiat in one of the other ones, so ask me again if we don't catch up. I love rationally discussing this topic. Probably has something to do with my job (criminologist).
 
2012-12-18 03:50:53 PM  

danielscissorhands: Question:

Isn't the "ban" on assault rifles that cop was speaking of, long since over?

So, was the bushmaster used by Lanza fully automatic? I'm assuming it would have had to have been?

Thanks.


As far as my shallow understanding goes, fully automatic weapons have been heavily restricted and regulated since/by the 1934 National Firearms Act, rather than the national assault weapons ban, which is long over. As I said upthread, it's also worth noting that Connecticut does have a standing assault weapons ban, under which Adam Lanza (and/or his mother) acquired all of his weaponry.
 
2012-12-18 03:52:03 PM  
People put far too much importance on the difference between "hold the trigger and fire at full sleep" and "pull the trigger as fast as you can and fire at that speed." It's not that big of a difference, at all, when discussing how many unarmed people you can shoot.
 
2012-12-18 03:56:04 PM  

mycathatesyou: crzybtch: Just wanted to say that I am sure the differences in the gun types and firing speed probably really matters to the parents of dead children right now.

Exactly and I'm pretty sick of all the asshats posting about their rights to own weapons. What about all of those six years olds' right to be alive?


Blame the asshat who stole the guns and shot them, then.
 
2012-12-18 03:57:14 PM  

LasersHurt: People put far too much importance on the difference between "hold the trigger and fire at full sleep" and "pull the trigger as fast as you can and fire at that speed." It's not that big of a difference, at all, when discussing how many unarmed people you can shoot.


Then the correct answer is to repeal the NFA, or at least the Hughes Amendment.
 
2012-12-18 04:05:53 PM  
How many rounds does the semi-auto hold versus the sporting rifle? That was my big concern and it wasn't addressed.
 
2012-12-18 04:06:47 PM  

dittybopper: Blame the asshat who stole the guns and shot them, then.


Oh. Look. Evasion. Pretending people aren't blaming the shooter so you can ignore the point.

I'd hate for somebody like his mother to lose their "right" to keep a small arsenal of high-powered, high capacity, high ROF weaponry unsecured in a home right alongside an unstable individual with mental health issues. That would just be a travesty. She might not have been prepared for the end of the world, after all.

It's great, too. I have freedom to speak my mind, but I can't hide behind the freedom to try and get people killed. I have freedom of religion, but I can't use that freedom to force other people to participate.

Apparently, however, unlike every other recognized right we enjoy gun ownership is the one sacrosanct right that we're not allowed to place any basic legal responsibilities on to make sure the exercise of that right isn't interfering with other people's rights.
 
2012-12-18 04:12:08 PM  
Despite it being a kinda silly reason, the military-looking guns should not really be in the hands of ordinary citizens--as the fella from the video said, it looks menacing. Is that what guns should be for? Menacing? In the rural community I grew up in, guns were for hunting. If you're using it for menacing, then you're one of the people that society needs to keep an eye on and perhaps not allow to be armed. At this point, I think hunting guns should be pink or yellow with flowers painted on 'em so everyone knows that if you're carrying, it's definitely NOT because you're compensating for something...
 
2012-12-18 04:14:12 PM  

Vodka Zombie: Wow. Can someone wake me when he gets around to discussing the difference between milk fat percentages?


2% milk is 2% fat. Whole milk is wholly fat.
 
Displayed 50 of 158 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report