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.

(Talking Points Memo)   The history of the AR-15, the gun used at Sandy Hook. Since the media doing this, I'm impressed we're not looking at a picture of the AK-47. I mean, they're both assault rifles and both have "A" in their name   (tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 667
    More: Interesting, Sandy Hook, assault rifles, Kalashnikov, Palm City, semi-automatic rifle, John Allen Muhammad, Cerberus Capital Management LP, assault weapons ban  
•       •       •

13558 clicks; posted to Main » on 21 Dec 2012 at 10:07 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-21 11:56:44 AM

The Southern Dandy: Who agrees with me that a militia SHOULD have Assault Rifles? I mean, if you're going to be fighting a war against an Army of a major world power, wouldn't you want an Assault Rifle?

Where in the 2nd Amendment does it mention hunting, or home defense? It doesn't. It does mention a militia being necessary for a free state. Who will the militia be fighting to defend the free state? Deer? Turkeys?

And before somebody pipes up about "we already have a well regulated militia in the form of the National Guard". Sorry. No. After the comma, the 2nd amendment says the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms...not the right of the government.


I'm with you buddy. If the government can have it, I should be able to have it. No holds barred. The intent of the 2nd amendment is to be able to overthrow the government, which makes some people very nervous, as it is supposed to do. That way, the government doesn't get too big for its britches and start oppressing people.
 
2012-12-21 11:58:54 AM

Gosling: Dimensio: No evidence has been prevented that banning "Bushmaster" rifles would have prevented the incident at Newtown.

The fact that the Bushmaster AR-15 was legally purchased by the shooter's mom and that it was the gun used in the shooting isn't evidence enough for you?


Good point, lets just ban the Bushmaster AR-15 and call it a day. Gun grabbers won't be happy, gun owners won't be happy, but the over hyped mainstream idiot will see something got done and go back to watching reality TV.
 
2012-12-21 11:59:10 AM

FightDirector: thurstonxhowell: Dimensio: "Assault weapon" is a poor term with no established definition that is intentionally utilized to confuse civilian sporting rifles with military weapons.

"Civilian sporting rifle", when used to describe an AR-15, is one of the most ham-fisted attempts at political correctness I've ever seen.

How about this? Is this a legitimate civilian sporting rifle?

[i1.wp.com image 850x209]

That firearm is a Mini-14, a rifle that can accept a magazine that holds 5, 10, 20, or 30 rounds (or larger). It fires a bullet approximately .223 inches wide, at a velocity of about 2800 feet per second. It can fire one - and ONLY one - round each time you pull the trigger.


The scary man's firearm is an AR-15. It can accept a magazine that holds 5, 10, 20, or 30 rounds (or larger; Betamags can hold approx 100 rounds but have horrific jam rates). It fires a bullet approximately .223 inches wide, at a velocity of about 2800 feet per second. It can fire one - and ONLY one - round each time you pull the trigger. It is covered in black plastic, which makes it lighter and theoretically more impact-resistant. These facts are scary, yes? It looks like this:

[blogs.suntimes.com image 850x250]

They are, functionally, the SAME FARKING GUN. They shoot the same bullet, from magazines of the same size, at the same velocity. But one looks dammed scary, while one looks a lot like a hunting rifle you see on the wall.

There is quite literally no way to word a gun ban - while being intellectually honest - that will make a difference (because you can get a gun that does the same thing - or more - in a different cosmetic package) or word one in such a way that will not become a *de facto* ban on ALL guns. And while the latter may be a desirable goal to some minds, there is simply no actual, practical way to make it happen, without setting the military loose on the civilian population in a house-to-house and turning our country into another Afghanistan-style military quagmire.


I pointed this same thing out yesterday in a thread, but let me ask you this:
When someone is trying to look "badass" on a FB picture, or otherwise wants to indulge their rambo fantasies  which version of the gun do they choose?

The nice normal looking one with a blued barrel and a walnut stock, or the "tactical" one witht he folding stock and the plastic and sheet metal bits all over it?

Why?


because it looks more dangerous,  it looks more like a military weapon (and what do soldiers shoot?  Other people, of course) so it's more attractive to those that want to do harm to their fellow man, true?

One of the reasons the Aurora shooting wasn't dealier than it was is because the shooter bought himself one of those ridiculous, highly phallic 100-round double drum magazines, without realizing they are utterly unreliable pieces of crap.   I have no doubt what attracted him t it, rather than the more reliable 30-round mags was how "cool" and "deadly " it looked.

Now, being rational, can you give me a good reason we should allow 100 round magazines to be purchased by civilians?
 
2012-12-21 11:59:23 AM

FightDirector: Dimensio: Magorn: Dimensio: T.M.S.: "Assault Rifle" is up there with "politically correct". Two terms that were stupid to coin in the first place and today are only used by those that feel oppressed by them.

"Assault rifle" is a technical term with an established definition.

"Assault weapon" is a poor term with no established definition that is intentionally utilized to confuse civilian sporting rifles with military weapons.

How about we call it "Diet assault rifle" and call it a day?  Would you be happy then.   For one of of three positions on its selector switch the M-16 is functionally identical to the AR-15

Is a Mini-14 functionally dissimilar to an M-16?

Insofar as a Mini-14 doesn't have a 3-round burst setting (or full-auto switch, depending on the M-16 variant model), yes, it's functionally dissimilar.


AC-556.
 
2012-12-21 11:59:32 AM

Thunderpipes: r1niceboy: Enemabag Jones: As much as I hate that the AR15 has become the generic 'taticool' fashion statement to too many gun owners, it could have been a mini-14, sks or AK too.

Let's not get hung up on one form factor when discussing the problem.

/Anyone ever seen the ar-15 in wood furniture, it looks rather good.

If he'd used an AK, we'd be lamenting the fact that Sandy Hook lost 26 panes of glass. It's more of a spray monster than a five year old boy at a urinal. If he'd killed anyone, it would have been by chance.

Perfectly accurate rifle out to 100 yards. At 10 feet, no less accurate than an AR, or anything else for that matter.

Besides, he did use an AK, at least three of them from what I read.


He used an AR-15, which is single shot. He had to aim for every shot, and as a result, his bullets counted more than they would have done if he'd sprayed a AK-47 clip. It pulls up hard, and he'd have done more damage to the ceiling.
 
2012-12-21 12:00:06 PM

Bull Moose 76: The Southern Dandy: Who agrees with me that a militia SHOULD have Assault Rifles? I mean, if you're going to be fighting a war against an Army of a major world power, wouldn't you want an Assault Rifle?

Where in the 2nd Amendment does it mention hunting, or home defense? It doesn't. It does mention a militia being necessary for a free state. Who will the militia be fighting to defend the free state? Deer? Turkeys?

And before somebody pipes up about "we already have a well regulated militia in the form of the National Guard". Sorry. No. After the comma, the 2nd amendment says the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms...not the right of the government.

I'm with you buddy. If the government can have it, I should be able to have it. No holds barred. The intent of the 2nd amendment is to be able to overthrow the government, which makes some people very nervous, as it is supposed to do. That way, the government doesn't get too big for its britches and start oppressing people.


Which is exactly what is starting to happen, bit by bit. Guns under assault, free speech has already been under assault (call a kid a name at school? That is now a crime in many places). People are now forced to pay for whatever Obama wants them to or the IRS comes for you. People don't see it, at least liberals don't, because they want us all to be government controlled morons. Even our tax dollars are forcibly used to support Democrats, and even challenging that makes liberals scream bloody murder (right to NOT join a union anyone?).
 
2012-12-21 12:00:34 PM

mizchief: Gosling: Dimensio: No evidence has been prevented that banning "Bushmaster" rifles would have prevented the incident at Newtown.

The fact that the Bushmaster AR-15 was legally purchased by the shooter's mom and that it was the gun used in the shooting isn't evidence enough for you?

Good point, lets just ban the Bushmaster AR-15 and call it a day. Gun grabbers won't be happy, gun owners won't be happy, but the over hyped mainstream idiot will see something got done and go back to watching reality TV.


And you'll set a wonderful precedent the next time one is used in something like this? ERHMAGERD THE BANZ DIDNT WORK!!! Now we need to go house by house to find them all.

Alternatively, a different rifle is used. So, the first ban worked because a Bushmaster wasn't used. Let's ban this new firearm!!!
 
2012-12-21 12:01:25 PM

Magorn: Of all the irraitating thing gunnuts do, none is more annoying or ridiculous than thier constant butt-hurt about Gun nomeclature and identification. They use it like a secret handshake to indentify other obsesssives like themselves and marginalize the opinions of everyone else "Ah-ha the article said the gun was an Ar-15 but CLEARLY it was an Ar-15 L limited edition with the collapsible stock and the chome sights-stupid Lib reporter who doesn;t know anything about guns.."


Ah thank you. Came here to say something like that. I think it's nice how so many people are experts on things that are made to kill people. If I was an expert on herbs and chemicals that would kill people, how they would do it, what it would feel like, and how which ones could be made to look like an accident, it might be interesting, but you probably wouldn't come to my house for dinner, would you? And if I started posting all about it a Fark thread, I'd probably get a lot of comments about how farking weird I was.

I'm not interested in your expertise in killing weapons, either.

/have a son that LOVES guns
//he says we need changes. This is a 19-year-old kid, guys. Willing to give up a lifetime of high-powered weaponry for the good of all.
 
2012-12-21 12:01:40 PM
interesting that an ar-15 was used, but the alleged shooter was only found with two pistols, and the ar-15 was in the trunk of his car. somehow he brought the rifle in, shot everybody, ran out to his car, deposited it in the trunk, ran back in to the school and killed himself. there musta been some magic, in that mask and vest he wore.
 
2012-12-21 12:02:01 PM

Thunderpipes: Bull Moose 76: The Southern Dandy: Who agrees with me that a militia SHOULD have Assault Rifles? I mean, if you're going to be fighting a war against an Army of a major world power, wouldn't you want an Assault Rifle?

Where in the 2nd Amendment does it mention hunting, or home defense? It doesn't. It does mention a militia being necessary for a free state. Who will the militia be fighting to defend the free state? Deer? Turkeys?

And before somebody pipes up about "we already have a well regulated militia in the form of the National Guard". Sorry. No. After the comma, the 2nd amendment says the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms...not the right of the government.

I'm with you buddy. If the government can have it, I should be able to have it. No holds barred. The intent of the 2nd amendment is to be able to overthrow the government, which makes some people very nervous, as it is supposed to do. That way, the government doesn't get too big for its britches and start oppressing people.

Which is exactly what is starting to happen, bit by bit. Guns under assault, free speech has already been under assault (call a kid a name at school? That is now a crime in many places). People are now forced to pay for whatever Obama wants them to or the IRS comes for you. People don't see it, at least liberals don't, because they want us all to be government controlled morons. Even our tax dollars are forcibly used to support Democrats, and even challenging that makes liberals scream bloody murder (right to NOT join a union anyone?).


I'm a liberal.
 
2012-12-21 12:02:07 PM

CygnusDarius: Fark it, I'll make my own guns.

[englishrussia.com image 520x390]

[englishrussia.com image 800x600]

[englishrussia.com image 800x600]

[englishrussia.com image 800x600]

[englishrussia.com image 800x600]

/From link


Jesus christ, I forgot that Chechnya was the real life fallout 3. Cool stuff.
 
2012-12-21 12:02:29 PM

r1niceboy: Thunderpipes: r1niceboy: Enemabag Jones: As much as I hate that the AR15 has become the generic 'taticool' fashion statement to too many gun owners, it could have been a mini-14, sks or AK too.

Let's not get hung up on one form factor when discussing the problem.

/Anyone ever seen the ar-15 in wood furniture, it looks rather good.

If he'd used an AK, we'd be lamenting the fact that Sandy Hook lost 26 panes of glass. It's more of a spray monster than a five year old boy at a urinal. If he'd killed anyone, it would have been by chance.

Perfectly accurate rifle out to 100 yards. At 10 feet, no less accurate than an AR, or anything else for that matter.

Besides, he did use an AK, at least three of them from what I read.

He used an AR-15, which is single shot. He had to aim for every shot, and as a result, his bullets counted more than they would have done if he'd sprayed a AK-47 clip. It pulls up hard, and he'd have done more damage to the ceiling.


I was joking. And since you are saying a fully automatic AK, same would happen with an M-16. Ak-47 is perfectly accurate in single shot mode at short ranges, even a little longer. Ever shot one?
 
2012-12-21 12:02:50 PM

brax33: r1niceboy:
If he'd used an AK, we'd be lamenting the fact that Sandy Hook lost 26 panes of glass. It's more of a spray monster than a five year old boy at a urinal. If he'd killed anyone, it would have been by chance.


Contrary to unpopular belief, the AK is pretty darn accurate in the right hands.


I've fired one, and unless you have the discipline to limit yourself to the softest of squeezes, it's going to get away from you. I doubt Lanza had that much self-control.
 
2012-12-21 12:03:22 PM

Evil Twin Skippy: As a fan of guns, I still can't understand why any civilian needs a 30 round clip.


I don't know why women need boobs bigger than a B cup, but we still waste resources on implants. They offer no functional difference, but look better and are more fun to play with. Even if we ban implants, there are still lots of big tits out there, it' just that small chested women won't be able to compete with those that already have them or that can still obtain (naturally) despite of the ban.
 
2012-12-21 12:05:10 PM

Bull Moose 76: The Southern Dandy: Who agrees with me that a militia SHOULD have Assault Rifles? I mean, if you're going to be fighting a war against an Army of a major world power, wouldn't you want an Assault Rifle?

Where in the 2nd Amendment does it mention hunting, or home defense? It doesn't. It does mention a militia being necessary for a free state. Who will the militia be fighting to defend the free state? Deer? Turkeys?

And before somebody pipes up about "we already have a well regulated militia in the form of the National Guard". Sorry. No. After the comma, the 2nd amendment says the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms...not the right of the government.

I'm with you buddy. If the government can have it, I should be able to have it. No holds barred. The intent of the 2nd amendment is to be able to overthrow the government, which makes some people very nervous, as it is supposed to do. That way, the government doesn't get too big for its britches and start oppressing people.


Yeah, call me a pants-wetting, gun-grabbing  liberal but I really dont think these should be legal in civilian hands.  Sorry I just don't trust my fellow man that much:
farm1.staticflickr.com
 
2012-12-21 12:05:38 PM

Bull Moose 76: That way, the government doesn't get too big for its britches and start oppressing people.


That right there, is the whole intent of the 2nd amendment, not hunting, or personal/home defense.
 
2012-12-21 12:06:20 PM

The Southern Dandy: Thunderpipes: Bull Moose 76: The Southern Dandy: Who agrees with me that a militia SHOULD have Assault Rifles? I mean, if you're going to be fighting a war against an Army of a major world power, wouldn't you want an Assault Rifle?

Where in the 2nd Amendment does it mention hunting, or home defense? It doesn't. It does mention a militia being necessary for a free state. Who will the militia be fighting to defend the free state? Deer? Turkeys?

And before somebody pipes up about "we already have a well regulated militia in the form of the National Guard". Sorry. No. After the comma, the 2nd amendment says the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms...not the right of the government.

I'm with you buddy. If the government can have it, I should be able to have it. No holds barred. The intent of the 2nd amendment is to be able to overthrow the government, which makes some people very nervous, as it is supposed to do. That way, the government doesn't get too big for its britches and start oppressing people.

Which is exactly what is starting to happen, bit by bit. Guns under assault, free speech has already been under assault (call a kid a name at school? That is now a crime in many places). People are now forced to pay for whatever Obama wants them to or the IRS comes for you. People don't see it, at least liberals don't, because they want us all to be government controlled morons. Even our tax dollars are forcibly used to support Democrats, and even challenging that makes liberals scream bloody murder (right to NOT join a union anyone?).

I'm a liberal.


I'm a libertarian.
 
2012-12-21 12:06:21 PM

ronaprhys: hobnail: Question for the gun enthusiasts here. TFA mentions that the AR-15 is popular for home defense. Why is this?

Personally I'd rather have a lightweight 20 gauge-- more chance of hitting the target, and less likely to penetrate my neighbors' houses.

Just wondering.


/not a nut, either pro- or anti- guns

The question of what to use to defend your home is an interesting one. A shotgun, while potentially easier to aim, has a lower capacity and can be unwieldy. They tend to be relatively long and unless you're across the room from someone, it could be difficult to get it up and aimed at someone. Rifle's may be slightly better as some are shorter (or functionally shorter, based on how you hold them) and may have more capacity. However, your aim has to be better. Pistols are much more maneuverable, but they take a bit of practice to become proficient with aiming and quicker shots.

Personally, I'd rather use a .45 with higher capacity (yes, I've read the Gospel According to John Moses Browning and I realize that I should need no more than 7 rounds) and a few extra magazines. Plenty of stopping power, works in close quarters, and I can put lots of bullets at the assailant.


What's the risk of collateral damage with a .45?

/knows practically nothing about handguns
 
2012-12-21 12:07:56 PM

Thunderpipes: r1niceboy: Thunderpipes: r1niceboy: Enemabag Jones: As much as I hate that the AR15 has become the generic 'taticool' fashion statement to too many gun owners, it could have been a mini-14, sks or AK too.

Let's not get hung up on one form factor when discussing the problem.

/Anyone ever seen the ar-15 in wood furniture, it looks rather good.

If he'd used an AK, we'd be lamenting the fact that Sandy Hook lost 26 panes of glass. It's more of a spray monster than a five year old boy at a urinal. If he'd killed anyone, it would have been by chance.

Perfectly accurate rifle out to 100 yards. At 10 feet, no less accurate than an AR, or anything else for that matter.

Besides, he did use an AK, at least three of them from what I read.

He used an AR-15, which is single shot. He had to aim for every shot, and as a result, his bullets counted more than they would have done if he'd sprayed a AK-47 clip. It pulls up hard, and he'd have done more damage to the ceiling.

I was joking. And since you are saying a fully automatic AK, same would happen with an M-16. Ak-47 is perfectly accurate in single shot mode at short ranges, even a little longer. Ever shot one?


Yep, a 47 without selector and a 74 with. It's not a bad weapon, but you need to understand it. The true bucking bronco on full auto is the FN FAL. That's a madman.
 
2012-12-21 12:08:45 PM
i.imgur.com
 
2012-12-21 12:09:49 PM

Magorn: I pointed this same thing out yesterday in a thread, but let me ask you this:
When someone is trying to look "badass" on a FB picture, or otherwise wants to indulge their rambo fantasies which version of the gun do they choose?

The nice normal looking one with a blued barrel and a walnut stock, or the "tactical" one witht he folding stock and the plastic and sheet metal bits all over it?


Depends on the situation. Many times they simply use what they've got - that could be a pistol, a rifle covered with mainly useless stuff, or even some sort of Klingon weapon.

Why?


because it looks more dangerous, it looks more like a military weapon (and what do soldiers shoot? Other people, of course) so it's more attractive to those that want to do harm to their fellow man, true?


Wait - now you've gone off the deep end. You've made some huge ass-leap from wanting to look cool to wanting to hurt people. That's a leap completely unsupported by anything you've said nor anything in, well, reality.

One of the reasons the Aurora shooting wasn't dealier than it was is because the shooter bought himself one of those ridiculous, highly phallic 100-round double drum magazines, without realizing they are utterly unreliable pieces of crap. I have no doubt what attracted him t it, rather than the more reliable 30-round mags was how "cool" and "deadly " it looked.

Glad you can ascertain motive from someone who was mentally unbalanced.

Now, being rational, can you give me a good reason we should allow 100 round magazines to be purchased by civilians?

Shall not be infringed. Can you show me how many 100 round magazines have been purchased and how many have been actually used in a crime? If you want to infringe, you need to prove overwhelming need based on actual facts and statistics. Those facts and statistics cannot be outliers or isolated events.
 
2012-12-21 12:10:00 PM

mizchief: Evil Twin Skippy: As a fan of guns, I still can't understand why any civilian needs a 30 round clip.

I don't know why women need boobs bigger than a B cup, but we still waste resources on implants. They offer no functional difference, but look better and are more fun to play with. Even if we ban implants, there are still lots of big tits out there, it' just that small chested women won't be able to compete with those that already have them or that can still obtain (naturally) despite of the ban.


But bigger tits won't kill people, although they may put out an eye or cause suffocation.
 
2012-12-21 12:10:01 PM

Thunderpipes: This is quite a unique case anyway. I am all for freedom to own guns. But she had a batshiat crazy kid, with a history of violence. Keeping guns around him was criminal. If she was alive, I would want her to pay dearly for stupidity.

If someone breaks in to your house, steals a gun, then commits a crime, that is different in my eyes.


I'm in favor of holding the owner responsible in civil court, and slapping on criminal negligence which should prevent getting a permit to carry for 5 years, if the owner didn't take reasonable steps to secure the weapons. A large locked gun safe would cover you, but could also be a closet with a dead bolt, installing gun locks, etc.
 
2012-12-21 12:10:02 PM

lordjupiter: [i.imgur.com image 633x728]


or photoshopped jpegs.
 
2012-12-21 12:12:41 PM

The Southern Dandy: lordjupiter: [i.imgur.com image 633x728]

or photoshopped jpegs.



True.  But the answer is not more of the same derp in the jpeg.
 
2012-12-21 12:12:48 PM

dittybopper: FightDirector: Dimensio: Magorn: Dimensio: T.M.S.: "Assault Rifle" is up there with "politically correct". Two terms that were stupid to coin in the first place and today are only used by those that feel oppressed by them.

"Assault rifle" is a technical term with an established definition.

"Assault weapon" is a poor term with no established definition that is intentionally utilized to confuse civilian sporting rifles with military weapons.

How about we call it "Diet assault rifle" and call it a day?  Would you be happy then.   For one of of three positions on its selector switch the M-16 is functionally identical to the AR-15

Is a Mini-14 functionally dissimilar to an M-16?

Insofar as a Mini-14 doesn't have a 3-round burst setting (or full-auto switch, depending on the M-16 variant model), yes, it's functionally dissimilar.

AC-556.


Not legal for civilian use, though, as it postdates the 1986 registration cutoff. So for practical purposes when putting it into this discussion, it doesn't really "exist".

(Also, if we're being pedantic, it's not really a "Mini-14" in the same way an AR-15 isn't really an M16 or M4. There's performance differences, and they matter.)
 
2012-12-21 12:12:52 PM

r1niceboy: Thunderpipes: r1niceboy: Thunderpipes: r1niceboy: Enemabag Jones: As much as I hate that the AR15 has become the generic 'taticool' fashion statement to too many gun owners, it could have been a mini-14, sks or AK too.

Let's not get hung up on one form factor when discussing the problem.

/Anyone ever seen the ar-15 in wood furniture, it looks rather good.

If he'd used an AK, we'd be lamenting the fact that Sandy Hook lost 26 panes of glass. It's more of a spray monster than a five year old boy at a urinal. If he'd killed anyone, it would have been by chance.

Perfectly accurate rifle out to 100 yards. At 10 feet, no less accurate than an AR, or anything else for that matter.

Besides, he did use an AK, at least three of them from what I read.

He used an AR-15, which is single shot. He had to aim for every shot, and as a result, his bullets counted more than they would have done if he'd sprayed a AK-47 clip. It pulls up hard, and he'd have done more damage to the ceiling.

I was joking. And since you are saying a fully automatic AK, same would happen with an M-16. Ak-47 is perfectly accurate in single shot mode at short ranges, even a little longer. Ever shot one?

Yep, a 47 without selector and a 74 with. It's not a bad weapon, but you need to understand it. The true bucking bronco on full auto is the FN FAL. That's a madman.


Would love to try a fully auto M-14 or BAR.

All of this gun control talk is just stupid any way. It is just political to get more votes, and drive more people left, using a terrible event to do it.

What is really scary, is that the left is poised to take all power and stay there. Anything they want, they get. More people reliant on government, more votes, they breed faster. Unlimited spending, unlimited taxing. You get whatever rights politicians say you need, and they will dominate the Supreme Court as well. How any left wing person really believes that will lead to prosperity is beyond me.
 
2012-12-21 12:12:53 PM

hobnail: ronaprhys: hobnail: Question for the gun enthusiasts here. TFA mentions that the AR-15 is popular for home defense. Why is this?

Personally I'd rather have a lightweight 20 gauge-- more chance of hitting the target, and less likely to penetrate my neighbors' houses.

Just wondering.


/not a nut, either pro- or anti- guns

The question of what to use to defend your home is an interesting one. A shotgun, while potentially easier to aim, has a lower capacity and can be unwieldy. They tend to be relatively long and unless you're across the room from someone, it could be difficult to get it up and aimed at someone. Rifle's may be slightly better as some are shorter (or functionally shorter, based on how you hold them) and may have more capacity. However, your aim has to be better. Pistols are much more maneuverable, but they take a bit of practice to become proficient with aiming and quicker shots.

Personally, I'd rather use a .45 with higher capacity (yes, I've read the Gospel According to John Moses Browning and I realize that I should need no more than 7 rounds) and a few extra magazines. Plenty of stopping power, works in close quarters, and I can put lots of bullets at the assailant.

What's the risk of collateral damage with a .45?

/knows practically nothing about handguns


A 45 is a big bullet, so if you miss your target, that bullet is definitely going through at least 1 wall. Collateral damage potential is high. Always check your lines when you own a firearm intended for home defense. Where will you fire from, and where should you NOT fire to, for instance, because someone is behind that wall, or a gas line is in that wall.
 
2012-12-21 12:13:14 PM
Why don't we make laws that specifically target those that are committing gun crimes?

i.e. Violent Criminals can never own guns
Using a gun to commit a crime, 15 years, no parole, strike 2 life, no parole.

Instead we target law abiding citizens... I fail to see the logic.
 
2012-12-21 12:15:22 PM

lordjupiter: The Southern Dandy: lordjupiter: [i.imgur.com image 633x728]

or photoshopped jpegs.


True.  But the answer is not more of the same derp in the jpeg.


Then come up with a practical and enforceable suggestion that doesn't violate the Second Amendment (or any other rights/amendments) AND will prevent shootings like these that have just happened as well as lower the overall homicide rate.

Detail it out and show how it'd solve the problems.
 
2012-12-21 12:16:28 PM

lordjupiter: [i.imgur.com image 633x728]


Why do you only care about those children? What about ALL the people that were killed this year? Why can't we make societal changes that get rid of the reasons people want to kill each other instead of banning the tools and simultaneously infringing on the rights of 70 million people who don't kill people every year?

Really, it's you who's the monster, since you don't care about all those other people.

/see, we can engage in reductio ad absurdum too!
//wait...actually, this is a valid point. Why DON'T you care about all those other people? Why DON'T you want to fix out culture in general, instead of a kneejerk reaction that makes you feel better in the short term?
 
2012-12-21 12:16:31 PM

mizchief: Thunderpipes: This is quite a unique case anyway. I am all for freedom to own guns. But she had a batshiat crazy kid, with a history of violence. Keeping guns around him was criminal. If she was alive, I would want her to pay dearly for stupidity.

If someone breaks in to your house, steals a gun, then commits a crime, that is different in my eyes.

I'm in favor of holding the owner responsible in civil court, and slapping on criminal negligence which should prevent getting a permit to carry for 5 years, if the owner didn't take reasonable steps to secure the weapons. A large locked gun safe would cover you, but could also be a closet with a dead bolt, installing gun locks, etc.


A large locked gun safe does not protect you though. If someone breaks in to my house, I don't have time to screw around with a safe. If someone steals your car, and commits a crime, should you be held accountable? Has to be some common sense. But if there is obvious reasons to secure firearms, like a crazy son living with you, then maybe.
 
2012-12-21 12:16:37 PM
 
2012-12-21 12:16:57 PM
You know who all these anti-gunners remind me of? M.A.D.D.
 
2012-12-21 12:18:04 PM
Can anyone please tell me if this is an "assault rifle"?

www.comentakeit.com
If so, what about it makes it an "assault rifle"?


Thanks!!!
 
2012-12-21 12:18:26 PM
Driveway clear.

My neighbor has had to resort to a goddamn Bobcat to get his driveway cleared.
 
2012-12-21 12:18:44 PM

Bull Moose 76: hobnail: ronaprhys: hobnail: Question for the gun enthusiasts here. TFA mentions that the AR-15 is popular for home defense. Why is this?

Personally I'd rather have a lightweight 20 gauge-- more chance of hitting the target, and less likely to penetrate my neighbors' houses.

Just wondering.


/not a nut, either pro- or anti- guns

The question of what to use to defend your home is an interesting one. A shotgun, while potentially easier to aim, has a lower capacity and can be unwieldy. They tend to be relatively long and unless you're across the room from someone, it could be difficult to get it up and aimed at someone. Rifle's may be slightly better as some are shorter (or functionally shorter, based on how you hold them) and may have more capacity. However, your aim has to be better. Pistols are much more maneuverable, but they take a bit of practice to become proficient with aiming and quicker shots.

Personally, I'd rather use a .45 with higher capacity (yes, I've read the Gospel According to John Moses Browning and I realize that I should need no more than 7 rounds) and a few extra magazines. Plenty of stopping power, works in close quarters, and I can put lots of bullets at the assailant.

What's the risk of collateral damage with a .45?

/knows practically nothing about handguns

A 45 is a big bullet, so if you miss your target, that bullet is definitely going through at least 1 wall. Collateral damage potential is high. Always check your lines when you own a firearm intended for home defense. Where will you fire from, and where should you NOT fire to, for instance, because someone is behind that wall, or a gas line is in that wall.


Generally pretty low penetration with a .45 though. Being smaller and faster, a 9mm penetrates better (but transfers less energy into its target). This is also what makes the AR-15 an ever poorer choice for home defense.
 
2012-12-21 12:19:43 PM

Mr.BobDobalita: Can anyone please tell me if this is an "assault rifle"?

[www.comentakeit.com image 827x456]
If so, what about it makes it an "assault rifle"?

Thanks!!!


This is not clever, nor is it an argument. If you disagree with the term, figure out how to accurate describe the weapons in question. I think it's more likely that you're just dismissing the entire idea without considering anything about it sincerely.
 
2012-12-21 12:19:59 PM

Magorn: Bull Moose 76: The Southern Dandy: Who agrees with me that a militia SHOULD have Assault Rifles? I mean, if you're going to be fighting a war against an Army of a major world power, wouldn't you want an Assault Rifle?

Where in the 2nd Amendment does it mention hunting, or home defense? It doesn't. It does mention a militia being necessary for a free state. Who will the militia be fighting to defend the free state? Deer? Turkeys?

And before somebody pipes up about "we already have a well regulated militia in the form of the National Guard". Sorry. No. After the comma, the 2nd amendment says the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms...not the right of the government.

I'm with you buddy. If the government can have it, I should be able to have it. No holds barred. The intent of the 2nd amendment is to be able to overthrow the government, which makes some people very nervous, as it is supposed to do. That way, the government doesn't get too big for its britches and start oppressing people.

Yeah, call me a pants-wetting, gun-grabbing  liberal but I really dont think these should be legal in civilian hands.  Sorry I just don't trust my fellow man that much:


Cool pic. Naaaa, I'm not gonna call you names, just making my point, that to adequately defend against the strongest military in history, I will need more than just a pistol or a rifle, most likely. I hope it never comes to that, I don't think it WILL ever come to that. I do know the intent of amendment 2 is to defend against the government, and the definition of arms at the time it was written was intended to include all armament, as it should today.

Funny thing, the constitution. The stuff that is in it, lots of people want out of it, and the stuff they want covered by it, is no where to be found.
 
2012-12-21 12:20:25 PM

Evil Twin Skippy: As a fan of guns, I still can't understand why any civilian needs a 30 round clip.

We were at the range the other day with some friends, shooting some old .22 and a pistol. At the end of the range were two guys firing off an AR-15. (One of them was an instructor, methinks.) I have to admit, I gave it more than a good look. It was a nice firearm, and in the hands of an idiot he was making groupings that embarrassed we who were shooting Boy scout grade rifles with iron sights.

Still, in a range setting, that puppy was WAY out of place. Somebody buying that thing is not in the same league with recreational shooters, hunters, and the like. That gun is really only good for mowing down human beings at a lot of them. It doesn't have the stopping power for big game. It is overkill for small game. There are even rules for bird hunting that limit shotguns to a 3 round magazine. 30 rounds is military load out, and has no place outside of war.


As a "fan of guns", shut the hell up; you aren't helping. You are just another twit that doesn't understand why we even have the 2nd amendment, so zip it, ok?

The 2nd amendment wasn't written to protect your right to go deer or duck hunting. It was written to affirm your ability to own the meanest military small arms of the time to protect your liberties from tyrants. Period. End of story. Back then it was a smooth-bore musket. Now it's an M-16. This "sporting use" nonsense was created by gun grabbers to justify the divide and conquer method of gun control, finally leading to complete prohibition (which the true goal of all of them, regardless of what they may or may not say publicly).
 
2012-12-21 12:20:28 PM

ronaprhys: lordjupiter: The Southern Dandy: lordjupiter: [i.imgur.com image 633x728]

or photoshopped jpegs.


True.  But the answer is not more of the same derp in the jpeg.

Then come up with a practical and enforceable suggestion that doesn't violate the Second Amendment (or any other rights/amendments) AND will prevent shootings like these that have just happened as well as lower the overall homicide rate.

Detail it out and show how it'd solve the problems.



That's not my job.  I have a better suggestion...stop trying to derail discussions of how to fix the problems with bullshiat slogans and demands for perfect solutions or implementations of none at all.  That's a start.

Are you a christian?  Do you believe in teaching god in the schools?  If you are, let's see the proof your religion is right.  Or whatever you believe, do you have proof?  If not, then your standards of proof shift depending on the topic.
 
2012-12-21 12:20:50 PM

lordjupiter: The Southern Dandy: lordjupiter: [i.imgur.com image 633x728]

or photoshopped jpegs.


True.  But the answer is not more of the same derp in the jpeg.


The answer is a reasoned approach, using facts, not emotion.
The facts are that rifles are used in murders less than half the amount that hands, fists and feet are.
The fact is, the worst school shooting in US history didn't involve rifles at all.
The fact is, the worst school massacre in US history didn't involve guns at all.
The fact is, banning "assault rifles" won't stop this kind of thing, but it will infringe on rights given to us by the constitution.

Opinion: Frankly, I'm sick of our leaders throwing away our rights out of fear, in order to gain a FALSE sense of security.

These children, and the future's children, deserve our thoughtful approach at a solution to the plague of mass killings. Not knee jerk, emotional responses.
 
2012-12-21 12:20:54 PM

Gosling: Dimensio: What limit would you recommend, and what demonstrable benefit would result?

Let's say five guns, total, per registered gun owner. I think that's a reasonable limit. So if you have three registered gun owners in the house, you can have 15 guns in the house.

It wouldn't do anything to the people who really do just want the one gun for hunting or protection. In fact, they can do both that way. Multiple types of game, even. But with a five-gun limit, you'd have to start thinking about what kind of gun you really need to have. The small-penis guns would probably drop off in sales as a result because people would (I hope to God) pick smaller, more pragmatic guns over AR-15's.

And that results in fewer guns floating around, and fewer that can be used in mass shootings, which will help result in fewer Newtowns, fewer Virginia Techs, fewer Auroras, fewer yada yada yada.

And maybe we can have some sort of buyback program for the pre-existing overage.


Limiting the number of guns is the most pointless of the control ideas. You can only shoot one at a time! Don't bother exposing your igonrance and by saying something about duel wielding, RL isn't like COD.
 
2012-12-21 12:21:07 PM

LasersHurt: Mr.BobDobalita: Can anyone please tell me if this is an "assault rifle"?

[www.comentakeit.com image 827x456]
If so, what about it makes it an "assault rifle"?

Thanks!!!

This is not clever, nor is it an argument. If you disagree with the term, figure out how to accurate describe the weapons in question. I think it's more likely that you're just dismissing the entire idea without considering anything about it sincerely.


It's not firearm owners who disagree with the term. As a general rule, we know what the term actually means. It's those who wish to infringe upon human rights that confuse the term, willfully, to make emotional appeals.
 
2012-12-21 12:21:31 PM

FightDirector: lordjupiter: [i.imgur.com image 633x728]

Why do you only care about those children? What about ALL the people that were killed this year? Why can't we make societal changes that get rid of the reasons people want to kill each other instead of banning the tools and simultaneously infringing on the rights of 70 million people who don't kill people every year?

Really, it's you who's the monster, since you don't care about all those other people.

/see, we can engage in reductio ad absurdum too!
//wait...actually, this is a valid point. Why DON'T you care about all those other people? Why DON'T you want to fix out culture in general, instead of a kneejerk reaction that makes you feel better in the short term?


This is a troll post, right?  Thought so.  Enjoy your complete absence of logic either way.
 
2012-12-21 12:23:19 PM
If we have to lock our school's doors, we have already lost.

Guns are not the problem. Terrible parenting is. None of this crap happened a few generations ago and we had much more access to weapons.
 
2012-12-21 12:23:24 PM

The Southern Dandy: lordjupiter: The Southern Dandy: lordjupiter: [i.imgur.com image 633x728]

or photoshopped jpegs.


True.  But the answer is not more of the same derp in the jpeg.

The answer is a reasoned approach, using facts, not emotion.
The facts are that rifles are used in murders less than half the amount that hands, fists and feet are.
The fact is, the worst school shooting in US history didn't involve rifles at all.
The fact is, the worst school massacre in US history didn't involve guns at all.
The fact is, banning "assault rifles" won't stop this kind of thing, but it will infringe on rights given to us by the constitution.

Opinion: Frankly, I'm sick of our leaders throwing away our rights out of fear, in order to gain a FALSE sense of security.

These children, and the future's children, deserve our thoughtful approach at a solution to the plague of mass killings. Not knee jerk, emotional responses.



Translation:  this is a powerful image and I have to make sure nobody is affected by it on an emotional level because that might work against me.

You completely  miss the point of the image, which is that "facts" can be manipulated and abused to distract from the real issue, and the real impact.  Thank you for validating the image and the message.
 
2012-12-21 12:24:46 PM

lordjupiter: That's not my job.  I have a better suggestion...stop trying to derail discussions of how to fix the problems with bullshiat slogans and demands for perfect solutions or implementations of none at all.  That's a start.


That's a lame answer. Those lame slogans are not materially different than the lame ass-slogan you just posted. That would put you into the realm of hypocrisy if you're not willing to suggest a solution.

Are you a christian?  Do you believe in teaching god in the schools?  If you are, let's see the proof your religion is right.  Or whatever you believe, do you have proof?  If not, then your standards of proof shift depending on the topic.

This has nothing to do with the debate at hand. It's an interesting attempt at a red herring, though. Maybe even a red herring that's being used to set up an ad hominem.

So, if you don't have anything useful to add to the debate, run along.
 
2012-12-21 12:25:54 PM

lordjupiter: Translation:  this is a powerful image and I have to make sure nobody is affected by it on an emotional level because that might work against me.

You completely  miss the point of the image, which is that "facts" can be manipulated and abused to distract from the real issue, and the real impact.  Thank you for validating the image and the message.


Are you uneducated as to why we live in a republic vs a straight democracy?
 
2012-12-21 12:25:55 PM

ronaprhys: LasersHurt: Mr.BobDobalita: Can anyone please tell me if this is an "assault rifle"?

[www.comentakeit.com image 827x456]
If so, what about it makes it an "assault rifle"?

Thanks!!!

This is not clever, nor is it an argument. If you disagree with the term, figure out how to accurate describe the weapons in question. I think it's more likely that you're just dismissing the entire idea without considering anything about it sincerely.

It's not firearm owners who disagree with the term. As a general rule, we know what the term actually means. It's those who wish to infringe upon human rights that confuse the term, willfully, to make emotional appeals.



You do not have a "human right" to own any weapon you choose, in any quantity.
 
Displayed 50 of 667 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report