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.

(Slate)   Let's talk about who really buys the AR-15   (slate.com) divider line 1354
    More: Interesting, semi-automatic rifle, semiautomatic pistols, federal assault weapons ban, Freedom Group, target shooting, Ayn Rand, car fire, long guns  
•       •       •

34421 clicks; posted to Main » on 03 Jan 2013 at 12:11 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



1354 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-01-03 11:12:30 AM
interesting piece.
 
2013-01-03 11:16:44 AM
So we should consider banning the AR-15 because they sell well and are popular with shootists?

Okay then...
 
2013-01-03 11:17:45 AM
Article say .223 or AR-15?  I thought AR-15s were .556?
 
2013-01-03 11:19:00 AM

CPT Ethanolic: Article say .223 or AR-15?  I thought AR-15s were .556?


Nevermind - I see they're essentially identical.

/Only shot M16s with .556.
 
2013-01-03 11:19:16 AM

CPT Ethanolic: Article say .223 or AR-15?  I thought AR-15s were .556?


5.56 NATO and .223 Remington are almost the same.  Generally speaking an AR-15's chamber is set to handle both specs.
 
2013-01-03 11:27:04 AM
But the AR-15 is not ideal for the hunting and home-defense uses that the NRA's Keene cited today. Though it can be used for hunting, the AR-15 isn't really a hunting rifle. Its standard .223 caliber ammunition doesn't offer much stopping power for anything other than small game. Hunters themselves find the rifle controversial, with some arguing AR-15-style rifles empower sloppy, "spray and pray" hunters to waste ammunition.

While I do agree that it is not very well suited for hunting standard game, I did watch one tear though almost a dozen hogs in around 2 minutes. We've got a huge hog problem at our deer lease and one of the guys on the lease brought his son's AR-15 to see if he could pop a couple. My uncle and I are sitting around the fire pit when we heard 1 shot. Then about 5 minutes later we heard about 20 shots in a row. The guy with the AR radios us and tells us to come to his blind. He's got around 10 hogs on the ground, all dead. Said the first shot actually got 3 of them (they lined up perfectly), then about 5 minutes later a whole drove of them come to his blind and he just opened up on them.

Yea it's an anecdotal CSB, but I have seen their uses beyond just murder machines.
 
2013-01-03 11:28:22 AM
I own an AR-15. I'm not a survivalist or a gun nut or a hunter. I'm a guy who enjoys going out in the desert and shooting assorted targets for fun. It's really that simple. If you like shooting as a sport, the AR-15 is a lot of fun to shoot. I understand that some people don't like shooting as a sport and think "why do you need that kind of gun" but that's just because it's not their thing. AR-15 owners don't buy AR-15s because they have some inherent desire to have more "killing power."

Also, many people here in rural Utah use AR-15s as varmint control weapons. As the article states, a .223 cartridge is not ideal for large game hunting, but it is good for varmint control and a lot more flexible than a bolt-action rifle.
 
2013-01-03 11:40:04 AM
is the .223/.556 the same NATO round that the current western militaries use? it's essentially a high-powered .22, right?
 
2013-01-03 11:40:13 AM

cr7pilot: I own an AR-15. I'm not a survivalist or a gun nut or a hunter. I'm a guy who enjoys going out in the desert and shooting assorted targets for fun. It's really that simple. If you like shooting as a sport, the AR-15 is a lot of fun to shoot. I understand that some people don't like shooting as a sport and think "why do you need that kind of gun" but that's just because it's not their thing. AR-15 owners don't buy AR-15s because they have some inherent desire to have more "killing power."


 This is me as well.  I own some hand guns (one .45 and two 9mms) for "home defense" but I also just enjoy shooting.  I've been considering getting an AR15 for a while now.  Used to own an AK-47 and, although the ammo is damned expensive, they're fun to shoot.
 
2013-01-03 11:41:02 AM

CPT Ethanolic: cr7pilot: I own an AR-15. I'm not a survivalist or a gun nut or a hunter. I'm a guy who enjoys going out in the desert and shooting assorted targets for fun. It's really that simple. If you like shooting as a sport, the AR-15 is a lot of fun to shoot. I understand that some people don't like shooting as a sport and think "why do you need that kind of gun" but that's just because it's not their thing. AR-15 owners don't buy AR-15s because they have some inherent desire to have more "killing power."

 This is me as well.  I own some hand guns (one .45 and two 9mms) for "home defense" but I also just enjoy shooting.  I've been considering getting an AR15 for a while now.  Used to own an AK-47 and, although the ammo is damned expensive, they're fun to shoot.


where do you go that you find AK ammo expensive?
 
2013-01-03 11:47:07 AM

CPT Ethanolic: cr7pilot: I own an AR-15. I'm not a survivalist or a gun nut or a hunter. I'm a guy who enjoys going out in the desert and shooting assorted targets for fun. It's really that simple. If you like shooting as a sport, the AR-15 is a lot of fun to shoot. I understand that some people don't like shooting as a sport and think "why do you need that kind of gun" but that's just because it's not their thing. AR-15 owners don't buy AR-15s because they have some inherent desire to have more "killing power."

 This is me as well.  I own some hand guns (one .45 and two 9mms) for "home defense" but I also just enjoy shooting.  I've been considering getting an AR15 for a while now.  Used to own an AK-47 and, although the ammo is damned expensive, they're fun to shoot.


Me too. I've got a .380 and a 9mm, but the AR-15 is fun to shoot on a long range. It's also handy for disposing of those leftover Halloween pumpkins...
 
2013-01-03 12:00:38 PM

dr_blasto: where do you go that you find AK ammo expensive?


I haven't bought 7.26 rounds since the 90's so couldn't comment on prices today.  I just remember that we'd go out with the AK, a 22 rifle, and a .38 when we went shooting, and the AK ammo always seemed crazy expensive compared to the rest.  I bought my current 9mm for target practice because the .45 ammo was way too expensive to pop off a few hundred rounds at the range.
 
2013-01-03 12:06:06 PM

doglover: So we should consider banning the AR-15 because they sell well and are popular with shootists?

Okay then...


LOL!  Let's make them sound all sophisticated and elegant!  "Shootists" is like calling a pool player a "cueist."
 
2013-01-03 12:12:19 PM

cr7pilot: CPT Ethanolic: cr7pilot: I own an AR-15. I'm not a survivalist or a gun nut or a hunter. I'm a guy who enjoys going out in the desert and shooting assorted targets for fun. It's really that simple. If you like shooting as a sport, the AR-15 is a lot of fun to shoot. I understand that some people don't like shooting as a sport and think "why do you need that kind of gun" but that's just because it's not their thing. AR-15 owners don't buy AR-15s because they have some inherent desire to have more "killing power."

 This is me as well.  I own some hand guns (one .45 and two 9mms) for "home defense" but I also just enjoy shooting.  I've been considering getting an AR15 for a while now.  Used to own an AK-47 and, although the ammo is damned expensive, they're fun to shoot.

Me too. I've got a .380 and a 9mm, but the AR-15 is fun to shoot on a long range. It's also handy for disposing of those leftover Halloween pumpkins...


It's good to see people admit that this hoopla is really about their 2nd Amendment right to have "fun."
 
2013-01-03 12:13:49 PM
But AR-15s look just like the military model PEW PEW PEW YEEHAW gunnuh shoot them commies up just like ol Schwartenaggur used tah do!

They just wants to take away our cool looking guns so that we'll be a bunch of sissies when they come git us and take us away!
 
2013-01-03 12:15:44 PM

scottydoesntknow: Yea it's an anecdotal CSB, but I have seen their uses beyond just murder machines.


He penetrated 3 hogs (wild boars?) with a single .223 round?
 
2013-01-03 12:16:45 PM

BarkingUnicorn: It's good to see people admit that this hoopla is really about their 2nd Amendment right to have "fun."


  Much of it is.  I could have a shotgun and a .45 pistol and be about as protected as I'm going to get in my home, barring some kind of riot outside or something.  But - shooting is fun.  It's been a hobby since guns were invented.  I go back and forth on banning assault weapons because I do appreciate the hobby of shooting, but I would be in favor of banning high capacity magazines.  Assault weapons can be used for "fun", but high capacity magazines are ONLY meant for producing a high casualty count in a short period of time.  There is no other realistic use.  For target practice, you don't need a 30+ rnd magazine.
 
2013-01-03 12:17:04 PM
In before the whiny anti-gun nuts who think the mere act of holding a gun makes one a psychopathic killer.
 
2013-01-03 12:17:23 PM
I own an AR-15.

I support gay rights, healthcare reform, I'm not religious, I'm pro-abortion, I think "preppers" (I hate even typing the word) and people who say "SHTF" are usually weird if not idiots.

But DURR, they're only owned by rednecks and criminals.

Around TWENTY TIMES more people die to handguns than rifles. Rifle deaths a year amount in the low hundreds. Handgun deaths amount to 6000 odd. Both numbers are dropping.

But let's go batshiat insane over one particular type of rifle.
 
2013-01-03 12:17:40 PM
Fat white men who were rejected from the military?
 
2013-01-03 12:18:07 PM

cr7pilot: Me too. I've got a .380 and a 9mm, but the AR-15 is fun to shoot on a long range. It's also handy for disposing of those leftover Halloween pumpkins...


I enjoy shooting too, and have fired my friend's AR-15 a couple times, but do people honestly believe our entertainment justifies twenty dead six-year-olds?
 
2013-01-03 12:18:17 PM
Facepalm article.

It's popular and underpowered, so people with guns should be forced to buy more powerful and less popular guns. Ok then.
 
2013-01-03 12:18:20 PM

BarkingUnicorn: cr7pilot: CPT Ethanolic: cr7pilot: I own an AR-15. I'm not a survivalist or a gun nut or a hunter. I'm a guy who enjoys going out in the desert and shooting assorted targets for fun. It's really that simple. If you like shooting as a sport, the AR-15 is a lot of fun to shoot. I understand that some people don't like shooting as a sport and think "why do you need that kind of gun" but that's just because it's not their thing. AR-15 owners don't buy AR-15s because they have some inherent desire to have more "killing power."

 This is me as well.  I own some hand guns (one .45 and two 9mms) for "home defense" but I also just enjoy shooting.  I've been considering getting an AR15 for a while now.  Used to own an AK-47 and, although the ammo is damned expensive, they're fun to shoot.

Me too. I've got a .380 and a 9mm, but the AR-15 is fun to shoot on a long range. It's also handy for disposing of those leftover Halloween pumpkins...

It's good to see people admit that this hoopla is really about their 2nd Amendment right to have "fun."


Cars are fun too. Unless I decide to go on a bender or have an epileptic seizure and plow through a crowd.
 
2013-01-03 12:18:48 PM
" ...able to penetrate both sides of a standard Army helmet at 500 meters rifle..."

With or without a head inside?

And why are we creating guns designed to shoot through our own soldiers helmets?
 
2013-01-03 12:18:49 PM
Who are we kidding here?

Newtown will bring back the assault weapons ban. Deep down the NRA knows this, but must maintain a "hell no" stance just for image, but they will relent on this one.

And that's it.

Way too much money and power to be relinquished for any meaningful change.

And school security will continue to consist of crossing fingers.
 
NFA [TotalFark]
2013-01-03 12:18:51 PM
Well, since the AR15 (semi-auto version of the M16) isn't useful for hunting or defense, I suppose our military will abandon it immediately?  I mean if it's useless for hunting, then you couldn't possibly go out in the field and hunt 200 lb humans in the Jungle or anywhere else, Right?  Or if it's useless for defense they will start using something else to protect themselves?  Defense forces around the world use the full auto version of the AR-15 as a standard of protection.  Will this be going away because some clueless writer thinks the firearm doesn't have merit?

I know people who hunt with the AR15 and are quite successful with it.  Saying it isn't useful as a hunting gun is an outright lie.  Saying that a M4 version of an AR15 can't be used for defense is an outright lie.  The AR15 didn't cause these crimes.  Mental illness caused these crimes.  Take away the AR-15 and they'll use AK-47's.  Take those away and they'll use shotguns, take those away and they'll use AR-7's.  Doesn't it make sense to seek out and treat mentally ill people?  What if Adam Lanza carried two 30 lb bottles of propane into the basement of the school, screwed a transfer adapter into the valve and released 60 lbs of propane into the basement and then lit a lighter?  The entire school would have likely been destroyed with all the children in it.  Thank god it chose the less deadly method of using a firearm.  Or what if he packed a backpack with four 5lb bags of flour and an electric fan, snuck into the school and plugged the fan into back of an auditorium (or the basement) and dumped the flour into the fan then lit a lighter?  Ever heard of a grain silo explosion?  Grain dust explosions are absolutely devastating.  Hundreds of people would die.  Should we ban propane because it's TOO DANGEROUS?  Should we ban flour because it's TOO DANGEROUS?  See my point?  There will ALWAYS be something available to mentally ill people.

Vilifying the method of killing is just a ploy to start down the slippery slope of eliminating a gun or class of guns and superimposing the actions of violent criminals onto inanimate objects.
Let's not get into the entire black market issue.Once we ban guns we'll create a prohibition like market for guns.The illegal import market will be happy to import hand grenades, rocket launchers, machine guns, etc.See my point?This is completely the wrong direction.
 
2013-01-03 12:19:20 PM

you have pee hands: scottydoesntknow: Yea it's an anecdotal CSB, but I have seen their uses beyond just murder machines.

He penetrated 3 hogs (wild boars?) with a single .223 round?


All 3 were piglets. The sow went running after that (not sure if she was part of the drove that showed up 5 minutes later). I've gotten a 2-fer before, but never had 3 line up.
 
2013-01-03 12:19:30 PM
Short version:

Gun nuts are all over the AR-15 because banning guns is bad. They're making up all kinds of dumb justifications about how the AR-15 is a hunting rifle somehow. Target practice with an AR-15 is valid--recreational shooting is a real thing.

Liberal nanny-pants are focused on how many crazy loons have used the AR-15 style rifle as a murder weapon in mass shootings. This is primarily because it looks bad-ass and sociopaths have this internal image they try to execute. The AR-15 is primarily a munitions weapon, and they believe all semi-automatics are munitions.

The flaws here are glaring. AR-15 sucks for hunting. AR-15 is not the only semi-auto--take any pistol, especially revolvers. Semi-auto isn't the best or only way to kill a bunch of people in a crowd--consider pipe bombs, or how bad-ass you'd look with a pump-action shotgun (name's Ash. Housewares.). Repeating weapons are common, full-auto is relatively harmless (really, you're going to pop-pop-pop into a crowd, people will die; if you spray bullets like mad, each individual will take MANY more bullets, but overall effectiveness isn't greatly increased) but AR-15 isn't a fully-auto weapon--mentioned because people are afraid of bad-assery like fully auto rock-'n'-roll mode rifles.

Everybody in this argument is stupid.
 
2013-01-03 12:19:44 PM
Who wants an AR15? Someone that wants a relatively weak rifle that "looks mean."
Oooh, scary.
 
2013-01-03 12:20:10 PM
Article sort of misses the point... The AR-15 is not necessarily absolutely ideal for hunting of home defense, but it's quite good for either. It's a single, versatile platform. Good home defense ammo is available. It's highly maneuverable-- sorry, TFA is just plain wrong about that. It's highly accurate. In short, if you can only afford one quality rifle, it may be a great choice for you. On the other hand, if you're hunting big game (elk, moose, blue whales), you're going to have to shell out for something more potent.
 
2013-01-03 12:20:28 PM
I inherited a 1972 Colt-made AR 15 a few years ago. Had no use for it, so I sold it. Kinda wish I kept it. You know, for hunting and home protection.
 
2013-01-03 12:21:12 PM

doglover: So we should consider banning the AR-15 because they sell well and are popular with shootists?

Okay then...


You know, I don't actually see the line in the article where the author specifically proposes a ban.

But perhaps a reasonable person may want to consider the function and design purpose of a firearm when deciding how it should be regulated? Or is that just too 'gun grabby' to say?
 
2013-01-03 12:21:46 PM

Teknowaffle: Fat white men who were rejected from the military?


Why does it have to be a white man? Racist.

2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-01-03 12:22:00 PM
Nice try subby, not clicking on the political propaganda rag.
 
2013-01-03 12:22:22 PM

Wolf_Blitzer: cr7pilot: Me too. I've got a .380 and a 9mm, but the AR-15 is fun to shoot on a long range. It's also handy for disposing of those leftover Halloween pumpkins...

I enjoy shooting too, and have fired my friend's AR-15 a couple times, but do people honestly believe our entertainment freedom justifies twenty dead six-year-olds?


Absolutely.
 
2013-01-03 12:22:28 PM

cr7pilot: It's also handy for disposing of those leftover Halloween pumpkins...


Are you Hickok45 from YouTube?
 
2013-01-03 12:23:00 PM
Don't ban but subject people with more than 4 guns or these types of a rifles a mental health examine every three-five years
 
2013-01-03 12:23:12 PM
Not any good for defense? Then why do the police have them? Offensive purposes?
 
2013-01-03 12:23:27 PM

scottydoesntknow: But the AR-15 is not ideal for the hunting and home-defense uses that the NRA's Keene cited today. Though it can be used for hunting, the AR-15 isn't really a hunting rifle. Its standard .223 caliber ammunition doesn't offer much stopping power for anything other than small game. Hunters themselves find the rifle controversial, with some arguing AR-15-style rifles empower sloppy, "spray and pray" hunters to waste ammunition.

While I do agree that it is not very well suited for hunting standard game, I did watch one tear though almost a dozen hogs in around 2 minutes. We've got a huge hog problem at our deer lease and one of the guys on the lease brought his son's AR-15 to see if he could pop a couple. My uncle and I are sitting around the fire pit when we heard 1 shot. Then about 5 minutes later we heard about 20 shots in a row. The guy with the AR radios us and tells us to come to his blind. He's got around 10 hogs on the ground, all dead. Said the first shot actually got 3 of them (they lined up perfectly), then about 5 minutes later a whole drove of them come to his blind and he just opened up on them.

Yea it's an anecdotal CSB, but I have seen their uses beyond just murder machines.


Building on that, I have an AR-10 style weapon, not one of the original Stoner production run of course, and I have to say that 7.62x39 is a damn fine round for hogs. Having been charged by a 300 pound monster with tusks once (after my dumb ass hunting partner managed to make it mad) I also have found feelings regarding the 30 round magazine. 7.62x39 is also a nice round for deer.

While I know that AR-15 =/= AR-10, if we're going to ban AR style semi-autos, a bunch of AR-10 owners who use that style to hunt are going to be mildly annoyed at the very least. I definitely agree that home defense is not a prime use for the AR style though.

The reality is 5.56 and .223 are so damn cheap because a lot of companies have lines going to do bulk production for the military and LEOs. Same with the AR style frame. Lots of companies are making them for LEO and lots of ex military guys are buying them because it is the tool they know. That leads to economies of scale and increasing popularity.

/I still want an AR style that handles 7.62×63
//the WASR 10 is nice
/we have a huge hog problem too and go help out various farmers by clearing them out
 
2013-01-03 12:23:42 PM
looks like a hell of a lot of fun to shoot out in the desert. doesn't mean i'm going to defend either side with any vigor.

handguns are most certainly the most commonly used murder tool in the US. and something needs to be done to keep them out of the hands of criminals while respecting the rights of law abiding citizens. and something needs to be done to keep AR-type weapons out of the hands of crazies who wants to kill lots of people quickly, while still trying to allow for recreational use by law abiding citizens.
 
2013-01-03 12:23:52 PM
Keene ridiculed the notion that AR-15-style rifles ought to be banned just because "a half dozen [AR-15s] out of more than three million have been misused after illegally falling into the hands of crazed killers." And, sure. But the AR-15 is very good at one thing: engaging the enemy at a rapid rate of fire. When someone like Adam Lanza uses it to take out 26 people in a matter of minutes, he's committing a crime, but he isn't misusing the rifle. That's exactly what it was engineered to do.

The bottom line (literally)

/responsible gun owner
 
2013-01-03 12:23:54 PM

FlashHarry: is the .223/.556 the same NATO round that the current western militaries use? it's essentially a high-powered .22, right?


5.56
 
2013-01-03 12:23:56 PM
Got this with a simple search.
The following is a list of some of the calibers that the AR-15 can use,

Without bolt modification
.17 Remington
.17/223
.20 Tactical
.20 Practical
.20 Vartag
.204 Ruger
.221 Fireball
.222 Remington
.222 Remington Magnum
.223 Remington (5.56x45mm)
.223 Remington Ackley Improved
6x45mm
6mm TCU
6x47mm
6mm Whisper
.25x45mm
6.5mm Whisper
7mm Whisper
7mm TCU
.300 Whisper (.300/221, .300 Fireball)
.338 Whisper

AR-15, with bolt modification
223 WSSM
5.45x39mm (.21 Genghis)
243 WSSM
6mm PPC
6mm WOA
6mm BR Remington
6mm Hagar
6.5mm PPC
6.5 WSSM
6.5 WOA
6.5mm Grendel
25 WSSM
6.8x43mm SPC
.30 Herrett Rimless Tactical (6.8x43mm case trimmed to 41mm and necked up to .308; the 6.8mm version of the .300 Whisper)
7.62x25
7.62x39mm
.30 RAR
300 OSSM
.357 Auto
.35 Gremlin (necked up 6.5 Grendel to 358)
.358 WSSM (various names, but all are some form of a WSSM necked up to 35 caliber, some are shortened to make them big game legal in Indiana)
.458 SOCOM
.50 Action Express
.50 Beowulf

AR-15 using a simple blowback operation
.17 HMR
.22 LR
.22 WMR
9x19mm
9x21
9x23
30 Carbine
357 Sig
40S&W
400 Cor-Bon
41 Action Express
10mm Auto
45 GAP
45ACP
45 Super
45 Win Mag

This list is in no way complete.

Story seems to be done by someone who has no clue but a agenda.
 
2013-01-03 12:24:08 PM

bluefoxicy: They're making up all kinds of dumb justifications about how the AR-15 is a hunting rifle somehow.


bluefoxicy: AR-15 sucks for hunting.


The AR is quite capable as a hunter. Sorry, but any claim otherwise is simply a non-starter.
 
2013-01-03 12:24:15 PM
Where exactly in the 2nd Amendment does it mention hunting?
 
2013-01-03 12:24:42 PM

david_gaithersburg: Nice try subby, not clicking on the political propaganda rag.


Oh you...
 
2013-01-03 12:24:58 PM
I think we should start banning everything we think other people "don't need." Who wants to go first?
 
2013-01-03 12:25:59 PM

bluefoxicy: or how bad-ass you'd look with a pump-action shotgun (name's Ash. Housewares.)


Allow me to be a movie/gun nerd for a moment:

Ash didn't have a pump-action...he had a double barrel.  In "Army of Darkness", he claims it is a Remington, but it's actually a Stoeger Coach Gun.

/Own one.
 
2013-01-03 12:26:23 PM
Having been a NRA member.....I got better....and having been a hunter since I was a teen, I know exactly the type of man who wants an AR-15: Rambo wannabe.
 
2013-01-03 12:26:36 PM
I don't have any guns, but I think ending the War on Drug Users would easily prevent half our murders.
 
2013-01-03 12:26:58 PM

scottydoesntknow: But the AR-15 is not ideal for the hunting and home-defense uses that the NRA's Keene cited today. Though it can be used for hunting, the AR-15 isn't really a hunting rifle. Its standard .223 caliber ammunition doesn't offer much stopping power for anything other than small game. Hunters themselves find the rifle controversial, with some arguing AR-15-style rifles empower sloppy, "spray and pray" hunters to waste ammunition.

While I do agree that it is not very well suited for hunting standard game, I did watch one tear though almost a dozen hogs in around 2 minutes. We've got a huge hog problem at our deer lease and one of the guys on the lease brought his son's AR-15 to see if he could pop a couple. My uncle and I are sitting around the fire pit when we heard 1 shot. Then about 5 minutes later we heard about 20 shots in a row. The guy with the AR radios us and tells us to come to his blind. He's got around 10 hogs on the ground, all dead. Said the first shot actually got 3 of them (they lined up perfectly), then about 5 minutes later a whole drove of them come to his blind and he just opened up on them.

Yea it's an anecdotal CSB, but I have seen their uses beyond just murder machines.


Same here. Works well for coyotes, too.
 
2013-01-03 12:27:28 PM
If isn't really about disarming Americans, but about restricting access to military-grade weapons, then for every assault rifle the government 'confiscates', let the government supply either a hunting rifle or shotgun (sporting or home defense - owner's choice).
 
2013-01-03 12:27:28 PM
The only person I've ever even heard mention the AR-15 is dead.

/His lyrics are blueprints to moneymakin'
 
2013-01-03 12:27:31 PM

scottydoesntknow: But the AR-15 is not ideal for the hunting and home-defense uses that the NRA's Keene cited today. Though it can be used for hunting, the AR-15 isn't really a hunting rifle. Its standard .223 caliber ammunition doesn't offer much stopping power for anything other than small game. Hunters themselves find the rifle controversial, with some arguing AR-15-style rifles empower sloppy, "spray and pray" hunters to waste ammunition.

While I do agree that it is not very well suited for hunting standard game, I did watch one tear though almost a dozen hogs in around 2 minutes. We've got a huge hog problem at our deer lease and one of the guys on the lease brought his son's AR-15 to see if he could pop a couple. My uncle and I are sitting around the fire pit when we heard 1 shot. Then about 5 minutes later we heard about 20 shots in a row. The guy with the AR radios us and tells us to come to his blind. He's got around 10 hogs on the ground, all dead. Said the first shot actually got 3 of them (they lined up perfectly), then about 5 minutes later a whole drove of them come to his blind and he just opened up on them.

Yea it's an anecdotal CSB, but I have seen their uses beyond just murder machines.


Now I want one. farking hogs need to die.
 
2013-01-03 12:27:35 PM

Delectatio Morosa: I think we should start banning everything we think other people "don't need." Who wants to go first?


.
Smartphones, those things make people walk in front of moving trains.
 
2013-01-03 12:27:58 PM

Billy Bathsalt: I don't have any guns, but I think ending the War on Drug Users would easily prevent half our murders.


What kind of american are you?

Guns = good. Drugs = bad. Jeebus = good. Libs = bad.

That's all you need to know.
 
2013-01-03 12:28:05 PM

kqc7011: Got this with a simple search.
The following is a list of some of the calibers that the AR-15 can use,

Without bolt modification
.17 Remington
.17/223
.20 Tactical

(ETC.)

This list is in no way complete.

Story seems to be done by someone who has no clue but a agenda.


You may want to RTFA before hypocritically accusing the author of failing to know what he's talking about. The entire point is that while the AR-15 is versatile, making arguments similar to the one you're making is disingenuous at best. Way to miss the point (understandable as you didn't actually read it).
 
2013-01-03 12:28:08 PM

Teknowaffle: Fat white men who were rejected from the military?


...and have finally outgrown nunchucks.
 
2013-01-03 12:28:19 PM

TheOther: If isn't really about disarming Americans, but about restricting access to military-grade weapons, then for every assault rifle the government 'confiscates', let the government supply either a hunting rifle or shotgun (sporting or home defense - owner's choice).


a payment of fair market value would be just as fine.
 
2013-01-03 12:28:20 PM
Who cares who buys them and why? They shouldn't be available to the general public. If a shooting range wants to rent one out to you to use on the premises that would be fine, and the ONLY situation where I can see them being available to use.
 
2013-01-03 12:28:26 PM
I'm sure I could do some serious damage with my 300 ultramag, but no one seems interested in taking this away from me.

(Not mine, but similar in nature)

i205.photobucket.com

Guess it's not 'military looking enough'.
 
2013-01-03 12:28:26 PM
I always figured the AR-15 was for people that wanted to put holes in paper and people. Lately it's more about people because we know the fascists are coming.
 
2013-01-03 12:28:43 PM
.223 rounds kill deer just fine...with one shot.
 
2013-01-03 12:28:45 PM

Wolf_Blitzer: I enjoy shooting too, and have fired my friend's AR-15 a couple times, but do people honestly believe our entertainment justifies twenty dead six-year-olds?


I dunno about you, but I personally don't think I got any entertainment out of the deaths of twenty 6 year olds. Okay, maybe I got some entertainment out of the derp in the threads following the incident from folks like you.
 
2013-01-03 12:28:52 PM

TheOther: If isn't really about disarming Americans, but about restricting access to military-grade weapons, then for every assault rifle the government 'confiscates', let the government supply either a hunting rifle or shotgun (sporting or home defense - owner's choice).


Civilian-marketed AR-15 rifles are not "military-grade". Any claim that they are is a lie.
 
2013-01-03 12:29:17 PM
I've been saying this since the beginning. These weapons are not made the way they are for no reason - someone designed them this way for a reason. They are different than hunting rifles, pistols, shotguns, etc, because they were designed that way.

The banning argument totally removed  - stop lying and pretending that there are not military style rifles making their rounds, and they are not "just the same as any other rifles." I've fired a few kinds. The're different. I was there.
 
2013-01-03 12:29:17 PM

Delectatio Morosa: I think we should start banning everything we think other people "don't need." Who wants to go first?


If anything needs to banned, it's crazy people.  Let's start with Congress.
 
2013-01-03 12:30:05 PM

jackiepaper: TheOther: If isn't really about disarming Americans, but about restricting access to military-grade weapons, then for every assault rifle the government 'confiscates', let the government supply either a hunting rifle or shotgun (sporting or home defense - owner's choice).

a payment of fair market value would be just as fine.


I will also demand payment for my additional magazines and for my .22LR bolt replacement that would become useless under such a confiscation.
 
2013-01-03 12:30:11 PM
The US Gubmint should just issue stock AR-15's to every citizen. With all the mods, and individual setups that can be had for that weapon, we'd fix our economy in no time at all.
 
2013-01-03 12:30:25 PM

TwowheelinTim: Keene ridiculed the notion that AR-15-style rifles ought to be banned just because "a half dozen [AR-15s] out of more than three million have been misused after illegally falling into the hands of crazed killers." And, sure. But the AR-15 is very good at one thing: engaging the enemy at a rapid rate of fire. When someone like Adam Lanza uses it to take out 26 people in a matter of minutes, he's committing a crime, but he isn't misusing the rifle. That's exactly what it was engineered to do.

The bottom line (literally)

/responsible gun owner


Very few guns (possibly some very high-end performance target-shooting specialty guns) WEREN'T engineered to kill as many as possible as quickly as possible.  Firearms evolution is entirely about maximizing lethality.  It might be that certain trade-offs were made, like rate of fire vs accuracy, or round weight vs penetration, or portability vs maintainability... but ultimately, from the flintlock to the Lee-Enfield to the submachine gun to the assault rifle, it was an evolution of trying to kill.

So, really, the point that the AR is somehow special in this is really rather misleading.  It's just the most modern example of it.
 
2013-01-03 12:30:27 PM

Kit Fister: scottydoesntknow: But the AR-15 is not ideal for the hunting and home-defense uses that the NRA's Keene cited today. Though it can be used for hunting, the AR-15 isn't really a hunting rifle. Its standard .223 caliber ammunition doesn't offer much stopping power for anything other than small game. Hunters themselves find the rifle controversial, with some arguing AR-15-style rifles empower sloppy, "spray and pray" hunters to waste ammunition.

While I do agree that it is not very well suited for hunting standard game, I did watch one tear though almost a dozen hogs in around 2 minutes. We've got a huge hog problem at our deer lease and one of the guys on the lease brought his son's AR-15 to see if he could pop a couple. My uncle and I are sitting around the fire pit when we heard 1 shot. Then about 5 minutes later we heard about 20 shots in a row. The guy with the AR radios us and tells us to come to his blind. He's got around 10 hogs on the ground, all dead. Said the first shot actually got 3 of them (they lined up perfectly), then about 5 minutes later a whole drove of them come to his blind and he just opened up on them.

Yea it's an anecdotal CSB, but I have seen their uses beyond just murder machines.

Same here. Works well for coyotes, too.


Apparently works well for children, too. Keep on grasping.
 
2013-01-03 12:30:27 PM

BarkingUnicorn: cr7pilot: CPT Ethanolic: cr7pilot: I own an AR-15. I'm not a survivalist or a gun nut or a hunter. I'm a guy who enjoys going out in the desert and shooting assorted targets for fun. It's really that simple. If you like shooting as a sport, the AR-15 is a lot of fun to shoot. I understand that some people don't like shooting as a sport and think "why do you need that kind of gun" but that's just because it's not their thing. AR-15 owners don't buy AR-15s because they have some inherent desire to have more "killing power."

 This is me as well.  I own some hand guns (one .45 and two 9mms) for "home defense" but I also just enjoy shooting.  I've been considering getting an AR15 for a while now.  Used to own an AK-47 and, although the ammo is damned expensive, they're fun to shoot.

Me too. I've got a .380 and a 9mm, but the AR-15 is fun to shoot on a long range. It's also handy for disposing of those leftover Halloween pumpkins...

It's good to see people admit that this hoopla is really about their 2nd Amendment right to have "fun."


Actually, the unalienable right to "fun" - aka "Pursuit of Happiness" - goes back even further, to the Preamble of the Declaration of Independence.
 
2013-01-03 12:30:41 PM

gregory311: I'm sure I could do some serious damage with my 300 ultramag, but no one seems interested in taking this away from me.


Duh, it's not black. It's a proven fact that a black rifle is much, much more powerful than a green one. It's like the red "R" stickers on ricers. That alone adds about 250 horsepower. Paint it black and maybe add some rails and some sort of laser. You'll see.
 
2013-01-03 12:30:51 PM

gregory311: I'm sure I could do some serious damage with my 300 ultramag, but no one seems interested in taking this away from me.

(Not mine, but similar in nature)

[i205.photobucket.com image 598x307]

Guess it's not 'military looking enough'.


Don't be ridiculous. Of course you can pick out any weapon you like and say "I can still kill with it." That's not a point.
 
2013-01-03 12:31:04 PM

The_Sponge: bluefoxicy: or how bad-ass you'd look with a pump-action shotgun (name's Ash. Housewares.)

Allow me to be a movie/gun nerd for a moment:

Ash didn't have a pump-action...he had a double barrel.  In "Army of Darkness", he claims it is a Remington, but it's actually a Stoeger Coach Gun.

/Own one.


Shop smart. Shop..... S-Mart.
 
2013-01-03 12:31:11 PM
Why is it that the same people who love to point out the first phrase of the 2nd amendment, which concerns arms' potential to be used against people, are the same people who say that if a gun is suited to anything more than hunting, it's too much gun?
 
2013-01-03 12:31:15 PM

Fissile: Having been a NRA member.....I got better....and having been a hunter since I was a teen, I know exactly the type of man who wants an AR-15: Rambo wannabe.


Aaaaand that's why I am not an NRA member. Too many 'tards like you infest that organization.

/2nd Amendment isn't about duck hunting, dork.
 
2013-01-03 12:31:20 PM
Why do the mods constantly approve gun articles from Slate? It's like constantly approving bridge construction plans written by special olympics bronze medal winners. What's the point?
 
2013-01-03 12:31:23 PM

Cymbal: Who cares who buys them and why? They shouldn't be available to the general public. If a shooting range wants to rent one out to you to use on the premises that would be fine, and the ONLY situation where I can see them being available to use.


I agree, let's restrict and ban all laptops from public use. And cell phones, they're dangerous, cause accidents, and shouldn't be available to the general public.

/Has a full-auto, legally registered M60 Machine gun. Belt-fed full-auto, baby. hellatiously expensive, but I'm retiring on what I can sell it for.
 
2013-01-03 12:31:27 PM

treesloth: gregory311: I'm sure I could do some serious damage with my 300 ultramag, but no one seems interested in taking this away from me.

Duh, it's not black. It's a proven fact that a black rifle is much, much more powerful than a green one. It's like the red "R" stickers on ricers. That alone adds about 250 horsepower. Paint it black and maybe add some rails and some sort of laser. You'll see.


Nobody wants to ban black guns, stop making shiat up.
 
2013-01-03 12:31:44 PM
Surprisingly well thought out piece.  I am a gun advocate, but assault rifles serve only a few real purposes.  Sport shooting and Survivalist Wet Dreams.

But ya know.  Paranoid survivalists aren't as crazy as they seem.  Soldiers coming back from war torn countries know exactly how bad things can get, and how fast.  And riots happen everywhere.

That being said.  The guns are wicked stupid.  I've thought about it a lot.  A person breaks into my house, use a shotgun, a handgun or a bat.  An AR-15 will kill your neighbor or the kid playing outside.  And it's not worth it.

/Oh, but there is the persuation factor I guess.  Someone points an AR-15 at your head and says "move along" you might just loot the house next door.
 
2013-01-03 12:32:16 PM

Kit Fister: Wolf_Blitzer: I enjoy shooting too, and have fired my friend's AR-15 a couple times, but do people honestly believe our entertainment justifies twenty dead six-year-olds?

I dunno about you, but I personally don't think I got any entertainment out of the deaths of twenty 6 year olds. Okay, maybe I got some entertainment out of the derp in the threads following the incident from folks like you.


.
Oh puhlease. Many here have a warm tingly feeling running up their leg at that thought of taking away basic human rights from their fellow Americans. In this case the human right of self defense.
 
2013-01-03 12:32:32 PM
U

Dimensio: Civilian-marketed AR-15 rifles are not "military-grade". Any claim that they are is a lie.


I used the M-16 in the military.
It's a piece of shait. (as far as a killing machine goes)
/Much prefer the M-60 or AK.
 
2013-01-03 12:32:32 PM

david_gaithersburg: Where exactly in the 2nd Amendment does it mention hunting?


It doesn't.  And it's probably not contained within the intent of the second at all.  But perhaps it can be found in the same place the word "privacy" can - the 9th amendment.
 
2013-01-03 12:32:34 PM

TheOther: then for every assault rifle the government 'confiscates', let the government supply either a hunting rifle or shotgun (sporting or home defense - owner's choice).


How about no?
 
2013-01-03 12:32:44 PM

seniorgato: Surprisingly well thought out piece.  I am a gun advocate, but assault rifles serve only a few real purposes.  Sport shooting and Survivalist Wet Dreams.


Assault rifles are already federally restricted and are not commonly available.
 
2013-01-03 12:32:54 PM

FlashHarry: is the .223/.556 the same NATO round that the current western militaries use? it's essentially a high-powered .22, right?


Gosh, it's getting into meme territory. It's .223 caliber in the old 'inches of diameter' system. 5.56mm in the new metric system. NOT .556mm, though I think the swiss produced a gun firing something about that size. The gun is about the size of a matchbook, and was designed/assembled by watch makers.

Of course, you still have issues with rounding, advertising, etc... Thus .38/.357 being the same diameter.

And yes, the 'high powered' round used by western militaries is illegal to hunt with in many states against human sized game such as deer, and even in areas where it's legal most don't due to it being considered inhumane.

To address some comments from the article -
"Its standard .223 caliber ammunition doesn't offer much stopping power for anything other than small game." - There's still plenty of 'small game' out there to hunt with it, and the AR-15 action has been chambered in many calibers up to and including .50BMG. 6.5mm Grendel and 6.8 SPC are both better hunting calibers that only needs swapping the upper to chamber the rifle for it. You're looking at ~$700 for the upper, at which point swapping is like 30 seconds.

"AR-15-style rifles empower sloppy, "spray and pray" hunters to waste ammunition." - Really. You've always had types like this, plus part of the problem many areas are having is that they don't have ENOUGH hunters to keep wild game populations under control. Besides, a miss is a miss and said hunter is going to go home without any game if he's just 'spray and pray' firing, and the semi-auto simply means he's tossing even more money downrange. Plus, I'd like to know what hunters are going after big game with a 'standard' AR-15. Most going with such a package are going to be going with one of the said custom uppers that fire a much heavier bullet. Which means each trigger pull is expensive again, AND the rifle still ends up costing around 5 times as much as a traditional bolt action.

"The AR-15 is a long gun, and can be tough to maneuver in tight quarters." - Blame NFA regulations against short guns, but the AR-15 doesn't have to be that long even without being classified as a 'short barreled rifle'.

The article makes some good points - it's a fun gun to fire, relatively cheap on ammo and the shoulder, and is extremely reliable and customizable. Why wouldn't people like it?
 
2013-01-03 12:33:17 PM

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: Kit Fister: scottydoesntknow: But the AR-15 is not ideal for the hunting and home-defense uses that the NRA's Keene cited today. Though it can be used for hunting, the AR-15 isn't really a hunting rifle. Its standard .223 caliber ammunition doesn't offer much stopping power for anything other than small game. Hunters themselves find the rifle controversial, with some arguing AR-15-style rifles empower sloppy, "spray and pray" hunters to waste ammunition.

While I do agree that it is not very well suited for hunting standard game, I did watch one tear though almost a dozen hogs in around 2 minutes. We've got a huge hog problem at our deer lease and one of the guys on the lease brought his son's AR-15 to see if he could pop a couple. My uncle and I are sitting around the fire pit when we heard 1 shot. Then about 5 minutes later we heard about 20 shots in a row. The guy with the AR radios us and tells us to come to his blind. He's got around 10 hogs on the ground, all dead. Said the first shot actually got 3 of them (they lined up perfectly), then about 5 minutes later a whole drove of them come to his blind and he just opened up on them.

Yea it's an anecdotal CSB, but I have seen their uses beyond just murder machines.

Same here. Works well for coyotes, too.

Apparently works well for children, too. Keep on grasping.


Yeah, my pickup truck works well for children, too. Plow into a group and back up a few times, takes out just as many, with less effort. Just because a person can USE it for bad things, doesn't mean that it is FOR bad things.
 
2013-01-03 12:33:21 PM
Here is an excellent article explaining why 2A ain't about "Bambi and burglars" Link
 
2013-01-03 12:33:30 PM

Kraftwerk Orange: BarkingUnicorn: cr7pilot: CPT Ethanolic: cr7pilot: I own an AR-15. I'm not a survivalist or a gun nut or a hunter. I'm a guy who enjoys going out in the desert and shooting assorted targets for fun. It's really that simple. If you like shooting as a sport, the AR-15 is a lot of fun to shoot. I understand that some people don't like shooting as a sport and think "why do you need that kind of gun" but that's just because it's not their thing. AR-15 owners don't buy AR-15s because they have some inherent desire to have more "killing power."

 This is me as well.  I own some hand guns (one .45 and two 9mms) for "home defense" but I also just enjoy shooting.  I've been considering getting an AR15 for a while now.  Used to own an AK-47 and, although the ammo is damned expensive, they're fun to shoot.

Me too. I've got a .380 and a 9mm, but the AR-15 is fun to shoot on a long range. It's also handy for disposing of those leftover Halloween pumpkins...

It's good to see people admit that this hoopla is really about their 2nd Amendment right to have "fun."

Actually, the unalienable right to "fun" - aka "Pursuit of Happiness" - goes back even further, to the Preamble of the Declaration of Independence.


Wow. You could use that argument to eliminate literally every law on the books.
 
2013-01-03 12:33:35 PM
dermatology-s10.cdlib.org
 
2013-01-03 12:33:44 PM

Dimensio: jackiepaper: TheOther: If isn't really about disarming Americans, but about restricting access to military-grade weapons, then for every assault rifle the government 'confiscates', let the government supply either a hunting rifle or shotgun (sporting or home defense - owner's choice).

a payment of fair market value would be just as fine.

I will also demand payment for my additional magazines and for my .22LR bolt replacement that would become useless under such a confiscation.


See! That's an economy boosting injection!
 
2013-01-03 12:33:56 PM
the AR-15 Is Useful for Hunting and Home Defense. Not Exactly.

BS. The kid on (I think it's called) Yukon Men, uses an AR to hunt. He got a caribou and a bear with it on the few episodes I've seen.
 
2013-01-03 12:33:58 PM
Hey, while we're at it, let's ban planes since some jackholes killed 3000 people with a few of them a decade ago. And don't give me that "But we need them!" bullshiat, because we sure as hell didn't need them a century ago when they didn't exist.

/same solution to both problems: Ban jackholes.
 
2013-01-03 12:34:38 PM
When you shoot it, it'll overpenetrate-sending bullets through the walls of your house and possibly into the walls of your neighbor's house-unless you purchase the sort of ammunition that fragments on impact. (This is true for other guns, as well, but, again, the thing with the AR-15 is that it lets you fire more rounds faster.)

Funny how they slip that in there... If you are using fragmenting rounds, they either fragment or they don't, firing them faster doesn't suddenly stop them from working. It's kind of subtle how they slip that bullshiat in there...
 
2013-01-03 12:34:42 PM

LasersHurt: Nobody wants to ban black guns, stop making shiat up.


Did you just hear a whistling sound over your head?
 
2013-01-03 12:34:50 PM

abhorrent1: the AR-15 Is Useful for Hunting and Home Defense. Not Exactly.

BS. The kid on (I think it's called) Yukon Men, uses an AR to hunt. He got a caribou and a bear with it on the few episodes I've seen.


You can drive across the country in a rusted out Yugo, if you want, but it doesn't mean it's the right tool for the job.
 
2013-01-03 12:34:50 PM

The_Sponge: TheOther: then for every assault rifle the government 'confiscates', let the government supply either a hunting rifle or shotgun (sporting or home defense - owner's choice).

How about no?


Why not?
 
2013-01-03 12:34:52 PM
If they made a musket look like a AR-15, the same group of people would want to ban it.
 
2013-01-03 12:35:03 PM

Firethorn: Of course, you still have issues with rounding, advertising, etc... Thus .38/.357 being the same diameter.


.38/.357 IIRC is diameter to the outside/inside of the rifling, respectively.
 
2013-01-03 12:35:11 PM

abhorrent1: the AR-15 Is Useful for Hunting and Home Defense. Not Exactly.

BS. The kid on (I think it's called) Yukon Men, uses an AR to hunt. He got a caribou and a bear with it on the few episodes I've seen.


here it is

img.poptower.com
 
2013-01-03 12:35:21 PM

900RR: 2nd Amendment isn't about duck hunting, dork.


Yeah. It's about a well regulated militia and grants "The People" the right to bear arms. Notice "The People" is capitalized, meaning the population as a collective, not every person.

This is exactly why gun control is not in opposition to the 2nd amendment. It is actually in perfect agreement with it.

And yes, most dudes who want an AR-15 want it because it looks like an M-16. I had one. It was cool, but if I were to hunt, I'd go with a 30-30 since the bullets look cooler.
 
2013-01-03 12:35:41 PM
The article talks about over penetration and how the rifle is not suited for home defense because it is long.....well you can build an SBR and take that 16 inch barrel down to 8.5 maybe even less...and the autopsies on the kids in Newtown showed that all the rounds stayed in the body cavity so there is no worries about over penetration.

The author of the article was wrong about a couple other things too....and they had to have known...because in one sentence they claim the rifles standard .223 chambering is too weak for hunting...yet in another sentence they claim the rifle is highly modular allowing you to swap out an upper chambered in .223 for one chambered in something else.
 
2013-01-03 12:35:43 PM
It's the SUV of guns. Looks cool but not particularly useful.
 
2013-01-03 12:35:48 PM
So if/when there's a ban on AR-15s and other scary black guns along with the "high-capacity" magazines, how will the success of the ban be measured?
 
2013-01-03 12:35:54 PM

treesloth: LasersHurt: Nobody wants to ban black guns, stop making shiat up.

Did you just hear a whistling sound over your head?


No, unless you WEREN'T performing a reductio ad absurdum just to discredit something instead of discussing it honestly.
 
2013-01-03 12:36:06 PM

BarkingUnicorn: doglover: So we should consider banning the AR-15 because they sell well and are popular with shootists?

Okay then...

LOL!  Let's make them sound all sophisticated and elegant!  "Shootists" is like calling a pool player a "cueist."


Or a billiardist. Oh, wait...
 
2013-01-03 12:36:07 PM
"A well educated House of Representatives, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed."

Do you believe this sentence says that only government officials can own and read books?
 
2013-01-03 12:36:17 PM
This "reporter" is a liar. Nothing new here. His/her bulls--t claims that (s)he is progun is just another lie.
 
2013-01-03 12:36:25 PM

Wolf_Blitzer: cr7pilot: Me too. I've got a .380 and a 9mm, but the AR-15 is fun to shoot on a long range. It's also handy for disposing of those leftover Halloween pumpkins...

I enjoy shooting too, and have fired my friend's AR-15 a couple times, but do people honestly believe our entertainment justifies twenty dead six-year-olds?



If you think ARs should be banned, then please "keep it real", and never shoot it again.

Would you have felt better if he had used handguns or shotguns instead?
 
2013-01-03 12:36:51 PM

abhorrent1: the AR-15 Is Useful for Hunting and Home Defense. Not Exactly.

BS. The kid on (I think it's called) Yukon Men, uses an AR to hunt. He got a caribou and a bear with it on the few episodes I've seen.


Another thing I find amusing is the caricature that hunters using an AR and army surplus gear when they hunt are somehow different than more traditional hunters. I'm sorry, since when did I have to fill your Fudd-esque image of what a hunter is to be a hunter? Am i out to kill an animal? Am I going to do so in a safe, humane way? Well then, shut the hell up, I'll wear a goddamn clown suit if it pleases me.
 
2013-01-03 12:36:52 PM

OnlyM3: This "reporter" is a liar. Nothing new here. His/her bulls--t claims that (s)he is progun is just another lie.


They disagree, therefore no true Scotsman, eh?
 
2013-01-03 12:37:20 PM
So a guy who says he "generally" supports the 2nd amendment, does not own a gun because New York makes it hard, says AR-15s are scary. Got it.

2nd amendment has nothing to do with the right to hunt.

M1A owner here. makes the AR-15 (in .223) look like a toy. Laser accurate, semi auto .308 (only 20 round mags though). Love it. Just bought a matching numbers DUV 41 K98, most beautiful rifle I have seen yet. WW II bolt action, sure, but will be illegal according to many standards set forth by liberal gun haters. Think about what the idiot libs want to ban...

Bayonet lugs? How many friggin mass bayonettings, or any bayonettings have occured? Not even sure that is a word. Know how many antique weapon owners this screws?
Flash suppressors? How many times has this ever, ever been an issue, anywhere? My M1A has one. How is this more lethal than one without?

How does banning them do anything with so many in circulation? Oh, they will make you re-register them? They will confiscate them? How many people do you think will all of a sudden lose their rigles and magazines? "Sorry Obama Brown Shirt guy, I misplaced that rifle, not sure where it is." There are tens of millions of high capacity magazines out there as it is.

None of this even solves the problem, which is bad people in society, or crazy people in society. They need to be beaten down, locked away, and parents slapped in the face until they raise their kids right.
 
2013-01-03 12:37:24 PM

Kit Fister: Cymbal: Who cares who buys them and why? They shouldn't be available to the general public. If a shooting range wants to rent one out to you to use on the premises that would be fine, and the ONLY situation where I can see them being available to use.

I agree, let's restrict and ban all laptops from public use. And cell phones, they're dangerous, cause accidents, and shouldn't be available to the general public.

/Has a full-auto, legally registered M60 Machine gun. Belt-fed full-auto, baby. hellatiously expensive, but I'm retiring on what I can sell it for.


Awesome false equivalency there. Wait hold on a sec, I think my laptop is pointing an AR-15 at me. Noooooooooooo!!!!!
 
2013-01-03 12:37:35 PM
well recently it's people who have far too much disposable income
 
2013-01-03 12:37:39 PM

david_gaithersburg: Kit Fister: Wolf_Blitzer: I enjoy shooting too, and have fired my friend's AR-15 a couple times, but do people honestly believe our entertainment justifies twenty dead six-year-olds?

I dunno about you, but I personally don't think I got any entertainment out of the deaths of twenty 6 year olds. Okay, maybe I got some entertainment out of the derp in the threads following the incident from folks like you.

.
Oh puhlease. Many here have a warm tingly feeling running up their leg at that thought of taking away basic human rights from their fellow Americans. In this case the human right of self defense.


Don't be an ass. You have the right to defend yourself, but there will always be limits as to the means by which you do so. You can't keep an ICBM in your basement to defend yourself, either. If you need an assault rifle to defend yourself, you're a pussy.
 
2013-01-03 12:37:55 PM

LasersHurt: No, unless you WEREN'T performing a reductio ad absurdum just to discredit something instead of discussing it honestly.


No, I was performing a "dumb joke". Lighten up, Francis. Go shoot something. It'll help you relax.
 
2013-01-03 12:38:01 PM
I'm fine with people owning weapons. Even weapons that look scary but use slightly better ammunition than a .22 (I don't own a gun, mostly due to financial reasons. When a better job comes around, I'd certainly consider it)

What I DO support is limiting access to those guns, and limiting the availability of people to walk around in a Dirty Harry fantasy.

-Mental health screenings for every purchase
-Limits on number of bullets bought at once (similar to ephedrine)
-Periodic reviews of gun holder abilities and stability (driver's license renewal)
-Make a person legally liable for a stolen gun if precautions were not taken to prevent its use other than the registered owner (those thumbprint locks are not expensive)

If you pass those, I've got no problem with the people mentally able to hold a firearm having them.
 
2013-01-03 12:38:09 PM

TheOther: The_Sponge: TheOther: then for every assault rifle the government 'confiscates', let the government supply either a hunting rifle or shotgun (sporting or home defense - owner's choice).

How about no?

Why not?



1) Because I want to keep it, and I'm never giving it up.

2) Do you think the government would give me an equivalent rifle or shotgun that is at the same market value as my rifle?
 
2013-01-03 12:38:11 PM
Adam Lanza's mother, Nancy Lanza, has been described as "a gun-hoarding survivalist who was stockpiling weapons in preparation for an economic collapse."

Yeah, she owned a whopping 5 guns. Mitt Romney has more houses than that, is he "hoarding" them?
 
2013-01-03 12:38:33 PM

kqc7011: Got this with a simple search.
The following is a list of some of the calibers that the AR-15 can use,

Without bolt modification
.17 Remington
.17/223
.20 Tactical
.20 Practical
.20 Vartag
.204 Ruger
.221 Fireball
.222 Remington
.222 Remington Magnum
.223 Remington (5.56x45mm)
.223 Remington Ackley Improved
6x45mm
6mm TCU
6x47mm
6mm Whisper
.25x45mm
6.5mm Whisper
7mm Whisper
7mm TCU
.300 Whisper (.300/221, .300 Fireball)
.338 Whisper

AR-15, with bolt modification
223 WSSM
5.45x39mm (.21 Genghis)
243 WSSM
6mm PPC
6mm WOA
6mm BR Remington
6mm Hagar
6.5mm PPC
6.5 WSSM
6.5 WOA
6.5mm Grendel
25 WSSM
6.8x43mm SPC
.30 Herrett Rimless Tactical (6.8x43mm case trimmed to 41mm and necked up to .308; the 6.8mm version of the .300 Whisper)
7.62x25
7.62x39mm
.30 RAR
300 OSSM
.357 Auto
.35 Gremlin (necked up 6.5 Grendel to 358)
.358 WSSM (various names, but all are some form of a WSSM necked up to 35 caliber, some are shortened to make them big game legal in Indiana)
.458 SOCOM
.50 Action Express
.50 Beowulf

AR-15 using a simple blowback operation
.17 HMR
.22 LR
.22 WMR
9x19mm
9x21
9x23
30 Carbine
357 Sig
40S&W
400 Cor-Bon
41 Action Express
10mm Auto
45 GAP
45ACP
45 Super
45 Win Mag

This list is in no way complete.

Story seems to be done by someone who has no clue but a agenda.


As are most articles from Slate.
 
2013-01-03 12:38:34 PM
The NRA doesn't represent gun owners; it represents the gun industry. Big difference there. Their purpose is not to advocate for more gun rights, it's to sell more guns.
 
2013-01-03 12:39:12 PM

scottydoesntknow: But the AR-15 is not ideal for the hunting and home-defense uses that the NRA's Keene cited today. Though it can be used for hunting, the AR-15 isn't really a hunting rifle. Its standard .223 caliber ammunition doesn't offer much stopping power for anything other than small game. Hunters themselves find the rifle controversial, with some arguing AR-15-style rifles empower sloppy, "spray and pray" hunters to waste ammunition.

While I do agree that it is not very well suited for hunting standard game, I did watch one tear though almost a dozen hogs in around 2 minutes. We've got a huge hog problem at our deer lease and one of the guys on the lease brought his son's AR-15 to see if he could pop a couple. My uncle and I are sitting around the fire pit when we heard 1 shot. Then about 5 minutes later we heard about 20 shots in a row. The guy with the AR radios us and tells us to come to his blind. He's got around 10 hogs on the ground, all dead. Said the first shot actually got 3 of them (they lined up perfectly), then about 5 minutes later a whole drove of them come to his blind and he just opened up on them.

Yea it's an anecdotal CSB, but I have seen their uses beyond just murder machines.


That's not hunting. Thats extermination of a pest. Calling that hunting is like me calling the time that My uncle and I set a hog trap and caught about eight, then proceeded to shoot them while they were in the trap. No gamesmanship.
 
2013-01-03 12:39:17 PM

H31N0US: 900RR: 2nd Amendment isn't about duck hunting, dork.

Yeah. It's about a well regulated militia and grants "The People" the right to bear arms. Notice "The People" is capitalized, meaning the population as a collective, not every person.

This is exactly why gun control is not in opposition to the 2nd amendment. It is actually in perfect agreement with it.

And yes, most dudes who want an AR-15 want it because it looks like an M-16. I had one. It was cool, but if I were to hunt, I'd go with a 30-30 since the bullets look cooler.


actually, the phrase discussing a well-regulated militia, and the phrase discussing the right of the people to bear arms, are separate statements, not acting on each other. This has been pointed out time and time again by scholars of the document, and upheld by the courts.
 
2013-01-03 12:39:34 PM

TheOther: The_Sponge: TheOther: then for every assault rifle the government 'confiscates', let the government supply either a hunting rifle or shotgun (sporting or home defense - owner's choice).

How about no?

Why not?


sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net
 
2013-01-03 12:39:37 PM

doglover: So we should consider banning the AR-15 because they sell well and are popular with shootists?

Okay then...


That's exactly what the article says. There's no other possible way to interpret what the article says but the way you stated here. Well done.
 
2013-01-03 12:39:40 PM
Yesterday ITS NOT A TOY!!!


Today SO WHAT IF ITS A TOY!!!

At least be consistent, gun nuts
 
2013-01-03 12:39:48 PM

seniorgato: That being said.  The guns are wicked stupid.  I've thought about it a lot.  A person breaks into my house, use a shotgun, a handgun or a bat.  An AR-15 will kill your neighbor or the kid playing outside.  And it's not worth it.


You might have thought about it a lot, but you didn't bother to research. Select an optimal 223 hollow point and the likelihood of someone in the next room getting killed is remote at best.
 
2013-01-03 12:40:00 PM

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: Wow. You could use that argument to eliminate literally every law on the books


Actually, the argument that the supreme court uses to claim states cannot have religious displays or make laws regarding religion would, if applied, ban all state laws not set in the Constitution. Essentially, they argue that the 14th amendment specifies in the "Incorporation Clause" that states may not pass any laws which restrict an individual's rights further than the Constitution allows for in general--that is, that if the Constitution does not provide for the Federal Government to do a thing, then it does not allow for the States to do a thing.

The Constitution does not allow the Federal Government to set speed limits.
 
2013-01-03 12:40:02 PM

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: I'm fine with people owning weapons. Even weapons that look scary but use slightly better ammunition than a .22 (I don't own a gun, mostly due to financial reasons. When a better job comes around, I'd certainly consider it)

What I DO support is limiting access to those guns, and limiting the availability of people to walk around in a Dirty Harry fantasy.

-Mental health screenings for every purchase
-Limits on number of bullets bought at once (similar to ephedrine)
-Periodic reviews of gun holder abilities and stability (driver's license renewal)
-Make a person legally liable for a stolen gun if precautions were not taken to prevent its use other than the registered owner (those thumbprint locks are not expensive)

If you pass those, I've got no problem with the people mentally able to hold a firearm having them.


What "limitation" would you apply to rounds of ammunition purchased at one time? What would prevent ammunition purchasers from making multiple simultaneous transactions? How would you address the fact that such a measure would result in substantially increased interest in reloading?
 
2013-01-03 12:40:06 PM

LasersHurt: gregory311: I'm sure I could do some serious damage with my 300 ultramag, but no one seems interested in taking this away from me.

(Not mine, but similar in nature)

[i205.photobucket.com image 598x307]

Guess it's not 'military looking enough'.

Don't be ridiculous. Of course you can pick out any weapon you like and say "I can still kill with it." That's not a point.


Actually, it is. I think you are missing the point. Bullshiat artists like the author of this article specifically pick out, as you say, "any weapon they like" and follow with pointless commentary without considering the ramifications of other weaponry. If you don't want people to own them, then you don't. But don't fark around and pick out a military-style rifle because its easier than doing research.

See, it's easier for suckers to believe all the shiat they see or read when they immediately recognize stuff they see on TV and in films. If I put my SKS side by side with my UltraMag and asked Jennie Sixpack which one should be handled differently, she'd pick the SKS. Despite the fact that, as I said, I'd probably be able to do more damage with the non-scary looking rifle.

Get it?
 
2013-01-03 12:40:32 PM

H31N0US: 900RR: 2nd Amendment isn't about duck hunting, dork.

Yeah. It's about a well regulated militia and grants "The People" the right to bear arms. Notice "The People" is capitalized, meaning the population as a collective, not every person.

This is exactly why gun control is not in opposition to the 2nd amendment. It is actually in perfect agreement with it.

And yes, most dudes who want an AR-15 want it because it looks like an M-16. I had one. It was cool, but if I were to hunt, I'd go with a 30-30 since the bullets look cooler.


Why would "the people" mean something different in this amendment than the others? Also, the amendment grants nothing. It *GUARANTEES* it.
 
2013-01-03 12:40:43 PM

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: Kraftwerk Orange: BarkingUnicorn: cr7pilot: CPT Ethanolic: cr7pilot: I own an AR-15. I'm not a survivalist or a gun nut or a hunter. I'm a guy who enjoys going out in the desert and shooting assorted targets for fun. It's really that simple. If you like shooting as a sport, the AR-15 is a lot of fun to shoot. I understand that some people don't like shooting as a sport and think "why do you need that kind of gun" but that's just because it's not their thing. AR-15 owners don't buy AR-15s because they have some inherent desire to have more "killing power."

 This is me as well.  I own some hand guns (one .45 and two 9mms) for "home defense" but I also just enjoy shooting.  I've been considering getting an AR15 for a while now.  Used to own an AK-47 and, although the ammo is damned expensive, they're fun to shoot.

Me too. I've got a .380 and a 9mm, but the AR-15 is fun to shoot on a long range. It's also handy for disposing of those leftover Halloween pumpkins...

It's good to see people admit that this hoopla is really about their 2nd Amendment right to have "fun."

Actually, the unalienable right to "fun" - aka "Pursuit of Happiness" - goes back even further, to the Preamble of the Declaration of Independence.

Wow. You could use that argument to eliminate literally every law on the books.


I'm willing to concede only types of fun that don't hurt other people should be allowed. Drugs and guns would be allowed under my interpretation.
 
2013-01-03 12:40:43 PM

treesloth: LasersHurt: No, unless you WEREN'T performing a reductio ad absurdum just to discredit something instead of discussing it honestly.

No, I was performing a "dumb joke". Lighten up, Francis. Go shoot something. It'll help you relax.


I enjoy shooting. I also enjoy reasonable arguments on this issue because if we don't get reasonable on all sides of this, it's gonna go nowhere.
 
2013-01-03 12:41:11 PM

H31N0US: 900RR: 2nd Amendment isn't about duck hunting, dork.

Yeah. It's about a well regulated militia and grants "The People" the right to bear arms. Notice "The People" is capitalized, meaning the population as a collective, not every person.

This is exactly why gun control is not in opposition to the 2nd amendment. It is actually in perfect agreement with it.

And yes, most dudes who want an AR-15 want it because it looks like an M-16. I had one. It was cool, but if I were to hunt, I'd go with a 30-30 since the bullets look cooler.


Are you saying that if it wasn't capitalized, you'd agree it refers to individual rights?
 
2013-01-03 12:41:21 PM

Cymbal: Kit Fister: Cymbal: Who cares who buys them and why? They shouldn't be available to the general public. If a shooting range wants to rent one out to you to use on the premises that would be fine, and the ONLY situation where I can see them being available to use.

I agree, let's restrict and ban all laptops from public use. And cell phones, they're dangerous, cause accidents, and shouldn't be available to the general public.

/Has a full-auto, legally registered M60 Machine gun. Belt-fed full-auto, baby. hellatiously expensive, but I'm retiring on what I can sell it for.

Awesome false equivalency there. Wait hold on a sec, I think my laptop is pointing an AR-15 at me. Noooooooooooo!!!!!


Hey, you arbitrarily pick an object to ban that is part of an overarching right, I pick one too. I just happen to choose a tool or two useful to the right of free speech and freedom of the press, rather than the right to keep and bear arms.
 
2013-01-03 12:42:01 PM

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: If you need an assault rifle to defend yourself, you're a pussy.


What is this world coming too....now thatthe left is exhibiting sings of being bootstrappy.

When I was your age I defended my homestead with gumption and some ambergris!!!! Yarrrrrrr!
 
2013-01-03 12:42:06 PM

NFA: Or what if he packed a backpack with four 5lb bags of flour and an electric fan, snuck into the school and plugged the fan into back of an auditorium (or the basement) and dumped the flour into the fan then lit a lighter?


Go on.
 
2013-01-03 12:42:07 PM

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: If you need an assault rifle to defend yourself, you're a pussy.


It's not an assault rifle. And leaving me able to be a pussy is a characteristic I value in a weapon.

"Back when we audited the FBI academy in 1947, I was told that I ought not to use my pistol in their training program because it was not fair. Maybe the first thing one should demand of his sidearm is that it be unfair." -- Jeff Cooper
 
2013-01-03 12:42:32 PM
Also just to play devil's advocate. Lets assume we pull assault rifles off the market. Yet we'll still need home defense weapons, because a large part of this country is not densely populated and LEO response can be 20+ minutes away.

A home defense weapon is a weapon that has to maneuver well indoors and kill a human. Really it needs to be able to kill a couple in case of accomplices. So you have handles well indoors, capable of multiple shoots, and kills people. That's a gun that will shoot up a school just fine.

Going after the AR style and 30 round magazines is just feel good dickery that fails to address the real problem of nutcases. You hamstring the AR and all you're doing is reducing the death toll of the incident. I'd rather address why we have crazy farkers running around. The Aurora guy had a psych profile and some people were afraid of him, the Newton guy was in the process of involuntary commitment, the Swiss shooter had known mental health issues. The rifle is just the common tool, something else is the common cause.
 
2013-01-03 12:42:39 PM

NFA: Well, since the AR15 (semi-auto version of the M16) isn't useful for hunting or defense, I suppose our military will abandon it immediately?  I mean if it's useless for hunting, then you couldn't possibly go out in the field and hunt 200 lb humans in the Jungle or anywhere else, Right?  Or if it's useless for defense they will start using something else to protect themselves?  Defense forces around the world use the full auto version of the AR-15 as a standard of protection.  Will this be going away because some clueless writer thinks the firearm doesn't have merit?


Good thing the military doesn't use the AR-15 then.


I know people who hunt with the AR15 and are quite successful with it.  Saying it isn't useful as a hunting gun is an outright lie.  Saying that a M4 version of an AR15 can't be used for defense is an outright lie.  The AR15 didn't cause these crimes.  Mental illness caused these crimes.  Take away the AR-15 and they'll use AK-47's.

Good argument! An assault weapons ban would prevent people from getting AR-15's but not AK-47's.


Take those away and they'll use shotguns, take those away and they'll use AR-7's.

Both those weapons are slower-firing and shorter-ranged than AR-15's.


Doesn't it make sense to seek out and treat mentally ill people?  What if Adam Lanza carried two 30 lb bottles of propane into the basement of the school, screwed a transfer adapter into the valve and released 60 lbs of propane into the basement and then lit a lighter?  The entire school would have likely been destroyed with all the children in it.  Thank god it chose the less deadly method of using a firearm.  Or what if he packed a backpack with four 5lb bags of flour and an electric fan, snuck into the school and plugged the fan into back of an auditorium (or the basement) and dumped the flour into the fan then lit a lighter?  Ever heard of a grain silo explosion?  Grain dust explosions are absolutely devastating.  Hundreds of people would die.  Should we ban propane because it's TOO DANGEROUS?  Should we ban flour because it's TOO DANGEROUS?  See my point?  There will ALWAYS be something available to mentally ill people.

There are already laws regulating the sale, storage, and movement of propane. Plus, both of your plans for mass killing require time and familiarity with the facilities, whereas you can walk into any crowded area with an assault rifle and expect to kill dozens with virtually no prior planning other than how to acquire the weapon.

Plus, virtually everyone has been in favor of providing additional help to people with mental health issues. It's just that the Democrats have been proposing gun control measures on top of that.

So yeah, your excuses suck.
 
2013-01-03 12:42:46 PM

kombat_unit: Here is an excellent article explaining why 2A ain't about "Bambi and burglars" Link


If by "excellent" you mean "laughably naive masturbatory fantasy", than sure.  Disorganized rabble with AR-15s is no more of a threat to the authoritarian government takeover strawman than disorganized rabble with M1 Garands or 30-06 deer rifles.  Let's see someone try to take out an A-10, an F-18, or an Abrams with one.  And I'd bet that same guy didn't have the same outrage over warrentless wiretapping, unlimited detention without trial, and various other abuses of power by the US Government that are actually real.
 
2013-01-03 12:42:58 PM

Dimensio: TheOther: If isn't really about disarming Americans, but about restricting access to military-grade weapons, then for every assault rifle the government 'confiscates', let the government supply either a hunting rifle or shotgun (sporting or home defense - owner's choice).

Civilian-marketed AR-15 rifles are not "military-grade". Any claim that they are is a lie.


It's the big lie theory. Keep repeating 'assault rifle', 'military grade', 'assault weapon', 'military weapon' over and over until people believe it. The press could be accurate but since gun control/banning fits into their political philosophy...
 
2013-01-03 12:43:04 PM
The AR-15 is actually the best home defense weapon. As a rifle it is more accurate than any handgun, and if you choose the right bullet it penetrates less through wall materials than any handgun or shotgun bullet that would also effectively stop a threat. Look up Dr. Fackler and his studies on bullet penetration if you don't believe this.

I would also bet, that in today's age Ar-15s are used to take more game than any other rifle. They are perfect for small game from rodent control, (prarie dogs) up to coyotes, and if your state allows it, they can take smaller deer easy.

The reason they are so popular is that they are ergonomic and easy to modify and customize at the user end, without hiring a gunsmith due to their modular nature.
 
2013-01-03 12:43:13 PM
People who are afraid of ARs need to watch this. Seriously

What Is An "Assault Rifle"? - You've Probably Been Lied To
 
2013-01-03 12:43:21 PM

Kit Fister: SacriliciousBeerSwiller: Kit Fister: scottydoesntknow: But the AR-15 is not ideal for the hunting and home-defense uses that the NRA's Keene cited today. Though it can be used for hunting, the AR-15 isn't really a hunting rifle. Its standard .223 caliber ammunition doesn't offer much stopping power for anything other than small game. Hunters themselves find the rifle controversial, with some arguing AR-15-style rifles empower sloppy, "spray and pray" hunters to waste ammunition.

While I do agree that it is not very well suited for hunting standard game, I did watch one tear though almost a dozen hogs in around 2 minutes. We've got a huge hog problem at our deer lease and one of the guys on the lease brought his son's AR-15 to see if he could pop a couple. My uncle and I are sitting around the fire pit when we heard 1 shot. Then about 5 minutes later we heard about 20 shots in a row. The guy with the AR radios us and tells us to come to his blind. He's got around 10 hogs on the ground, all dead. Said the first shot actually got 3 of them (they lined up perfectly), then about 5 minutes later a whole drove of them come to his blind and he just opened up on them.

Yea it's an anecdotal CSB, but I have seen their uses beyond just murder machines.

Same here. Works well for coyotes, too.

Apparently works well for children, too. Keep on grasping.

Yeah, my pickup truck works well for children, too. Plow into a group and back up a few times, takes out just as many, with less effort. Just because a person can USE it for bad things, doesn't mean that it is FOR bad things.


You claim it's easier, and yet last I checked there has not been a rash of pickup-truck driving madmen killing scores of people via vehicular homicide. Reality just doesn't jive with your rhetoric.

Further, your logic could be applied to any number of ridiculous positions. Hey, let's make it legal for private citizens to keep Stinger missiles in their house. After all, they make great fireworks, and could be used for sport drone shooting. Herpity derp.
 
2013-01-03 12:43:23 PM

Doom MD: Facepalm article.

It's popular and underpowered, so people with guns should be forced to buy more powerful and less popular guns. Ok then.


Its only good for small varmits, target shooting and clearing kindergarten classes. Record numbers are being purchased. For which of those 3 reasons remains to be seen.
 
2013-01-03 12:43:25 PM
I like all this attention to the AR-15, because this year I had no problems finding 7.62x39 for my Saiga-made AK-47 -- 500 rounds for $130, too.

The range is waist-deep in asspipery, tho. Just like with the gym around New Year's Day, it's suddenly crowded with people who won't show up after the second visit.

/Registered Democrat
//Never "badgered the witness" to Red Dawn
///Ok, that one time, but I had a thing for Lea Thompson
////Ok, it was Powers Boothe
 
2013-01-03 12:43:56 PM

RickN99: Dimensio: TheOther: If isn't really about disarming Americans, but about restricting access to military-grade weapons, then for every assault rifle the government 'confiscates', let the government supply either a hunting rifle or shotgun (sporting or home defense - owner's choice).

Civilian-marketed AR-15 rifles are not "military-grade". Any claim that they are is a lie.

It's the big lie theory. Keep repeating 'assault rifle', 'military grade', 'assault weapon', 'military weapon' over and over until people believe it. The press could be accurate but since gun control/banning fits into their political philosophy...


You are attributing to malice what is more easily attributed to incompetence.
 
2013-01-03 12:44:04 PM
Being that only a few hundred people died in 2011 of rifles, how many do you think of those were even AR-15's?

I'm guessing sub 30, if not less than 20.
 
2013-01-03 12:44:08 PM

gregory311: LasersHurt: gregory311: I'm sure I could do some serious damage with my 300 ultramag, but no one seems interested in taking this away from me.

(Not mine, but similar in nature)

[i205.photobucket.com image 598x307]

Guess it's not 'military looking enough'.

Don't be ridiculous. Of course you can pick out any weapon you like and say "I can still kill with it." That's not a point.

Actually, it is. I think you are missing the point. Bullshiat artists like the author of this article specifically pick out, as you say, "any weapon they like" and follow with pointless commentary without considering the ramifications of other weaponry. If you don't want people to own them, then you don't. But don't fark around and pick out a military-style rifle because its easier than doing research.

See, it's easier for suckers to believe all the shiat they see or read when they immediately recognize stuff they see on TV and in films. If I put my SKS side by side with my UltraMag and asked Jennie Sixpack which one should be handled differently, she'd pick the SKS. Despite the fact that, as I said, I'd probably be able to do more damage with the non-scary looking rifle.

Get it?


Is it your claim that there is no way to restrict deadlier weapons? Or that there are no deadlier weapons at all?

If it's neither, then you're missing the point - the point is to reduce the impact of those deadlier weapons. Work from that standpoint, and you can better understand the intent of these people, then maybe help better define the issue.

I suspect, however, that your opinion would be "I do not support any further controls of any kind."
 
2013-01-03 12:44:43 PM

Cymbal: Who cares who buys them and why? They shouldn't be available to the general public. If a shooting range wants to rent one out to you to use on the premises that would be fine, and the ONLY situation where I can see them being available to use.


Why shouldn't they be available? They are quite honestly nowhere near as dangerous as many other platforms that are also legally available. They are just a lot cheaper and or they look a lot more military so they tend to attract the crazy morons who have a hardon for being Rambo and can't hold down a stable job (due to their mental illness) and hence cannot afford an expensive weapon.

It's like saying that we should ban spoilers on economy cars because those cars get in more fatal accidents. Well yeah young idiots who like to drive fast and have no idea how to do so safely are attracted to cars with spoilers but the spoilers don't cause the accidents.

/I have nothing against spoilers lot of ordinary people have them too
//the same as AR15s
 
2013-01-03 12:44:59 PM
Its noones business how many guns I have, or what type. God bless America.
 
2013-01-03 12:45:13 PM

Mr. Coffee Nerves: I like all this attention to the AR-15, because this year I had no problems finding 7.62x39 for my Saiga-made AK-47 -- 500 rounds for $130, too.


I shoot .22LR with my AR-15. I have avoided the local firing range, however, and I will likely not return for at least another week.
 
2013-01-03 12:45:14 PM
Perhaps the first amendment should be tightly regulated too. He way not apply the mental evaluation to it and put Fark our of business.
 
2013-01-03 12:45:28 PM

ha-ha-guy: /I still want an AR style that handles 7.62×63


Wrongs. You want an AR that handles 300BLK. That is a sexy round.
 
2013-01-03 12:45:29 PM

LarryDan43: Doom MD: Facepalm article.

It's popular and underpowered, so people with guns should be forced to buy more powerful and less popular guns. Ok then.

Its only good for small varmits, target shooting and clearing kindergarten classes. Record numbers are being purchased. For which of those 3 reasons remains to be seen.


Then why do the military and SWAT teams purchase them?
 
2013-01-03 12:45:32 PM
SacriliciousBeerSwiller: Apparently works well for children, too. Keep on grasping.

oh cool, emotion!
 
2013-01-03 12:45:35 PM

manimal2878: The AR-15 is actually the best home defense weapon. As a rifle it is more accurate than any handgun


In a home invasion, you're not going to be shooting at someone from any distance where that additional accuracy is particularly important.
 
2013-01-03 12:45:49 PM

abhorrent1: abhorrent1: the AR-15 Is Useful for Hunting and Home Defense. Not Exactly.

BS. The kid on (I think it's called) Yukon Men, uses an AR to hunt. He got a caribou and a bear with it on the few episodes I've seen.

here it is

[img.poptower.com image 600x338]


Yeah the whole carbine style weapon is fine platform for training kids to hunt before giving them the bolt action deer rifle that fires something a lot heavier. Weapon doesn't weigh as much, not as much recoil, etc.
 
2013-01-03 12:45:58 PM

Teknowaffle: Fat humans who were rejected by the military, police , and mall security?


FTFY
 
2013-01-03 12:46:15 PM
Though it can be used for hunting, the AR-15 Mauser isn't really a hunting rifle. Its standard .223 8mm caliber ammunition doesn't offer much stopping power for anything other than small game. Hunters themselves find the rifle controversial, with some arguing AR-15-style bolt action rifles empower sloppy, "spray and pray" hunters to waste ammunition.

The perspective of a buffalo hunter with a single-shot Sharps.

Fudds always fear the new. And semi-auto hunting rifles have been around for 100 years now. Time marches on.
 
2013-01-03 12:46:23 PM

riverwalk barfly: scottydoesntknow: But the AR-15 is not ideal for the hunting and home-defense uses that the NRA's Keene cited today. Though it can be used for hunting, the AR-15 isn't really a hunting rifle. Its standard .223 caliber ammunition doesn't offer much stopping power for anything other than small game. Hunters themselves find the rifle controversial, with some arguing AR-15-style rifles empower sloppy, "spray and pray" hunters to waste ammunition.

While I do agree that it is not very well suited for hunting standard game, I did watch one tear though almost a dozen hogs in around 2 minutes. We've got a huge hog problem at our deer lease and one of the guys on the lease brought his son's AR-15 to see if he could pop a couple. My uncle and I are sitting around the fire pit when we heard 1 shot. Then about 5 minutes later we heard about 20 shots in a row. The guy with the AR radios us and tells us to come to his blind. He's got around 10 hogs on the ground, all dead. Said the first shot actually got 3 of them (they lined up perfectly), then about 5 minutes later a whole drove of them come to his blind and he just opened up on them.

Yea it's an anecdotal CSB, but I have seen their uses beyond just murder machines.

That's not hunting. Thats extermination of a pest. Calling that hunting is like me calling the time that My uncle and I set a hog trap and caught about eight, then proceeded to shoot them while they were in the trap. No gamesmanship.


Soooo what point are you trying to make?
 
2013-01-03 12:46:31 PM

ultraholland: SacriliciousBeerSwiller: Apparently works well for children, too. Keep on grasping.

oh cool, emotion reality!


FTFY.

But, fyi, emotion is the basis of all law.
 
2013-01-03 12:46:35 PM

david_gaithersburg: Perhaps the first amendment should be tightly regulated too. He way not apply the mental evaluation to it and put Fark our of business.


The same people who like to ban scary black guns are the same people that like to ban "hate speech."
 
2013-01-03 12:47:05 PM
Has anyone defined "military-style" yet? Because every journalist on earth is using this term, but none so far have been able to articulate what makes a gun "military-style" besides describing how scary it looks to them.

I could hand these bozos an AR-15 with a nice polished wood stock and they'd think it's a beautiful, safe, deer hunting rifle.
 
2013-01-03 12:47:15 PM

treesloth: SacriliciousBeerSwiller: If you need an assault rifle to defend yourself, you're a pussy.

It's not an assault rifle. And leaving me able to be a pussy is a characteristic I value in a weapon.

"Back when we audited the FBI academy in 1947, I was told that I ought not to use my pistol in their training program because it was not fair. Maybe the first thing one should demand of his sidearm is that it be unfair." -- Jeff Cooper


I like this quote of his better....it fits alot of the ramblings of the gun control crowd.

The problem with the Internet is it is full of people who have nothing to say that say it anyway'~~~~Jeff Cooper.
 
2013-01-03 12:47:16 PM

CPT Ethanolic: Article say .223 or AR-15?  I thought AR-15s were .556?


Military AR-15 & M-16 is 5.56 mm and .223 (usually used in training). The cilivian AR-15 is .223 only. M-16 is capable of up to full auto, AR-15 is semi-auto (even though it can be modded to full).

I think the reason the AR-15 is being used more as a hunting rifle is not because of its accuracy, or ability to drop a deer out of the box... it's the familiarity and customization ability. You can make and AR shoot more than .223, with even one mod going 30-30.
 
2013-01-03 12:47:20 PM

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: ultraholland: SacriliciousBeerSwiller: Apparently works well for children, too. Keep on grasping.

oh cool, emotion reality!

FTFY.

But, fyi, emotion is the basis of all law.


Must be why we're so farked.
 
2013-01-03 12:47:46 PM

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: Kit Fister: SacriliciousBeerSwiller: Kit Fister: scottydoesntknow: But the AR-15 is not ideal for the hunting and home-defense uses that the NRA's Keene cited today. Though it can be used for hunting, the AR-15 isn't really a hunting rifle. Its standard .223 caliber ammunition doesn't offer much stopping power for anything other than small game. Hunters themselves find the rifle controversial, with some arguing AR-15-style rifles empower sloppy, "spray and pray" hunters to waste ammunition.

While I do agree that it is not very well suited for hunting standard game, I did watch one tear though almost a dozen hogs in around 2 minutes. We've got a huge hog problem at our deer lease and one of the guys on the lease brought his son's AR-15 to see if he could pop a couple. My uncle and I are sitting around the fire pit when we heard 1 shot. Then about 5 minutes later we heard about 20 shots in a row. The guy with the AR radios us and tells us to come to his blind. He's got around 10 hogs on the ground, all dead. Said the first shot actually got 3 of them (they lined up perfectly), then about 5 minutes later a whole drove of them come to his blind and he just opened up on them.

Yea it's an anecdotal CSB, but I have seen their uses beyond just murder machines.

Same here. Works well for coyotes, too.

Apparently works well for children, too. Keep on grasping.

Yeah, my pickup truck works well for children, too. Plow into a group and back up a few times, takes out just as many, with less effort. Just because a person can USE it for bad things, doesn't mean that it is FOR bad things.

You claim it's easier, and yet last I checked there has not been a rash of pickup-truck driving madmen killing scores of people via vehicular homicide. Reality just doesn't jive with your rhetoric.

Further, your logic could be applied to any number of ridiculous positions. Hey, let's make it legal for private citizens to keep Stinger missiles in their house. After all, they make great firewo ...


Aside from modern manufacture, I can already own and keep claymore mines, grenades, explosives, and other munitions (at $200+paperwork+cost of device) in my home. I can own a tank if I have the money. Want a decommissioned military aircraft? Yep, I can own that too. All it takes is money.

As to not seeing it happen with cars...how many people died in the last month/year due to drunk drivers? I seem to recall quite a few cases involving DUIs and/or texting where a driver killed or caused an accident that killed lots of people at a time. But yeah, that's totally not the same thing, right?
 
2013-01-03 12:47:48 PM
I have an AR-15 type rifle. If it would bring back those 20 kids, you can have it. If taking it will keep another 20 alive, you can have it. The problem is, it won't. The Sandy Creek shooter (we should not use their names and give them the satisfaction of knowing they will be famous), had two handguns with him that were perfectly capable of doing the exact same damage in the same amount of time. Take away the rifle and even cut the magazine capacities on the handguns down to 10 and he could have done the same thing in the same amount of time. How long do you think it takes to drop a mag out of a handgun and pop in another while kids are cowering in closets? We like to believe we can fix all problems if we just pass a smart law. You may have noticed that is not working out so well for us.
 
2013-01-03 12:48:07 PM

stiletto_the_wise: Has anyone defined "military-style" yet? Because every journalist on earth is using this term, but none so far have been able to articulate what makes a gun "military-style" besides describing how scary it looks to them.

I could hand these bozos an AR-15 with a nice polished wood stock and they'd think it's a beautiful, safe, deer hunting rifle.


So you're sticking with "there is no such thing, and it doesn't matter." ?
 
2013-01-03 12:48:11 PM
"The AR-15 was designed...to penetrate both sides of a standard Army helmet at 500 meters"

I should look up the last Fark thread on this topic where some dude was arguing with me that the AR-15 "wasn't designed to kill people, it was designed to fire a projectile".
 
2013-01-03 12:48:12 PM

H31N0US: 900RR: 2nd Amendment isn't about duck hunting, dork.

Yeah. It's about a well regulated militia and grants "The People" the right to bear arms. Notice "The People" is capitalized, meaning the population as a collective, not every person.

This is exactly why gun control is not in opposition to the 2nd amendment. It is actually in perfect agreement with it.

And yes, most dudes who want an AR-15 want it because it looks like an M-16. I had one. It was cool, but if I were to hunt, I'd go with a 30-30 since the bullets look cooler.


That was... insane. Which part of the "collective" gets to exercise their 1st Amendment rights? Who decides?

/Learn history. Start with the Federalist papers and go from there.
//If the 2nd A. doesn't grant rights to individuals, ALL individuals, it's the only one in the entire Bill of Rights.
 
2013-01-03 12:48:22 PM

BgJonson79: LarryDan43: Doom MD: Facepalm article.

It's popular and underpowered, so people with guns should be forced to buy more powerful and less popular guns. Ok then.

Its only good for small varmits, target shooting and clearing kindergarten classes. Record numbers are being purchased. For which of those 3 reasons remains to be seen.

Then why do the military and SWAT teams purchase them?


Target shooting combined with budget constraints. Its the coolest looking they can afford.
 
2013-01-03 12:48:27 PM

Hickory-smoked: doglover: So we should consider banning the AR-15 because they sell well and are popular with shootists?

Okay then...

You know, I don't actually see the line in the article where the author specifically proposes a ban.

But perhaps a reasonable person may want to consider the function and design purpose of a firearm when deciding how it should be regulated? Or is that just too 'gun grabby' to say?


Basically, the article is saying that the "home protection" and "hunting" angles are disingenuous. And if you want to convince the general populace who neither want to repeal the 2nd Amendment nor demand that every American own a gun, you should make a different, more convincing argument.

The big issue is that the Bushmaster is the weapon of choice in these mass killings. Yes, I realize that one could use a sharpened toothbrush to kill large numbers of people somehow, but that's not what these people use.
 
2013-01-03 12:48:29 PM

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: manimal2878: The AR-15 is actually the best home defense weapon. As a rifle it is more accurate than any handgun

In a home invasion, you're not going to be shooting at someone from any distance where that additional accuracy is particularly important.


Depends on the home.  If you're Romney, I can imagine 100' ranges.
 
2013-01-03 12:48:41 PM
i197.photobucket.com
 
2013-01-03 12:48:47 PM

manimal2878: The AR-15 is actually the best home defense weapon. As a rifle it is more accurate than any handgun, and if you choose the right bullet it penetrates less through wall materials than any handgun or shotgun bullet that would also effectively stop a threat. Look up Dr. Fackler and his studies on bullet penetration if you don't believe this.

I would also bet, that in today's age Ar-15s are used to take more game than any other rifle. They are perfect for small game from rodent control, (prarie dogs) up to coyotes, and if your state allows it, they can take smaller deer easy.

The reason they are so popular is that they are ergonomic and easy to modify and customize at the user end, without hiring a gunsmith due to their modular nature.


I use mine to hunt Key Deer down in Florida.
 
2013-01-03 12:48:50 PM

NFA: Well, since the AR15 (semi-auto version of the M16) isn't useful for hunting or defense, I suppose our military will abandon it immediately?  I mean if it's useless for hunting, then you couldn't possibly go out in the field and hunt 200 lb humans in the Jungle or anywhere else, Right?  Or if it's useless for defense they will start using something else to protect themselves?  Defense forces around the world use the full auto version of the AR-15 as a standard of protection.  Will this be going away because some clueless writer thinks the firearm doesn't have merit?

I know people who hunt with the AR15 and are quite successful with it.  Saying it isn't useful as a hunting gun is an outright lie.  Saying that a M4 version of an AR15 can't be used for defense is an outright lie.  The AR15 didn't cause these crimes.  Mental illness caused these crimes.  Take away the AR-15 and they'll use AK-47's.  Take those away and they'll use shotguns, take those away and they'll use AR-7's.  Doesn't it make sense to seek out and treat mentally ill people?  What if Adam Lanza carried two 30 lb bottles of propane into the basement of the school, screwed a transfer adapter into the valve and released 60 lbs of propane into the basement and then lit a lighter?  The entire school would have likely been destroyed with all the children in it.  Thank god it chose the less deadly method of using a firearm.  Or what if he packed a backpack with four 5lb bags of flour and an electric fan, snuck into the school and plugged the fan into back of an auditorium (or the basement) and dumped the flour into the fan then lit a lighter?  Ever heard of a grain silo explosion?  Grain dust explosions are absolutely devastating.  Hundreds of people would die.  Should we ban propane because it's TOO DANGEROUS?  Should we ban flour because it's TOO DANGEROUS?  See my point?  There will ALWAYS be something available to mentally ill people.

Vilifying the method of killing is just a ploy to start down the sl ...


I'm just looking for a place to sell me 155mm HEAT rounds. Make this T72 purchase seem a little less foolish, and keep those damn kids out of my yard.
 
2013-01-03 12:48:54 PM
On a related note, the company which makes extended capacity magazines has sold out a 3 and 1/2 year supply in the last 10 days.

If you liked the War on Drugs, this is really going to be big fun.
 
2013-01-03 12:48:55 PM

LarryDan43: BgJonson79: LarryDan43: Doom MD: Facepalm article.

It's popular and underpowered, so people with guns should be forced to buy more powerful and less popular guns. Ok then.

Its only good for small varmits, target shooting and clearing kindergarten classes. Record numbers are being purchased. For which of those 3 reasons remains to be seen.

Then why do the military and SWAT teams purchase them?

Target shooting combined with budget constraints. Its the coolest looking they can afford.


Got a source to cite?
 
2013-01-03 12:49:19 PM

cr7pilot: I own an AR-15. I'm not a survivalist or a gun nut or a hunter. I'm a guy who enjoys going out in the desert and shooting assorted targets for fun. It's really that simple. If you like shooting as a sport, the AR-15 is a lot of fun to shoot. I understand that some people don't like shooting as a sport and think "why do you need that kind of gun" but that's just because it's not their thing. AR-15 owners don't buy AR-15s because they have some inherent desire to have more "killing power."

Also, many people here in rural Utah use AR-15s as varmint control weapons. As the article states, a .223 cartridge is not ideal for large game hunting, but it is good for varmint control and a lot more flexible than a bolt-action rifle.


I've been thinking about getting one for years, I just am looking for a reliable fun firearm. The mini22 interested me, as well maybe an m1 instead.

Would you buy one again? Any preferred make/model or manufacturer? Or would you go with a different firearm?
 
2013-01-03 12:49:32 PM

H31N0US: 900RR: 2nd Amendment isn't about duck hunting, dork.

Yeah. It's about a well regulated militia and grants "The People" the right to bear arms. Notice "The People" is capitalized, meaning the population as a collective, not every person.


First of all, the supreme court says you're wrong.

Second, you don't even make sense. If "the people" can own guns, how do you justify denying them to me? Am I not a person?

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.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Obviously, this means the 1st and 4th amendment both refer to a "collective" right too... Your argument is asinine to anyone who's literate.  Of course these rights are individual rights, otherwise they'd be meaningless.
 
2013-01-03 12:49:32 PM

Nattering Nabob: I have an AR-15 type rifle. If it would bring back those 20 kids, you can have it. If taking it will keep another 20 alive, you can have it. The problem is, it won't. The Sandy Creek shooter (we should not use their names and give them the satisfaction of knowing they will be famous), had two handguns with him that were perfectly capable of doing the exact same damage in the same amount of time. Take away the rifle and even cut the magazine capacities on the handguns down to 10 and he could have done the same thing in the same amount of time. How long do you think it takes to drop a mag out of a handgun and pop in another while kids are cowering in closets? We like to believe we can fix all problems if we just pass a smart law. You may have noticed that is not working out so well for us.


The type of gun and amount of ammunition are irrelevant, which is why it's crucial there be no limits on them. We need them. For no reason.
 
2013-01-03 12:49:32 PM
I am no huge fan of the ar15. The taticool movement in my opinion shows too much about what some people need from their weapons.

Not that customization is a bad thing, but adding stuff for fashion is annoying.

If a crazy wanting to take out a whole bunch of people, a mini-14 is no different for that purpose from my understanding.

This guy is a hoot.
Link
 
2013-01-03 12:49:55 PM
Last month, I estimated that upward of 3.5 million AR-15-style rifles currently exist in the United States.

So what are the murder rates between the number of AR-15s and other weapons? Are there more kills for every 3.5 million machetes, for instance? Just wondering, since they have only given half a statistic here, it would be interesting to see the breakdown. Maybe .22 automatics are the REAL killers, who knows?
 
2013-01-03 12:49:55 PM
Meh... I'll stick with my .88 Magnum.
 
KIA
2013-01-03 12:50:13 PM
The author says he sees people carrying AR style rifles in the woods but they aren't acceptable hunting rifles.

Has he not heard of the AR-10 chambered in .308? It looks exactly like an AR-15 but very slightly larger.

Also, AR style rifles tend to be more durable, have more useful mounting points and rails, and are usually easier to clean and maintain as they were designed for field-stripping and rugged use.
 
2013-01-03 12:50:18 PM

Teknowaffle: Fat white men who were rejected from too chickenshiat to join the military?



Let's be honest, we're talking about the most terrified people on the planet... people who like to fantasize about carrying around big bad-ass looking weapons to strike an imposing figure precisely because the reality of themselves is so very different.

Practically every gun nut I know is either a doughy nerd who's still nursing grudges about being a bullied outcast in school or a paranoid who obsesses about unrealistic threats they imagine lurking around every corner.

These are NOT Steve Rogers-types eager to rush into the fray of battle to test their mettle and unfortunately held back by physical misfortune. These are LARPers who want to play dress up as far away from the field of actual battle as possible.
 
2013-01-03 12:50:25 PM

People_are_Idiots: CPT Ethanolic: Article say .223 or AR-15?  I thought AR-15s were .556?

Military AR-15 & M-16 is 5.56 mm and .223 (usually used in training). The cilivian AR-15 is .223 only. M-16 is capable of up to full auto, AR-15 is semi-auto (even though it can be modded to full).


Most, if not all, civilian-marketed AR-15 rifles are built to tolerate 5.56x45mm NATO ammunition. In fact, many civilian-marketed rifles sold as being chambered in the .223 Remington caliber will tolerate 5.56x45mm NATO.
 
2013-01-03 12:50:54 PM
My only worry is that if the day comes, and I can barely imagine it, where the American military turns it's guns on us, and we don't have guns; What then?

What if 30 years down the line any foreign power anywhere is taken over by raving lunatics, who, in turn, invade our now gunless country?

It is incredible the world we live in, everybody has the power to change the world with bullets.
I think everyone should have firearms training.
I think everyone should be a government employee.
I think prisoners(those who commit against a human) should work much harder than they do, lifers to clean haz-mat/superfund sites.
I think people should perform for mastery instead of money.
I think fistfighting should be decriminalized.
I think I could use natural ways to bring everyone free utilities.
I think fossil fuels should be used for transportation only, but when you buy a car you have plant and manage your carbon offset.

Instead of talking about gun-control, lets talk about people control?

I think I should run for President!
 
2013-01-03 12:51:07 PM
I just like how the AR15 is only ever available in one caliber so let's keep farking that football.

A suppressed subsonic 300BLK SBR is the ultimate home defense weapon. Go ahead, let off a shell from your 12ga or your .45 in an enclosed space in the dead of night. You'll be blind from the flash and deaf from the blast. Hope to hell you only need one and he doesnt have a buddy in the next room. Now do the same with the AR described. Ears might ring a little but it's considered hearing safe and no flash. Proper bullet selection combined with subsonic velocity reduces if not eliminates over penetration.

But that's all too scary so forget I said anything. Continue your sensationalism and believing that you're more progressive and somehow better because you ignore that bad things can happen to good people and the second amendment's real intent was to protect the populace from the government and "well regulated" means "orderly and trained" and "militia" was defined as "males of age not otherwise barred from or already enlisted into service".
 
2013-01-03 12:51:17 PM

technicolor-misfit: Teknowaffle: Fat white men who were rejected from too chickenshiat to join the military?


Let's be honest, we're talking about the most terrified people on the planet... people who like to fantasize about carrying around big bad-ass looking weapons to strike an imposing figure precisely because the reality of themselves is so very different.

Practically every gun nut I know is either a doughy nerd who's still nursing grudges about being a bullied outcast in school or a paranoid who obsesses about unrealistic threats they imagine lurking around every corner.

These are NOT Steve Rogers-types eager to rush into the fray of battle to test their mettle and unfortunately held back by physical misfortune. These are LARPers who want to play dress up as far away from the field of actual battle as possible.


And doesn't the Second Amendment guarantee their right to do just that?
 
2013-01-03 12:51:32 PM

cr7pilot: I own an AR-15. I'm not a survivalist or a gun nut or a hunter. I'm a guy who enjoys going out in the desert and shooting assorted targets for fun.


Do you actually bring targets that you shoot or do you like to pour lead into the vegetation.

In many desert areas one can find cactus, which takes a long time to grow, destroyed or full of bullet holes. I recall reading about a problem in Colorado Springs where gun owners don't like to pay for going to shooting ranges but instead go out into public woods and shoot the shiat out of trees, leaving some areas with them largely destroyed.

Sure, people with single shot guns will also shoot at trees, but they are a good bit less effective decimating the local vegetation. And no, the argument that "it will grow back" really doesn't hold water.
 
2013-01-03 12:51:34 PM

gregory311: Actually, it is. I think you are missing the point. Bullshiat artists like the author of this article specifically pick out, as you say, "any weapon they like" and follow with pointless commentary without considering the ramifications of other weaponry. If you don't want people to own them, then you don't. But don't fark around and pick out a military-style rifle because its easier than doing research.

See, it's easier for suckers to believe all the shiat they see or read when they immediately recognize stuff they see on TV and in films. If I put my SKS side by side with my UltraMag and asked Jennie Sixpack which one should be handled differently, she'd pick the SKS. Despite the fact that, as I said, I'd probably be able to do more damage with the non-scary looking rifle.

Get it?


A whole bunch of THIS.

Personally, I'm more if a bolt action guy for better accuracy, but there's no way to do real control, because you're going to basically end up banning everything semi-auto. Everything else is just cosmetic, or quibbling over logistics of x- number of rounds on a mag.

Also, the author has no clue on guns. calling the .223 an underpowered round for big game is insane. I hunt deer with a .222 and it is very effective.
 
2013-01-03 12:51:45 PM

ElBarto79: "The AR-15 was designed...to penetrate both sides of a standard Army helmet at 500 meters"

I should look up the last Fark thread on this topic where some dude was arguing with me that the AR-15 "wasn't designed to kill people, it was designed to fire a projectile".


It is. The gun itself is designed only to feed and fire the .223/5.56mm projectile, standard, or a myriad of other calibers. The .223/5.56mm bullet was designed for its capability to penetrate as above at 500m (which, by the way, the standard 55gr Ball round is pretty miserable at.)
 
2013-01-03 12:51:57 PM
There's way too much serious discussion in here.
 
2013-01-03 12:51:58 PM

ha-ha-guy: abhorrent1: abhorrent1: the AR-15 Is Useful for Hunting and Home Defense. Not Exactly.

BS. The kid on (I think it's called) Yukon Men, uses an AR to hunt. He got a caribou and a bear with it on the few episodes I've seen.

here it is

[img.poptower.com image 600x338]

Yeah the whole carbine style weapon is fine platform for training kids to hunt before giving them the bolt action deer rifle that fires something a lot heavier. Weapon doesn't weigh as much, not as much recoil, etc.


I don't know how old he is but since they live a subsistence lifestyle, I'm guess he's probably been hunting since he was big enough to hold a rifle. So I doubt that's a training weapon. And obviously, since he took down a caribou and a bear with it, what it fires is plenty heavy.
 
2013-01-03 12:52:01 PM

treesloth: Article sort of misses the point... The AR-15 is not necessarily absolutely ideal for hunting of home defense, but it's quite good for either. It's a single, versatile platform. Good home defense ammo is available. It's highly maneuverable-- sorry, TFA is just plain wrong about that. It's highly accurate. In short, if you can only afford one quality rifle, it may be a great choice for you. On the other hand, if you're hunting big game (elk, moose, blue whales), you're going to have to shell out for something more potent.


There's a more important point to be made here: The AR-15 platform can be the 'something more potent'.

The default .223 Remington upper receiver is really only good for varmint hunting. If you have a lot of groundhogs to get rid of, you're in luck.

But pop two pins and put on a different upper and a different magazine, and you've a different gun. Need to move from groundhog to feral hog? Get a .458 SOCOM upper and your 30 round .223 magazine becomes a 9 round magazine.

You can even get a bolt action upper receiver that doesn't utilize the magazine well, and shoot .50 BMG.

Some bleat about 'military style'. Well, once you've put the 'automatic' vs 'semi-automatic' difference aside, since that is truly the defining difference between military and non-military arms, what does military style mean? More to the point, what does the military look for in the design of a weapon?

Ergonomics
Customizable
Reliability
Ease of Maintenance
Operating time before maintenance
Skill required to maintain
Steady supply chain
Skill required to operate
Weight

These are pretty much all the things a non-military person would look for as well. In fact, most of these criteria are the same ones you use when buying a car. So, if the military criteria for what makes a good weapon (outside of full-auto vs semi-auto) are the same as a rational civilians criteria, is it any wonder that the designs converge? Considering the innovation that is happening in the civilian market for the AR-15, essentially dragging the glacier slow military market forward, I think it would be more appropriate at this point to call the M-16/M-4 the militarized version of the civilian AR-15.
 
2013-01-03 12:52:14 PM

you have pee hands: kombat_unit: Here is an excellent article explaining why 2A ain't about "Bambi and burglars" Link

If by "excellent" you mean "laughably naive masturbatory fantasy", than sure.  Disorganized rabble with AR-15s is no more of a threat to the authoritarian government takeover strawman than disorganized rabble with M1 Garands or 30-06 deer rifles.  Let's see someone try to take out an A-10, an F-18, or an Abrams with one.  And I'd bet that same guy didn't have the same outrage over warrentless wiretapping, unlimited detention without trial, and various other abuses of power by the US Government that are actually real.


This, that that and that.

People making the "defense from the government" argument are idiots, unless they go all the way and argue they should also have equal access to ALL modern arms. "Arms" is not limited to "guns". If it is, then the entire spirit of the 2nd Amendment is rendered obsolete by modern reality, and the pro-gun crowd making that distinction are thus undermining their own cause.
 
2013-01-03 12:52:21 PM

technicolor-misfit: Teknowaffle: Fat white men who were rejected from too chickenshiat to join the military?


Let's be honest, we're talking about the most terrified people on the planet... people who like to fantasize about carrying around big bad-ass looking weapons to strike an imposing figure precisely because the reality of themselves is so very different.

Practically every gun nut I know is either a doughy nerd who's still nursing grudges about being a bullied outcast in school or a paranoid who obsesses about unrealistic threats they imagine lurking around every corner.

These are NOT Steve Rogers-types eager to rush into the fray of battle to test their mettle and unfortunately held back by physical misfortune. These are LARPers who want to play dress up as far away from the field of actual battle as possible.


You are a liberal, you don't know any gun nuts. You fantasize about them.
 
2013-01-03 12:52:45 PM

Mr. Coffee Nerves: The range is waist-deep in asspipery, tho. Just like with the gym around New Year's Day, it's suddenly crowded with people who won't show up after the second visit.


LOL I saw the same thing a few days ago at one of our local rifle ranges. I've never seen so many brand spanking new guns in the hands of relative newbies in my life. Every 15 minutes or so someone was getting an earful for shiat ranging from safety to range etiquette. I got a little unnerved walking downrange during the target changing breaks.
 
2013-01-03 12:52:58 PM

Mikey1969: Last month, I estimated that upward of 3.5 million AR-15-style rifles currently exist in the United States.

So what are the murder rates between the number of AR-15s and other weapons? Are there more kills for every 3.5 million machetes, for instance? Just wondering, since they have only given half a statistic here, it would be interesting to see the breakdown. Maybe .22 automatics are the REAL killers, who knows?


The murder rate of rifles vs. handguns, you say? Why, the FBI has statistics on that right on their website! I'm guessing the amount of deaths by AR-15s in a given year is, oh, well under 1 percent.

The number of deaths by things like Saturday Night Special .22LRs in the hood is probably quite significant, though.

i.imgur.com

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-t h e-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8
Link
 
2013-01-03 12:52:59 PM

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: you have pee hands: kombat_unit: Here is an excellent article explaining why 2A ain't about "Bambi and burglars" Link

If by "excellent" you mean "laughably naive masturbatory fantasy", than sure.  Disorganized rabble with AR-15s is no more of a threat to the authoritarian government takeover strawman than disorganized rabble with M1 Garands or 30-06 deer rifles.  Let's see someone try to take out an A-10, an F-18, or an Abrams with one.  And I'd bet that same guy didn't have the same outrage over warrentless wiretapping, unlimited detention without trial, and various other abuses of power by the US Government that are actually real.

This, that that and that.

People making the "defense from the government" argument are idiots, unless they go all the way and argue they should also have equal access to ALL modern arms. "Arms" is not limited to "guns". If it is, then the entire spirit of the 2nd Amendment is rendered obsolete by modern reality, and the pro-gun crowd making that distinction are thus undermining their own cause.


Why shouldn't I be able to have what Uncle Sam has?
 
2013-01-03 12:53:25 PM

TheOther: If isn't really about disarming Americans, but about restricting access to military-grade weapons, then for every assault rifle the government 'confiscates', let the government supply either a hunting rifle or shotgun (sporting or home defense - owner's choice).


Yes ,because the government would never encroach citizens' rights for no good reason whatsoever.
 
2013-01-03 12:53:30 PM
 
2013-01-03 12:53:40 PM

Mikey1969: So what are the murder rates between the number of AR-15s and other weapons?


An upper limit is less than 3% of homicides; all rifles (of which AR-15 rifles are a smaller subset) were used to commit fewer than 3% of homicides in 2011. More homicides in that year were committed with unarmed attacks.
 
2013-01-03 12:53:40 PM
I'm glad that an article written by someone with absolutely no training in the topic has informed me of what is and is not effective for self defense.
 
2013-01-03 12:53:42 PM

Dimensio: People_are_Idiots: CPT Ethanolic: Article say .223 or AR-15?  I thought AR-15s were .556?

Military AR-15 & M-16 is 5.56 mm and .223 (usually used in training). The cilivian AR-15 is .223 only. M-16 is capable of up to full auto, AR-15 is semi-auto (even though it can be modded to full).

Most, if not all, civilian-marketed AR-15 rifles are built to tolerate 5.56x45mm NATO ammunition. In fact, many civilian-marketed rifles sold as being chambered in the .223 Remington caliber will tolerate 5.56x45mm NATO.


You can get "milspec" rifles, and they're more expensive, but the gun shop guys tell me there's no real difference.
 
2013-01-03 12:54:21 PM

JesseL: Here's an article on the subject by someone who actually knows a thing or two about guns:
http://backwoodshome.com/blogs/MassadAyoob/2012/12/29/why-good-peopl e- need-semiautomatic-firearms-and-high-capacity-magazines-part-i/


My dad went to HS with him. A few years back he mentioned to me that Mas was interested in firearms then, too, but if it was today they'd have thrown him in jail indefinitely.
 
2013-01-03 12:54:22 PM

LasersHurt: So you're sticking with "there is no such thing, and it doesn't matter." ?


No such thing as what? A journalist who can define "military-style"?
 
2013-01-03 12:54:38 PM

HairBolus: cr7pilot: I own an AR-15. I'm not a survivalist or a gun nut or a hunter. I'm a guy who enjoys going out in the desert and shooting assorted targets for fun.

Do you actually bring targets that you shoot or do you like to pour lead into the vegetation.

In many desert areas one can find cactus, which takes a long time to grow, destroyed or full of bullet holes. I recall reading about a problem in Colorado Springs where gun owners don't like to pay for going to shooting ranges but instead go out into public woods and shoot the shiat out of trees, leaving some areas with them largely destroyed.

Sure, people with single shot guns will also shoot at trees, but they are a good bit less effective decimating the local vegetation. And no, the argument that "it will grow back" really doesn't hold water.


Wah wah wah. Some plants were damaged by people having a good time.
 
2013-01-03 12:54:49 PM

The Lone Gunman:  big issue is that the Bushmaster is the weapon of choice in these mass killings. Yes, I realize that one could use a sharpened toothbrush to kill large numbers of people somehow, but that's not what these people use.


but the Connecticut shooter had two semi-auto hand guns and which in the context of the shooting would probably more dangerous weapons than the AR-15. He probably chose it because of it's "cool" military styling but don't fool yourself into thinking that banning it would have prevented the shooter or seriously inconvenienced him. Once rights are taken away it's notoriously hard to get them back and it would be a shame to lose rights over a knee jerk reaction.
 
2013-01-03 12:54:57 PM

dr-shotgun: I'm glad that an article written by someone with absolutely no training in the topic has informed me of what is and is not effective for self defense.


Or as we like to call them, journalists.
 
2013-01-03 12:55:01 PM

LasersHurt: gregory311: LasersHurt: gregory311: I'm sure I could do some serious damage with my 300 ultramag, but no one seems interested in taking this away from me.

(Not mine, but similar in nature)

[i205.photobucket.com image 598x307]

Guess it's not 'military looking enough'.

Don't be ridiculous. Of course you can pick out any weapon you like and say "I can still kill with it." That's not a point.

Actually, it is. I think you are missing the point. Bullshiat artists like the author of this article specifically pick out, as you say, "any weapon they like" and follow with pointless commentary without considering the ramifications of other weaponry. If you don't want people to own them, then you don't. But don't fark around and pick out a military-style rifle because its easier than doing research.

See, it's easier for suckers to believe all the shiat they see or read when they immediately recognize stuff they see on TV and in films. If I put my SKS side by side with my UltraMag and asked Jennie Sixpack which one should be handled differently, she'd pick the SKS. Despite the fact that, as I said, I'd probably be able to do more damage with the non-scary looking rifle.

Get it?

Is it your claim that there is no way to restrict deadlier weapons? Or that there are no deadlier weapons at all?

If it's neither, then you're missing the point - the point is to reduce the impact of those deadlier weapons. Work from that standpoint, and you can better understand the intent of these people, then maybe help better define the issue.

I suspect, however, that your opinion would be "I do not support any further controls of any kind."


Perhaps you need to get your reading skills together. Go back and try reading my post again.

AR-15s, AK-47s, and SKSs are no deadlier than any other weapon in the hands of someone who knows how to use them, but some sure do look a lot scarier than others. That was the intent of the article.

But nice of you to try to divert the conversation with more bullshiat about my stance on firearms and gun control, which I never even brought up.

Perhaps you might ask me.
 
2013-01-03 12:55:10 PM

david_gaithersburg: Delectatio Morosa: I think we should start banning everything we think other people "don't need." Who wants to go first?

.
Smartphones, those things make people walk in front of moving trains.


How about requiring things that people do "need"? Like belts for those morans with saggy pants. Or shirts for the fat hairy guys at the beach.
 
2013-01-03 12:56:05 PM

T.M.S.: " ...able to penetrate both sides of a standard Army helmet at 500 meters rifle..."

With or without a head inside?

And why are we creating guns designed to shoot through our own soldiers helmets?


Helmets were never designed to stop rifle rounds, but instead as protection from large pieces of (relatively) low-velocity shrapnel. They started being issued in WW1 as a defense to artillery shells exploding over the trenches. They're meant to keep your brainbucket intact from the immediate damages of things like grenades.

Other pieces of interesting trivial:
Standard-issue bulletproof vests by themselves will (probably) stop a round from a handgun or the aforementioned grenade, but not a rifle round. To stop that, you slip in ceramic inserts. Ceramic and Kevlar being a fairly good insulator, this creates an effect not unlike wearing a pizza oven. I've cooked MRE's before by sticking them in a pocket on the inside of my vest.
Also, some units have occasionally disregarded the wearing of helmets altogether in favor of regular camouflage hats. The reasoning behind this being that the things make it harder to hear things.
 
2013-01-03 12:56:16 PM

Kit Fister: As to not seeing it happen with cars...how many people died in the last month/year due to drunk drivers? I seem to recall quite a few cases involving DUIs and/or texting where a driver killed or caused an accident that killed lots of people at a time. But yeah, that's totally not the same thing, right?


Cars are a necessary component of our current civilization, assault rifles in the hands of citizens are not. Cars are not designed to kill people and have numerous legitimate uses. Assault rifles were designed specifically to kill people and are not a particularly good tool for much else.
 
2013-01-03 12:56:25 PM

you have pee hands: kombat_unit: Here is an excellent article explaining why 2A ain't about "Bambi and burglars" Link

If by "excellent" you mean "laughably naive masturbatory fantasy", than sure.  Disorganized rabble with AR-15s is no more of a threat to the authoritarian government takeover strawman than disorganized rabble with M1 Garands or 30-06 deer rifles.  Let's see someone try to take out an A-10, an F-18, or an Abrams with one.  And I'd bet that same guy didn't have the same outrage over warrentless wiretapping, unlimited detention without trial, and various other abuses of power by the US Government that are actually real.


If we're so helpless against governments, why is it that dictators bother to disarm their citizens in the first place? And if they're so delusional, why have so many been so successful using the very same strategy every single time?
 
2013-01-03 12:56:26 PM

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: you have pee hands: kombat_unit: Here is an excellent article explaining why 2A ain't about "Bambi and burglars" Link

If by "excellent" you mean "laughably naive masturbatory fantasy", than sure.  Disorganized rabble with AR-15s is no more of a threat to the authoritarian government takeover strawman than disorganized rabble with M1 Garands or 30-06 deer rifles.  Let's see someone try to take out an A-10, an F-18, or an Abrams with one.  And I'd bet that same guy didn't have the same outrage over warrentless wiretapping, unlimited detention without trial, and various other abuses of power by the US Government that are actually real.

This, that that and that.

People making the "defense from the government" argument are idiots, unless they go all the way and argue they should also have equal access to ALL modern arms. "Arms" is not limited to "guns". If it is, then the entire spirit of the 2nd Amendment is rendered obsolete by modern reality, and the pro-gun crowd making that distinction are thus undermining their own cause.


To expand on that, there are really two choices:
Either
1) the 2nd Amendment is about "bambi and burglars", and thus it is perfectly reasonable to put a limits/controls on the types of guns available, or
2) the 2nd Amendment is about maintaining the ability to fight the government, which breaks down into 2 sub-choices...
2a: eliminate ALL restrictions on ALL weaponry or
2b: the entire Amendment is outdated and irrelevant and was effectively undone long ago by reality
 
2013-01-03 12:56:52 PM

vygramul: Dimensio: People_are_Idiots: CPT Ethanolic: Article say .223 or AR-15?  I thought AR-15s were .556?

Military AR-15 & M-16 is 5.56 mm and .223 (usually used in training). The cilivian AR-15 is .223 only. M-16 is capable of up to full auto, AR-15 is semi-auto (even though it can be modded to full).

Most, if not all, civilian-marketed AR-15 rifles are built to tolerate 5.56x45mm NATO ammunition. In fact, many civilian-marketed rifles sold as being chambered in the .223 Remington caliber will tolerate 5.56x45mm NATO.

You can get "milspec" rifles, and they're more expensive, but the gun shop guys tell me there's no real difference.


In 2009 I purchased an AR-15 pattern rifle manufactured by DPMS for less than $800. It was advertised as being chambered in 5.56x45mm NATO. "Milspec" was not featured in the product description.

/Have never shot anything other than .22LR out of it.
 
2013-01-03 12:57:01 PM

Karac: T.M.S.: " ...able to penetrate both sides of a standard Army helmet at 500 meters rifle..."

With or without a head inside?

And why are we creating guns designed to shoot through our own soldiers helmets?

Helmets were never designed to stop rifle rounds, but instead as protection from large pieces of (relatively) low-velocity shrapnel. They started being issued in WW1 as a defense to artillery shells exploding over the trenches. They're meant to keep your brainbucket intact from the immediate damages of things like grenades.

Other pieces of interesting trivial:
Standard-issue bulletproof vests by themselves will (probably) stop a round from a handgun or the aforementioned grenade, but not a rifle round. To stop that, you slip in ceramic inserts. Ceramic and Kevlar being a fairly good insulator, this creates an effect not unlike wearing a pizza oven. I've cooked MRE's before by sticking them in a pocket on the inside of my vest.
Also, some units have occasionally disregarded the wearing of helmets altogether in favor of regular camouflage hats. The reasoning behind this being that the things make it harder to hear things.


I learned that trick from Uncle Enzo in Snow Crash.
 
2013-01-03 12:57:11 PM
You always hear the argument that no one needs a gun whose sole design and purpose is to "kill people" stated as a fact.

Is there never a legitimate, or dare I say even a moral, reason for one human being to kill another? Just admit it. This is a weapon designed to kill people, and that is not a "good" or "bad" thing, it is what it is.

Now, argue over whether a person ever has a legitimate reason to kill another person.
 
2013-01-03 12:57:13 PM
gregory311:

This article in particular just happens to be about one kind of rifle, but that kind is in the news because of its connection to recent shootings and a potential Assault Rifle ban being legislated. I'm trying to keep it in the context of reality, since looking at this article in a vacuum would be silly.
 
2013-01-03 12:57:20 PM

gregory311: ut nice of you to try to divert the conversation with more bullshiat about my stance on firearms and gun control, which I never even brought up.

Perhaps you might ask me.


This is an issue where, if you're not in full lock-step with one side or the other, you're dismissed as either a "gun-grabber" or "gun-nut".  Only blind adherence to the extremes is allowed.
 
2013-01-03 12:57:21 PM

NFA: Well, since the AR15 (semi-auto version of the M16) isn't useful for hunting or defense, I suppose our military will abandon it immediately?  I mean if it's useless for hunting, then you couldn't possibly go out in the field and hunt 200 lb humans in the Jungle or anywhere else, Right?  Or if it's useless for defense they will start using something else to protect themselves?  Defense forces around the world use the full auto version of the AR-15 as a standard of protection.  Will this be going away because some clueless writer thinks the firearm doesn't have merit?


I realize you are either a troll or completely self-deluded, but what you describe, engaging *ENEMIES* in combat, is NOT the same as hunting animals out in the woods. Anyone who equates the two is seriously deranged.

Second, the article pointed out that the AR-15 is not ideal for *HOME* defense. Again, NOT the same thing as defending yourself from enemies in a warzone.

Take your gun-nut survivalist ass to Montana and hide away there for 40 years, and rid us of your stupidity.
 
2013-01-03 12:57:25 PM
Let's talk about the purpose of the 2nd amendment.

"The 2nd Amendment is the last form of defense against tyranny."

--Ice T.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

--Thomas Jefferson

With the correct purpose of the 2nd Amendment in mind, who needs access to an AR-15?

The free citizens of the United States.
 
2013-01-03 12:57:31 PM

BarkingUnicorn: cr7pilot: CPT Ethanolic: cr7pilot: I own an AR-15. I'm not a survivalist or a gun nut or a hunter. I'm a guy who enjoys going out in the desert and shooting assorted targets for fun. It's really that simple. If you like shooting as a sport, the AR-15 is a lot of fun to shoot. I understand that some people don't like shooting as a sport and think "why do you need that kind of gun" but that's just because it's not their thing. AR-15 owners don't buy AR-15s because they have some inherent desire to have more "killing power."

 This is me as well.  I own some hand guns (one .45 and two 9mms) for "home defense" but I also just enjoy shooting.  I've been considering getting an AR15 for a while now.  Used to own an AK-47 and, although the ammo is damned expensive, they're fun to shoot.

Me too. I've got a .380 and a 9mm, but the AR-15 is fun to shoot on a long range. It's also handy for disposing of those leftover Halloween pumpkins...

It's good to see people admit that this hoopla is really about their 2nd Amendment right to have "fun."



The whole point of a *right* is that it exists independent of whether or not other people approve.

Similar arguments could be made about the 1st: since neo-Nazis and KKK members use their freedom of speech in ways you find objectionable, maybe we should just curtail it a little bit...
 
2013-01-03 12:57:31 PM

topcon: Being that only a few hundred people died in 2011 of rifles, how many do you think of those were even AR-15's?

I'm guessing sub 30, if not less than 20.


well in 2012, 26 at Newtown and 12 in Aurora (58 wounded).
 
2013-01-03 12:57:35 PM
And no surprise, it is by someone who does not own guns and is misinformed. In fact, an AR-15 variant is quite good for home defense. In a realistic home defense scenario, you are not going to go madly running room to room trying to clear it like an action hero. You can going to hunker down. A rifle or shotgun works just fine for that. Now in terms of the AR-15 itself, it is good at home defense because of its round. .223/5.56 has a few highly desirable properties:

1) It is extremely effective, far more than pistol rounds. At ranges under 100 meters it is very lethal because a good BTHP round is going so fast it fragments on impact, causing a lot of damage.

2) It is lousy at barrier penetration. That same high velocity and penchant for fragmentation means that if it hits glass or drywall, it likewise fragments and quickly loses all its energy. So a miss does not over penetrate very much, as opposed to 12ga 00-buck which can penetrate many layers of drywall and still maintain lethal force.

3) It has low recoil, making it easy to fire multiple rounds or switch targets as needed.

It really is a very good choice. It isn't the One True Way(tm) or anything but it is a very good choice for home defense. You might notice that SWAT teams like to use weapons that fire .223/5.56 rounds, often AR variants (usually with shorter barrels than are easy for civilians to own) for indoor operations. The reasons they use them are the same reasons it makes a good defense weapon.

Seriously, this dislike of the AR-15 is silly. People don't like it because it looks "military" or "scary". You can get the same basic function and lethality out of other weapons. The Remington 750 would be a good example. Semi-automatic, gas operated, box magazine fed rifle available in carbine lengths. Only difference is it shoots larger rounds and that it looks like a "hunting" rifle rather than a "military" rifle. The 750 chambered in .308 Winchester is very functionally equivilant to a SIG716 yet people will call hue and cry on the 716, but be ok with the 750.

If we want to restrict things based on what they do, ok that's a real argument, but let's stop crying because something looks scary.
 
2013-01-03 12:57:45 PM

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: SacriliciousBeerSwiller: you have pee hands: kombat_unit: Here is an excellent article explaining why 2A ain't about "Bambi and burglars" Link

If by "excellent" you mean "laughably naive masturbatory fantasy", than sure.  Disorganized rabble with AR-15s is no more of a threat to the authoritarian government takeover strawman than disorganized rabble with M1 Garands or 30-06 deer rifles.  Let's see someone try to take out an A-10, an F-18, or an Abrams with one.  And I'd bet that same guy didn't have the same outrage over warrentless wiretapping, unlimited detention without trial, and various other abuses of power by the US Government that are actually real.

This, that that and that.

People making the "defense from the government" argument are idiots, unless they go all the way and argue they should also have equal access to ALL modern arms. "Arms" is not limited to "guns". If it is, then the entire spirit of the 2nd Amendment is rendered obsolete by modern reality, and the pro-gun crowd making that distinction are thus undermining their own cause.

To expand on that, there are really two choices:
Either
1) the 2nd Amendment is about "bambi and burglars", and thus it is perfectly reasonable to put a limits/controls on the types of guns available, or
2) the 2nd Amendment is about maintaining the ability to fight the government, which breaks down into 2 sub-choices...
2a: eliminate ALL restrictions on ALL weaponry or
2b: the entire Amendment is outdated and irrelevant and was effectively undone long ago by reality


I'll go with 2a. Why shouldn't I be able to have it all?
 
2013-01-03 12:57:48 PM
Rather own my AR-15 than my neighbors goofy looking Prius. Then again I'm not trying to take away his car because is scares me and I dont like it
 
2013-01-03 12:57:51 PM

stiletto_the_wise: LasersHurt: So you're sticking with "there is no such thing, and it doesn't matter." ?

No such thing as what? A journalist who can define "military-style"?


Nor apparently any gun owners who can define it either.
 
2013-01-03 12:58:03 PM

scottydoesntknow: We've got a huge hog problem at our deer lease .



I'm sure the fact that most Texas "hunters" have a deer feeder set with a timer to spew corn every hour or so has nothing to do with the hog problem.
That's not hunting, it's shooting.
 
2013-01-03 12:58:19 PM

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: SacriliciousBeerSwiller: you have pee hands: kombat_unit: Here is an excellent article explaining why 2A ain't about "Bambi and burglars" Link

If by "excellent" you mean "laughably naive masturbatory fantasy", than sure.  Disorganized rabble with AR-15s is no more of a threat to the authoritarian government takeover strawman than disorganized rabble with M1 Garands or 30-06 deer rifles.  Let's see someone try to take out an A-10, an F-18, or an Abrams with one.  And I'd bet that same guy didn't have the same outrage over warrentless wiretapping, unlimited detention without trial, and various other abuses of power by the US Government that are actually real.

This, that that and that.

People making the "defense from the government" argument are idiots, unless they go all the way and argue they should also have equal access to ALL modern arms. "Arms" is not limited to "guns". If it is, then the entire spirit of the 2nd Amendment is rendered obsolete by modern reality, and the pro-gun crowd making that distinction are thus undermining their own cause.

To expand on that, there are really two choices:
Either
1) the 2nd Amendment is about "bambi and burglars", and thus it is perfectly reasonable to put a limits/controls on the types of guns available, or
2) the 2nd Amendment is about maintaining the ability to fight the government, which breaks down into 2 sub-choices...
2a: eliminate ALL restrictions on ALL weaponry or
2b: the entire Amendment is outdated and irrelevant and was effectively undone long ago by reality


OR...
2) it really is limited to a well regulated militia.
 
2013-01-03 12:58:25 PM

kqc7011: Got this with a simple search.
The following is a list of some of the calibers that the AR-15 can use,

Without bolt modification
.17 Remington
.17/223
.20 Tactical
.20 Practical
.20 Vartag
.204 Ruger
.221 Fireball
.222 Remington
.222 Remington Magnum
.223 Remington (5.56x45mm)
.223 Remington Ackley Improved
6x45mm
6mm TCU
6x47mm
6mm Whisper
.25x45mm
6.5mm Whisper
7mm Whisper
7mm TCU
.300 Whisper (.300/221, .300 Fireball)
.338 Whisper

AR-15, with bolt modification
223 WSSM
5.45x39mm (.21 Genghis)
243 WSSM
6mm PPC
6mm WOA
6mm BR Remington
6mm Hagar
6.5mm PPC
6.5 WSSM
6.5 WOA
6.5mm Grendel
25 WSSM
6.8x43mm SPC
.30 Herrett Rimless Tactical (6.8x43mm case trimmed to 41mm and necked up to .308; the 6.8mm version of the .300 Whisper)
7.62x25
7.62x39mm
.30 RAR
300 OSSM
.357 Auto
.35 Gremlin (necked up 6.5 Grendel to 358)
.358 WSSM (various names, but all are some form of a WSSM necked up to 35 caliber, some are shortened to make them big game legal in Indiana)
.458 SOCOM
.50 Action Express
.50 Beowulf

AR-15 using a simple blowback operation
.17 HMR
.22 LR
.22 WMR
9x19mm
9x21
9x23
30 Carbine
357 Sig
40S&W
400 Cor-Bon
41 Action Express
10mm Auto
45 GAP
45ACP
45 Super
45 Win Mag

This list is in no way complete.

Story seems to be done by someone who has no clue but a agenda.


TFA mentioned the modularity (is that even a word?) of the AR platform but completely neglected the fact that you can easily swap calibers. That's what makes the AR so wonderful. I currently have an 5.56 AR with a 20" HBAR that I use for target shooting as well as coyote and groundhog hunting. If it were legal here in VA to hunt deer with it I would use it and only take headshots. The .223/5.56 round is hugely popular with subsistence hunters in AK and similar areas because the rounds are relatively cheap and you can carry more of them than you can larger rounds. Plus the low recoil and relatively flat trajectory make them viable for head shooting elk, reindeer, moose, etc so that you don't waste any meat. I'm currently saving for an upper in 6.8SPC for deer hunting. It weighs less than my other hunting rifle and I won't be hurting nice looking wood and steel when the weather is nasty,

TFA also didn't research beyond barfcom about terminal ballistics. If he had he would know that a 5.56 is actually a good round for home use because it is relatively easy to find rounds that will not over penetrate. He mentions fragmenting rounds very briefly but only after he lambasts the option.
Also, if "an AR-15-style rifle is probably less useful than a handgun. The AR-15 is a long gun, and can be tough to maneuver in tight quarters" were true then SWAT and military units would not use them to clear buildings. Long guns are damn near inherently more accurate (from the user point of view) due to the longer sight radius, ease of mounting optics and lights to aid in target acquisition, as well as the lower recoil of the 5.56/223 round.
 
2013-01-03 12:58:26 PM
The only reason I own 5 AR-15s NIB and 5 AKs is for resale only. They have never been fired by me, and are only going up in value. Everything is safely put up for a rainy day should I ever need to sell them, kinda like collecting gold coins for some people.
 
2013-01-03 12:58:35 PM

scottydoesntknow:

...about 5 minutes later we heard about 20 shots in a row. The guy with the AR radios us and tells us to come to his blind. He's got around 10 hogs on the ground, all dead. Said the first shot actually got 3 of them (they lined up perfectly), then about 5 minutes later a whole drove of them come to his blind and he just opened up on them.

Yea it's an anecdotal CSB, but I have seen their uses beyond just murder machines.


Murder is a fancy way of differentiating your target. The gun performed exactly as it was intended....we just need to come to grips with the notion that with this tool, we have to power to kill lots of targets quickly.

/Love to shoot my Enfield 2A1
//.308 NATO rounds are a bit too pricey these days....I miss the cheap "battle packs" at the gun shows, 160 or 240 rounds for $20 or $30...
 
2013-01-03 12:58:43 PM

david_gaithersburg: Perhaps the first amendment should be tightly regulated too. He way not apply the mental evaluation to it and put Fark our of business.


The first amendment makes no mention of regulation. The second amendment does.

BraveNewCheneyWorld: If "the people" can own guns, how do you justify denying them to me? Am I not a person?


See above.
Not every moron in this country gets to own a gun, and nor should every kind of gun be available to the general public. There really isn't an argument here.
 
2013-01-03 12:58:49 PM
Article is rubbish with the intent to give a biased perspective. I have hunted smaller game with no issues with an AR-15 style weapon and for larger game I use my H&K G3A3 with no issues.

I'm in Federal law enforcement and know from experience that more often in today's climate of home invasions it's becoming more of a common occurrence that a pistol is not the right tool for the job when those doing the invasions are wearing body armor.

I know my go to weapon if anyone was to hit my house would be my civilian equivalent of an M-4. It will penetrate body armor and it's the weapon I'm most comfortable with due to my time in the military, even while on duty I prefer an M-4 over a pistol.

Now if I had neighbors that were of closer proximity I would choose a weapon with less penetrating power but that's because I'm a responsible law abiding gun owner, which I'd say that over 99% of those that own and use such scary weapons are.
 
2013-01-03 12:59:03 PM

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: SacriliciousBeerSwiller: SacriliciousBeerSwiller: you have pee hands: kombat_unit: Here is an excellent article explaining why 2A ain't about "Bambi and burglars" Link

If by "excellent" you mean "laughably naive masturbatory fantasy", than sure.  Disorganized rabble with AR-15s is no more of a threat to the authoritarian government takeover strawman than disorganized rabble with M1 Garands or 30-06 deer rifles.  Let's see someone try to take out an A-10, an F-18, or an Abrams with one.  And I'd bet that same guy didn't have the same outrage over warrentless wiretapping, unlimited detention without trial, and various other abuses of power by the US Government that are actually real.

This, that that and that.

People making the "defense from the government" argument are idiots, unless they go all the way and argue they should also have equal access to ALL modern arms. "Arms" is not limited to "guns". If it is, then the entire spirit of the 2nd Amendment is rendered obsolete by modern reality, and the pro-gun crowd making that distinction are thus undermining their own cause.

To expand on that, there are really two choices:
Either
1) the 2nd Amendment is about "bambi and burglars", and thus it is perfectly reasonable to put a limits/controls on the types of guns available, or
2) the 2nd Amendment is about maintaining the ability to fight the government, which breaks down into 2 sub-choices...
2a: eliminate ALL restrictions on ALL weaponry or
2b: the entire Amendment is outdated and irrelevant and was effectively undone long ago by reality

OR...
2) it really is limited to a well regulated militia.


Isn't the militia any able-bodied adult?
 
2013-01-03 12:59:25 PM

david_gaithersburg: TheOther: The_Sponge: TheOther: then for every assault rifle the government 'confiscates', let the government supply either a hunting rifle or shotgun (sporting or home defense - owner's choice).

How about no?

Why not?

sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net


---


And look where it got him... :)

In all seriousness, believing that the second amendment is important and believing in regulation of gun ownership are not mutually-exclusive. It says "well-regulated" right there in the amendment.

We don't let people buy fully-automatic weapons willy-nilly. There's no reason to assume that the willy-nilly sale of semi-automatics should be any more permissible or desirable.

I'm not for a ban, but I'd be all for putting semi-autos on a higher tier that required more stringent evaluation for purchase and regulation.of manufacture/sale.

/cue someone pointing out that Oswald used a bolt-action rifle
 
2013-01-03 12:59:35 PM
I am more terrified of being robbed/attacked with a semi auto nine millimeter than an "assault" weapon. As the article points out, the AR 15 has many flaws--mainly stopping power and maneuverabillity. When people at my office go nuts vehemothly calling a ban on all "assault weapons" because "dey r moar dangarus," it is obvious they have no clue what they are talking about. I have no problem with people expressing their opinion but they sure sound uninformed pretending like hand guns can't kill while "assault" rifles are only for killing. They should they say what they really mean--ban all guns. I'd have more respect for them.
 
2013-01-03 01:00:25 PM

Sasquach: //.308 NATO rounds are a bit too pricey these days....


CSB:

I was going through some old boxes recently, and found a box of Winchester .308 I had bought back in 2001 or so....20 rounds for $9.99
 
2013-01-03 01:00:30 PM

Nattering Nabob: I have an AR-15 type rifle. If it would bring back those 20 kids, you can have it. If taking it will keep another 20 alive, you can have it. The problem is, it won't. The Sandy Creek shooter (we should not use their names and give them the satisfaction of knowing they will be famous), had two handguns with him that were perfectly capable of doing the exact same damage in the same amount of time. Take away the rifle and even cut the magazine capacities on the handguns down to 10 and he could have done the same thing in the same amount of time. How long do you think it takes to drop a mag out of a handgun and pop in another while kids are cowering in closets? We like to believe we can fix all problems if we just pass a smart law. You may have noticed that is not working out so well for us.


Part of California's firearms restrictions are that a magazine is no longer considered "detachable" if it requires a tool to be removed. If firearms were modified to take ten seconds with an allen wrench to switch mags, combined with a limit on capacity, I think that would go a long way to minimizing the damage from lone crazies, while still retaining use of the weapons for defensive purposes.
 
2013-01-03 01:00:38 PM

boogie_down: You always hear the argument that no one needs a gun whose sole design and purpose is to "kill people" stated as a fact.

Is there never a legitimate, or dare I say even a moral, reason for one human being to kill another? Just admit it. This is a weapon designed to kill people, and that is not a "good" or "bad" thing, it is what it is.

Now, argue over whether a person ever has a legitimate reason to kill another person.


Of the thousands of these rifle sold to the public how many have been used to kill anybody?

/would bet that the vast majority are used for target shooting
//the "guns are only for killing" argument is disengenuous
 
2013-01-03 01:00:46 PM

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: To expand on that, there are really two choices:
Either
1) the 2nd Amendment is about "bambi and burglars", and thus it is perfectly reasonable to put a limits/controls on the types of guns available, or
2) the 2nd Amendment is about maintaining the ability to fight the government, which breaks down into 2 sub-choices...
2a: eliminate ALL restrictions on ALL weaponry or
2b: the entire Amendment is outdated and irrelevant and was effectively undone long ago by reality


Or as recent insurgencies have proven, some dedicated dudes with basic weaponry, moderate knowledge of IEDs, and willingness to die can gum up the works of the most powerful Army in the world. Thus as long as the government allows equipment of a certain effectiveness to remain in civilian hands, the 2nd still works.

That said there are of course even more effective ways to address government power abuses without going all crazy militia. However to argue that it is a binary choice in terms of weapons is not correct.

/Hypothetically speaking you don't have to fight the entire military, just put two rounds in the skull of the guy who declares himself dictator for life
 
2013-01-03 01:00:47 PM

jbuist: NATO


5.56 NATO (millimeters) and .223 Remington (inches) have exactly the same outside dimensions. Either round will fit in a rifle marked 5.56 or .223

The NATO round generally has more brass in it and a stronger charge so it generates higher gas pressure than the .223

As a result, you can shoot .223 Remington in either rifle but you should only put 5.56 in a rifle marked 5.56. It's built to handle the higher pressures (one hopes).

You'll run into people who say "Ah, it's no big deal. Go ahead. I do it all the time." I wouldn't take their advice.
 
2013-01-03 01:01:39 PM

technicolor-misfit: I'm not for a ban, but I'd be all for putting semi-autos on a higher tier that required more stringent evaluation for purchase and regulation.of manufacture/sale.


The NRA will oppose it because they oppose all restrictions and gun control advocates will oppose it because they oppose allowing any civilian to posses such firearms.
 
2013-01-03 01:01:45 PM

Arkanaut: Both those weapons are slower-firing and shorter-ranged than AR-15's.


Huh. Seems to me the asshole who used a .22 LR rifle and a shotgun to go on a killing spree in the UK back in 2010 wasn't significantly inconvenienced by his lack of access to an AR-15.

Another thing to consider is that on a per-shot basis, when used within its range limitations, the 12 gauge shotgun is far more lethal than the AR-15.
 
2013-01-03 01:01:55 PM

ElBarto79: Kit Fister: As to not seeing it happen with cars...how many people died in the last month/year due to drunk drivers? I seem to recall quite a few cases involving DUIs and/or texting where a driver killed or caused an accident that killed lots of people at a time. But yeah, that's totally not the same thing, right?

Cars are a necessary component of our current civilization, assault rifles in the hands of citizens are not. Cars are not designed to kill people and have numerous legitimate uses. Assault rifles were designed specifically to kill people and are not a particularly good tool for much else.


We're not talking about assault rifles, we're talking about semi-automatics. There's a motherfarking difference and if you can't be bothered to understand it then you need to STFU and go sit at the kids table.

Secondly, killing people is a perfectly legitimate thing to do under some circumstances. If the police find an AR-15 to be an appropriate tool to use in keeping the peace and defending innocents, why shouldn't any other citizen who hasn't lost the right to do so via due process?
 
2013-01-03 01:02:32 PM

WildManBand: They should they say what they really mean--ban all guns. I'd have more respect for them.


Even a convicted felon can carry 4 (count 'em, four) colt .45 Navy pistols in side holsters and shoulder holsters open legally.
that's 24 rounds fast, if you fan them.
 
2013-01-03 01:02:35 PM
While it isn't an AR-15, I've found that an amazing target shooter is an SKS with a scope. After a couple thousand rounds, I have yet to have it jam on me. Loading the clips, with the scope, however isn't all that fun.
dixietriggers.com
/similar, not mine

A 10/22 with an aftermarket 50-round mag . . . good luck getting 10 rounds through without a jam. The OEM magazine works well though.
www.survival-gear-guide.com
/similar, but also not mine.
 
2013-01-03 01:02:53 PM

BgJonson79: Isn't the militia any able-bodied adult?


Yes, and able-bodied implies able-minded.
 
2013-01-03 01:03:03 PM

cr7pilot: I own an AR-15. I'm not a survivalist or a gun nut or a hunter. I'm a guy who enjoys going out in the desert and shooting assorted targets for fun. It's really that simple. If you like shooting as a sport, the AR-15 is a lot of fun to shoot. I understand that some people don't like shooting as a sport and think "why do you need that kind of gun" but that's just because it's not their thing. AR-15 owners don't buy AR-15s because they have some inherent desire to have more "killing power.".


So, an AR-15 is attractive the same sort of douche that would buy a Corvette. Or a Hummer.

Got it.
 
2013-01-03 01:03:17 PM

Dimensio: technicolor-misfit: I'm not for a ban, but I'd be all for putting semi-autos on a higher tier that required more stringent evaluation for purchase and regulation.of manufacture/sale.

The NRA will oppose it because they oppose all restrictions and gun control advocates will oppose it because they oppose allowing any civilian to posses such firearms.


That's ridiculous, and you should be ashamed to have said it. I advocate for "gun control," but not "gun banning."
 
2013-01-03 01:03:42 PM

dropdfun: Now if I had neighbors that were of closer proximity I would choose a weapon with less penetrating power but that's because I'm a responsible law abiding gun owner, which I'd say that over 99% of those that own and use such scary weapons are.


Bingo!

I own an AR and live in a condo, and my home defense firearm is definitely not a rifle.
 
2013-01-03 01:03:53 PM
0-media-cdn.foolz.us
 
2013-01-03 01:03:57 PM

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: To expand on that, there are really two choices:
Either
1) the 2nd Amendment is about "bambi and burglars", and thus it is perfectly reasonable to put a limits/controls on the types of guns available, or
2) the 2nd Amendment is about maintaining the ability to fight the government, which breaks down into 2 sub-choices...
2a: eliminate ALL restrictions on ALL weaponry or
2b: the entire Amendment is outdated and irrelevant and was effectively undone long ago by reality


You could do all that creativity, or you could just read the amendment. Funny how nobody seems to be putting so much editorial effort into the first amendment:

"Hmm... ya think the first amedment was supposed to only protect journalists using ink on paper? Or maybe it was supposed to protect journalsts using typewriters too... It protects every citizen? Wow, that's one interpretation I guess! Maybe it protects political speech only... If it protects all speech, then logically you must allow kiddie porn, so that couldn't be it. OH GOD HOW CAN WE KNOW WHAT THE FOUNDING FATHERS REALLY MEANT???"
 
2013-01-03 01:03:59 PM

Thunderpipes: technicolor-misfit: Teknowaffle: Fat white men who were rejected from too chickenshiat to join the military?


Let's be honest, we're talking about the most terrified people on the planet... people who like to fantasize about carrying around big bad-ass looking weapons to strike an imposing figure precisely because the reality of themselves is so very different.

Practically every gun nut I know is either a doughy nerd who's still nursing grudges about being a bullied outcast in school or a paranoid who obsesses about unrealistic threats they imagine lurking around every corner.

These are NOT Steve Rogers-types eager to rush into the fray of battle to test their mettle and unfortunately held back by physical misfortune. These are LARPers who want to play dress up as far away from the field of actual battle as possible.

You are a liberal, you don't know any gun nuts. You fantasize about them.



I was born and raised in Alabama, dumbshiat.
 
2013-01-03 01:04:02 PM

ElBarto79: Kit Fister: As to not seeing it happen with cars...how many people died in the last month/year due to drunk drivers? I seem to recall quite a few cases involving DUIs and/or texting where a driver killed or caused an accident that killed lots of people at a time. But yeah, that's totally not the same thing, right?

Cars are a necessary component of our current civilization, assault rifles in the hands of citizens are not. Cars are not designed to kill people and have numerous legitimate uses. Assault rifles were designed specifically to kill people and are not a particularly good tool for much else.


No they are not. Liberals demand we all use public transportation, because cars are evil.
 
2013-01-03 01:04:31 PM

Kit Fister: abhorrent1: the AR-15 Is Useful for Hunting and Home Defense. Not Exactly.

BS. The kid on (I think it's called) Yukon Men, uses an AR to hunt. He got a caribou and a bear with it on the few episodes I've seen.

Another thing I find amusing is the caricature that hunters using an AR and army surplus gear when they hunt are somehow different than more traditional hunters. I'm sorry, since when did I have to fill your Fudd-esque image of what a hunter is to be a hunter? Am i out to kill an animal? Am I going to do so in a safe, humane way? Well then, shut the hell up, I'll wear a goddamn clown suit if it pleases me.


At least you would be less likely to get shot by accident by another hunter if you were wearing the clown suit.
 
2013-01-03 01:05:03 PM

H31N0US: BgJonson79: Isn't the militia any able-bodied adult?

Yes, and able-bodied implies able-minded.


Who gets to decide able-minded?
 
2013-01-03 01:05:09 PM
Drug test people before providing any gun license and retest yearly.
 
2013-01-03 01:05:09 PM

LasersHurt: Dimensio: technicolor-misfit: I'm not for a ban, but I'd be all for putting semi-autos on a higher tier that required more stringent evaluation for purchase and regulation.of manufacture/sale.

The NRA will oppose it because they oppose all restrictions and gun control advocates will oppose it because they oppose allowing any civilian to posses such firearms.

That's ridiculous, and you should be ashamed to have said it. I advocate for "gun control," but not "gun banning."


LasersHurt: Dimensio: technicolor-misfit: I'm not for a ban, but I'd be all for putting semi-autos on a higher tier that required more stringent evaluation for purchase and regulation.of manufacture/sale.

The NRA will oppose it because they oppose all restrictions and gun control advocates will oppose it because they oppose allowing any civilian to posses such firearms.

That's ridiculous, and you should be ashamed to have said it. I advocate for "gun control," but not "gun banning."


I am referencing publicly prominent advocates, such as those at the Brady Center, those at the Violence Policy Center, those at the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (which opposes any "violent" use of firearms under any circumstances, including self-defense) and lawmakers such as Senator Dianne Feinstein.
 
2013-01-03 01:05:19 PM

People_are_Idiots: CPT Ethanolic: Article say .223 or AR-15?  I thought AR-15s were .556?

Military AR-15 & M-16 is 5.56 mm and .223 (usually used in training). The cilivian AR-15 is .223 only. M-16 is capable of up to full auto, AR-15 is semi-auto (even though it can be modded to full).

I think the reason the AR-15 is being used more as a hunting rifle is not because of its accuracy, or ability to drop a deer out of the box... it's the familiarity and customization ability. You can make and AR shoot more than .223, with even one mod going 30-30.


Seriously, if you have no farking idea what you're posting about just don't.
 
2013-01-03 01:05:35 PM

technicolor-misfit: david_gaithersburg: TheOther: The_Sponge: TheOther: then for every assault rifle the government 'confiscates', let the government supply either a hunting rifle or shotgun (sporting or home defense - owner's choice).

How about no?

Why not?

[sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net image 735x412]

---


And look where it got him... :)

In all seriousness, believing that the second amendment is important and believing in regulation of gun ownership are not mutually-exclusive. It says "well-regulated" right there in the amendment.

We don't let people buy fully-automatic weapons willy-nilly. There's no reason to assume that the willy-nilly sale of semi-automatics should be any more permissible or desirable.

I'm not for a ban, but I'd be all for putting semi-autos on a higher tier that required more stringent evaluation for purchase and regulation.of manufacture/sale.

/cue someone pointing out that Oswald used a bolt-action rifle


.
We The People were able to purchase fully automatic weapons up until the 60's, then our government started getting nervous. That shiat needs to be undone and has been a slippery slope since then.
 
2013-01-03 01:05:38 PM
Look people, a gun is just a tool, like a guillotine or an alligator.  Do we ban alligators for biting people?
 
2013-01-03 01:05:45 PM

technicolor-misfit: Thunderpipes: technicolor-misfit: Teknowaffle: Fat white men who were rejected from too chickenshiat to join the military?


Let's be honest, we're talking about the most terrified people on the planet... people who like to fantasize about carrying around big bad-ass looking weapons to strike an imposing figure precisely because the reality of themselves is so very different.

Practically every gun nut I know is either a doughy nerd who's still nursing grudges about being a bullied outcast in school or a paranoid who obsesses about unrealistic threats they imagine lurking around every corner.

These are NOT Steve Rogers-types eager to rush into the fray of battle to test their mettle and unfortunately held back by physical misfortune. These are LARPers who want to play dress up as far away from the field of actual battle as possible.

You are a liberal, you don't know any gun nuts. You fantasize about them.


I was born and raised in Alabama, dumbshiat.


You don't know any gun nuts. No gun nut would associate with a liberal crybaby pants.
 
2013-01-03 01:05:54 PM
I like how the writer glosses over the fact that William Spengler was an ex-con, and band from having any gun. But lets not let that stop our derp.
 
2013-01-03 01:06:03 PM

Onkel Buck: Rather own my AR-15 than my neighbors goofy looking Prius. Then again I'm not trying to take away his car because is scares me and I dont like it

You could use the money you saved on gas to buy more guns, ammo, and training.

Link
 
2013-01-03 01:06:07 PM

H31N0US: david_gaithersburg: Perhaps the first amendment should be tightly regulated too. He way not apply the mental evaluation to it and put Fark our of business.

The first amendment makes no mention of regulation. The second amendment does.

BraveNewCheneyWorld: If "the people" can own guns, how do you justify denying them to me? Am I not a person?

See above.
Not every moron in this country gets to own a gun, and nor should every kind of gun be available to the general public. There really isn't an argument here.


There isn't an argument here, because you didn't even bother to look up what "well regulated" meant when the 2nd amendment was written. Here, let me show you yet another reason why you're wrong.

The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."

1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."

1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."

1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."

1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."

1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.
 
2013-01-03 01:06:24 PM

Dimensio: LasersHurt: Dimensio: technicolor-misfit: I'm not for a ban, but I'd be all for putting semi-autos on a higher tier that required more stringent evaluation for purchase and regulation.of manufacture/sale.

The NRA will oppose it because they oppose all restrictions and gun control advocates will oppose it because they oppose allowing any civilian to posses such firearms.

That's ridiculous, and you should be ashamed to have said it. I advocate for "gun control," but not "gun banning."

LasersHurt: Dimensio: technicolor-misfit: I'm not for a ban, but I'd be all for putting semi-autos on a higher tier that required more stringent evaluation for purchase and regulation.of manufacture/sale.

The NRA will oppose it because they oppose all restrictions and gun control advocates will oppose it because they oppose allowing any civilian to posses such firearms.

That's ridiculous, and you should be ashamed to have said it. I advocate for "gun control," but not "gun banning."

I am referencing publicly prominent advocates, such as those at the Brady Center, those at the Violence Policy Center, those at the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (which opposes any "violent" use of firearms under any circumstances, including self-defense) and lawmakers such as Senator Dianne Feinstein.


You're still wrong in some of those cases - Feinstein, for example, is not trying to ban all semi-automatics.
 
2013-01-03 01:06:51 PM

dropdfun: Article is rubbish with the intent to give a biased perspective. I have hunted smaller game with no issues with an AR-15 style weapon and for larger game I use my H&K G3A3 with no issues.


How do you like your G3A3? I picked up a SL8 (civilian G36) and wasn't terribly fond of its fixed stock and ergonomics. I'd been thinking about a G3, but the SL8 turned me off H&K for a bit.
 
2013-01-03 01:06:52 PM

BgJonson79: Also, some units have occasionally disregarded the wearing of helmets altogether in favor of regular camouflage hats. The reasoning behind this being that the things make it harder to hear things.

I learned that trick from Uncle Enzo in Snow Crash.


I learned it when I was wearing one and didn't hear an order from my drill instructor. Next thing I know I'm quite clearly hearing the sound of two turtles farking.
 
2013-01-03 01:07:03 PM

derpy:  AR-15 is attractive the same sort of douche that would buy a Corvette. Or a Hummer.

Got it.


because you having a different opinion than someone automatically means they're wrong and should be stripped of their rights.

Got it.
 
2013-01-03 01:07:04 PM
Summary:

I asked a friend who uses guns, and he said people using those guns are pussies. So it's OK to ban them.
 
2013-01-03 01:07:06 PM

Thunderpipes: ElBarto79: Kit Fister: As to not seeing it happen with cars...how many people died in the last month/year due to drunk drivers? I seem to recall quite a few cases involving DUIs and/or texting where a driver killed or caused an accident that killed lots of people at a time. But yeah, that's totally not the same thing, right?

Cars are a necessary component of our current civilization, assault rifles in the hands of citizens are not. Cars are not designed to kill people and have numerous legitimate uses. Assault rifles were designed specifically to kill people and are not a particularly good tool for much else.

No they are not. Liberals demand we all use public transportation, because cars are evil.


I consider myself to be a liberal (more often than not, anyway) and I like my car. I don't think they're evil -- although on the freeways here in CA, there are too damn many of them...
 
2013-01-03 01:07:08 PM
I picked up 10 empty AR lowers and made rifles fer my pals.

So many configurations and cal. choices
fun to shoot, accurate
why wouldn't someone own one?

being scared of guns, legal gun owners etc.
doesn't make you immune to bullets from bad guys
 
2013-01-03 01:07:14 PM
Cars are a necessary component of our current civilization, assault rifles in the hands of citizens are not. Cars are not designed to kill people and have numerous legitimate uses. Assault rifles were designed specifically to kill people and are not a particularly good tool for much else.


Than be logically consistent and call for a ban on alcohol.

Alcohol has absolutely zero positive social utility. It is a substance used purely for enjoyment.

Drunk driving accidents kill 10,000 people on our roads every year, including 211 kids under 14 according to the CDC (more than 20x Newton). Those numbers are just the beginning of the butcher's bill for alcohol. Tens of thousands die in the hospital due to complications with normal illness that arise due to long term heavy alcohol abuse.

And how many rapes, robberies, assaults and fights are lubricated by the perpetrators drinking? There are no hard facts, but the number is huge (likely around 50%).

The most pernicious effect though, are the hundreds of thousands of families that are torn apart when a mother or father becomes addicted to alcohol. I'm guessing the vast majority of domestic violence, child neglect and abuse is driven by alcohol.

Yet, I don't see Democrats applying their same vigorous "logic" and calling for bans on alcohol. Why?

Oh, because the vast majority of Americans enjoy drinking, and do so responsibly. Even the worst of the gun grabbing Democrats recognizes how horrendously unfair to the vast majority it would be to ban alcohol because of what a small faction of people do.

Guns are to Democrats what gay marriage is to Conservatives, a crypto issue. Democrats don't like guns, they have no personal connection to them, so banning them is no skin off their back. On the other hand, the redneck, rural, backwoods hicks that Democrats love to hate all like guns, so calling for bans and restrictions is really just a culture war win.
 
2013-01-03 01:07:22 PM

sycraft: 1) It is extremely effective, far more than pistol rounds. At ranges under 100 meters it is very lethal because a good BTHP round is going so fast it fragments on impact, causing a lot of damage.

2) It is lousy at barrier penetration. That same high velocity and penchant for fragmentation means that if it hits glass or drywall, it likewise fragments and quickly loses all its energy. So a miss does not over penetrate very much, as opposed to 12ga 00-buck which can penetrate many layers of drywall and still maintain lethal force.

3) It has low recoil, making it easy to fire multiple rounds or switch targets as needed.


To be fair, my shotgun beats most rifles using the above three criteria. As none of the rooms in my house are more than 20 feet or so long, who cares about range?
 
2013-01-03 01:07:34 PM

jshine: BarkingUnicorn: cr7pilot: CPT Ethanolic: cr7pilot: I own an AR-15. I'm not a survivalist or a gun nut or a hunter. I'm a guy who enjoys going out in the desert and shooting assorted targets for fun. It's really that simple. If you like shooting as a sport, the AR-15 is a lot of fun to shoot. I understand that some people don't like shooting as a sport and think "why do you need that kind of gun" but that's just because it's not their thing. AR-15 owners don't buy AR-15s because they have some inherent desire to have more "killing power."

 This is me as well.  I own some hand guns (one .45 and two 9mms) for "home defense" but I also just enjoy shooting.  I've been considering getting an AR15 for a while now.  Used to own an AK-47 and, although the ammo is damned expensive, they're fun to shoot.

Me too. I've got a .380 and a 9mm, but the AR-15 is fun to shoot on a long range. It's also handy for disposing of those leftover Halloween pumpkins...

It's good to see people admit that this hoopla is really about their 2nd Amendment right to have "fun."


The whole point of a *right* is that it exists independent of whether or not other people approve.

Similar arguments could be made about the 1st: since neo-Nazis and KKK members use their freedom of speech in ways you find objectionable, maybe we should just curtail it a little bit...


You have a right as long as doesn't infringe upon someone else in some way. You have a right to free speech but you do not have a right to slander someone or yell "fire" in a crowded theater. See the difference? In the same way if your idea of fun requires a tool which was specifically designed to kill lots of people, has few or zero practical uses that there are not better tools for and which is incredibly deadly in the wrong hands then you may be out of luck with regards to that particular kind of "fun".
 
2013-01-03 01:07:59 PM
Wow, don't think I've ever seen so many NRA schills in one thread before.

Really wish you gun nuts could just all have fun with paintball instead. Would be a lot less senseless deaths. But that will never happen because you slack-jawed troglodytes have to be the most selfish and degenerate subhuman wasted of life assholes to ever live.
 
2013-01-03 01:08:12 PM
Farkers just want to ban SCARY guns because they don't really get what guns are all about.  They call magazines "clips".  They don't even get the whole gun lifestyle.  They probably use gay-ass weapons like mace or a mace to defend their homes.

I'm into guns that you guys have probably never even heard of.
 
2013-01-03 01:08:12 PM

theguyyousaw: My only worry is that if the day comes, and I can barely imagine it, where the American military turns it's guns on us, and we don't have guns; What then?


Well, if you believe gun-grabbers, we're just supposed to bend over and learn to love it because their tanks, jets, etc. > our guns.
 
2013-01-03 01:08:49 PM

Karac: BgJonson79: Also, some units have occasionally disregarded the wearing of helmets altogether in favor of regular camouflage hats. The reasoning behind this being that the things make it harder to hear things.

I learned that trick from Uncle Enzo in Snow Crash.

I learned it when I was wearing one and didn't hear an order from my drill instructor. Next thing I know I'm quite clearly hearing the sound of two turtles farking.


Who knew that DIs like to be heard? ;-)
 
2013-01-03 01:09:23 PM

BgJonson79: technicolor-misfit: Teknowaffle: Fat white men who were rejected from too chickenshiat to join the military?


Let's be honest, we're talking about the most terrified people on the planet... people who like to fantasize about carrying around big bad-ass looking weapons to strike an imposing figure precisely because the reality of themselves is so very different.

Practically every gun nut I know is either a doughy nerd who's still nursing grudges about being a bullied outcast in school or a paranoid who obsesses about unrealistic threats they imagine lurking around every corner.

These are NOT Steve Rogers-types eager to rush into the fray of battle to test their mettle and unfortunately held back by physical misfortune. These are LARPers who want to play dress up as far away from the field of actual battle as possible.

And doesn't the Second Amendment guarantee their right to do just that?



Subject to regulation? Yes.
 
2013-01-03 01:09:49 PM

LasersHurt: stiletto_the_wise: LasersHurt: So you're sticking with "there is no such thing, and it doesn't matter." ?

No such thing as what? A journalist who can define "military-style"?

Nor apparently any gun owners who can define it either.


I don't know if anyone can seriously define "military-style" besides "looks kind of like something I saw on a war movie".
 
2013-01-03 01:10:00 PM

Cymbal: Wow, don't think I've ever seen so many NRA schills in one thread before.

Really wish you gun nuts could just all have fun with paintball instead. Would be a lot less senseless deaths. But that will never happen because you slack-jawed troglodytes have to be the most selfish and degenerate subhuman wasted of life assholes to ever live.


Do you have any rational commentary to offer, or are you relying upon ad hominem attacks due to an awareness that you advocate a position devoid of any intellectual merit?
 
2013-01-03 01:10:21 PM

BgJonson79: H31N0US: BgJonson79: Isn't the militia any able-bodied adult?

Yes, and able-bodied implies able-minded.

Who gets to decide able-minded?


Your mother?

assets.nydailynews.com
 
2013-01-03 01:11:05 PM
It says "well-regulated" right there in the amendment.

Yeah, except "well-regulated" doesn't mean "subject to regulation" in this context. It means "fully equipped".
 
2013-01-03 01:11:17 PM

Cymbal: Wow, don't think I've ever seen so many NRA schills in one thread before.

Really wish you gun nuts could just all have fun with paintball instead. Would be a lot less senseless deaths. But that will never happen because you slack-jawed troglodytes have to be the most selfish and degenerate subhuman wasted of life assholes to ever live.


Let us know when you take up that crusade against alcohol. It kills 80,000 people every year, far more than guns do, and it serves no purpose other than "having fun".
 
2013-01-03 01:11:22 PM

MrSteve007: While it isn't an AR-15, I've found that an amazing target shooter is an SKS with a scope. After a couple thousand rounds, I have yet to have it jam on me. Loading the clips, with the scope, however isn't all that fun.
[dixietriggers.com image 640x480]
/similar, not mine

A 10/22 with an aftermarket 50-round mag . . . good luck getting 10 rounds through without a jam. The OEM magazine works well though.
[www.survival-gear-guide.com image 456x342]
/similar, but also not mine.


Nice!

I changed the stock and grips of my SKS and added a Leupold - thing is fun as hell to shoot. The original wood stocks were made for really short people. And, oh, everybody run! I have 30 round clips for it, too! Look out!
 
2013-01-03 01:12:12 PM

stiletto_the_wise: LasersHurt: stiletto_the_wise: LasersHurt: So you're sticking with "there is no such thing, and it doesn't matter." ?

No such thing as what? A journalist who can define "military-style"?

Nor apparently any gun owners who can define it either.

I don't know if anyone can seriously define "military-style" besides "looks kind of like something I saw on a war movie".


I suspect the military could, since they designed many of them.
 
2013-01-03 01:12:12 PM

Giltric: Onkel Buck: Rather own my AR-15 than my neighbors goofy looking Prius. Then again I'm not trying to take away his car because is scares me and I dont like it
You could use the money you saved on gas to buy more guns, ammo, and training.

Link


CSB:

A friend of mine owns a Prius, and he's more of a right-winger than I am.
 
2013-01-03 01:12:15 PM

Thunderpipes: technicolor-misfit: Thunderpipes: technicolor-misfit: Teknowaffle: Fat white men who were rejected from too chickenshiat to join the military?


Let's be honest, we're talking about the most terrified people on the planet... people who like to fantasize about carrying around big bad-ass looking weapons to strike an imposing figure precisely because the reality of themselves is so very different.

Practically every gun nut I know is either a doughy nerd who's still nursing grudges about being a bullied outcast in school or a paranoid who obsesses about unrealistic threats they imagine lurking around every corner.

These are NOT Steve Rogers-types eager to rush into the fray of battle to test their mettle and unfortunately held back by physical misfortune. These are LARPers who want to play dress up as far away from the field of actual battle as possible.

You are a liberal, you don't know any gun nuts. You fantasize about them.


I was born and raised in Alabama, dumbshiat.

You don't know any gun nuts. No gun nut would associate with a liberal crybaby pants.


Says the "guy" in Vermont.  Did you and your wife take the Subaru Outback down to Massachusetts to get married yet or did Moonbeam down at the courthouse do it for you?  It's really great that you can wear your flannels and mullets and enjoy the leaves and maple syrup of Vermontistan together now that the SC allows scissor sisters to get married.
 
2013-01-03 01:12:35 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: There isn't an argument here, because you didn't even bother to look up what "well regulated" meant when the 2nd amendment was written. Here, let me show you yet another reason why you're wrong.


Ok I'll play. What part of some asshole shooting up a bunch of first graders seems to import "functioning correctly" to you? Adam Lanza was part of a "Well Regulated" (per your interpretation of the syntax) militia?
 
2013-01-03 01:12:38 PM

LasersHurt: Dimensio: LasersHurt: Dimensio: technicolor-misfit: I'm not for a ban, but I'd be all for putting semi-autos on a higher tier that required more stringent evaluation for purchase and regulation.of manufacture/sale.

The NRA will oppose it because they oppose all restrictions and gun control advocates will oppose it because they oppose allowing any civilian to posses such firearms.

That's ridiculous, and you should be ashamed to have said it. I advocate for "gun control," but not "gun banning."

LasersHurt: Dimensio: technicolor-misfit: I'm not for a ban, but I'd be all for putting semi-autos on a higher tier that required more stringent evaluation for purchase and regulation.of manufacture/sale.

The NRA will oppose it because they oppose all restrictions and gun control advocates will oppose it because they oppose allowing any civilian to posses such firearms.

That's ridiculous, and you should be ashamed to have said it. I advocate for "gun control," but not "gun banning."

I am referencing publicly prominent advocates, such as those at the Brady Center, those at the Violence Policy Center, those at the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (which opposes any "violent" use of firearms under any circumstances, including self-defense) and lawmakers such as Senator Dianne Feinstein.

You're still wrong in some of those cases - Feinstein, for example, is not trying to ban all semi-automatics.


Pretty close to all of them.

Hell, her new bill would ban my 1944 Winchester M1 carbine.

Amusingly, some farker from TN a few months back was arguing with me about magazine capacity. He felt that my AR-15 was a bad stupid assault weapon but his M1 carbine would be a-okay and wasn't an "assault weapon". Guess what buddy?

Wish I could remember that guy's name.
 
2013-01-03 01:13:01 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Cymbal: Wow, don't think I've ever seen so many NRA schills in one thread before.

Really wish you gun nuts could just all have fun with paintball instead. Would be a lot less senseless deaths. But that will never happen because you slack-jawed troglodytes have to be the most selfish and degenerate subhuman wasted of life assholes to ever live.

Let us know when you take up that crusade against alcohol. It kills 80,000 people every year, far more than guns do, and it serves no purpose other than "having fun".


You are mistaken: I have used alcohol as a means of treating anxiety and depression.

/Not necessarily successfully.
 
2013-01-03 01:13:04 PM

Rapmaster2000: I'm into guns that you guys have probably never even heard of.


Oooooooooooo.........
 
2013-01-03 01:13:11 PM

Dimensio: Cymbal: Wow, don't think I've ever seen so many NRA schills in one thread before.

Really wish you gun nuts could just all have fun with paintball instead. Would be a lot less senseless deaths. But that will never happen because you slack-jawed troglodytes have to be the most selfish and degenerate subhuman wasted of life assholes to ever live.

Do you have any rational commentary to offer, or are you relying upon ad hominem attacks due to an awareness that you advocate a position devoid of any intellectual merit?


See my comments up thread. AR-15 and guns like it should only be available to rent at shooting ranges, period.
 
2013-01-03 01:13:12 PM

Rapmaster2000: Says the "guy" in Vermont. Did you and your wife take the Subaru Outback down to Massachusetts to get married yet or did Moonbeam down at the courthouse do it for you? It's really great that you can wear your flannels and mullets and enjoy the leaves and maple syrup of Vermontistan together now that the SC allows scissor sisters to get married.


I LOL'd.
 
2013-01-03 01:13:19 PM

drewogatory: It says "well-regulated" right there in the amendment.

Yeah, except "well-regulated" doesn't mean "subject to regulation" in this context. It means "fully equipped".


drewogatory: It says "well-regulated" right there in the amendment.

Yeah, except "well-regulated" doesn't mean "subject to regulation" in this context. It means "fully equipped".



Citation?
 
2013-01-03 01:13:32 PM

BarkingUnicorn: doglover: So we should consider banning the AR-15 because they sell well and are popular with shootists?

Okay then...

LOL!  Let's make them sound all sophisticated and elegant!  "Shootists" is like calling a pool player a "cueist."


Maybe they all think they're John Wayne, just about to go down in a hail of bullets and testosterone.

www.glendonswarthout.com
 
2013-01-03 01:13:46 PM

stuffy: I like how the writer glosses over the fact that William Spengler was an ex-con, and band from having any gun. But lets not let that stop our derp.


I'm confused here. Is the "derp" you're arguing against that current gun laws are too weak, or that they shouldn't exist at all?
 
2013-01-03 01:14:04 PM

Cymbal: Wow, don't think I've ever seen so many NRA schills in one thread before.

Really wish you gun nuts could just all have fun with paintball instead. Would be a lot less senseless deaths. But that will never happen because you slack-jawed troglodytes have to be the most selfish and degenerate subhuman wasted of life assholes to ever live.


Yep. Because only NRA-member redneck Republicans own guns.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/18/in-gun-ownership- s tatistics-partisan-divide-is-sharp/

Link

graphics8.nytimes.com
 
2013-01-03 01:14:18 PM

Spade: LasersHurt: Dimensio: LasersHurt: Dimensio: technicolor-misfit: I'm not for a ban, but I'd be all for putting semi-autos on a higher tier that required more stringent evaluation for purchase and regulation.of manufacture/sale.

The NRA will oppose it because they oppose all restrictions and gun control advocates will oppose it because they oppose allowing any civilian to posses such firearms.

That's ridiculous, and you should be ashamed to have said it. I advocate for "gun control," but not "gun banning."

LasersHurt: Dimensio: technicolor-misfit: I'm not for a ban, but I'd be all for putting semi-autos on a higher tier that required more stringent evaluation for purchase and regulation.of manufacture/sale.

The NRA will oppose it because they oppose all restrictions and gun control advocates will oppose it because they oppose allowing any civilian to posses such firearms.

That's ridiculous, and you should be ashamed to have said it. I advocate for "gun control," but not "gun banning."

I am referencing publicly prominent advocates, such as those at the Brady Center, those at the Violence Policy Center, those at the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (which opposes any "violent" use of firearms under any circumstances, including self-defense) and lawmakers such as Senator Dianne Feinstein.

You're still wrong in some of those cases - Feinstein, for example, is not trying to ban all semi-automatics.

Pretty close to all of them.


No? AFAIK, there are lots of semi-auto handguns out there for your perusal.
 
2013-01-03 01:14:22 PM

LasersHurt: gregory311: LasersHurt: gregory311: I'm sure I could do some serious damage with my 300 ultramag, but no one seems interested in taking this away from me.

(Not mine, but similar in nature)

[i205.photobucket.com image 598x307]

Guess it's not 'military looking enough'.

Don't be ridiculous. Of course you can pick out any weapon you like and say "I can still kill with it." That's not a point.

Actually, it is. I think you are missing the point. Bullshiat artists like the author of this article specifically pick out, as you say, "any weapon they like" and follow with pointless commentary without considering the ramifications of other weaponry. If you don't want people to own them, then you don't. But don't fark around and pick out a military-style rifle because its easier than doing research.

See, it's easier for suckers to believe all the shiat they see or read when they immediately recognize stuff they see on TV and in films. If I put my SKS side by side with my UltraMag and asked Jennie Sixpack which one should be handled differently, she'd pick the SKS. Despite the fact that, as I said, I'd probably be able to do more damage with the non-scary looking rifle.

Get it?

Is it your claim that there is no way to restrict deadlier weapons? Or that there are no deadlier weapons at all?

If it's neither, then you're missing the point - the point is to reduce the impact of those deadlier weapons. Work from that standpoint, and you can better understand the intent of these people, then maybe help better define the issue.

I suspect, however, that your opinion would be "I do not support any further controls of any kind."


I suspect your opinion is that we should have a complete ban on any kind of firearm. Just based on the few comments you have made.
 
2013-01-03 01:14:22 PM

Rapmaster2000: I'm into guns that you guys have probably never even heard of.


I'm getting really into 1970s Israeli arms. Yisrael Galil's inspired designs have stoked the creative fires of countless gunsmiths.
 
2013-01-03 01:14:33 PM

LasersHurt: stiletto_the_wise: LasersHurt: stiletto_the_wise: LasersHurt: So you're sticking with "there is no such thing, and it doesn't matter." ?

No such thing as what? A journalist who can define "military-style"?

Nor apparently any gun owners who can define it either.

I don't know if anyone can seriously define "military-style" besides "looks kind of like something I saw on a war movie".

I suspect the military could, since they designed many of them.


The military hasn't designed a small arm in well over one hundred years.
 
2013-01-03 01:14:34 PM

Cymbal: Dimensio: Cymbal: Wow, don't think I've ever seen so many NRA schills in one thread before.

Really wish you gun nuts could just all have fun with paintball instead. Would be a lot less senseless deaths. But that will never happen because you slack-jawed troglodytes have to be the most selfish and degenerate subhuman wasted of life assholes to ever live.

Do you have any rational commentary to offer, or are you relying upon ad hominem attacks due to an awareness that you advocate a position devoid of any intellectual merit?

See my comments up thread. AR-15 and guns like it should only be available to rent at shooting ranges, period.


So your answer is "no", you have no rational commentary to offer. Thank you for your honest admission.
 
2013-01-03 01:14:34 PM

The_Sponge: cr7pilot: It's also handy for disposing of those leftover Halloween pumpkins...

Are you Hickok45 from YouTube?


Nope, not me. I'll have to take a look now...
 
2013-01-03 01:14:45 PM

H31N0US: Yeah. It's about a well regulated militia and grants "The People" the right to bear arms. Notice "The People" is capitalized, meaning the population as a collective, not every person..


That argument makes no sense. Civilians have had the right to own rifles from the time the first pilgrim set foot on this continent. If the 2nd Amendment only pertained to the militia, why did literally every house have a rifle in it?

And contrary to popular belief, civilian gun ownership has always been roughly on par with the military firearms of the day. Back in the early days, flint lock rifles were the best technology in the world and that's what armies used and that's what they used to hunt deer. Today, gun control advocates hold up the bolt action, center fire rifle as the quintessential "hunting rifle" that embodies the practical spirit of the 2nd Amendment, but during WWI and the beginning of WWII, the ability to quickly fire 4 or 5 rounds was the bleeding edge of military lethality, and men returning from war took them into the woods for hunting and self defense almost immediately.

What is that old saying about being wary of any legislation named after a tragedy? These current talks of gun bans are nothing more than emotional knee jerk reactions and they will do nothing to affect crime or safety in any meaningful way. But they will create an opening for more and more aggressive gun bans that eventually guts the 2nd Amendment and makes us that much less a free people.

It's not a political thing with me either, I usually vote D and I was just as opposed to the Patriot Act, NDAA, DUI checkpoints, and no knock warrants. There are people all over the political spectrum who want to chip away at this freedom or that freedom for a whole myriad of reasons, and they should all be opposed.
 
2013-01-03 01:15:40 PM

ElBarto79: jshine: BarkingUnicorn: cr7pilot: CPT Ethanolic: cr7pilot: I own an AR-15. I'm not a survivalist or a gun nut or a hunter. I'm a guy who enjoys going out in the desert and shooting assorted targets for fun. It's really that simple. If you like shooting as a sport, the AR-15 is a lot of fun to shoot. I understand that some people don't like shooting as a sport and think "why do you need that kind of gun" but that's just because it's not their thing. AR-15 owners don't buy AR-15s because they have some inherent desire to have more "killing power."

 This is me as well.  I own some hand guns (one .45 and two 9mms) for "home defense" but I also just enjoy shooting.  I've been considering getting an AR15 for a while now.  Used to own an AK-47 and, although the ammo is damned expensive, they're fun to shoot.

Me too. I've got a .380 and a 9mm, but the AR-15 is fun to shoot on a long range. It's also handy for disposing of those leftover Halloween pumpkins...

It's good to see people admit that this hoopla is really about their 2nd Amendment right to have "fun."


The whole point of a *right* is that it exists independent of whether or not other people approve.

Similar arguments could be made about the 1st: since neo-Nazis and KKK members use their freedom of speech in ways you find objectionable, maybe we should just curtail it a little bit...

You have a right as long as doesn't infringe upon someone else in some way. You have a right to free speech but you do not have a right to slander someone or yell "fire" in a crowded theater. See the difference? In the same way if your idea of fun requires a tool which was specifically designed to kill lots of people, has few or zero practical uses that there are not better tools for and which is incredibly deadly in the wrong hands then you may be out of luck with regards to that particular kind of "fun".



Of course "Your right to swing your arms ends just where the other man's nose begins." (incorrectly attributed to Oliver Wendell Holmes, but still a good quote).

...so owning weapons (the right guaranteed by the Constitution) should be legal, while using them to shoot people should be illegal.
affordablehousinginstitute.org
 
2013-01-03 01:15:46 PM
fark you anti freedom assholes. raise your kids properly you TV watching, Walmart shopping zombies, don't infringe on my rights. going out to buy my first 2 AR-15's this weekend and 10,000 rounds too. fark you, it's your kid, your problem, not ours. stop deflecting and straw manning.
 
2013-01-03 01:15:54 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: If we're so helpless against governments, why is it that dictators bother to disarm their citizens in the first place? And if they're so delusional, why have so many been so successful using the very same strategy every single time?


Mostly because people keep piling up make believe quotes and laws and don't bother to fact check their own bullshiat, but partly because people aren't generally willing to shoot back at a fascist when they know they'll get a couple potshots off before their entire family is killed in retribution.  You know what all these dictatorships actually do have in common?  Whoever controls the military wins.  When the military starts to defect en masse, that's when the gig's up.  Regardless of weaponry there's an enormous difference between trained soldiers and disorganized rabble and militias replacing authoritarian dictatorships with anything but other authoritarian dictatorships in an armed revolution almost never happens.

In any event no one is realistically proposing disarming the American population, and with more than 300 million privately owned firearms it couldn't even be done without an enormous amount of illegal searching.  The whole discussion is bluster to keep people arguing over nothing of consequence.
 
2013-01-03 01:16:19 PM

Outrageous Muff: In before the whiny anti-gun nuts who think the mere act of holding a gun makes one a psychopathic killer.


Don't forget the pro-gun whackjobs who think psychopathic killers would be just as effective with a pointy stick as with a few 30-round magazines and a Bushmaster.

"New regulations won't stop all mass murders, so why bother?"
 
2013-01-03 01:16:20 PM

moanerific: I suspect the military could, since they designed many of them.

The military hasn't designed a small arm in well over one hundred years.


Perhaps the people that designed the ones they USE, then?

Someone's making these decisions, and for some reason, somewhere along the line.
 
2013-01-03 01:16:20 PM

doglover: So we should consider banning the AR-15 because they sell well and are popular with shootists?

Okay then...


You failed at reading comprehension.
 
2013-01-03 01:16:25 PM

dr-shotgun: Than be logically consistent and call for a ban on alcohol.

Alcohol has absolutely zero positive social utility. It is a substance used purely for enjoyment.


rebuttal:
www.chemistryland.com

Also, try going to some third world country with little to no water quality control. Drinking something out of a tap will give you the raging shiats, but a bottle of Coors is perfectly safe.
 
2013-01-03 01:16:32 PM
WILD


PIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIG



lh4.googleusercontent.com


www.2dayblog.com

boarmasters.mywowbb.com


www.huntercourse.com

THRREEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADDDDDDDDDD
 
2013-01-03 01:16:46 PM
CPT Ethanolic:I go back and forth on banning assault weapons because I do appreciate the hobby of shooting, but I would be in favor of banning high capacity magazines.  Assault weapons can be used for "fun", but high capacity magazines are ONLY meant for producing a high casualty count in a short period of time.

This comment was 10 pages ago and I haven't looked to see if anyone else has made my comment, but... this is pretty much what Canada has, as well as classing some guns (handguns, shorter barrel carbines) as restricted and needing a special license.

If a rifle is center-fire and semi-auto, the mag can only be 5 rounds max. Handguns 10 rounds. Anything else is doesn't have a limit.

Link

I know most Americans think our gun laws are too restrictive, but speaking as a hunter who also has his restricted license for sport shooting it's really not so bad (at least since they scraped the long-gun registry, which was a colossal fark-up). You have to take a hunter safety training course to get your gun license. I think it was 4-5 evenings worth of class and a test. Basic stuff like how to hold your gun in the field, how to cross a fence, and how fields of fire work so you don't kill your hunting buddy. I say "I think" it was 4-5 evenings because it was 16 years ago. You only have to take it once as long as you don't let your license expire. Then, my restricted license that lets me buy/use handguns and other restricted weapons was similar, but a bit longer if I remember correctly (2-3 weekends in my case). Same thing, once you have it you just need to keep your license current. Also, any guns that are classified as restricted See note earlier on the same page as before need to be registered.
 
2013-01-03 01:16:57 PM

moanerific: I suspect your opinion is that we should have a complete ban on any kind of firearm. Just based on the few comments you have made.


Clearly you have no read enough, because I don't.
 
2013-01-03 01:16:59 PM

Mimic_Octopus: fark you anti freedom assholes. raise your kids properly you TV watching, Walmart shopping zombies, don't infringe on my rights. going out to buy my first 2 AR-15's this weekend and 10,000 rounds too. fark you, it's your kid, your problem, not ours. stop deflecting and straw manning.


Had you not waited so long to make your purchase, you would have saved approximately $1000.

Gunbroker.com now lists AR-15 uppers for the same price that I paid for my entire rifle in 2009.
 
2013-01-03 01:17:14 PM

Thunderpipes: You don't know any gun nuts. No gun nut would associate with a liberal crybaby pants.


I miss having a Prius and plan on buying a Nissan Leaf for my next car (yet I race motorcycles, and restored and own a classic Mustang fastback, '52 Dodge truck and '48 Willys) My house and office are powered almost entirely with solar panels that I installed myself. I typically vote for liberals, but occasionally vote for a moderate republican.

And I own enough guns that I require a couple safes to house them. From a Tarus .38 snub nose, to my SKS, 10/22, an Enfield, my takedown Winchester Model 12 shotgun and almost every example of a Winchester lever action (each manufactured in the 19th century, in museum quality). I only lack an Model 1895, and an authentic Henry rifle. Although I am thinking of adding a Sig 556 to my collection, in light of a possible AWB.

That's me, a Prius driving liberal sissy crybaby, with more guns than room and a concealed carry permit. You might want to rethink your stereotypes.
 
2013-01-03 01:17:14 PM

cr7pilot: The_Sponge: cr7pilot: It's also handy for disposing of those leftover Halloween pumpkins...

Are you Hickok45 from YouTube?

Nope, not me. I'll have to take a look now...


Let me know what you think.
 
2013-01-03 01:17:15 PM
Here are my views on gun control:

Every year, an average of 9,200 Americans are murdered by handguns, according to Department of Justice statistics. This does not include suicides or the tens of thousands of robberies, rapes and assaults committed with handguns. This level of violence must be stopped.

I do not believe in taking away the right of the citizen for sporting, for hunting and so forth, or for home defense. But I do believe that an AK-47, a machine gun, is not a sporting weapon or needed for defense of a home.

This is a matter of vital importance to the public safety ... While we recognize that assault-weapon legislation will not stop all assault-weapon crime, statistics prove that we can dry up the supply of these guns, making them less accessible to criminals.

I think maybe there could be some restrictions that there had to be a certain amount of training taken.

With the right to bear arms comes a great responsibility to use caution and common sense on handgun purchases.

Pleased to meet you, won't you guess my name?
 
2013-01-03 01:17:28 PM

you have pee hands: BraveNewCheneyWorld: If we're so helpless against governments, why is it that dictators bother to disarm their citizens in the first place? And if they're so delusional, why have so many been so successful using the very same strategy every single time?

Mostly because people keep piling up make believe quotes and laws and don't bother to fact check their own bullshiat, but partly because people aren't generally willing to shoot back at a fascist when they know they'll get a couple potshots off before their entire family is killed in retribution.  You know what all these dictatorships actually do have in common?  Whoever controls the military wins.  When the military starts to defect en masse, that's when the gig's up.  Regardless of weaponry there's an enormous difference between trained soldiers and disorganized rabble and militias replacing authoritarian dictatorships with anything but other authoritarian dictatorships in an armed revolution almost never happens.

In any event no one is realistically proposing disarming the American population, and with more than 300 million privately owned firearms it couldn't even be done without an enormous amount of illegal searching.  The whole discussion is bluster to keep people arguing over nothing of consequence.


Explain what's been going on in Syria then?
 
2013-01-03 01:17:44 PM
Woo! Preview/Cut and paste fail!
 
2013-01-03 01:18:03 PM

Lets rip this fool apart line by line, shall we


He shot them with a Bushmaster AR-15-style semi-automatic rifle-the same weapon that Adam Lanza used 10 days earlier when he shot and killed 26 people at Sandy Hook Elementary.

Fact: An AR style rifle was in the car, but was not used in the shooting
Link , so right off the bat this "reporter" shows (s)he is not trustworthy.

Keene noted there are several valid, non-murderous uses for rifles like the AR-15

Hyperbole. journalism 101 fail

I generally consider myself a Second Amendment supporter,
Really? Citation please? Links to all your "pro Second Amendment" articles would be a good start.


But the AR-15 is not ideal for the hunting and home-defense uses that the NRA's Keene cited today. Though it can be used for hunting, the AR-15 isn't really a hunting rifle. Its standard .223 caliber ammunition doesn't offer much stopping power for anything other than small game.

* Not only does this fool contradict himself, ala it's not suited to hunting (said twice) then backtracking saying that it can be used and the .223 works well on small game.

* .223 takes deer this uninformed "reporter" considers that small game?

* Uses the term "Stopping power" a myth anyone informed about firearms (watching "Lethal Weapon" on DVD doesn't count) knows is a bull--it term.
-- See
----- FBI report on "handgun wounding Factors and Effectiveness" (July 1989)
----- http://www.thegunzone.com/quantico-wounding.html


When you shoot it, it'll overpenetrate-sending bullets through the walls of your house and possibly into the walls of your neighbor's house
So can almost all handgun ammo.
Link

unless you purchase the sort of ammunition that fragments on impact
Which is a common it the market. Again, (s)he's shot down his/her own point.

the thing with the AR-15 is that it lets you fire more rounds faster
No faster than any semi-automatic pistol (or even revolver for that matter), like the 1911 from ... 1911.

AR-15-style rifles are very useful, however, if what you're trying to do is sell guns.
Wow, when you threaten to ban something market demand goes up? Wow thanks for the news flash there Skippy we would never have known that one kennedy )


Smith & Wesson Holding Corporation announced that bolt-action hunting rifles accounted for 6.6 percent of its net sales in 2011 (down from 2010 and 2009), while modern sporting rifles (like AR-15-style weapons) accounted for 18.2 percent of its net sales.

Wait.... didn't he say
The AR-15 was designed in 1957
What does "modern" mean again?
*Emphasis mine

Also note that since AR Style rifles were the only rifle I could find in S&W's page, it would stand to reason that they would account for a large portion of their net sales. I wonder is this "reporter" is familiar with the term "Lie of omission".

As the NRA's David Keene notes, a lot of people do use modern sporting rifles for target shooting and in marksmanship competitions.
So (s)he's now admitting many hunters do use sporting rifles for hunting? Didn't he just say these were not suited for that use? You can't have it both ways.

But the guns also appeal to another demographic that doesn't get nearly as much press-paranoid survivalists who worry about having to fend off thieves and trespassers in the event of disaster.
Ignoring the silly hyperbole (s)he's using, does that mean "paranoid survivalists" like this?
4.bp.blogspot.com

An article on ar15.com titled "The Ideal Rifle" notes that "the threats from crime, terrorism, natural disaster, and weapons of mass destruction are real. If something were to happen today, you would need to have made a decision about the rifle you would select and be prepared for such an event. So the need to select a 'survival' rifle is real. Selecting a single 'ideal rifle' is not easy. The AR-15 series of rifles comes out ahead when compared to everything else."
So those that (unlike this "reporter) are informed about firearms do agree that the AR is a fine home defense gun

But the Newtown shooting caused me to re-examine my stance-as is, I think, fitting-and to question some of the rhetoric advocates use
When you're using the amount of hyperbole and outright misinformation*cough*lies*cough* this "reporter" engages in you have lost all right to words like 'rhetoric".
 
2013-01-03 01:18:08 PM

BarkingUnicorn: It's good to see people admit that this hoopla is really about their 2nd Amendment right to have "fun."


Well, if you don't practice shooting off rounds, you'll find that when you actually need to use your gun it may perform the way you expect.
 
2013-01-03 01:18:25 PM
I've considered buying one just because I'm ex-Army and it's a rifle that I'm familiar with.
 
2013-01-03 01:18:32 PM

H31N0US: BraveNewCheneyWorld: There isn't an argument here, because you didn't even bother to look up what "well regulated" meant when the 2nd amendment was written. Here, let me show you yet another reason why you're wrong.

Ok I'll play. What part of some asshole shooting up a bunch of first graders seems to import "functioning correctly" to you? Adam Lanza was part of a "Well Regulated" (per your interpretation of the syntax) militia?


Are you barely literate? That's not what the 2nd amendment says at all. The 2nd amendment outlines that it is necessary for the formation of a well equipped militia, it does not in any way state that it is the sole reason for the existence of the 2nd. We already have laws in place keeping guns out of the hands of people like Adam Lanza, but surprise surprise.. a criminal didn't obey the law. How is it that your mind is so defective that the "obvious solution" is to make more restrictive laws. You have the thought process of a crazy person.
 
2013-01-03 01:18:41 PM

Mimic_Octopus: going out to buy my first 2 AR-15's this weekend and 10,000 rounds too.


No you won't. Ammo is just about sold out nation wide and the firearm manufacturers can't keep up with the demand.
 
2013-01-03 01:18:57 PM

topcon: I own an AR-15.

I support gay rights, healthcare reform, I'm not religious, I'm pro-abortion, I think "preppers" (I hate even typing the word) and people who say "SHTF" are usually weird if not idiots.

But DURR, they're only owned by rednecks and criminals.

Around TWENTY TIMES more people die to handguns than rifles. Rifle deaths a year amount in the low hundreds. Handgun deaths amount to 6000 odd. Both numbers are dropping.

But let's go batshiat insane over one particular type of rifle.


The batshiat insane stuff is coming from the 2nd amendment kooks. Most people, and most NRA members support registration, backround checks, closing private sale loopholes, and banning high capacity magazines, and maybe "assault rifles" themselves. If you label that as batshiat insane, maybe you should look in the mirror, adjust meds.
 
2013-01-03 01:18:58 PM

Bomb Head Mohammed: I do not believe in taking away the right of the citizen for sporting, for hunting and so forth, or for home defense. But I do believe that an AK-47, a machine gun, is not a sporting weapon or needed for defense of a home.


Machine guns are already federally restricted and, while not prohibited entirely, are already not commonly available to civilians.
 
2013-01-03 01:19:09 PM

tricycleracer: Rapmaster2000: I'm into guns that you guys have probably never even heard of.

I'm getting really into 1970s Israeli arms. Yisrael Galil's inspired designs have stoked the creative fires of countless gunsmiths.


Yeah, he was a pretty heavy influence on Alexi Dragunov and PP-19 Bizon.  You can really see it when you know what to look for.

I'd post some of his work on here, but Farkers wouldn't really get it.  They just don't have the taste to appreciate his work on as many levels as I do.  They're probably into played-out Glocks.  So provincial.
 
2013-01-03 01:19:18 PM

Bomb Head Mohammed: Every year, an average of 9,200 Americans are murdered by handguns, according to Department of Justice statistics. This does not include suicides or the tens of thousands of robberies, rapes and assaults committed with handguns. This level of violence must be stopped.

I do not believe in taking away the right of the citizen for sporting, for hunting and so forth, or for home defense. But I do believe that an AK-47, a machine gun, is not a sporting weapon or needed for defense of a home.


Wait, so you bring up handgun deaths and then argue that rifles should be banned?

Protip: the number of people killed by rifles is a shade above 300 a year. About 700 people a year are beaten to death.
 
2013-01-03 01:19:20 PM
Yet another tard who thinks the 2nd is for hunting.... so sad.
Dont like guns? Dont buy guns. Dont let your gunaphobia affect my right to buy a gun.
 
2013-01-03 01:19:20 PM

TheOther: a hunting rifle


What is a "hunting rifle"?
 
2013-01-03 01:19:30 PM
I've never had much of a desire to own/fire a gun.

I've never had the inclination to murder a bunch of people with a gun.

I think there is something in that.
 
2013-01-03 01:19:41 PM

seniorgato: That being said. The guns are wicked stupid. I've thought about it a lot. A person breaks into my house, use a shotgun, a handgun or a bat. An AR-15 will kill your neighbor or the kid playing outside. And it's not worth it.


Let's throw this out right now. Most tests I've seen with drywall show that an AR-15 round is less likely to overpenetrate than handgun or shotgun rounds. Small rifle rounds going through drywall tend to tumble and disintegrate, while handgun/shotgun rounds tend to keep going (see: box of truth, use of weapons by police and military when trying to reduce collateral damage).

Beyond that, understand this point: the most protected firearms, constitutionally, are those that "serve some relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia" (US v. Miller). I'm tired of seeing "but they're no good for hunting!" when it comes to talking about any type of firearm. While using a firearm for the purpose of hunting is also preserved by the 2nd amendment, it's by no means its core. The fact that US v. Miller is the case that is most often thrown around by those claiming that the 2nd amendment protects a "collective" right (despite it never addressing that notion), then is turned around and ignored by those same people speaks volumes. They're not concerned with the right at all, it's a play to piecemeal ban things as they see fit. Start with "military style weapons" because someone who doesn't know much about guns says they're "unusual and unusually dangerous", then switch to banning weapons good for hunting because "the second amendment only protects arms for militia use". It's an iterative method of eliminating a right, and it's utter bullshiat.
 
2013-01-03 01:19:46 PM

Karac: dr-shotgun: Than be logically consistent and call for a ban on alcohol.

Alcohol has absolutely zero positive social utility. It is a substance used purely for enjoyment.

rebuttal:
[www.chemistryland.com image 225x400]

Also, try going to some third world country with little to no water quality control. Drinking something out of a tap will give you the raging shiats, but a bottle of Coors is perfectly safe.



That's not the same "alcohol," actually. The alcohol a person drinks is ethanol, whereas the image you posted is 2-propanol. Both are generically called "alcohol" because of the -OH group, but they're totally different chemicals.

/chemical engineer
 
2013-01-03 01:20:05 PM

technicolor-misfit: BgJonson79: technicolor-misfit: Teknowaffle: Fat white men who were rejected from too chickenshiat to join the military?


Let's be honest, we're talking about the most terrified people on the planet... people who like to fantasize about carrying around big bad-ass looking weapons to strike an imposing figure precisely because the reality of themselves is so very different.

Practically every gun nut I know is either a doughy nerd who's still nursing grudges about being a bullied outcast in school or a paranoid who obsesses about unrealistic threats they imagine lurking around every corner.

These are NOT Steve Rogers-types eager to rush into the fray of battle to test their mettle and unfortunately held back by physical misfortune. These are LARPers who want to play dress up as far away from the field of actual battle as possible.

And doesn't the Second Amendment guarantee their right to do just that?


Subject to regulation? Yes.


Where do you get subject to regulation?
 
2013-01-03 01:20:24 PM

jshine: ...so owning weapons (the right guaranteed by the Constitution) should be legal, while using them to shoot people should be illegal.


And only criminals shoot people - not law-abiding gun owners.

Of course, when someone who legally owns a (or has easy access to a legally owned) gun kills a few people, then he's a criminal and we can still say "Law-abiding gun owners don't commit gun crimes."

www.brainygamer.com
And keep pretending that the threat of legal punishment has a deterrent effect on someone who plans to die at the end of his rampage.
 
2013-01-03 01:20:25 PM

Joe Blowme: Yet another tard who thinks the 2nd is for hunting.... so sad.
Dont like guns? Dont buy guns. Dont let your gunaphobia affect my right to buy a gun.


If you can get guns to agree to stop shooting people, I bet you wouldn't hear another word.
 
2013-01-03 01:20:29 PM

Cymbal: See my comments up thread. AR-15 and guns like it should only be available to rent at shooting ranges, period.


So people who own a shooting range should be able to own them (for the purpose of stocking the range)? What if it's a partnership? Should both owners be allowed to own them? What if it's a member-owned shooting club?
 
2013-01-03 01:20:32 PM

Dimensio: Cymbal: Dimensio: Cymbal: Wow, don't think I've ever seen so many NRA schills in one thread before.

Really wish you gun nuts could just all have fun with paintball instead. Would be a lot less senseless deaths. But that will never happen because you slack-jawed troglodytes have to be the most selfish and degenerate subhuman wasted of life assholes to ever live.

Do you have any rational commentary to offer, or are you relying upon ad hominem attacks due to an awareness that you advocate a position devoid of any intellectual merit?

See my comments up thread. AR-15 and guns like it should only be available to rent at shooting ranges, period.

So your answer is "no", you have no rational commentary to offer. Thank you for your honest admission.


Pretty small sacrifice to make on your part actually. You still get off on shooting your favorite guns, just in a regulated environment, in exchange for thousands of senseless deaths year. Seems pretty rational to me. But I have a feeling rational thoughts escape you all the time now.
 
2013-01-03 01:20:56 PM

topcon: The murder rate of rifles vs. handguns, you say? Why, the FBI has statistics on that right on their website! I'm guessing the amount of deaths by AR-15s in a given year is, oh, well under 1 percent.

The number of deaths by things like Saturday Night Special .22LRs in the hood is probably quite significant, though.


That's a pretty good list.

What I find really interesting is that the number of murders by "Personal Weapons" is almost twice that of rifles... Even more with knives, and about 50% more with blunt instruments. On top of that, "assault rifles" makes up just a small part of "rifles" altogether...
 
2013-01-03 01:20:56 PM

andersoncouncil42: The batshiat insane stuff is coming from the 2nd amendment kooks. Most people, and most NRA members support registration, backround checks, closing private sale loopholes, and banning high capacity magazines, and maybe "assault rifles" themselves. If you label that as batshiat insane, maybe you should look in the mirror, adjust meds.


I doubt that. Any proof that NRA members support all that garbage? If the ACLU comes out against offensive speech, does that mean that free speech nuts are wrong to oppose offensive speech laws?
 
2013-01-03 01:21:08 PM

rufus-t-firefly: jshine: ...so owning weapons (the right guaranteed by the Constitution) should be legal, while using them to shoot people should be illegal.

And only criminals shoot people - not law-abiding gun owners.

Of course, when someone who legally owns a (or has easy access to a legally owned) gun kills a few people, then he's a criminal and we can still say "Law-abiding gun owners don't commit gun crimes."

[www.brainygamer.com image 351x343]
And keep pretending that the threat of legal punishment has a deterrent effect on someone who plans to die at the end of his rampage.


Are you the Farker who repeatedly posted a dishonest report from the Violence Policy Center even after being given data showing the report to be dishonest?
 
2013-01-03 01:21:19 PM

cr7pilot: I own an AR-15. I'm not a survivalist or a gun nut or a hunter. I'm a guy who enjoys going out in the desert and shooting assorted targets for fun.


The article specifically refers people who are "not hunters but weekend warriors".
 
2013-01-03 01:21:23 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: H31N0US: david_gaithersburg: Perhaps the first amendment should be tightly regulated too. He way not apply the mental evaluation to it and put Fark our of business.

The first amendment makes no mention of regulation. The second amendment does.

BraveNewCheneyWorld: If "the people" can own guns, how do you justify denying them to me? Am I not a person?

See above.
Not every moron in this country gets to own a gun, and nor should every kind of gun be available to the general public. There really isn't an argument here.

There isn't an argument here, because you didn't even bother to look up what "well regulated" meant when the 2nd amendment was written. Here, let me show you yet another reason why you're wrong.

The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."

1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."

1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."

1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."

1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."

1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.



images.christianpost.com


And yet, it doesn't seem to be in very good working order, now does it?
 
2013-01-03 01:21:24 PM

Bomb Head Mohammed: Here are my views on gun control:

Every year, an average of 9,200 Americans are murdered by handguns, according to Department of Justice statistics. This does not include suicides or the tens of thousands of robberies, rapes and assaults committed with handguns. This level of violence must be stopped.

I do not believe in taking away the right of the citizen for sporting, for hunting and so forth, or for home defense. But I do believe that an AK-47, a machine gun, is not a sporting weapon or needed for defense of a home.

This is a matter of vital importance to the public safety ... While we recognize that assault-weapon legislation will not stop all assault-weapon crime, statistics prove that we can dry up the supply of these guns, making them less accessible to criminals.

I think maybe there could be some restrictions that there had to be a certain amount of training taken.

With the right to bear arms comes a great responsibility to use caution and common sense on handgun purchases.

Pleased to meet you, won't you guess my name?


6200 handgun deaths in 2011, down from 7400 in 2007. And has been steadily declining for 20 years.

Rifle murders count in the 300's, and are also declining every year.

But we're going batshiat insane over one particular type of rifle that has made up a few dozen deaths in the past several years.
 
2013-01-03 01:21:37 PM

Cymbal: AR-15 and guns like it should only be available to rent at shooting ranges, period.


BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA!!!!
 
2013-01-03 01:21:41 PM

rufus-t-firefly: Outrageous Muff: In before the whiny anti-gun nuts who think the mere act of holding a gun makes one a psychopathic killer.

Don't forget the pro-gun whackjobs who think psychopathic killers would be just as effective with a pointy stick as with a few 30-round magazines and a Bushmaster.

"New regulations won't stop all mass murders, so why bother?"


The Constitution of the United States.... How does it work?
 
2013-01-03 01:21:49 PM
This thread seems to say a lot about who really buys the AR-15.
And a lot about them, too.
 
2013-01-03 01:21:54 PM

andersoncouncil42: The batshiat insane stuff is coming from the 2nd amendment kooks. Most people, and most NRA members support registration, backround checks, closing private sale loopholes, and banning high capacity magazines, and maybe "assault rifles" themselves. If you label that as batshiat insane, maybe you should look in the mirror, adjust meds.


Less than half of Americans support an assault weapons ban.
 
2013-01-03 01:22:47 PM

andersoncouncil42: topcon: I own an AR-15.

I support gay rights, healthcare reform, I'm not religious, I'm pro-abortion, I think "preppers" (I hate even typing the word) and people who say "SHTF" are usually weird if not idiots.

But DURR, they're only owned by rednecks and criminals.

Around TWENTY TIMES more people die to handguns than rifles. Rifle deaths a year amount in the low hundreds. Handgun deaths amount to 6000 odd. Both numbers are dropping.

But let's go batshiat insane over one particular type of rifle.

The batshiat insane stuff is coming from the 2nd amendment kooks. Most people, and most NRA members support registration, backround checks, closing private sale loopholes, and banning high capacity magazines, and maybe "assault rifles" themselves. If you label that as batshiat insane, maybe you should look in the mirror, adjust meds.


Uh, I can assure you most NRA members, and gun owners, do not support registration, banning high cap magazines, or banning so-called "assault weapons."

What crack are you smoking?
 
2013-01-03 01:22:51 PM

ElBarto79: You have a right as long as doesn't infringe upon someone else in some way. You have a right to free speech but you do not have a right to slander someone or yell "fire" in a crowded theater. See the difference? In the same way if your idea of fun requires a tool which was specifically designed to kill lots of people, has few or zero practical uses that there are not better tools for and which is incredibly deadly in the wrong hands then you may be out of luck with regards to that particular kind of "fun".


So there should be reasonable, sensible restrictions on voting, right?
 
2013-01-03 01:22:58 PM

Cymbal: Pretty small sacrifice to make on your part actually. You still get off on shooting your favorite guns, just in a regulated environment, in exchange for thousands of senseless deaths year. Seems pretty rational to me. But I have a feeling rational thoughts escape you all the time now.


ALL rifles put together are not even attributed to 400 murders in any given year. That's miles away from thousands.
 
2013-01-03 01:23:17 PM

you have pee hands: Mostly because people keep piling up make believe quotes and laws and don't bother to fact check their own bullshiat, but partly because people aren't generally willing to shoot back at a fascist when they know they'll get a couple potshots off before their entire family is killed in retribution.  You know what all these dictatorships actually do have in common?  Whoever controls the military wins.  When the military starts to defect en masse, that's when the gig's up.  Regardless of weaponry there's an enormous difference between trained soldiers and disorganized rabble and militias replacing authoritarian dictatorships with anything but other authoritarian dictatorships in an armed revolution almost never happens.


Soldiers make up a minuscule percentage of the population. In general, assume only say 20% of the population fights back. Each soldier might realistically be outnumbered 10 to 1. Do you really think they can fight an insurgency of that magnitude effectively? Do you think a dictator is going to roll those dice? No, and that's why they disarm the public first.
 
2013-01-03 01:23:29 PM

jshine: Of course "Your right to swing your arms ends just where the other man's nose begins." (incorrectly attributed to Oliver Wendell Holmes, but still a good quote).

...so owning weapons (the right guaranteed by the Constitution) should be legal, while using them to shoot people should be illegal.


Owning weapons should be legal, owning certain weapons that were designed specifically to kill people and have few practical uses that there are not already better and safer tools for should be illegal.
 
2013-01-03 01:23:36 PM

Cymbal: Pretty small sacrifice to make on your part actually. You still get off on shooting your favorite guns, just in a regulated environment, in exchange for thousands of senseless deaths year. Seems pretty rational to me.


I own about 20acres of isolated land and shoot into the side of a hill.
So now I should drive with my firearms into the city to go to a gun range to prevent senseless deaths when I'm shooting up old computers?
 
2013-01-03 01:23:41 PM

Cymbal: Pretty small sacrifice to make on your part actually. You still get off on shooting your favorite guns, just in a regulated environment, in exchange for thousands of senseless deaths year.


Please explain how prohibiting private possession of a single type of rifle would prevent "thousands of senseless deaths year" when all rifles combined are used in fewer than 400 homicides annually.
 
2013-01-03 01:23:41 PM

Cymbal: Dimensio: Cymbal: Dimensio: Cymbal: Wow, don't think I've ever seen so many NRA schills in one thread before.

Really wish you gun nuts could just all have fun with paintball instead. Would be a lot less senseless deaths. But that will never happen because you slack-jawed troglodytes have to be the most selfish and degenerate subhuman wasted of life assholes to ever live.

Do you have any rational commentary to offer, or are you relying upon ad hominem attacks due to an awareness that you advocate a position devoid of any intellectual merit?

See my comments up thread. AR-15 and guns like it should only be available to rent at shooting ranges, period.

So your answer is "no", you have no rational commentary to offer. Thank you for your honest admission.

Pretty small sacrifice to make on your part actually. You still get off on shooting your favorite guns, just in a regulated environment, in exchange for thousands of senseless deaths year. Seems pretty rational to me. But I have a feeling rational thoughts escape you all the time now.


Show me where AR-15s or semiautomatic rifles or rifles in general cause "thousands of senseless deaths [a] year" in the United States.
 
2013-01-03 01:23:45 PM

plausdeny: Well, once you've put the 'automatic' vs 'semi-automatic' difference aside


So much for automatic vs semi-auto.

Link

Video (fun starts at 3:55)
 
2013-01-03 01:23:54 PM

Joe Blowme: Yet another tard who thinks the 2nd is for hunting.... so sad.
Dont like guns? Dont buy guns. Dont let your gunaphobia affect my right to buy a gun.


Don't let your guns affect my right to live.

Either because you have a bad day and decide to become a killer, or becasue you get burgled and the theif then uses or sells the gun to someone who does.

It makes me sick that I have to worry about my wife and/or daugther being randomly gunned down in the street by some lunatic stranger who is just having a bad day, or doesn't give a shiat about the world.
 
2013-01-03 01:24:14 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: This thread seems to say a lot about who really buys the AR-15.
And a lot about them, too.


Not as much as the morons who think they should be banned.
 
2013-01-03 01:24:14 PM

FlashHarry: is the .223/.556 the same NATO round that the current western militaries use? it's essentially a high-powered .22, right?


I didn't see where anyone else answered this, so I'll take a shot. The .223 and .22lr have roughly the same diameter of bullet (caliber), but that is were the similarities end. The .223 usually weighs more and is a tougher bullet, plus it leaves the gun going 2-3x faster than the .22 and carries almost 10x the energy.  So other than the fact that they both use relatively small bullets, not too much in common. Depends on how you look at it I guess.
 
2013-01-03 01:24:24 PM

Rich Cream: Not any good for defense? Then why do the police have them? Offensive purposes?


Police forces aren't really known for their defense.
 
2013-01-03 01:24:41 PM

moanerific: Explain what's been going on in Syria then?


Well, the tide is turning now that there's been mass defections from the military, but it seems most likely to me that it's going to be a case of "out with the old boss, in with the new" because the most organized and militarily successful group of rebels, the ones who gained experience fighting in Iraq, are a bunch of authoritarian dickwads.  We'll see if time proves me wrong.
 
2013-01-03 01:24:45 PM

Cymbal: Dimensio: Cymbal: Dimensio: Cymbal: Wow, don't think I've ever seen so many NRA schills in one thread before.

Really wish you gun nuts could just all have fun with paintball instead. Would be a lot less senseless deaths. But that will never happen because you slack-jawed troglodytes have to be the most selfish and degenerate subhuman wasted of life assholes to ever live.

Do you have any rational commentary to offer, or are you relying upon ad hominem attacks due to an awareness that you advocate a position devoid of any intellectual merit?

See my comments up thread. AR-15 and guns like it should only be available to rent at shooting ranges, period.

So your answer is "no", you have no rational commentary to offer. Thank you for your honest admission.

Pretty small sacrifice to make on your part actually. You still get off on shooting your favorite guns, just in a regulated environment, in exchange for thousands of senseless deaths year. Seems pretty rational to me. But I have a feeling rational thoughts escape you all the time now.


Thousands of people are not murdered by AR-15s every year in the U.S.
 
2013-01-03 01:25:26 PM

ElBarto79: jshine: Of course "Your right to swing your arms ends just where the other man's nose begins." (incorrectly attributed to Oliver Wendell Holmes, but still a good quote).

...so owning weapons (the right guaranteed by the Constitution) should be legal, while using them to shoot people should be illegal.

Owning weapons should be legal, owning certain weapons that were designed specifically to kill people and have few practical uses that there are not already better and safer tools for should be illegal.


All weapons are designed to kill

That's why they are weapons.

If some ass hole comes after my wife while she's jogging I don't want her carrying something that's "safer". I want it to be specifically designed to be as dangerous as possible.
 
2013-01-03 01:25:28 PM

The_Sponge: Cymbal: AR-15 and guns like it should only be available to rent at shooting ranges, period.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA!!!!


b.vimeocdn.com
Reminded me of living in Indiana and seeing this guy'sawesome commercials on late-night.  Look them up on youtube.  They're amazing.
 
2013-01-03 01:25:36 PM

BgJonson79: technicolor-misfit: BgJonson79: technicolor-misfit: Teknowaffle: Fat white men who were rejected from too chickenshiat to join the military?


Let's be honest, we're talking about the most terrified people on the planet... people who like to fantasize about carrying around big bad-ass looking weapons to strike an imposing figure precisely because the reality of themselves is so very different.

Practically every gun nut I know is either a doughy nerd who's still nursing grudges about being a bullied outcast in school or a paranoid who obsesses about unrealistic threats they imagine lurking around every corner.

These are NOT Steve Rogers-types eager to rush into the fray of battle to test their mettle and unfortunately held back by physical misfortune. These are LARPers who want to play dress up as far away from the field of actual battle as possible.

And doesn't the Second Amendment guarantee their right to do just that?


Subject to regulation? Yes.

Where do you get subject to regulation?



Are you suggesting guns aren't subject to regulation?

I suppose a felon can walk into his local Circle K and buy a full-auto Tommy-gun right off the rack, cash on the barrel-head, no questions asked and and stroll around town big as you please and the po-po better not say shiat to him?
 
2013-01-03 01:26:06 PM

Onkel Buck: Rather own my AR-15 than my neighbors goofy looking Prius. Then again I'm not trying to take away his car because is scares me and I dont like it


If you're scared of a Prius, you need help.
 
2013-01-03 01:26:14 PM

BgJonson79: technicolor-misfit: BgJonson79: technicolor-misfit: Teknowaffle: Fat white men who were rejected from too chickenshiat to join the military?


Let's be honest, we're talking about the most terrified people on the planet... people who like to fantasize about carrying around big bad-ass looking weapons to strike an imposing figure precisely because the reality of themselves is so very different.

Practically every gun nut I know is either a doughy nerd who's still nursing grudges about being a bullied outcast in school or a paranoid who obsesses about unrealistic threats they imagine lurking around every corner.

These are NOT Steve Rogers-types eager to rush into the fray of battle to test their mettle and unfortunately held back by physical misfortune. These are LARPers who want to play dress up as far away from the field of actual battle as possible.

And doesn't the Second Amendment guarantee their right to do just that?

Subject to regulation? Yes.

Where do you get subject to regulation?


The words "well-regulated."

Sure, you can argue about the meaning of "well-regulated" at the time the amendment was written...but then you might have to address the meaning of "arms" at that time. And the fact that they don't say what KIND of arms - perhaps halberds? And the fact that it doesn't say "any and all arms," just "arms." I don't see anyone demanding to end the ban on civilian-owned machine guns and rocket launchers. Why not? WHY DO YOU HATE THE SECOND AMENDMENT?!?!

Let's just stick with the Founders' intention and say everyone has a right to own blunderbusses and muskets - let's throw in flintlock pistols as well.
 
2013-01-03 01:26:50 PM

Spade: If some ass hole comes after my wife while she's jogging I don't want her carrying something that's "safer". I want it to be specifically designed to be as dangerous as possible.


You married to Rick Perry?
 
2013-01-03 01:27:06 PM
I'm an Aussie who has known just one person in my entire life who owned anything more powerful than a .22 rifle. He used to shoot wild pigs with it, and apparently he enjoyed that. Good for him.

But I seriously don't get why not having access to high-powered semi-automatic weapons would be a big deal for any sane person. That goes doubly for anyone who thinks that they need one to defend themselves from their own government.

Seems to me that if the "Freedom" of your country requires citizens to arm themselves against the government then you weren't ever very "Free" in the first place.

/maybe I'm just naive about the Black Helicopters and the UN
 
2013-01-03 01:27:14 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: H31N0US: david_gaithersburg: Perhaps the first amendment should be tightly regulated too. He way not apply the mental evaluation to it and put Fark our of business.

The first amendment makes no mention of regulation. The second amendment does.

BraveNewCheneyWorld: If "the people" can own guns, how do you justify denying them to me? Am I not a person?


The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.


OK, that's some good research leading to a ridiculous conclusion. The adjective "well-regulated" means a properly functioning militia in the case of the Second Amendment. I'll stipulate that. Where you go from "properly functioning" to "immune from federal oversight," I have no idea.

Anyway, the Second Amendment's original intent was bulldozed by the reality that militias SUCK at protecting "the security of a free state." The War of 1812 settled once and for all that we needed a standing army, which the Founder expressly were scared of, and the Militia Act of 1903 did away with the last vestige of state/The People's control over the militia.
 
2013-01-03 01:27:23 PM

lostcat: It makes me sick that I have to worry about my wife and/or daugther being randomly gunned down in the street by some lunatic stranger who is just having a bad day, or doesn't give a shiat about the world.


This happens so rarely and you worry about it all the time?

Are you in a constant panic because the odds are a lot higher that they might get hit by a drunk driver too?

Seriously, simmer down and stop being so paranoid.
 
2013-01-03 01:27:31 PM

rufus-t-firefly: Let's just stick with the Founders' intention and say everyone has a right to own blunderbusses and muskets - let's throw in flintlock pistols as well.


I will agree with such regulation only if you agree that the First Amendment to the United States Constitution does not apply to speech transmitted through any electronic format and that the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution does not prohibit warrantless searches of automobiles.
 
2013-01-03 01:27:36 PM

o5iiawah: So there should be reasonable, sensible restrictions on voting, right?


"One gun, one bullet."
 
2013-01-03 01:27:40 PM

Mirrorz: Mimic_Octopus: going out to buy my first 2 AR-15's this weekend and 10,000 rounds too.

No you won't. Ammo is just about sold out nation wide and the firearm manufacturers can't keep up with the demand.


LOL I went to Walmart the other day to buy ammo. Even here in the libbier-than-lib San Francisco Bay area, this one's usually stocked to the gills with must common varieties of shotgun and rifle ammo. The shelves were completely empty. People were fighting over the last couple of boxes of 20 gauge shot. It was surreal.
 
2013-01-03 01:27:50 PM

topcon: 6200 handgun deaths in 2011, down from 7400 in 2007. And has been steadily declining for 20 years.

Rifle murders count in the 300's, and are also declining every year.

But we're going batshiat insane over one particular type of rifle that has made up a few dozen deaths in the past several years.


Not to mention that those reductions took place after the Clinton ban went away in 2004.
 
2013-01-03 01:27:53 PM
So the argument here is that AR-15's give people the capacity to kill others with too much ease. However there's no good argument that they are a legitimate home defense weapon because they aren't good at killing people in your home? What happened to the fact that they give people the capacity to kill others with too much ease?

I'm not saying there shouldn't be gun control just don't make an argument that you later refute in your own article. You could have said there are still strong options for home defense that don't require you to have a semiautomatic rifle with a high magazine capacity and this article would have been fine.

/seriously though if you want to defend yourself in your home buy a short barrel pistol grip shotgun
 
2013-01-03 01:27:57 PM
bluefoxicy

....The flaws here are glaring. AR-15 sucks for hunting. ....

Everybody in this argument is stupid.
I wouldn't say "everybody" but you certainly proved you fall under said label. Even the writer conceded it is a very popular rifle with hunters.
 
2013-01-03 01:28:06 PM

The_Sponge: TheOther: The_Sponge: TheOther: then for every assault rifle the government 'confiscates', let the government supply either a hunting rifle or shotgun (sporting or home defense - owner's choice).

How about no?

Why not?


1) Because I want to keep it, and I'm never giving it up.

2) Do you think the government would give me an equivalent rifle or shotgun that is at the same market value as my rifle?


1) Okay

2) I thought that was implicit in the trade, but Okay...though I don't think you could reasonably expect 'black market/after restrictions enacted' value.

but I'm really wasting my time, aren't I? Nevahmind.
 
2013-01-03 01:28:14 PM

QueenMamaBee: Onkel Buck: Rather own my AR-15 than my neighbors goofy looking Prius. Then again I'm not trying to take away his car because is scares me and I dont like it

If you're scared of a Prius, you need help.


What if you're a firefighter who has to worry about hitting something that carries significant current while cutting someone out of the car?
 
2013-01-03 01:29:21 PM

lostcat: Joe Blowme: Yet another tard who thinks the 2nd is for hunting.... so sad.
Dont like guns? Dont buy guns. Dont let your gunaphobia affect my right to buy a gun.

Don't let your guns affect my right to live.

Either because you have a bad day and decide to become a killer, or becasue you get burgled and the theif then uses or sells the gun to someone who does.

It makes me sick that I have to worry about my wife and/or daugther being randomly gunned down in the street by some lunatic stranger who is just having a bad day, or doesn't give a shiat about the world.


maybe you should move to a country that bans guns and was not founded by people using guns to gain freedom. Your same argument can be made about you getting drunk and killing my family when you are stupid and drive because you are mad at your job or lack thereof.
 
2013-01-03 01:29:39 PM

rufus-t-firefly: jshine: ...so owning weapons (the right guaranteed by the Constitution) should be legal, while using them to shoot people should be illegal.

And only criminals shoot people - not law-abiding gun owners.

Of course, when someone who legally owns a (or has easy access to a legally owned) gun kills a few people, then he's a criminal and we can still say "Law-abiding gun owners don't commit gun crimes."

[www.brainygamer.com image 351x343]
And keep pretending that the threat of legal punishment has a deterrent effect on someone who plans to die at the end of his rampage.



In a country of 300,000,000 people, there are always going to be some undiagnosed nuts who wig out and kill people. Its inevitable. One can make a value judgement: is it worth restricting the rights of everyone in society in the hope that it might make it somewhat more difficult for a few of those nuts to kill as many people as they might otherwise?

In my opinion, no, its not worth it. I value my rights more than the very tiny increase in safety that one might hope to achieve. These murders -- famous as they are due to the 24-hour news cycle -- are *incredibly* rare as an actual safety concern. You're much more likely to die being hit by lightning (so maybe a better crusade would be for mandatory lightning rods?).
 
2013-01-03 01:30:14 PM

Noticeably F.A.T.: TheOther: a hunting rifle

What is a "hunting rifle"?


A rifle used for hunting?...something other than humans?...sporting rifle?... wasting more of my time?
 
2013-01-03 01:30:19 PM

angry bunny: seriously though if you want to defend yourself in your home buy a short barrel pistol grip shotgun


Short barrel shotguns require a class 3 license to purchase/own. (as do short barrel rifles.)
 
2013-01-03 01:30:23 PM

o5iiawah: ElBarto79: You have a right as long as doesn't infringe upon someone else in some way. You have a right to free speech but you do not have a right to slander someone or yell "fire" in a crowded theater. See the difference? In the same way if your idea of fun requires a tool which was specifically designed to kill lots of people, has few or zero practical uses that there are not better tools for and which is incredibly deadly in the wrong hands then you may be out of luck with regards to that particular kind of "fun".

So there should be reasonable, sensible restrictions on voting, right?


We have restrictions on voting; convicted felons cannot vote, for example. But the act of voting will not directly result in someones death so it's hardly a fair comparison.
 
2013-01-03 01:31:14 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: We already have laws in place keeping guns out of the hands of people like Adam Lanza, but surprise surprise.. a criminal didn't obey the law. How is it that your mind is so defective that the "obvious solution" is to make more restrictive laws.


If we had a thorough vetting process, nobody would have sold a gun to a woman with an emotionally unstable socially inert kid in the house.

I am not anti gun. I am anti "psycho with gun". I am sure you would agree. However, without a "well regulated" means of stacking the odds against the probability of a psycho walking out of a shop with the ability to fire 40 rounds a minute on very short notice, we find ourselves watching the news in disbelief while looking at our 2 year old and wondering about her future.
 
2013-01-03 01:31:35 PM

Mirrorz: angry bunny: seriously though if you want to defend yourself in your home buy a short barrel pistol grip shotgun

Short barrel shotguns require a class 3 license to purchase/own. (as do short barrel rifles.)


Still no permit for a metal saw.

/not that I would ever encourage that kind of modification for both safety and legal reasons
 
2013-01-03 01:31:37 PM

Cymbal: Pretty small sacrifice to make on your part actually.


You're over 1,500 miles from me, and I can still smell your bullshiat.
 
2013-01-03 01:32:02 PM

ElBarto79: jshine: Of course "Your right to swing your arms ends just where the other man's nose begins." (incorrectly attributed to Oliver Wendell Holmes, but still a good quote).

...so owning weapons (the right guaranteed by the Constitution) should be legal, while using them to shoot people should be illegal.

Owning weapons should be legal, owning certain weapons that were designed specifically to kill people and have few practical uses that there are not already better and safer tools for should be illegal.


That conclusion doesn't really follow from your original premise of "You have a right as long as doesn't infringe upon someone else in some way. You have a right to free speech but you do not have a right to slander someone or yell "fire" in a crowded theater. See the difference?".
 
2013-01-03 01:32:06 PM

lostcat: It makes me sick that I have to worry about my wife and/or daugther being randomly gunned down in the street by some lunatic stranger who is just having a bad day, or doesn't give a shiat about the world.


The chances of that happening are miniscule--less than the chance that both your wife and daughter get struck by lightning at the exact same time.

We're talking orders of magnitude less than their very real chance of being killed in a car accident. I'd pick something better to worry about.
 
2013-01-03 01:32:13 PM

technicolor-misfit: And yet, it doesn't seem to be in very good working order, now does it?


That wasn't the action of a militia, so you really have no point. Honestly, you're not going to win anyone over who isn't already on your side with irrelevant emotionalism. I could post thousands of pictures of children who have died as a result of alcohol too, but that doesn't reflect on law abiding alcohol consumers, does it? Similarly, Adam Lanza is in no way representative of law abiding gun owners. No sane people are arguing that we should ban alcohol, even though 80,000 Americans are killed by it every year. What does that say about your thought process concerning the banning of guns as a reaction to even fewer deaths than are caused by alcohol?
 
2013-01-03 01:32:19 PM

ha-ha-guy: dropdfun: Article is rubbish with the intent to give a biased perspective. I have hunted smaller game with no issues with an AR-15 style weapon and for larger game I use my H&K G3A3 with no issues.

How do you like your G3A3? I picked up a SL8 (civilian G36) and wasn't terribly fond of its fixed stock and ergonomics. I'd been thinking about a G3, but the SL8 turned me off H&K for a bit.


I love it but it's not a rifle for just anybody due to its size and weight, it's a friggen beast! It's one of the most solid rifles I've ever owned, I could club 200 people to death with the thing and there wouldn't be any rattle to it afterwards and would still operating flawlessly. It's also pretty darn accurate, no issue getting in the black at 500 yards on the upper torso of a silhouette target with iron sights, with the right scope the said can be said for a 1000+ yards. Like I said though, the size and weight can be a limiting factor for a lot of people.
 
2013-01-03 01:32:27 PM

Trapper439: I'm an Aussie who has known just one person in my entire life who owned anything more powerful than a .22 rifle. He used to shoot wild pigs with it, and apparently he enjoyed that. Good for him.

But I seriously don't get why not having access to high-powered semi-automatic weapons would be a big deal for any sane person. That goes doubly for anyone who thinks that they need one to defend themselves from their own government.

Seems to me that if the "Freedom" of your country requires citizens to arm themselves against the government then you weren't ever very "Free" in the first place.

/maybe I'm just naive about the Black Helicopters and the UN


When a person feels weak and powerless they cling to things that they feel give them power.
 
2013-01-03 01:32:31 PM
I bought an AR-15 because I liked the M16 I carried when I was in the Army. The ammo is (was) cheap and I knew the rifle inside and out.

I don't hunt, but like to target shoot with it on my camp property. I don't think it would make a very good home defense weapon, but that's my opinion. A 12 gauge with 00 buckshot would go through more drywall than a .233.

Would all the Farkers dictating our rights here allow me to keep my rifle? The one I was TRAINED on? If not, then you can fark right off with your 'sensible' or 'reasonable' regulations and training requirements.

If you were all actually serious about banning certain guns, you would leave the 'scary assault rifles' alone and go after handguns. (Which is bullshiat, too.)
 
2013-01-03 01:32:44 PM

dr-shotgun: Than be logically consistent and call for a ban on alcohol.

Alcohol has absolutely zero positive social utility. It is a substance used purely for enjoyment.

Drunk driving accidents kill 10,000 people on our roads every year, including 211 kids under 14 according to the CDC (more than 20x Newton). Those numbers are just the beginning of the butcher's bill for alcohol. Tens of thousands die in the hospital due to complications with normal illness that arise due to long term heavy alcohol abuse.

And how many rapes, robberies, assaults and fights are lubricated by the perpetrators drinking? There are no hard facts, but the number is huge (likely around 50%).

The most pernicious effect though, are the hundreds of thousands of families that are torn apart when a mother or father becomes addicted to alcohol. I'm guessing the vast majority of domestic violence, child neglect and abuse is driven by alcohol.

Yet, I don't see Democrats applying their same vigorous "logic" and calling for bans on alcohol. Why?

Oh, because the vast majority of Americans enjoy drinking, and do so responsibly. Even the worst of the gun grabbing Democrats recognizes how horrendously unfair to the vast majority it would be to ban alcohol because of what a small faction of people do.

Guns are to Democrats what gay marriage is to Conservatives, a crypto issue. Democrats don't like guns, they have no personal connection to them, so banning them is no skin off their back. On the other hand, the redneck, rural, backwoods hicks that Democrats love to hate all like guns, so calling for bans and restrictions is really just a culture war win.


This is the kind of post we need more of here.  Thank you.
 
2013-01-03 01:32:48 PM

QueenMamaBee: Onkel Buck: Rather own my AR-15 than my neighbors goofy looking Prius. Then again I'm not trying to take away his car because is scares me and I dont like it

If you're scared of a Prius, you need help.



I own both rifles and a Prius, so I'm getting a kick . . . . .
 
2013-01-03 01:33:28 PM

900RR: Wolf_Blitzer: cr7pilot: Me too. I've got a .380 and a 9mm, but the AR-15 is fun to shoot on a long range. It's also handy for disposing of those leftover Halloween pumpkins...

I enjoy shooting too, and have fired my friend's AR-15 a couple times, but do people honestly believe our entertainment freedom justifies twenty dead six-year-olds?

Absolutely.


Thread over. You can keep your weapons, and be forced to admit that you are evil. Win/Win for both sides.
 
2013-01-03 01:33:33 PM

treesloth: The AR-15 is not necessarily absolutely ideal for hunting of home defense,


It is absolutely the ideal for home defense.
 
2013-01-03 01:33:33 PM

stiletto_the_wise: lostcat: It makes me sick that I have to worry about my wife and/or daugther being randomly gunned down in the street by some lunatic stranger who is just having a bad day, or doesn't give a shiat about the world.

The chances of that happening are miniscule--less than the chance that both your wife and daughter get struck by lightning at the exact same time.

We're talking orders of magnitude less than their very real chance of being killed in a car accident. I'd pick something better to worry about.


Tell that to the parents of the 20 dead kids...
 
2013-01-03 01:33:59 PM

technicolor-misfit: BgJonson79: technicolor-misfit: BgJonson79: technicolor-misfit: Teknowaffle: Fat white men who were rejected from too chickenshiat to join the military?


Let's be honest, we're talking about the most terrified people on the planet... people who like to fantasize about carrying around big bad-ass looking weapons to strike an imposing figure precisely because the reality of themselves is so very different.

Practically every gun nut I know is either a doughy nerd who's still nursing grudges about being a bullied outcast in school or a paranoid who obsesses about unrealistic threats they imagine lurking around every corner.

These are NOT Steve Rogers-types eager to rush into the fray of battle to test their mettle and unfortunately held back by physical misfortune. These are LARPers who want to play dress up as far away from the field of actual battle as possible.

And doesn't the Second Amendment guarantee their right to do just that?


Subject to regulation? Yes.

Where do you get subject to regulation?


Are you suggesting guns aren't subject to regulation?

I suppose a felon can walk into his local Circle K and buy a full-auto Tommy-gun right off the rack, cash on the barrel-head, no questions asked and and stroll around town big as you please and the po-po better not say shiat to him?


The beauty of regulations is when they are challenged in the SCOTUS.

You might intend to ban semi automatic assault weapons....and then wind up undoing the NFA and GCA in the process.
I don't believe the AWB was ever challenged in SCOTUS...Maybe Allan Gura will accpet a challenge like that....he seems to be doing quite well overturning bans on firearms.
 
2013-01-03 01:34:07 PM

manimal2878: treesloth: The AR-15 is not necessarily absolutely ideal for hunting of home defense,

It is absolutely the ideal for home defense.


This just in, people disagree on things.
 
2013-01-03 01:34:20 PM
Good luck coming up with an effective ban of something that can be made from a plastic cutting board:

230grain.com
http://230grain.com/showthread.php?31611-Homebuilt-HPDE-AR15-Lower

Or welded together from scrap metal:

www.homegunsmith.com
http://www.homegunsmith.com/cgi-bin/ib3/ikonboard.cgi?s=fe4aeccf39c22 e 29430361aa191cf7ba;act=ST;f=30;t=11628;st=0

That ought to work out about as well as banning a hardy and useful plant. Especially when bare hands still kill more than twice as many people.
 
2013-01-03 01:34:43 PM

ha-ha-guy: Mirrorz: angry bunny: seriously though if you want to defend yourself in your home buy a short barrel pistol grip shotgun

Short barrel shotguns require a class 3 license to purchase/own. (as do short barrel rifles.)

Still no permit for a metal saw.

/not that I would ever encourage that kind of modification for both safety and legal reasons


A Mossberg 500 w/20in barrel requires a special license? or is this about the definition of 'short'?
 
2013-01-03 01:34:59 PM

ElBarto79: o5iiawah: ElBarto79: You have a right as long as doesn't infringe upon someone else in some way. You have a right to free speech but you do not have a right to slander someone or yell "fire" in a crowded theater. See the difference? In the same way if your idea of fun requires a tool which was specifically designed to kill lots of people, has few or zero practical uses that there are not better tools for and which is incredibly deadly in the wrong hands then you may be out of luck with regards to that particular kind of "fun".

So there should be reasonable, sensible restrictions on voting, right?

We have restrictions on voting; convicted felons cannot vote, for example. But the act of voting will not directly result in someones death so it's hardly a fair comparison.


Depends on your opinion of "directly" I suppose.
 
2013-01-03 01:34:59 PM

mbillips: Where you go from "properly functioning" to "immune from federal oversight," I have no idea.


"shall not be infringed" - reading is hard...

mbillips: Anyway, the Second Amendment's original intent was bulldozed by the reality that militias SUCK at protecting "the security of a free state." The War of 1812 settled once and for all that we needed a standing army, which the Founder expressly were scared of, and the Militia Act of 1903 did away with the last vestige of state/The People's control over the militia.


It was militias that were heavily responsible for our independence.
 
2013-01-03 01:35:00 PM

kim jong-un: cr7pilot: I own an AR-15. I'm not a survivalist or a gun nut or a hunter. I'm a guy who enjoys going out in the desert and shooting assorted targets for fun. It's really that simple. If you like shooting as a sport, the AR-15 is a lot of fun to shoot. I understand that some people don't like shooting as a sport and think "why do you need that kind of gun" but that's just because it's not their thing. AR-15 owners don't buy AR-15s because they have some inherent desire to have more "killing power."

Also, many people here in rural Utah use AR-15s as varmint control weapons. As the article states, a .223 cartridge is not ideal for large game hunting, but it is good for varmint control and a lot more flexible than a bolt-action rifle.

I've been thinking about getting one for years, I just am looking for a reliable fun firearm. The mini22 interested me, as well maybe an m1 instead.

Would you buy one again? Any preferred make/model or manufacturer? Or would you go with a different firearm?


I would buy one again. I have the Smith & Wesson M&P model. I haven't customized mine in any way. I'm sure others are much more knowledgeable about recommendations than I. Most of my coworkers also have AR-15 platforms and speak highly of Colt and Rock River Arms.
 
2013-01-03 01:35:05 PM

lostcat: Trapper439: I'm an Aussie who has known just one person in my entire life who owned anything more powerful than a .22 rifle. He used to shoot wild pigs with it, and apparently he enjoyed that. Good for him.

But I seriously don't get why not having access to high-powered semi-automatic weapons would be a big deal for any sane person. That goes doubly for anyone who thinks that they need one to defend themselves from their own government.

Seems to me that if the "Freedom" of your country requires citizens to arm themselves against the government then you weren't ever very "Free" in the first place.

/maybe I'm just naive about the Black Helicopters and the UN

When a person feels weak and powerless they cling to things that they feel give them power.


Like banning other peoples constitutional right to bear arms?
 
2013-01-03 01:35:26 PM

MasterThief: dr-shotgun: Than be logically consistent and call for a ban on alcohol.

Alcohol has absolutely zero positive social utility. It is a substance used purely for enjoyment.

Drunk driving accidents kill 10,000 people on our roads every year, including 211 kids under 14 according to the CDC (more than 20x Newton). Those numbers are just the beginning of the butcher's bill for alcohol. Tens of thousands die in the hospital due to complications with normal illness that arise due to long term heavy alcohol abuse.

And how many rapes, robberies, assaults and fights are lubricated by the perpetrators drinking? There are no hard facts, but the number is huge (likely around 50%).

The most pernicious effect though, are the hundreds of thousands of families that are torn apart when a mother or father becomes addicted to alcohol. I'm guessing the vast majority of domestic violence, child neglect and abuse is driven by alcohol.

Yet, I don't see Democrats applying their same vigorous "logic" and calling for bans on alcohol. Why?

Oh, because the vast majority of Americans enjoy drinking, and do so responsibly. Even the worst of the gun grabbing Democrats recognizes how horrendously unfair to the vast majority it would be to ban alcohol because of what a small faction of people do.

Guns are to Democrats what gay marriage is to Conservatives, a crypto issue. Democrats don't like guns, they have no personal connection to them, so banning them is no skin off their back. On the other hand, the redneck, rural, backwoods hicks that Democrats love to hate all like guns, so calling for bans and restrictions is really just a culture war win.

This is the kind of post we need more of here.  Thank you.


But with less offensive name calling, if you please. Living more than ten miles outside of a beltway doesn't make you stupid.
 
2013-01-03 01:35:29 PM

stiletto_the_wise: lostcat: It makes me sick that I have to worry about my wife and/or daugther being randomly gunned down in the street by some lunatic stranger who is just having a bad day, or doesn't give a shiat about the world.

The chances of that happening are miniscule--less than the chance that both your wife and daughter get struck by lightning at the exact same time.

We're talking orders of magnitude less than their very real chance of being killed in a car accident. I'd pick something better to worry about.


See, the difference is that if my daughter is killed in an accident, I know that it was an accident. No malice was intended.

If she were shot to death by a person who intened to harm her...for no reason...I can't abide that.
 
2013-01-03 01:35:39 PM

TheOther: A rifle used for hunting?...something other than humans?...sporting rifle?


So, an AR-15 type rifle then.

/That's all I've ever used them for.
 
2013-01-03 01:35:42 PM
So the people that stocked up on ARs are going to make bank.
 
2013-01-03 01:35:58 PM

Mirrorz: Mimic


well, shiat. what about international availability ? Maybe I'll just get a NATO caliber "assault rifle" and store it next to my assault weed whacker and assault rake in the garage.
 
2013-01-03 01:36:06 PM

Rapmaster2000: Thunderpipes: technicolor-misfit: Thunderpipes: technicolor-misfit: Teknowaffle: Fat white men who were rejected from too chickenshiat to join the military?


Let's be honest, we're talking about the most terrified people on the planet... people who like to fantasize about carrying around big bad-ass looking weapons to strike an imposing figure precisely because the reality of themselves is so very different.

Practically every gun nut I know is either a doughy nerd who's still nursing grudges about being a bullied outcast in school or a paranoid who obsesses about unrealistic threats they imagine lurking around every corner.

These are NOT Steve Rogers-types eager to rush into the fray of battle to test their mettle and unfortunately held back by physical misfortune. These are LARPers who want to play dress up as far away from the field of actual battle as possible.

You are a liberal, you don't know any gun nuts. You fantasize about them.


I was born and raised in Alabama, dumbshiat.

You don't know any gun nuts. No gun nut would associate with a liberal crybaby pants.

Says the "guy" in Vermont.  Did you and your wife take the Subaru Outback down to Massachusetts to get married yet or did Moonbeam down at the courthouse do it for you?  It's really great that you can wear your flannels and mullets and enjoy the leaves and maple syrup of Vermontistan together now that the SC allows scissor sisters to get married.


I agree with your post. This state sucks.

But.... at least, for now, it has some of the least controlling gun laws there are. I moved out of hippie county to farmer county. There are a small minority of us that work and pay taxes. Most Vermonters are wealthy out of state transplants, or welfare diggers. Even here though, the anti-gun nut Democrats are rallying. Will be a tough sell.

You can go anywhere you want with a weapon here, concealed or not, and don't need a permit. We have some of the lowest homicide rates, and gun homicide rates in particular, in the nation. Why is that do you think? Think hard.
 
2013-01-03 01:36:10 PM
LasersHurt

OnlyM3: This "reporter" is a liar. Nothing new here. His/her bulls--t claims that (s)he is progun is just another lie.

They disagree, therefore no true Scotsman, eh?

No, because (s)he lies. (s)he couldn't get out of paragraph one without stating something was a fact that was not.

I'm sure there are some "gun folks" who dislike AR's. This "reporter" however is just playing the "But I have black friends" game and equally unbelievable.
 
2013-01-03 01:36:21 PM
It's also funny how many of the same people who want to ban guns are the same people who say that banning drugs needs to stop because it doesn't work.

FYI: I say legalize them all.
 
2013-01-03 01:36:34 PM

lostcat: stiletto_the_wise: lostcat: It makes me sick that I have to worry about my wife and/or daugther being randomly gunned down in the street by some lunatic stranger who is just having a bad day, or doesn't give a shiat about the world.

The chances of that happening are miniscule--less than the chance that both your wife and daughter get struck by lightning at the exact same time.

We're talking orders of magnitude less than their very real chance of being killed in a car accident. I'd pick something better to worry about.

Tell that to the parents of the 20 dead kids...


Tell them what? That they don't understand statistics and probability?
 
2013-01-03 01:36:47 PM

HairBolus: cr7pilot: I own an AR-15. I'm not a survivalist or a gun nut or a hunter. I'm a guy who enjoys going out in the desert and shooting assorted targets for fun.

Do you actually bring targets that you shoot or do you like to pour lead into the vegetation.

In many desert areas one can find cactus, which takes a long time to grow, destroyed or full of bullet holes. I recall reading about a problem in Colorado Springs where gun owners don't like to pay for going to shooting ranges but instead go out into public woods and shoot the shiat out of trees, leaving some areas with them largely destroyed.

Sure, people with single shot guns will also shoot at trees, but they are a good bit less effective decimating the local vegetation. And no, the argument that "it will grow back" really doesn't hold water.


No, I bring targets. I guess I should have mentioned that I also have a soft spot for environmental issues, but I clean up as best as I can when I'm done as well.
 
2013-01-03 01:36:51 PM

maggoo: Rich Cream: Not any good for defense? Then why do the police have them? Offensive purposes?

Police forces aren't really known for their defense.



And consider they use them in the exact same situations that this guy says they serve no purpose.

ie houses
 
2013-01-03 01:37:04 PM

Wolf_Blitzer: Nattering Nabob: I have an AR-15 type rifle. If it would bring back those 20 kids, you can have it. If taking it will keep another 20 alive, you can have it. The problem is, it won't. The Sandy Creek shooter (we should not use their names and give them the satisfaction of knowing they will be famous), had two handguns with him that were perfectly capable of doing the exact same damage in the same amount of time. Take away the rifle and even cut the magazine capacities on the handguns down to 10 and he could have done the same thing in the same amount of time. How long do you think it takes to drop a mag out of a handgun and pop in another while kids are cowering in closets? We like to believe we can fix all problems if we just pass a smart law. You may have noticed that is not working out so well for us.

Part of California's firearms restrictions are that a magazine is no longer considered "detachable" if it requires a tool to be removed. If firearms were modified to take ten seconds with an allen wrench to switch mags, combined with a limit on capacity, I think that would go a long way to minimizing the damage from lone crazies, while still retaining use of the weapons for defensive purposes.


When black powder pistols used to take a while to load, people would carry...2 or more. The Columbine killers' plan was for a bomb attack. If the Sandy Hook guy was in decent shape, he could have easily killed all those people in the same amount of time with a machete. They were defenseless teachers and basically babies.
 
2013-01-03 01:37:13 PM

Pink Splice: 900RR: Wolf_Blitzer: cr7pilot: Me too. I've got a .380 and a 9mm, but the AR-15 is fun to shoot on a long range. It's also handy for disposing of those leftover Halloween pumpkins...

I enjoy shooting too, and have fired my friend's AR-15 a couple times, but do people honestly believe our entertainment freedom justifies twenty dead six-year-olds?

Absolutely.

Thread over. You can keep your weapons, and be forced to admit that you are evil. Win/Win for both sides.


I pretty much have to agree with this. If you want to cling to devices designed to kill, and are willing to admit that it's because deep down inside you feel scared and powerless, so you are willing to embrace evil in order to feel a bit safer...then sure, keep your guns. But I reserve the right to look down on you and your pitiful crutch.
 
2013-01-03 01:37:37 PM

H31N0US: BraveNewCheneyWorld: We already have laws in place keeping guns out of the hands of people like Adam Lanza, but surprise surprise.. a criminal didn't obey the law. How is it that your mind is so defective that the "obvious solution" is to make more restrictive laws.

If we had a thorough vetting process, nobody would have sold a gun to a woman with an emotionally unstable socially inert kid in the house.

I am not anti gun. I am anti "psycho with gun". I am sure you would agree. However, without a "well regulated" means of stacking the odds against the probability of a psycho walking out of a shop with the ability to fire 40 rounds a minute on very short notice, we find ourselves watching the news in disbelief while looking at our 2 year old and wondering about her future.


Crazy people are already forbidden from getting a gun license in CT. Again, laws failed us. If you want to see an effective solution carried out, you need to have better social services to take care of the disturbed segment of our society. Punishing the 300,000,000 Americans who manage to never go on a killing spree is not the answer.
 
2013-01-03 01:37:41 PM

moanerific: I bought an AR-15 because I liked the M16 I carried when I was in the Army.


I'm sure you'll be chiming in on the "military-style rifle" argument, too.
 
2013-01-03 01:38:08 PM
If you wan't a good, accurate .223, buy a Ruger Mini-14. They handle high cap. magazines and are at least half as expensive as a AR ( ~$600 for a nice looking, well built, stainless with wood stock) Most AR's are plastic junk that can't hit shiat. The iron sites on the Mini are awesome, you don't even need a scope for less than 100 yards. They were on the 96 AWB, so better get one quick.

And for you morons that are spending $1000 on AR style .22LR's. You're idiots. Sorry, but you are.
 
2013-01-03 01:38:20 PM
So who are the fellow AR owners out there?

/Own a Colt LE6920 (Magpul).
 
2013-01-03 01:38:20 PM

CPT Ethanolic: Article say .223 or AR-15?  I thought AR-15s were .556?


They aren't truly identical. It's like with 7.62x51 and .308 Win, load a .308 into a 7.62 chamber and the bolt won't close unless the headspacing is so far out that your gun probably isn't safe to shoot. On the other hand, a .308 chamber will spit out 7.62 all day long with no complaint.

With 5.56/.223 the only way to replicate this versatility is with a chambering called .223 Wilde. It was designed specifically to do so.

cmunic8r99: plausdeny: Well, once you've put the 'automatic' vs 'semi-automatic' difference aside

So much for automatic vs semi-auto.

Link

Video (fun starts at 3:55)


That's actually kind of cool because the fire rate is low enough to be controllable. A real full auto M16 can't be fired accurately from the shoulder. Same with any rifle less than about fifteen pounds. Think M249 SAW. And ATF CAN'T regulate it because the trigger is pulled for every shot. Slidefire(bumpfire) requires the user to push forward on the forearm while the pistol grip floats. But human effort is required for every single shot, so it falls into a gray area like an original gattling gun.
 
2013-01-03 01:38:36 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Soldiers make up a minuscule percentage of the population. In general, assume only say 20% of the population fights back. Each soldier might realistically be outnumbered 10 to 1. Do you really think they can fight an insurgency of that magnitude effectively? Do you think a dictator is going to roll those dice? No, and that's why they disarm the public first.


Realistically, assume that nowhere near 20% of the population fights back because a few select brutal beatdowns keep most people scared, and also assume that not all of the people who decide to fight do so for the same side because it never happens that way.  Also note that dictators don't disarm populations at any higher a rate than democracies do and that many of the dictators who supposedly banned guns (e.g. Hitler) actually didn't but were able to take over anyway.  So, will they roll the dice on that?  Sure.  Further, even if it actually were 10 to 1 I'd take 1000 US marines with air, artillery, and armor support and a command structure over 10000 guys who play paintball and shoot pheasants on the weekend any day of the week.
 
2013-01-03 01:38:46 PM

lostcat: stiletto_the_wise: lostcat: It makes me sick that I have to worry about my wife and/or daugther being randomly gunned down in the street by some lunatic stranger who is just having a bad day, or doesn't give a shiat about the world.

The chances of that happening are miniscule--less than the chance that both your wife and daughter get struck by lightning at the exact same time.

We're talking orders of magnitude less than their very real chance of being killed in a car accident. I'd pick something better to worry about.

Tell that to the parents of the 20 dead kids...


Awe, appeal to emotion. That's cute.
 
2013-01-03 01:38:53 PM
I posted this in another thread but here it goes...

How many rounds does one put on target at one time? One at a time. Unless one owns an automatic firing weapon, one puts one round on the target at a time.

What many people are defending is the right to repeat that process of putting one round on target at a time with less time in between rounds and less time spent removing a spent magazine and replacing it with a full magazine.

It does seem a little selfish to think that innocent people get killed in greater numbers simply because target shooters want to plink faster with fewer interruptions.

The idiot that murdered all those people in Tucson--I won't post the victims' names here because I would be accused of supporting a GUN BAN--was stopped because he ran out of bullets in his magazine and was jumped while he tried to reload. A smaller magazine, less dead people.

But let's not inconvenience any target shooters.
 
2013-01-03 01:38:55 PM

jbuist: CPT Ethanolic: Article say .223 or AR-15?  I thought AR-15s were .556?

5.56 NATO and .223 Remington are almost the same.  Generally speaking an AR-15's chamber is set to handle both specs.


DO NOT put a 556 in a 223 unless you like facial reconstruction surgery. 223 in a 556 is fine.


lostcat: Joe Blowme: Yet another tard who thinks the 2nd is for hunting.... so sad.
Dont like guns? Dont buy guns. Dont let your gunaphobia affect my right to buy a gun.

Don't let your guns affect my right to live.

Either because you have a bad day and decide to become a killer, or becasue you get burgled and the theif then uses or sells the gun to someone who does.

It makes me sick that I have to worry about my wife and/or daugther being randomly gunned down in the street by some lunatic stranger who is just having a bad day, or doesn't give a shiat about the world.


It makes me sick to worry about panicky retards trying to ban anything scary because the media has terrorized them yet again. Your chances of being gunned down by an assault rifle are laughably tiny, so much that it could be considered clinical paranoia.

And anyone that actually uses a large mag rifle for hunting is probably retarded and incompetent, with a few exceptions like coyotes and wild hogs.

/owns multiple "BIG SCARY GUNS", and did well before all of these retards made the news
//shockingly has not gone on any killing sprees
 
2013-01-03 01:39:01 PM

Joe Blowme: lostcat: Trapper439: I'm an Aussie who has known just one person in my entire life who owned anything more powerful than a .22 rifle. He used to shoot wild pigs with it, and apparently he enjoyed that. Good for him.

But I seriously don't get why not having access to high-powered semi-automatic weapons would be a big deal for any sane person. That goes doubly for anyone who thinks that they need one to defend themselves from their own government.

Seems to me that if the "Freedom" of your country requires citizens to arm themselves against the government then you weren't ever very "Free" in the first place.

/maybe I'm just naive about the Black Helicopters and the UN

When a person feels weak and powerless they cling to things that they feel give them power.

Like banning other peoples constitutional right to bear arms?


How am I clinging to anything? Don't you remove dangerous things from your house when you have a child? Do you just leave knives and pins and small objects lying around? No...You remove the dangerous objects.
 
2013-01-03 01:39:23 PM
If an "assault weapons ban" is enacted, and another "rampage" style shooting occurs, and is committed with use of a firearm not prohibited by the "ban", will advocates of the ban acknowledge the failure of the ban and instead seek an alternative approach to preventing such occurrences in the future, or will they instead demand further restrictions upon firearm ownership?
 
2013-01-03 01:39:33 PM

TheOther: ha-ha-guy: Mirrorz: angry bunny: seriously though if you want to defend yourself in your home buy a short barrel pistol grip shotgun

Short barrel shotguns require a class 3 license to purchase/own. (as do short barrel rifles.)

Still no permit for a metal saw.

/not that I would ever encourage that kind of modification for both safety and legal reasons

A Mossberg 500 w/20in barrel requires a special license? or is this about the definition of 'short'?


The definition of "short" here in CA is less than 18 inch barrel or less than 26 inches overall length. Amusingly enough, they also define an "assault" shotgun as one that operates semi-automatically with at least two of the standard "scary looking" features.
 
2013-01-03 01:39:34 PM

angry bunny: So the argument here is that AR-15's give people the capacity to kill others with too much ease. However there's no good argument that they are a legitimate home defense weapon because they aren't good at killing people in your home? What happened to the fact that they give people the capacity to kill others with too much ease?


They're not good because

a) the bullets can easily penetrate walls (and houses) and hit people who aren't supposed to be hit
b) they're too long and awkward

Better a shorty shotgun with reduced recoil buckshot. The object is not to kill people - it's to make them stop what they're doing and go away. Or hold them at bay until the cops arrive. Shotguns are *really* *really* good at that.
 
2013-01-03 01:39:57 PM

jshine: ElBarto79: jshine: Of course "Your right to swing your arms ends just where the other man's nose begins." (incorrectly attributed to Oliver Wendell Holmes, but still a good quote).

...so owning weapons (the right guaranteed by the Constitution) should be legal, while using them to shoot people should be illegal.

Owning weapons should be legal, owning certain weapons that were designed specifically to kill people and have few practical uses that there are not already better and safer tools for should be illegal.

That conclusion doesn't really follow from your original premise of "You have a right as long as doesn't infringe upon someone else in some way. You have a right to free speech but you do not have a right to slander someone or yell "fire" in a crowded theater. See the difference?".


Putting assault rifles in the hands of citizens means that some of them will inevitably use them to kill people. That might be acceptable if assault rifles were necessary for some purpose and they were the best, or only, tool for the job. Cars can be used to kill people, but we need cars to get around, so we legalize them and try to make them as safe as possible.

Assault rifles are dangerous, unnecessary and serve no practical purpose that there are not already better and safer tools available for. Therefore we should ban them as an issue of public safety.
 
2013-01-03 01:40:31 PM

Boudica's War Tampon: The idiot that murdered all those people in Tucson--I won't post the victims' names here because I would be accused of supporting a GUN BAN--was stopped because he ran out of bullets in his magazine and was jumped while he tried to reload..


So one guy was stopped by having to reload, that seals the deal. The rest all stopped when they felt like it or encountered resistance dozens of minutes after starting. But yeah, let's pretend that magazine size will make a difference.
 
2013-01-03 01:40:51 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: moanerific: I bought an AR-15 because I liked the M16 I carried when I was in the Army.

I'm sure you'll be chiming in on the "military-style rifle" argument, too.


What's that supposed to mean? I bought it because I knew the rifle, it was inexpensive, and the ammo was also cheap at the time. If I was trained on an M1 Garand, I would have probably bought one too.
 
2013-01-03 01:41:01 PM

lostcat: It makes me sick that I have to worry about my wife and/or daugther being randomly gunned down in the street by some lunatic stranger who is just having a bad day, or doesn't give a shiat about the world.


You worry too much.

Do you also stress out every day about their involvement in a deadly car crash?
 
2013-01-03 01:41:06 PM

lostcat: stiletto_the_wise: lostcat: It makes me sick that I have to worry about my wife and/or daugther being randomly gunned down in the street by some lunatic stranger who is just having a bad day, or doesn't give a shiat about the world.

The chances of that happening are miniscule--less than the chance that both your wife and daughter get struck by lightning at the exact same time.

We're talking orders of magnitude less than their very real chance of being killed in a car accident. I'd pick something better to worry about.

See, the difference is that if my daughter is killed in an accident, I know that it was an accident. No malice was intended.

If she were shot to death by a person who intened to harm her...for no reason...I can't abide that.


No malice in a drunk driving incident?

Also, the odds are better that your daughter will be beaten to death than shot by somebody with an AR-15.

Like I said, you need to have some perspective and a bit less paranoia.
 
2013-01-03 01:41:20 PM

TheOther: ha-ha-guy: Mirrorz: angry bunny: seriously though if you want to defend yourself in your home buy a short barrel pistol grip shotgun

Short barrel shotguns require a class 3 license to purchase/own. (as do short barrel rifles.)

Still no permit for a metal saw.

/not that I would ever encourage that kind of modification for both safety and legal reasons

A Mossberg 500 w/20in barrel requires a special license? or is this about the definition of 'short'?


Legal requirements are 18.5" bbl, 26" OAL.

This means I can have a shotgun with a pistol grip and a slightly longer barrel, or a regular stock and an 18.5" BBL.

Anything shorter than either of these requirements are considered an SBS, which are registered as Any Other Weapons under the NFA, and require all kinds of permitting to happen.
 
2013-01-03 01:41:43 PM

The_Sponge: So who are the fellow AR owners out there?

/Own a Colt LE6920 (Magpul).


I own a DPMS Panther Lite A3 16", purchased in 2009. I did not fire it until 2012.
 
2013-01-03 01:41:58 PM

you have pee hands: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Soldiers make up a minuscule percentage of the population. In general, assume only say 20% of the population fights back. Each soldier might realistically be outnumbered 10 to 1. Do you really think they can fight an insurgency of that magnitude effectively? Do you think a dictator is going to roll those dice? No, and that's why they disarm the public first.

Realistically, assume that nowhere near 20% of the population fights back because a few select brutal beatdowns keep most people scared, and also assume that not all of the people who decide to fight do so for the same side because it never happens that way.  Also note that dictators don't disarm populations at any higher a rate than democracies do and that many of the dictators who supposedly banned guns (e.g. Hitler) actually didn't but were able to take over anyway.  So, will they roll the dice on that?  Sure.  Further, even if it actually were 10 to 1 I'd take 1000 US marines with air, artillery, and armor support and a command structure over 10000 guys who play paintball and shoot pheasants on the weekend any day of the week.


I'm sorry, but I can't talk to you if you're going to refute even our own nation's history with bald assertions.
Another fact you seem to omit is that supply lines run not from the military, but from the people. Kind of hard to fight a war when you depend on the people you're fighting for your infrastructure.
 
2013-01-03 01:42:02 PM

lostcat: See, the difference is that if my daughter is killed in an accident, I know that it was an accident. No malice was intended.

If she were shot to death by a person who intened to harm her...for no reason...I can't abide that.


Getting murdered by someone armed with a rifle is terrible in terms of probability of occurrence relative to other quite common terrible things that happen, it's not what we all ought to worry about.
 
2013-01-03 01:42:10 PM
I think we should go ahead and ban assault rifles and high capacity pistol clips.

If you go bonkers and decide to shoot up a school or mall you can kill more people faster with these types of weapons. If new ones aren't readily available it may limit the number of deaths at the next mass shooting.

That being said it won't help with the millions of legally owned assault rifles that are already out there, and somebody who wants to buy one will be able to on the secondary/black market without much trouble.
 
2013-01-03 01:42:38 PM

The_Sponge: lostcat: It makes me sick that I have to worry about my wife and/or daugther being randomly gunned down in the street by some lunatic stranger who is just having a bad day, or doesn't give a shiat about the world.

You worry too much.

Do you also stress out every day about their involvement in a deadly car crash?


This.
 
2013-01-03 01:43:16 PM

dropdfun: ha-ha-guy: dropdfun: Article is rubbish with the intent to give a biased perspective. I have hunted smaller game with no issues with an AR-15 style weapon and for larger game I use my H&K G3A3 with no issues.

How do you like your G3A3? I picked up a SL8 (civilian G36) and wasn't terribly fond of its fixed stock and ergonomics. I'd been thinking about a G3, but the SL8 turned me off H&K for a bit.

I love it but it's not a rifle for just anybody due to its size and weight, it's a friggen beast! It's one of the most solid rifles I've ever owned, I could club 200 people to death with the thing and there wouldn't be any rattle to it afterwards and would still operating flawlessly. It's also pretty darn accurate, no issue getting in the black at 500 yards on the upper torso of a silhouette target with iron sights, with the right scope the said can be said for a 1000+ yards. Like I said though, the size and weight can be a limiting factor for a lot of people.


Thanks,. I spent time on active duty lugging around the squad automatic weapon or a M-14 so I'm not too afraid of the weight. I'm glad to hear it has better construction quality as my current H&K product felt kind of fragile, even though I've never had a problem with it. Just a mental block. Maybe it should be me birthday present to my self, if I end up hating it I'm sure it has decent resale.
 
2013-01-03 01:43:17 PM

Boudica's War Tampon: It does seem a little selfish to think that innocent people get killed in greater numbers simply because target shooters want to plink faster with fewer interruptions.


Would you mind pointing out the part of the second amendment which explained that it was for plinking?
 
2013-01-03 01:43:37 PM

TheOther: A Mossberg 500 w/20in barrel requires a special license? or is this about the definition of 'short'?


That should be fine.
It's when you put that exact combination of words together that you get a separate definition. If you just said, "shorter barrel" there would be no confusion.

"Short barrel" refers to a pretty specific type of gun.
No big deal really, or i'm just being a dick about it and arguing for the sake of doing so. It's all about perspective. :)
 
2013-01-03 01:43:46 PM

Dimensio: If an "assault weapons ban" is enacted, and another "rampage" style shooting occurs, and is committed with use of a firearm not prohibited by the "ban", will advocates of the ban acknowledge the failure of the ban and instead seek an alternative approach to preventing such occurrences in the future, or will they instead demand further restrictions upon firearm ownership?


further restrictions. That's what they want now. The old ban and the CT ban are/were scary 2 feature bans. The rifle in SH,CT had only 1 scary feature, so to cover it they need a 1 feature ban like CA. When someone uses a non-scary firearm to do a massacre (Think Cumbria and .22 bolt-action and a double barrrel shotgun), then all semi-auto rifles have to be banned as they're just exploiting "loopholes"
 
2013-01-03 01:44:03 PM

Cast: DO NOT put a 556 in a 223 unless you like facial reconstruction surgery. 223 in a 556 is fine.


Many firearms advertised as being .223 Remington are actually designed to tolerate 5.56x45mm NATO. A firearm owner should always verify the actual tolerances of their firearm before using the latter caliber, however.
 
2013-01-03 01:44:09 PM

Dimensio: If an "assault weapons ban" is enacted, and another "rampage" style shooting occurs, and is committed with use of a firearm not prohibited by the "ban", will advocates of the ban acknowledge the failure of the ban and instead seek an alternative approach to preventing such occurrences in the future, or will they instead demand further restrictions upon firearm ownership?


When *anything* bad happens, the response is always a knee-jerk reaction for more laws. ...and as society inevitably gets safer, that trend won't go away.

In 300 years, when a single person dies in all of 2313 due to a malfunctioning auto-driving car, there will be a days-long cable news orgy (or whatever replaces cable) decrying how incredibly dangerous the highways are & how we need more laws.

There's just no end to it -- short of some massive war that resets the legal code to scratch and resets people's expectations of "safety".
 
2013-01-03 01:44:21 PM

dofus: angry bunny: So the argument here is that AR-15's give people the capacity to kill others with too much ease. However there's no good argument that they are a legitimate home defense weapon because they aren't good at killing people in your home? What happened to the fact that they give people the capacity to kill others with too much ease?

They're not good because

a) the bullets can easily penetrate walls (and houses) and hit people who aren't supposed to be hit
b) they're too long and awkward

Better a shorty shotgun with reduced recoil buckshot. The object is not to kill people - it's to make them stop what they're doing and go away. Or hold them at bay until the cops arrive. Shotguns are *really* *really* good at that.


Shotgun buckshot is going to tear through walls just as well or better than 5.56mm.

And an AR-15 with a 16" barrel is now "long and awkward" compared to an 18" barreled shotgun? Don't tell me you're suggesting a stockless shotgun, as that would be retarded.

Have you handled a firearm?
 
2013-01-03 01:44:25 PM

Richard Flaccid: If you wan't a good, accurate .223, buy a Ruger Mini-14. They handle high cap. magazines and are at least half as expensive as a AR ( ~$600 for a nice looking, well built, stainless with wood stock) Most AR's are plastic junk that can't hit shiat. The iron sites on the Mini are awesome, you don't even need a scope for less than 100 yards. They were on the 96 AWB, so better get one quick.

And for you morons that are spending $1000 on AR style .22LR's. You're idiots. Sorry, but you are.


Yeah, Mini-14s are well know for their great accuracy. Well, the new ones are good, anyway.

As for expensive .22LR ARs, bear in mind many have mil-spec uppers and lowers, that is to say, you can put a centerfire upper on the lower, or, you could put a centerfire barrel and BCG in the upper (although that'd be crazy.) Even then, before the insanity, you weren't going to pay a grand for that unless it was some real tricked out, non-factory thing. Remember, some people have well over a grand in 10-22s.

AR "style" rifles are things like the S&W MP 15-22, which are simply lookalikes but are largely proprietary on the inside. Last I checked, those sell for like $450, or did before all the paranoia.
 
2013-01-03 01:44:28 PM

abadabba: I think we should go ahead and ban assault rifles and high capacity pistol clips.

If you go bonkers and decide to shoot up a school or mall you can kill more people faster with these types of weapons. If new ones aren't readily available it may limit the number of deaths at the next mass shooting.

That being said it won't help with the millions of legally owned assault rifles that are already out there, and somebody who wants to buy one will be able to on the secondary/black market without much trouble.


That's even true in countries without lots of legally owned guns...
 
2013-01-03 01:44:31 PM

ElBarto79: Putting assault rifles in the hands of citizens means that some of them will inevitably use them to kill people. That might be acceptable if assault rifles were necessary for some purpose and they were the best, or only, tool for the job. Cars can be used to kill people, but we need cars to get around, so we legalize them and try to make them as safe as possible.

Assault rifles are dangerous, unnecessary and serve no practical purpose that there are not already better and safer tools available for. Therefore we should ban them as an issue of public safety.



Well f*ck it....let's ban all firearms that are "meant to kill".
 
2013-01-03 01:45:02 PM

The_Sponge: So who are the fellow AR owners out there?

/Own a Colt LE6920 (Magpul).


I have this bad boy.  NERF.  6 shot.  Almost never jams.  If it does, I just push on the suction cup to reset the bullet.

www.twofedoras.com
 
2013-01-03 01:45:59 PM
I'd love for someone to define for me in the sort of technical terms suitable for a well-written law exactly what constitutes a "military grade" rifle that is currently available to the general public, and coherently explain what about those features should make it illegal.
Bonus points if you can point to a time when civilians didn't have "military grade" firearms.
 
2013-01-03 01:46:01 PM
This is a really good read and dated just after the Aurora shootings - Why Not Renew the "Assault Weapons" Ban? Well, I'll Tell You...

"The ban on "large capacity ammunition feeding devices" was the most far reaching aspect of the legislation, as it applied to magazines for all guns, not just guns that were illegal due to other cosmetic features.

Legislators settled on the number 10 for rifles and pistols, while 5 shells would be the maximum for a shotgun.

All we have to do is look at one of the deadliest shootings in the world: the Virginia Tech massacre.

With one pistol of 10-round capacity and one pistol of 15-round capacity, Cho killed more people than anyone has ever killed in a single U.S. shooting incident. He didn't need any massive magazines or custom weapons.The embarrassingly simple reason that magazine size restrictions can't lessen the lethality of mass shooters is that it doesn't matter how many rounds fit in a magazine if a shooter has multiple magazines. When one runs out, they can simply drop it and pop another in, a process which takes five seconds at most. (Less than half a second, if you happen to be this guy.) Cho was able to carry out this massacre because he carried a backpack containing 19 magazines, a fact not well-publicized."

I also like - Massacre survivor defends gun rights
 
2013-01-03 01:46:06 PM

topcon: Richard Flaccid: If you wan't a good, accurate .223, buy a Ruger Mini-14. They handle high cap. magazines and are at least half as expensive as a AR ( ~$600 for a nice looking, well built, stainless with wood stock) Most AR's are plastic junk that can't hit shiat. The iron sites on the Mini are awesome, you don't even need a scope for less than 100 yards. They were on the 96 AWB, so better get one quick.

And for you morons that are spending $1000 on AR style .22LR's. You're idiots. Sorry, but you are.

Yeah, Mini-14s are well know for their great accuracy. Well, the new ones are good, anyway.


Just a reminder that Feinstein wants to ban Mini-14s as well. And M1 carbines.
 
2013-01-03 01:46:07 PM

Dimensio: If an "assault weapons ban" is enacted, and another "rampage" style shooting occurs, and is committed with use of a firearm not prohibited by the "ban", will advocates of the ban acknowledge the failure of the ban


You mean the failure of the ban list to be long enough?
 
2013-01-03 01:46:38 PM

lostcat: Joe Blowme: lostcat: Trapper439: I'm an Aussie who has known just one person in my entire life who owned anything more powerful than a .22 rifle. He used to shoot wild pigs with it, and apparently he enjoyed that. Good for him.

But I seriously don't get why not having access to high-powered semi-automatic weapons would be a big deal for any sane person. That goes doubly for anyone who thinks that they need one to defend themselves from their own government.

Seems to me that if the "Freedom" of your country requires citizens to arm themselves against the government then you weren't ever very "Free" in the first place.

/maybe I'm just naive about the Black Helicopters and the UN

When a person feels weak and powerless they cling to things that they feel give them power.

Like banning other peoples constitutional right to bear arms?

How am I clinging to anything? Don't you remove dangerous things from your house when you have a child? Do you just leave knives and pins and small objects lying around? No...You remove the dangerous objects.


And this is why we fail.

Strange how when I was growing up, we literally had knives and pins and small objects all over the place. If you want to fix the problem, you teach kids not to stab themselves. Same with guns. To fix the problem, stop spoiling kids and raising monsters with no responsibility or discipline or respect. You want to protect everyone by taking away anything that might hurt them, rather than teaching people to not get hurt. Stupid.

All those young kids who went off to secure freedom, again, in WWII, think they did not have access to weapons growing up? Why were there so many fewer incidents of violence? Because our culture has changed. Guns have always been here.
 
2013-01-03 01:46:39 PM

Jarhead_h: That's actually kind of cool because the fire rate is low enough to be controllable.


It's still up there though. According to my military buddy the controlability comes more from how it operates (it's absorbing a lot of recoil) and how it forces you to hang onto it (you have to push forward, and end up pulling down as well). I've tried his out a few times, and having never fired anything full-auto before I was still able to hang onto it fairly well. After a little practice I had little problem keeping 10-15 round bursts in a pumpkin at about 25yd.

/It does take some getting used to, instead of pulling back/resting the gun on your left hand and pulling the trigger with your right, you have to hold your trigger finger still and push forward with your left hand.
//It's fun as hell, but it does chew through ammo in a damn hurry.
 
2013-01-03 01:47:08 PM

The_Sponge: So who are the fellow AR owners out there?

/Own a Colt LE6920 (Magpul).


SIG 556
WASR10

/stay away from plastic mags on the WASRs, they are jamtastic. The ancient steel mags are flawless.
 
2013-01-03 01:48:06 PM

Nattering Nabob: Wolf_Blitzer: Nattering Nabob: I have an AR-15 type rifle. If it would bring back those 20 kids, you can have it. If taking it will keep another 20 alive, you can have it. The problem is, it won't. The Sandy Creek shooter (we should not use their names and give them the satisfaction of knowing they will be famous), had two handguns with him that were perfectly capable of doing the exact same damage in the same amount of time. Take away the rifle and even cut the magazine capacities on the handguns down to 10 and he could have done the same thing in the same amount of time. How long do you think it takes to drop a mag out of a handgun and pop in another while kids are cowering in closets? We like to believe we can fix all problems if we just pass a smart law. You may have noticed that is not working out so well for us.

Part of California's firearms restrictions are that a magazine is no longer considered "detachable" if it requires a tool to be removed. If firearms were modified to take ten seconds with an allen wrench to switch mags, combined with a limit on capacity, I think that would go a long way to minimizing the damage from lone crazies, while still retaining use of the weapons for defensive purposes.

When black powder pistols used to take a while to load, people would carry...2 or more. The Columbine killers' plan was for a bomb attack. If the Sandy Hook guy was in decent shape, he could have easily killed all those people in the same amount of time with a machete. They were defenseless teachers and basically babies.


The plan was for a bomb attack, but they couldn't follow through.... because explosives are highly regulated. The very same day as Sandy Hook, a guy went nuts in China and attacked a bunch of kids with a knife... zero deaths.

Even most gun nuts agree there are weapons that are too dangerous to be held by just anyone. For sane people, the question is where to draw the line, not if there should be a line at all.
 
2013-01-03 01:48:13 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: You mean the failure of the ban list to be long enough?


No list is long enough, just as every single restrictive regulation has been called "sensible", "reasonable", etc. leading me to wonder what they consider to be NOT "reasonable" or "sensible" and/or what semi-auto guns should not be banned.
 
2013-01-03 01:48:15 PM

lostcat: How am I clinging to anything? Don't you remove dangerous things from your house when you have a child? Do you just leave knives and pins and small objects lying around? No...You remove the dangerous objects.


Around kids, I keep my guns locked up, the knives in the knife drawer or on the magnetic rack, and I actually, you know, PAY ATTENTION TO THE KIDS. I do not go about padding and foaming and nerfing my entire existence because ZOMG A KID MIGHT GET HURT!

I even take my kids to parks with small pea gravel and wooden playground equipment that might *Gasp* give them a sliver! I let them play in the public sandbox! I DON'T EVEN DISINFECT MY COUNTERS EVERY FIVE MINUTES!

There was a time in the world when we didn't overreact to EVERYTHING.
 
2013-01-03 01:48:18 PM
Haw about this.

We put all this effort and outrage into improving mental health services and legislation so when a family has someone that they know has issues but they are not (Yet) a danger to themselves or others they can get those people help.

And how about as a group we decide to help pay for it when the family can't so that we can all be a little safer. This would also massively help with the homeless population which has a disproportionate percentage of people in need of mental health services.

This more than anything else would make our country a saver and better place.
 
2013-01-03 01:48:37 PM
The AR-15 is a nice gun to have for when people try to take your guns.


:-)
 
2013-01-03 01:48:59 PM

Kit Fister: abadabba: I think we should go ahead and ban assault rifles and high capacity pistol clips.

If you go bonkers and decide to shoot up a school or mall you can kill more people faster with these types of weapons. If new ones aren't readily available it may limit the number of deaths at the next mass shooting.

That being said it won't help with the millions of legally owned assault rifles that are already out there, and somebody who wants to buy one will be able to on the secondary/black market without much trouble.

That's even true in countries without lots of legally owned guns...


Hell, look up how many semi-automatic rifles were turned in when Australia did their ban.

Then remember that 800,000 SKS rifles alone had been imported just a few years before.

Most European countries have a shiat ton more firearms there than are "registered" or were turned in during bans.
 
2013-01-03 01:49:10 PM

CPT Ethanolic: Article say .223 or AR-15?  I thought AR-15s were .556?


The .223 caliber is the english measurement; .223 of an inch, 5.56 is in millimeters,the metric measurement.

Learn nothing from articles like this, the writer is nearly as ignorant as the commenters here.
 
2013-01-03 01:49:22 PM

abadabba: If you go bonkers and decide to shoot up a school or mall you can kill more people faster with these types of weapons. If new ones aren't readily available it may limit the number of deaths at the next mass shooting.


Remember how the Clinton ban prevented the shooting at Columbine?  Oh wait, it didn't.
 
2013-01-03 01:49:38 PM

CPT Ethanolic: CPT Ethanolic: Article say .223 or AR-15?  I thought AR-15s were .556?

Nevermind - I see they're essentially identical.

/Only shot M16s with .556.


Yeah...uh...one's in inches, the other's in millimeters. Also, decimal points, man, they're important: its 5.56 millimeters.
/decimal points and units, I assume you're familiar with them?
 
2013-01-03 01:49:43 PM

Dimensio: Many firearms advertised as being .223 Remington are actually designed to tolerate 5.56x45mm NATO. A firearm owner should always verify the actual tolerances of their firearm before using the latter caliber, however.


Yep.
My FS2000 has a exhaust gas pressure switch to allow for smooth cycling between the two different types of ammo. 5.56 Nato packs a bit more punch and can crack a bolt that is just designed for .223.
 
2013-01-03 01:50:20 PM

The_Sponge: ElBarto79: Putting assault rifles in the hands of citizens means that some of them will inevitably use them to kill people. That might be acceptable if assault rifles were necessary for some purpose and they were the best, or only, tool for the job. Cars can be used to kill people, but we need cars to get around, so we legalize them and try to make them as safe as possible.

Assault rifles are dangerous, unnecessary and serve no practical purpose that there are not already better and safer tools available for. Therefore we should ban them as an issue of public safety.


Well f*ck it....let's ban all firearms that are "meant to kill".


Personally I would be in favor of banning semi-automatic weapons entirely. Bolt action rifles, pump action shotguns and revolvers and that's it. But banning assault weapons is a good start.
 
2013-01-03 01:50:28 PM

The_Sponge: So who are the fellow AR owners out there?

/Own a Colt LE6920 (Magpul).


Olympic PCR-6 here. Bottom of the heap, but it runs as well as anything - including heavy use in a carbine course.
 
2013-01-03 01:50:54 PM

Thunderpipes: lostcat: Joe Blowme: lostcat: Trapper439: I'm an Aussie who has known just one person in my entire life who owned anything more powerful than a .22 rifle. He used to shoot wild pigs with it, and apparently he enjoyed that. Good for him.

But I seriously don't get why not having access to high-powered semi-automatic weapons would be a big deal for any sane person. That goes doubly for anyone who thinks that they need one to defend themselves from their own government.

Seems to me that if the "Freedom" of your country requires citizens to arm themselves against the government then you weren't ever very "Free" in the first place.

/maybe I'm just naive about the Black Helicopters and the UN

When a person feels weak and powerless they cling to things that they feel give them power.

Like banning other peoples constitutional right to bear arms?

How am I clinging to anything? Don't you remove dangerous things from your house when you have a child? Do you just leave knives and pins and small objects lying around? No...You remove the dangerous objects.

And this is why we fail.

Strange how when I was growing up, we literally had knives and pins and small objects all over the place. If you want to fix the problem, you teach kids not to stab themselves. Same with guns. To fix the problem, stop spoiling kids and raising monsters with no responsibility or discipline or respect. You want to protect everyone by taking away anything that might hurt them, rather than teaching people to not get hurt. Stupid.

All those young kids who went off to secure freedom, again, in WWII, think they did not have access to weapons growing up? Why were there so many fewer incidents of violence? Because our culture has changed. Guns have always been here.


Hey growing up I rode around on the tractor with my dad. No huge fenders over the tires, and rode while he pulled a disc around the farm. Boy, if I fell off and got under that thing I'd've been toast. Even as a toddler I ran around with screwdrivers, helped my dad out in the shop, and by 10 I could run a welder. Boy I'm sure glad I was NEVER around any heavy steel implements, allowed to drive farm implements, or allowed to have toy tractors and legos and whatnot. Gosh, I could've DIED!
 
2013-01-03 01:51:04 PM
Dimensio: Machine guns are already federally restricted and, while not prohibited entirely, are already not commonly available to civilians.

I didn't ask you for your opinions. I asked you to guess my name.

Now genius: who did I just quote? Google it.
 
2013-01-03 01:51:05 PM

Dimensio: If an "assault weapons ban" is enacted, and another "rampage" style shooting occurs, and is committed with use of a firearm not prohibited by the "ban", will advocates of the ban acknowledge the failure of the ban and instead seek an alternative approach to preventing such occurrences in the future, or will they instead demand further restrictions upon firearm ownership?


You are being obtuse. If they go down in number by just one/year, I don't know about you, but I'd say it was worth it.
 
2013-01-03 01:51:48 PM

POO_FLINGA: With one pistol of 10-round capacity and one pistol of 15-round capacity, Cho killed more people than anyone has ever killed in a single U.S. shooting incident. He didn't need any massive magazines or custom weapons.The embarrassingly simple reason that magazine size restrictions can't lessen the lethality of mass shooters is that it doesn't matter how many rounds fit in a magazine if a shooter has multiple magazines. When one runs out, they can simply drop it and pop another in, a process which takes five seconds at most. (Less than half a second, if you happen to be this guy.) Cho was able to carry out this massacre because he carried a backpack containing 19 magazines, a fact not well-publicized."


So if we want the capacity limit to actually matter we have to place restrictions on number of magazines owned, or install a mechanism to slow magazine release/replacement. Thank you for pointing this out.
 
2013-01-03 01:51:59 PM

ElBarto79: The_Sponge: ElBarto79: Putting assault rifles in the hands of citizens means that some of them will inevitably use them to kill people. That might be acceptable if assault rifles were necessary for some purpose and they were the best, or only, tool for the job. Cars can be used to kill people, but we need cars to get around, so we legalize them and try to make them as safe as possible.

Assault rifles are dangerous, unnecessary and serve no practical purpose that there are not already better and safer tools available for. Therefore we should ban them as an issue of public safety.


Well f*ck it....let's ban all firearms that are "meant to kill".

Personally I would be in favor of banning semi-automatic weapons entirely. Bolt action rifles, pump action shotguns and revolvers and that's it. But banning assault weapons is a good start.


Move to CA, IL, NY, or WADC and have fun with that. Let the rest of us alone.
 
2013-01-03 01:51:59 PM
Spade: Bomb Head Mohammed: Every year, an average of 9,200 Americans are murdered by handguns, according to Department of Justice statistics. This does not include suicides or the tens of thousands of robberies, rapes and assaults committed with handguns. This level of violence must be stopped.

I do not believe in taking away the right of the citizen for sporting, for hunting and so forth, or for home defense. But I do believe that an AK-47, a machine gun, is not a sporting weapon or needed for defense of a home.

Wait, so you bring up handgun deaths and then argue that rifles should be banned?

Protip: the number of people killed by rifles is a shade above 300 a year. About 700 people a year are beaten to death.


PROTIP #2: ANSWER THE F QUESTION. I didn't ask for your opinions. I asked you to guess my name. The words I quoted were somebody else's.
 
2013-01-03 01:52:06 PM

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: you have pee hands: kombat_unit: Here is an excellent article explaining why 2A ain't about "Bambi and burglars" Link

If by "excellent" you mean "laughably naive masturbatory fantasy", than sure.  Disorganized rabble with AR-15s is no more of a threat to the authoritarian government takeover strawman than disorganized rabble with M1 Garands or 30-06 deer rifles.  Let's see someone try to take out an A-10, an F-18, or an Abrams with one.  And I'd bet that same guy didn't have the same outrage over warrentless wiretapping, unlimited detention without trial, and various other abuses of power by the US Government that are actually real.

This, that that and that.

People making the "defense from the government" argument are idiots, unless they go all the way and argue they should also have equal access to ALL modern arms. "Arms" is not limited to "guns". If it is, then the entire spirit of the 2nd Amendment is rendered obsolete by modern reality, and the pro-gun crowd making that distinction are thus undermining their own cause.


Humm, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison or some anon farktard. I'll go with the founders.
 
2013-01-03 01:52:10 PM

Spade: topcon: Richard Flaccid: If you wan't a good, accurate .223, buy a Ruger Mini-14. They handle high cap. magazines and are at least half as expensive as a AR ( ~$600 for a nice looking, well built, stainless with wood stock) Most AR's are plastic junk that can't hit shiat. The iron sites on the Mini are awesome, you don't even need a scope for less than 100 yards. They were on the 96 AWB, so better get one quick.

And for you morons that are spending $1000 on AR style .22LR's. You're idiots. Sorry, but you are.

Yeah, Mini-14s are well know for their great accuracy. Well, the new ones are good, anyway.


Just a reminder that Feinstein wants to ban Mini-14s as well. And M1 carbines.



I've been wanting to ban that po-ho since... forever
 
2013-01-03 01:52:13 PM

ElBarto79: jshine: ElBarto79: jshine: Of course "Your right to swing your arms ends just where the other man's nose begins." (incorrectly attributed to Oliver Wendell Holmes, but still a good quote).

...so owning weapons (the right guaranteed by the Constitution) should be legal, while using them to shoot people should be illegal.

Owning weapons should be legal, owning certain weapons that were designed specifically to kill people and have few practical uses that there are not already better and safer tools for should be illegal.

That conclusion doesn't really follow from your original premise of "You have a right as long as doesn't infringe upon someone else in some way. You have a right to free speech but you do not have a right to slander someone or yell "fire" in a crowded theater. See the difference?".

Putting assault rifles in the hands of citizens means that some of them will inevitably use them to kill people. That might be acceptable if assault rifles were necessary for some purpose and they were the best, or only, tool for the job. Cars can be used to kill people, but we need cars to get around, so we legalize them and try to make them as safe as possible.

Assault rifles are dangerous, unnecessary and serve no practical purpose that there are not already better and safer tools available for. Therefore we should ban them as an issue of public safety.


While we're at it, we might as well go after motorcycles and fast food. They are killing way more people than assault rifles and neither are necessary.

By the way. I'll give you 3/10 for effort.
 
2013-01-03 01:52:15 PM

Bomb Head Mohammed: Dimensio: Machine guns are already federally restricted and, while not prohibited entirely, are already not commonly available to civilians.

I didn't ask you for your opinions. I asked you to guess my name.

Now genius: who did I just quote? Google it.


Your quote originates from Mr. Mick Jagger.
 
2013-01-03 01:52:20 PM

cr7pilot: I own an AR-15. I'm not a survivalist or a gun nut or a hunter. I'm a guy who enjoys going out in the desert and shooting assorted targets for fun. It's really that simple. If you like shooting as a sport, the AR-15 is a lot of fun to shoot. I understand that some people don't like shooting as a sport and think "why do you need that kind of gun" but that's just because it's not their thing. AR-15 owners don't buy AR-15s because they have some inherent desire to have more "killing power."

Also, many people here in rural Utah use AR-15s as varmint control weapons. As the article states, a .223 cartridge is not ideal for large game hunting, but it is good for varmint control and a lot more flexible than a bolt-action rifle.


i also enjoy plinking & have done so with everything from .22 rifles & shotguns to a range of pistols & yes, even the holy grail of plinking - the ar15 - with all the bells and whistles (or should i say lasers and drum magazines)

so i feel qualified enough to say: bullshiat to your claim

the only reason guys want an ar - or any similar semi auto rifle with high magazine capacity - is to have more power. saying otherwise is just farking bullshiat.

if all you liked was the precision, then you could plink with any number of rifles

if all you liked was it's "scary black plastic" parts - as so many d-bags here like to say - then decorate a hunting rifle as needed

but that isn't the point is it? no... what makes it so great is that great big magazine and the ability to fire off that many rounds as fast as you can. (all the black plastic is just a bonus)

as to varmint control - if you can't do it with one of these:
t3.gstatic.com
then you are doing it wrong
(note: i even included the real "scary" looking one - trying to make my point, but i doubt any will get it)
/hint: its the capacity of the magazine
 
2013-01-03 01:52:40 PM
near simulpost!
 
2013-01-03 01:52:41 PM
topcon: 6200 handgun deaths in 2011, down from 7400 in 2007. And has been steadily declining for 20 years.

Rifle murders count in the 300's, and are also declining every year.

But we're going batshiat insane over one particular type of rifle that has made up a few dozen deaths in the past several years.


Another genius who can't answer the question.
The question was: can't you guess my name?
 
2013-01-03 01:53:28 PM

POO_FLINGA: With one pistol of 10-round capacity and one pistol of 15-round capacity, Cho killed more people than anyone has ever killed in a single U.S. shooting incident. He didn't need any massive magazines or custom weapons.The embarrassingly simple reason that magazine size restrictions can't lessen the lethality of mass shooters is that it doesn't matter how many rounds fit in a magazine if a shooter has multiple magazines. When one runs out, they can simply drop it and pop another in, a process which takes five seconds at most. (Less than half a second, if you happen to be this guy.) Cho was able to carry out this massacre because he carried a backpack containing 19 magazines, a fact not well-publicized."


Cho also had multiple guns IIRC. That's the dirty secret to this thing, a back pack full of preloaded Glocks means no reloading issues. Also as you said preloaded magazines and spending a month practicing magazine swaps will work nicely. For revolvers there are plenty of speed load options.

Basically walk into a classroom, fire until one pistols is dry, grab the next one, proceed until everyone is dead. Reload all weapons and move on. All you've really done is cost the shooter more money, but any idiot can get 5 grand for a personal loan and stock up. After all they plan on dying or fleeing, so why do they give a fark about the loan repayment?
 
2013-01-03 01:53:35 PM

Cymbal: Dimensio: If an "assault weapons ban" is enacted, and another "rampage" style shooting occurs, and is committed with use of a firearm not prohibited by the "ban", will advocates of the ban acknowledge the failure of the ban and instead seek an alternative approach to preventing such occurrences in the future, or will they instead demand further restrictions upon firearm ownership?

You are being obtuse. If they go down in number by just one/year, I don't know about you, but I'd say it was worth it.


How, specifically, will you establish the reduction to have been the result of the ban and not of any other factor, especially when you have already failed to explain how a ban on a subset of rifles will prevent "thousands" of deaths per year despite all rifles being used in fewer than four-hundred murders per year?
 
2013-01-03 01:53:55 PM
Those in favor of "banning" military rifles:
I have a Remington 700. Bolt action rifle. Is it a military rifle? Should it be banned?
Have fun with this, FARK.
 
2013-01-03 01:54:17 PM

rufus-t-firefly: BgJonson79: technicolor-misfit: BgJonson79: technicolor-misfit: Teknowaffle: Fat white men who were rejected from too chickenshiat to join the military?


Let's be honest, we're talking about the most terrified people on the planet... people who like to fantasize about carrying around big bad-ass looking weapons to strike an imposing figure precisely because the reality of themselves is so very different.

Practically every gun nut I know is either a doughy nerd who's still nursing grudges about being a bullied outcast in school or a paranoid who obsesses about unrealistic threats they imagine lurking around every corner.


Sure, you can argue about the meaning of "well-regulated" at the time the amendment was written...but then you might have to address the meaning of "arms" at that time. And the fact that they don't say what KIND of arms - perhaps halberds? And the fact that it doesn't say "any and all arms," just "arms." I don't see anyone demanding to end the ban on civilian-owned machine guns and rocket launchers. Why not? WHY DO YOU HATE THE SECOND AMENDMENT?!?!

Let's just stick with the Founders' intention and say everyone has a right to own blunderbusses and muskets - let's throw in flintlock pistols as well.


Actually, in 18th century language, "keep and bear arms" means military weapons of all types, including artillery. The People (as in Senate and People of Rome) were the propertied white men, who retained the right to collectively keep arsenals in order to fight Injuns and slave revolts, because they didn't want to be dependent on/subject to a standing federal army.

Pretty much a moot point, now.
 
2013-01-03 01:54:50 PM

inner ted: the only reason guys want an ar - or any similar semi auto rifle with high magazine capacity - is to have more power. saying otherwise is just farking bullshiat.


You are correct; obviously, the reason that I use an AR-15 fitted to fire .22LR ammunition is a desire for "more power".
 
2013-01-03 01:54:56 PM

Spade: lostcat: stiletto_the_wise: lostcat: It makes me sick that I have to worry about my wife and/or daugther being randomly gunned down in the street by some lunatic stranger who is just having a bad day, or doesn't give a shiat about the world.

The chances of that happening are miniscule--less than the chance that both your wife and daughter get struck by lightning at the exact same time.

We're talking orders of magnitude less than their very real chance of being killed in a car accident. I'd pick something better to worry about.

Tell that to the parents of the 20 dead kids...

Awe, appeal to emotion. That's cute.


Emotion...yes...Maybe you should look into it. It's the thing that makes you imagine a bullet entering the cowering back of a terrified six-year-old girl every time you pull the trigger on your COOL GUN TOY!
 
2013-01-03 01:55:18 PM

vudukungfu: U Dimensio: Civilian-marketed AR-15 rifles are not "military-grade". Any claim that they are is a lie.

I used the M-16 in the military.
It's a piece of shait. (as far as a killing machine goes)
/Much prefer the M-60 or AK.


I forget which Call of Duty game had this quote in it, but I always loved, "Never forget that your weapon was made by the lowest bidder."
 
2013-01-03 01:55:35 PM

ElBarto79: Personally I would be in favor of banning semi-automatic weapons entirely. Bolt action rifles, pump action shotguns and revolvers and that's it. But banning assault weapons is a good start.


Most revolvers are semi-automatic, and their design allows them to easily fire much more powerful rounds than an auto-loading handgun. A cheap, .38 snub nosed revolver has probably been used in more violent crimes since the 20th century than any other gun (with the possible exception of the .22lr, you know, the one the boy scouts use).

You don't know what you are talking about.
 
2013-01-03 01:55:39 PM

scottydoesntknow: But the AR-15 is not ideal for the hunting and home-defense uses that the NRA's Keene cited today. Though it can be used for hunting, the AR-15 isn't really a hunting rifle. Its standard .223 caliber ammunition doesn't offer much stopping power for anything other than small game. Hunters themselves find the rifle controversial, with some arguing AR-15-style rifles empower sloppy, "spray and pray" hunters to waste ammunition.

While I do agree that it is not very well suited for hunting standard game, I did watch one tear though almost a dozen hogs in around 2 minutes. We've got a huge hog problem at our deer lease and one of the guys on the lease brought his son's AR-15 to see if he could pop a couple. My uncle and I are sitting around the fire pit when we heard 1 shot. Then about 5 minutes later we heard about 20 shots in a row. The guy with the AR radios us and tells us to come to his blind. He's got around 10 hogs on the ground, all dead. Said the first shot actually got 3 of them (they lined up perfectly), then about 5 minutes later a whole drove of them come to his blind and he just opened up on them.

Yea it's an anecdotal CSB, but I have seen their uses beyond just murder machines.


Sounds like that's the very definition of murder machine: 12 dead things in 2 minutes. I'm not crying for the hogs, but that anecdote really isn't making the point you're hoping it'll make.
 
2013-01-03 01:55:45 PM

Kit Fister: ElBarto79: The_Sponge: ElBarto79: Putting assault rifles in the hands of citizens means that some of them will inevitably use them to kill people. That might be acceptable if assault rifles were necessary for some purpose and they were the best, or only, tool for the job. Cars can be used to kill people, but we need cars to get around, so we legalize them and try to make them as safe as possible.

Assault rifles are dangerous, unnecessary and serve no practical purpose that there are not already better and safer tools available for. Therefore we should ban them as an issue of public safety.


Well f*ck it....let's ban all firearms that are "meant to kill".

Personally I would be in favor of banning semi-automatic weapons entirely. Bolt action rifles, pump action shotguns and revolvers and that's it. But banning assault weapons is a good start.

Move to CA, IL, NY, or WADC and have fun with that. Let the rest of us alone.


I'd be happy to leave gun owners alone if they were capable of leaving the rest of us alone and weren't constantly barging into our public spaces blasting everyone in sight.
 
2013-01-03 01:55:47 PM

inner ted: cr7pilot: I own an AR-15. I'm not a survivalist or a gun nut or a hunter. I'm a guy who enjoys going out in the desert and shooting assorted targets for fun. It's really that simple. If you like shooting as a sport, the AR-15 is a lot of fun to shoot. I understand that some people don't like shooting as a sport and think "why do you need that kind of gun" but that's just because it's not their thing. AR-15 owners don't buy AR-15s because they have some inherent desire to have more "killing power."

Also, many people here in rural Utah use AR-15s as varmint control weapons. As the article states, a .223 cartridge is not ideal for large game hunting, but it is good for varmint control and a lot more flexible than a bolt-action rifle.

i also enjoy plinking & have done so with everything from .22 rifles & shotguns to a range of pistols & yes, even the holy grail of plinking - the ar15 - with all the bells and whistles (or should i say lasers and drum magazines)

so i feel qualified enough to say: bullshiat to your claim

the only reason guys want an ar - or any similar semi auto rifle with high magazine capacity - is to have more power. saying otherwise is just farking bullshiat.

if all you liked was the precision, then you could plink with any number of rifles

if all you liked was it's "scary black plastic" parts - as so many d-bags here like to say - then decorate a hunting rifle as needed

but that isn't the point is it? no... what makes it so great is that great big magazine and the ability to fire off that many rounds as fast as you can. (all the black plastic is just a bonus)

as to varmint control - if you can't do it with one of these:
[t3.gstatic.com image 459x110]
then you are doing it wrong
(note: i even included the real "scary" looking one - trying to make my point, but i doubt any will get it)
/hint: its the capacity of the magazine


Because a 22 Long Rifle will work perfectly for coyote and wild hogs, right?
 
2013-01-03 01:56:08 PM

JesseL: I'd love for someone to define for me in the sort of technical terms suitable for a well-written law exactly what constitutes a "military grade" rifle that is currently available to the general public, and coherently explain what about those features should make it illegal.
Bonus points if you can point to a time when civilians didn't have "military grade" firearms.

.
1039 A.D. Link
 
2013-01-03 01:56:20 PM

Cymbal: You are being obtuse. If they go down in number by just one/year, I don't know about you, but I'd say it was worth it.


if other crime goes up after, will you concede that it wasn't?
 
2013-01-03 01:56:22 PM

CPT Ethanolic: Article say .223 or AR-15?  I thought AR-15s were .556?


.223 is VERY different from 5.56 NATO

BOTH are the same caliber (.223cal = 5.56mm) but 5.56 has a much greater chamber pressure from powder load and neck spacing.

A .223 marked rifle can have catastrophic failure (read as blow up in your face) if 5.56 is used.

A 5.56 NATO marked rifle can shoot both without a problem.
 
2013-01-03 01:56:28 PM
How about this: own one because it is simply your right to do so. Why tirade and mentally masturbate over this? When it's no longer your right to own one, then poof, you won't. It doesn't matter what you or I think about if you should own one. The point remains you can. Done. Don't like it, step right up and try to change the Second Amendment...and we all know that's not happening.

I own a lot of things because it's my right to do so. Quit your biatchin'.
 
2013-01-03 01:56:56 PM

Mitch Taylor's Bro: vudukungfu: U Dimensio: Civilian-marketed AR-15 rifles are not "military-grade". Any claim that they are is a lie.

I used the M-16 in the military.
It's a piece of shait. (as far as a killing machine goes)
/Much prefer the M-60 or AK.

I forget which Call of Duty game had this quote in it, but I always loved, "Never forget that your weapon was made by the lowest bidder."


Ahh, that old chestnut. Lowest bidder that can match specs.
 
2013-01-03 01:57:13 PM

Spade: They're not good because

a) the bullets can easily penetrate walls (and houses) and hit people who aren't supposed to be hit
b) they're too long and awkward

Better a shorty shotgun with reduced recoil buckshot. The object is not to kill people - it's to make them stop what they're doing and go away. Or hold them at bay until the cops arrive. Shotguns are *really* *really* good at that.

Shotgun buckshot is going to tear through walls just as well or better than 5.56mm.


You missed the 'reduced recoil' bit. Think of it as a light power charge. It might go through a couple layers of sheetrock (I've never tried it) but if it does, I doubt there's much left in it.

I should have added

c) with a shotgun in the dark, you don't need to worry about aiming much. With other stuff, you better be pretty good if you're expecting to hit anything.
 
2013-01-03 01:57:16 PM

xtrc8u: Those in favor of "banning" military rifles:
I have a Remington 700. Bolt action rifle. Is it a military rifle? Should it be banned?
Have fun with this, FARK.


Is it a military rifle? For WWI, sure.
 
2013-01-03 01:57:31 PM

Slappywag: CPT Ethanolic: Article say .223 or AR-15?  I thought AR-15s were .556?

The .223 caliber is the english measurement; .223 of an inch, 5.56 is in millimeters,the metric measurement.

Learn nothing from articles like this, the writer is nearly as ignorant as the commenters here.


Correction, SOME of the commenters here. I see a lot of guys making a lot of sense in this thread which is really unusual for a liberal hot button topic like this.

Nice to see though.
 
2013-01-03 01:58:34 PM

scottydoesntknow: While I do agree that it is not very well suited for hunting standard game, I did watch one tear though almost a dozen hogs in around 2 minutes...the first shot actually got 3 of them (they lined up perfectly)...


LIAR...there's no farking way a .223 (or even a 5.56) has energy to penetrate 36" of hog.....a 30-06 will typically only penetrate 12-18" into ballistic gelatin.
 
2013-01-03 01:58:40 PM

dofus: angry bunny: So the argument here is that AR-15's give people the capacity to kill others with too much ease. However there's no good argument that they are a legitimate home defense weapon because they aren't good at killing people in your home? What happened to the fact that they give people the capacity to kill others with too much ease?

They're not good because

a) the bullets can easily penetrate walls (and houses) and hit people who aren't supposed to be hit
b) they're too long and awkward

Better a shorty shotgun with reduced recoil buckshot. The object is not to kill people - it's to make them stop what they're doing and go away. Or hold them at bay until the cops arrive. Shotguns are *really* *really* good at that.


Sorry, but "Shorty" shotguns have to be registered with the ATF and aren't legal in

damndirtyape: I just like how the AR15 is only ever available in one caliber so let's keep farking that football.

A suppressed subsonic 300BLK SBR is the ultimate home defense weapon. Go ahead, let off a shell from your 12ga or your .45 in an enclosed space in the dead of night. You'll be blind from the flash and deaf from the blast. Hope to hell you only need one and he doesnt have a buddy in the next room. Now do the same with the AR described. Ears might ring a little but it's considered hearing safe and no flash. Proper bullet selection combined with subsonic velocity reduces if not eliminates over penetration.

But that's all too scary so forget I said anything. Continue your sensationalism and believing that you're more progressive and somehow better because you ignore that bad things can happen to good people and the second amendment's real intent was to protect the populace from the government and "well regulated" means "orderly and trained" and "militia" was defined as "males of age not otherwise barred from or already enlisted into service".


I will advocate for gun mufflers(I REFUSE to add a pretentious label to a tech that's been around for a hundred years and on the end of every exhaust pipe) all day long, and for exactly the reasons you mentioned. First and foremost, they are the most effective flash hider there is, a very effective muzzle break, and they quiet the gun down enough to reduce hearing damage to minimal levels. There is no good reason for them to be a controlled item.
 
2013-01-03 01:59:16 PM
This guy buys the AR-15:

graphics8.nytimes.com

"I don't want to shoot holes in pieces of paper, I want to watch a watermelon be destroyed"

So before we rush to ban assault weapons, let's consider the needs of the redneck who just wants to be a deadlier version of Gallagher.
 
2013-01-03 01:59:16 PM

ElBarto79: I'd be happy to leave gun owners alone if they were capable of leaving the rest of us alone and weren't constantly barging into our public spaces blasting everyone in sight.


I'd be happy to leave drinkers along if there capable of leaving the rest of us alone and weren't constantly barging onto our public roads and running everyone down.

It's worth pointing out that mass killings rarely account for more then 200 deaths in a year, which is a blip out of the 26,000 murders in this country, or the 10,000 of those murders that happen with firearms. Mass killings are perpetrated by maybe 25 people a year. You really think that 25 people should basically set policy for the country.