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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 1354 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report