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

(Slate)   Let's talk about who really buys the AR-15   (slate.com) divider line 1346
    More: Interesting, semi-automatic rifle, semiautomatic pistols, federal assault weapons ban, Freedom Group, target shooting, Ayn Rand, car fire, long guns  
•       •       •

34432 clicks; posted to Main » on 03 Jan 2013 at 12:11 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



1346 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 1346 comments

First | « | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


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

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

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

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report