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  
•       •       •

34431 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 | « | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | » | Last | Show all
 
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?
 
Displayed 50 of 1346 comments

First | « | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | » | 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