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  
•       •       •

34437 clicks; posted to Main » on 03 Jan 2013 at 12:11 PM (3 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 | « | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-03 10:52:10 PM  

dr-shotgun: Between 2007 and 2011, there was a 15.2% drop in the firearm homicide rate. It is more like a 20% drop if you bring the numbers all the way back to 2005.

Also note the 28.6% drop in the number of murders committed by a rifle, of which assault rifles are a mere fractional subset. This happened even though the previous assault weapon ban expired in 2004 and those kinds of rifles (i.e. the bullet spraying mass murder inducing kind) have been selling at a volume of about a million a year since. So over a period of 4 years, we added roughly 4 million AR-15s, AK-47 type and various other kinds of "military style" guns to the hands of private owners, yet the rifle murder rate was cut by over 1/4.


The anti-gun crowd cares nothing for statistics and facts. They just want to scream and rant and foam at the mouth about "guns being evil" and want to ban them.
 
2013-01-03 10:53:15 PM  

Thunderpipes: Holy Jesus. This is what Democrats are trying to do? This is BAD.

Link

Reduces, from two to one, the number of permitted external features on various firearms. The 1994 ban permitted various firearms to be manufactured only if they were assembled with no more than one feature listed in the law. Feinstein's new bill would prohibit the manufacture of the same firearms with even one of the features.

This means a while bunch of currently legal firearms, semi-auto and even bolt action collectibles, will be illegal. Bayonet lug? Assault rifle.

Adopts new lists of prohibited external features.

more made illegal.

Requires owners of existing "assault weapons" to register them with the federal government under the National Firearms Act (NFA). The NFA imposes a $200 tax per firearm, and requires an owner to submit photographs and fingerprints to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE), to inform the BATFE of the address where the firearm will be kept, and to obtain the BATFE's permission to transport the firearm across state lines.

Good luck with that. A big fark you, and no.

Prohibits the transfer of "assault weapons." Owners of other firearms, including those covered by the NFA, are permitted to sell them or pass them to heirs. However, under Feinstein's new bill, "assault weapons" would remain with their current owners until their deaths, at which point they would be forfeited to the government.

Way to get rid of all weapons, when an owner dies, government takes them. You know how many vet bring back weapons would be confiscated? Many are family heirlooms and are worth many thousands of dollars.

Do you guys really think hauling legal gun owners in to be booked and fingerprinted and forced to pay money is a good idea? Really? I actually think this will cause you to lose votes. Even some Democrats I know won't accept this crap.


Thankfully it is so outlandish that it stands almost no chance of passing
 
2013-01-03 10:53:58 PM  

w00ty: buckshot has too devastating of an effect at close range, it should be banned.

... and next they'll say .22 ammo is 'too quiet'. right.


What I imagine happening is that the new AWB will fail like the last did. Then after a few more shootings they will try to ban more firearms.

Of course the government has to figure out how to cut spending or nothing will matter.
 
2013-01-03 10:55:28 PM  

Mock26: Professor Daniel Webster from John Hopkins University studied the data collected about the Brady Bill, and the researchers concluded, "It did not have a significant impact on overall rates of gun violence."


This thread of discussion is related to gun laws in the UK over time.
 
2013-01-03 10:56:27 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Benjamin Orr: Not much chance of her bill passing as it exists though.

I don't see the Republicans in congress caving on this directly after an election cycle. I may not like them on basically every other issue, but at least they're solidly pro 2nd amendment.


Many many democrats aren't going to go for this either. A lot of southern democrats know that they will be run out of office for this.
 
2013-01-03 10:58:42 PM  

cmunic8r99: Benjamin Orr: cmunic8r99: ALC59: [i.imgur.com image 500x710]

[dumbimages.net image 769x128]
Odd that they would call one the Mini-14 Ranch and the other the Mini-14 Tactical if the differences were mostly superficial.

Make it more durable? Is this trench warfare from WWI and people are using the rifle as a club?

Collapsible stock makes it easier to conceal? How much do you think the stock collapses and how long do you think the rifle is?

lol @ a flash suppressor making it easier to hide during the day in plain sight where all of the mass shootings happen

pistol grip impacts the rate of fire for a gun? is this like the magic grits theory?

Yes, the polymer makes it more durable. It is less prone to breakage and easier to replace in the event the polymer part is damaged.

Yes the collapsible stock makes it easier to conceal. The stock collapses by 3.74", when coupled with a 2-inch shorter barrel gives you a weapon almost six inches shorter than the Ranch version.

I never said anything about hiding during the day or mass shootings. Fact is the flash suppressor is made to suppress flash. Period.

I also never said the pistol grip impacts rate of fire (rounds expended per period of time). I said it makes it easier to fire more rounds (total rounds expended). The function of the pistol grip is to relieve strain on the wrist, helping enable the shooter to spend more time on the trigger.


lol wow... spoken like somebody who doesn't know crap about guns. guess how many stocks break from normal use?

easier to conceal is all relative... these are rifles... you are not going to hide them.

so you admit the flash suppressor is meaningless then?

and omg wtf are you babbling about with the pistol grip. have you ever fired a rifle before?
 
2013-01-03 11:00:08 PM  

Thunderpipes: I think you underestimate the political climate right now. if 51% of the public wants to ban guns in a poll, 99% of Democrats and 40% of pubs will probably go along.


lol no... southern democrats for sure aren't going for this.

also 51% may want gun control in a poll, but when you start talking specifics that number will shift.
 
2013-01-03 11:00:46 PM  

dr-shotgun: Actually, it doesn't.


Not to mention that firearms are used over 2 millions times a year to prevent crimes.
 
2013-01-03 11:07:17 PM  

BGates: dr-shotgun: Actually, it doesn't.

Not to mention that firearms are used over 2 millions times a year to prevent crimes.


For the sake of intellectual honesty, the 2 million number is at the high range of the estimates. There is absolutely no concrete data to actually define a number.

Pro-gun groups say 2.5 Million - 800,000. But take that for what it is worth.

I like to use the Brady Campaign's number, 108,000. Why? Because it comes from a totally slanted group of people who are clearly going to massage the numbers to be as low as possible.

Even so, if the Brady types had their way, the population of a small city would go from defending themselves to being the definitive victims of a violent crime. It is preposterous.
 
2013-01-03 11:16:41 PM  

dr-shotgun: BGates: dr-shotgun: Actually, it doesn't.

Not to mention that firearms are used over 2 millions times a year to prevent crimes.

For the sake of intellectual honesty, the 2 million number is at the high range of the estimates. There is absolutely no concrete data to actually define a number.

Pro-gun groups say 2.5 Million - 800,000. But take that for what it is worth.

I like to use the Brady Campaign's number, 108,000. Why? Because it comes from a totally slanted group of people who are clearly going to massage the numbers to be as low as possible.

Even so, if the Brady types had their way, the population of a small city would go from defending themselves to being the definitive victims of a violent crime. It is preposterous.


I use the 2 million because I think it's on the low side.
 
2013-01-03 11:17:26 PM  

Benjamin Orr: Thunderpipes: I think you underestimate the political climate right now. if 51% of the public wants to ban guns in a poll, 99% of Democrats and 40% of pubs will probably go along.

lol no... southern democrats for sure aren't going for this.

also 51% may want gun control in a poll, but when you start talking specifics that number will shift.


And if most of that 51% are in Blue States (not swing states) then you're also SOL.
 
2013-01-03 11:32:55 PM  

vygramul: Benjamin Orr: Thunderpipes: I think you underestimate the political climate right now. if 51% of the public wants to ban guns in a poll, 99% of Democrats and 40% of pubs will probably go along.

lol no... southern democrats for sure aren't going for this.

also 51% may want gun control in a poll, but when you start talking specifics that number will shift.

And if most of that 51% are in Blue States (not swing states) then you're also SOL.


According to various surveys something like 40-42% of people who identify themselves as democrats own firearms. People are all for restrictions until they find out it will impact them. When it goes from a theoretical ban of what they imagine (scary "military" rifles") and turns into banning things they own and use.... opinions change.
 
2013-01-03 11:43:36 PM  

vygramul: Benjamin Orr: Thunderpipes: I think you underestimate the political climate right now. if 51% of the public wants to ban guns in a poll, 99% of Democrats and 40% of pubs will probably go along.

lol no... southern democrats for sure aren't going for this.

also 51% may want gun control in a poll, but when you start talking specifics that number will shift.

And if most of that 51% are in Blue States (not swing states) then you're also SOL.


Are you saying that democrats will blindly vote for whatever Obama tells them to do?
 
2013-01-03 11:44:32 PM  

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


As opposed to any .223 semi-auto with a wood stock? They all shoot just as fast.
 
2013-01-04 12:05:27 AM  

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


airsoft.bg

Same caliber as an AR-15. Shoots just as fast with as much power.
 
2013-01-04 12:06:25 AM  

Benjamin Orr: lol wow... spoken like somebody who doesn't know crap about guns. guess how many stocks break from normal use?

easier to conceal is all relative... these are rifles... you are not going to hide them.

so you admit the flash suppressor is meaningless then?

and omg wtf are you babbling about with the pistol grip. have you ever fired a rifle before?


lol wow... spoken like someone who doesn't know crap about material durability. Polymer stocks are stronger, stiffer, and more durable than wood. The number of stock breaks does not change this fact and is irrelevant.

Yes, "easier to conceal" is relative. That's how comparative adjectives work. Due to the smaller size, the M-14 Tactical is easier to conceal than the M-14 Ranch. I didn't say it was easy - just easier.

So you are saying that flash suppressors don't, in fact, suppress flash?

If you are telling me that a pistol grip is not more comfortable than a straight grip, then I'd say you are the one who has never fired a rifle.
 
2013-01-04 12:11:40 AM  

cmunic8r99: Benjamin Orr: lol wow... spoken like somebody who doesn't know crap about guns. guess how many stocks break from normal use?

easier to conceal is all relative... these are rifles... you are not going to hide them.

so you admit the flash suppressor is meaningless then?

and omg wtf are you babbling about with the pistol grip. have you ever fired a rifle before?

lol wow... spoken like someone who doesn't know crap about material durability. Polymer stocks are stronger, stiffer, and more durable than wood. The number of stock breaks does not change this fact and is irrelevant.

Yes, "easier to conceal" is relative. That's how comparative adjectives work. Due to the smaller size, the M-14 Tactical is easier to conceal than the M-14 Ranch. I didn't say it was easy - just easier.

So you are saying that flash suppressors don't, in fact, suppress flash?

If you are telling me that a pistol grip is not more comfortable than a straight grip, then I'd say you are the one who has never fired a rifle.


I am saying that polymer stocks have dick to do with how deadly a gun is. I have guns with wooden stocks that are way older than I am. What in the fark does polymer have to do with how deadly a rifle is?

Neither are what any reasonable person would call concealable... even for NBA centers.

So you are saying that flash suppressors make any difference in how deadly a rifle is?

Comfortable has dick to do with rifles being used in mass shootings. We aren't talking about somebody using one rifle to exterminate all the Jews during WW2.

Are you really this stupid?
 
2013-01-04 12:12:28 AM  

Same caliber as an AR-15. Shoots just as fast with as much power.


Not true at all. Only the bullet diameter is similar. AR-15 shoots 5.56 x 45mm, while the FN 5-7 shoots 5.7 x 28mm.
 
2013-01-04 12:30:14 AM  

BGates: vygramul: Benjamin Orr: Thunderpipes: I think you underestimate the political climate right now. if 51% of the public wants to ban guns in a poll, 99% of Democrats and 40% of pubs will probably go along.

lol no... southern democrats for sure aren't going for this.

also 51% may want gun control in a poll, but when you start talking specifics that number will shift.

And if most of that 51% are in Blue States (not swing states) then you're also SOL.

Are you saying that democrats will blindly vote for whatever Obama tells them to do?


I'm not sure how you get that from what I said, but I was pointing out that if the 51% who agree are all in CA, NY, PA, MI, IL, MA, CN, RI, DC, OR, WA, and MN, it's not going to get Democrats to do squat.
 
2013-01-04 12:35:41 AM  
AR-15 is among the absolutely worst choices for either hunting or home defense.

Anyone who tells you differently is selling something.
 
2013-01-04 12:55:21 AM  

BuckTurgidson: AR-15 is among the absolutely worst choices for either hunting or home defense.

Anyone who tells you differently is selling something.


Man-cards?
 
2013-01-04 01:04:05 AM  

keithgabryelski: they're about the least-suitable type of gun for self defense,


Your premise is wrong. everything else you said after this is irrelevant.
 
2013-01-04 01:05:16 AM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: BuckTurgidson: AR-15 is among the absolutely worst choices for either hunting or home defense.

Anyone who tells you differently is selling something.

Man-cards?


AR-15s.

The AR-15 along with all of its variants is engineered for stalking around someone else's property and murdering the unarmored proprietors thereof.
 
2013-01-04 01:09:04 AM  

Benjamin Orr: I am saying that polymer stocks have dick to do with how deadly a gun is. I have guns with wooden stocks that are way older than I am. What in the fark does polymer have to do with how deadly a rifle is?

Neither are what any reasonable person would call concealable... even for NBA centers.

So you are saying that flash suppressors make any difference in how deadly a rifle is?

Comfortable has dick to do with rifles being used in mass shootings. We aren't talking about somebody using one rifle to exterminate all the Jews during WW2.


So, it's your contention that a more durable, smaller weapon with features designed for better visibility and easier firing isn't more deadly? If so, you are certainly entitled to that opinion. But that opinion doesn't change the fact that these features, in however large or small a way, do make the weapon more deadly. If they didn't, the Ranch model would be marketed to law enforcement just like the Tactical.
 
2013-01-04 01:26:03 AM  

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

How about no?

Why not?

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


JFK is such an expert on guns that it took a "magic" bullet to hit him.
 
2013-01-04 01:31:13 AM  

BuckTurgidson: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: BuckTurgidson: AR-15 is among the absolutely worst choices for either hunting or home defense.

Anyone who tells you differently is selling something.

Man-cards?

AR-15s.

The AR-15 along with all of its variants is engineered for stalking around someone else's property and murdering the unarmored proprietors thereof.



I can't imagine using one for inside-the-home defense. I actually think it is ridiculous that there are people marching around their hallways barefoot looking for a burglar with some AR variant in their hands. But they are really good for hunting predators and varmints. I have had a good bit of luck using one out coyote calling, but it isn't really a gun I enjoy shooting like that. I like the fancy woodwork and the craftsmanship of a nice bolt action over some tactical crap any day.
 
2013-01-04 02:03:44 AM  
So, it's your contention that a more durable, smaller weapon with features designed for better visibility and easier firing isn't more deadly? If so, you are certainly entitled to that opinion. But that opinion doesn't change the fact that these features, in however large or small a way, do make the weapon more deadly. If they didn't, the Ranch model would be marketed to law enforcement just like the Tactical.

The idea that an AR-15 is durable is laughable. It's one of the most jam-prone weapons in history, and even the best, most expensive models must be kept clean and well-lubricated to work. The durability of the actual fixtures (stock, handguard, etc.) matter little to its effectiveness as a weapon.

A pistol grip's primary function is to help the shooter keep sights on target while firing. In essence, it's a means to control recoil. However, the benefit of that is almost exclusive to fully automatic or burst fire, where the sights tend to wander (often up) as the shooter fires multiple rounds. Controlling recoil on a semiautomatic rifle is unnecessary because the time it takes to release and re-pull the trigger is usually sufficient to bring the sights back on target. From a spree-shooter perspective, it would be just as easy to gun down multiple targets with a monte-carlo style grip and buttstock as it would with a pistol grip.

The primary function of flash suppressors is not to reduce the shooter's visibility to potential enemies, but instead to reduce the effect of the flash on the shooter's night vision while firing at night. It has absolutely nothing to do with hiding the shooter's flash from potential enemies.

Rifles with tactical stocks are not designed to be concealable. Rather, they are designed to be used in close-quarters environments (like home defense). Concealing anything with a 16" barrel (the minimum length in most states) is pretty impossible.

A spree shooter could easily utilize a ruger mini-14 or saiga 7.62 (both "hunting" semiautomatic rifles legal under the 1994 AWB) to do the same thing as an AR-15. In fact, most spree shootings are done with handguns and shotguns, not rifles- see Columbine, Virginia Tech, Alabama Huntsville, etc. Even Aurora was mostly done with handguns and a shotgun. Deadliness is an indefinable term, because any bullet from any gun can kill. Heck, one of the guns used at VT was a .22 pistol. You asked why police and other government agencies all use AR-models. Not all of them do, in all actuality, but many get special deals/discounts to do so, not necessarily because they are the best weapons for the purpose.
 
2013-01-04 02:10:22 AM  

cmunic8r99: Benjamin Orr: I am saying that polymer stocks have dick to do with how deadly a gun is. I have guns with wooden stocks that are way older than I am. What in the fark does polymer have to do with how deadly a rifle is?

Neither are what any reasonable person would call concealable... even for NBA centers.

So you are saying that flash suppressors make any difference in how deadly a rifle is?

Comfortable has dick to do with rifles being used in mass shootings. We aren't talking about somebody using one rifle to exterminate all the Jews during WW2.

So, it's your contention that a more durable, smaller weapon with features designed for better visibility and easier firing isn't more deadly? If so, you are certainly entitled to that opinion. But that opinion doesn't change the fact that these features, in however large or small a way, do make the weapon more deadly. If they didn't, the Ranch model would be marketed to law enforcement just like the Tactical.


Please list these features and explain how each one makes it deadlier. You can do that, right?
 
2013-01-04 02:14:02 AM  

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


img.photobucket.com
 
2013-01-04 02:23:02 AM  

cmunic8r99: Fact is the flash suppressor is made to suppress flash.


And do you know why the flash suppressor was invented? In older rifles with longer barrels all off the propellant was burned off before the bullet left the barrel, so there was no flash. Shorten the barrel and there is still burning propellent when the bullet leaves the barrel, resulting in a flash. During the day this is not a problem. At night, however, the flash tends to mess with the firer's vision, creating spots and ruining any "night vision" you may have had. In the early days suppressors were limited to specialty roles, but in later years it is now standard on nearly all military rifles with "short" barrels. That is why flash suppressors were made. They were NOT made to hide the shooter's location.
 
2013-01-04 07:27:53 AM  
The government needs to go after gun owners. I mean, now that we've legalized pot, what the hell are we going to do with all that unused jail space?

/the ware on guns!
//just say no to guns!
///from you dad, I learned it from watching YOU
 
2013-01-04 07:42:01 AM  

cmunic8r99: Benjamin Orr: lol wow... spoken like somebody who doesn't know crap about guns. guess how many stocks break from normal use?

easier to conceal is all relative... these are rifles... you are not going to hide them.

so you admit the flash suppressor is meaningless then?

and omg wtf are you babbling about with the pistol grip. have you ever fired a rifle before?

lol wow... spoken like someone who doesn't know crap about material durability. Polymer stocks are stronger, stiffer, and more durable than wood. The number of stock breaks does not change this fact and is irrelevant.

Yes, "easier to conceal" is relative. That's how comparative adjectives work. Due to the smaller size, the M-14 Tactical is easier to conceal than the M-14 Ranch. I didn't say it was easy - just easier.

So you are saying that flash suppressors don't, in fact, suppress flash?

If you are telling me that a pistol grip is not more comfortable than a straight grip, then I'd say you are the one who has never fired a rifle.


So.. You've decided to double down on your stupidity I see.

I have NEVER seen a wood stock break.

You're still not concealing a rifle, even if it is 6" shorter with a folding/telescopic stock. I can tell you've never even carried a handgun before.

A flash suppressor isn't hiding your location, so what's the point of banning it? It doesn't remove flash completely, and is irrelevant during the day. It only minimizes the inconvenience of having the big ball of fire in front of your face every time you shoot under low light conditions.

A pistol grip is quite honestly just a matter of preference, however a lack of a pistol grip isn't going to make any mass shooter stop, or slow down because their wrist is sore. I don't see an ergonomic benefit kicking in until hours of continuous shooting, which isn't realistic. Also, pistol grips tend to favor firing from the hip compared to a regular rifle grip, which means less accuracy, which means a less dangerous mass killer.

You don't know anything about guns, that much is obvious. So you and your other little gun grabber friends can stop pretending you're "sensible gun owners willing to make reasonable compromises" because your shill act isn't fooling anyone.
 
KIA
2013-01-04 07:50:02 AM  

jimmythrust: Dylan -- Intratec TEC-DC9 (9-mm semi-automatic handgun) attached to a strap slung over his shoulder (under coat), illegalSavage 311-D 12-gauge double-barrel shotgun (barrel sawed down illegalto approximately 23 inches, initially half-hidden in Dylan's cargosillegal).

Eric -- 10-shot Hi-Point model 995 carbine rifle on a strap (under coat)illegal, Savage-Springfield 67H 12-gauge pump shotgun he called 'Arlene' (named after a Doom character - initially in one of the duffels carried to the top of the grassy knoll -- stock and barrel sawed offillegal, reducing the entire gun to 26 inches)illegal.


Right there you have six (6) violations of existing laws. Enforcement, anyone?
 
2013-01-04 07:58:39 AM  
I think people forget one thing....

Democrats who own guns won't mind being fingerprinted, booked, paying taxes per firearm. They love taxes and government control.
 
2013-01-04 07:59:36 AM  
For every self proclaimed "gun expert" who thinks the .223 has no reasonable role in self defense within your own home, please read this article. Link

In case you're deliberately running from the truth, ftfa-

Proponents of the pistol for home defense like to think that because it's "just" a pistol round, overpenetration really won't be an issue. Such is not the case. Drywall sheets and hollow-core doors (which are what you'll find in the majority of homes and apartments in this country) offer almost no resistance to bullets. Unless brick or cinderblock was used somewhere in your construction, any pistol cartridge powerful enough to be thought of as suitable for self-defense is likely to fly completely through every wall in your abode. In fact, hollowpoint pistol bullets tend to plug up as they go through drywall, turning them-in effect-into round-nose bullets. Round buckshot pellets are just as bad, and shotgun slugs are worse.

These same concerns about overpenetration are what kept people away from considering the rifle for home defense. For years many people just assumed they knew what would happen to a rifle bullet fired indoors-it would go through every wall available and then exit the building. While armor-piercing and FMJ ammunition is specifically designed to do this, extensive testing has shown that light, extremely fast-moving .223 projectiles (including FMJs) often fragment when they hit a barrier as soft as thin plywood.
 
2013-01-04 08:09:11 AM  
More to the point, I would like to see morons post some links where anyone shot a neighbor through their wall in the act of self defense.

Joined the NRA, never thought I would do that. More money, more fight. Democrats get public money for their campaigns, guess it is time for me to pony up some of my earned money.
 
2013-01-04 08:15:40 AM  

Mock26:

Given the number of military style rifles that are legally owned versus the number that are actually used in crimes (including intentional homicides) it seems to me that there is no need to restrict or ban them. They are already extremely safe in that regard.

Out of curiosity, at what point do you classify them as being too risky to the populace from unlawful use? 1 act per 1 million people? 1 act per 100 people? 1 act, period?


Given that 9/11 only killed around 3000 people out of 400+ million, why do we need to bother fighting terrorism?

Given that the Oklahoma City bombing only killed 168 people, fuel oil bombs for everyone! 168 people is nothing.

The tree of liberty must be continually watered.
 
2013-01-04 08:18:57 AM  

Firethorn: People_are_Idiots: 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).

All this is outdated at best:
1. Training today is conducted with the same 5.56 ammunition you'll potentially be taking into combat
2. 'Civilian AR-15' is a wide, wide market today with dozens of manufacturers. The 'Wylde Chamber' is common and compatible with both .223 and 5.56
3. Modding an AR-15 to be 'full auto' takes more skilled machinist work than it takes to MAKE a complete M3A1. Conversion to full auto has been deliberately made difficult; despite internet rumors, it's NOT a simple matter of 'swapping in an M16 sear'.


1. It depends on the training range nowadays. My closest gun range only takes .223 due to the length and lack of reinforcing barriers. The military base is the same for when you qualify.
2. The AR-15 is customizable as said in later statements. I held tale that there's a mod to have 30/30 ammo in one of the chambers.
3. I didn't say it was easy, but there are two ways (legal and illegal) to convert an AR-15 to milspec (including the auto feature). Pay for it and get licensed by BATFE and buy the mod, or as you said (which also last I heard gets you 2-20 years if found out).
 
2013-01-04 08:32:31 AM  

cmunic8r99: Benjamin Orr: I am saying that polymer stocks have dick to do with how deadly a gun is. I have guns with wooden stocks that are way older than I am. What in the fark does polymer have to do with how deadly a rifle is?

Neither are what any reasonable person would call concealable... even for NBA centers.

So you are saying that flash suppressors make any difference in how deadly a rifle is?

Comfortable has dick to do with rifles being used in mass shootings. We aren't talking about somebody using one rifle to exterminate all the Jews during WW2.

So, it's your contention that a more durable, smaller weapon with features designed for better visibility and easier firing isn't more deadly? If so, you are certainly entitled to that opinion. But that opinion doesn't change the fact that these features, in however large or small a way, do make the weapon more deadly. If they didn't, the Ranch model would be marketed to law enforcement just like the Tactical.


Or you know.... you could just be a complete moron.
 
2013-01-04 08:51:17 AM  

Zalan: Given that 9/11 only killed around 3000 people out of 400+ million, why do we need to bother fighting terrorism?


And what an awesome job we're doing with that. The only terrorists caught after 9/11 got through our multibillion dollar checkpoints and were caught by.. regular travelers! If we can't even properly screen people walking through a farking checkpoint, why do you think writing another law is going to do anything significant?

Zalan: Given that the Oklahoma City bombing only killed 168 people, fuel oil bombs for everyone! 168 people is nothing.


Nobody called for bans or background checks for those renting trucks or buying fertilizer, did they?

You need to learn 2 (actually more) things. 1) You cannot bubble wrap the world. 2)The news media sensationalizes death in a very disproportionate way. When is the last time you heard a news report about the 80,000 people that die from alcohol every year? When is the last time you heard people say we need to ban cars that do more than the speed limit or alcohol because "nobody needs" those things? If people were logical and consistent, we'd hear much more about death caused by overly fast vehicles and unnecessary beverages, but we don't because people are neither logical, nor consistent. Lots of people use both of these things, but the truth is, people are willing to sacrifice other peoples freedom and not their own.
 
2013-01-04 09:03:29 AM  

cesspool17: Anyone who uses an AR to hunt is a waste of oxygen... anyone who hunts with guns in general I lose all respect for. "Derrr I dun point and pull doo hicky and deer goes boom". If you wanna participate in a real sport or do something that actually involves skill then you would bow hunt... wusses.


If you think you can just walk out into the woods and find a deer to kill, then magically kill it so easily with your gun, you're probably going to go hungry.
 
2013-01-04 10:02:29 AM  
Dr-Shotgun:

"You want to solve the problem, I'll give you some solutions that might work:

- Create a National Firearms License and require it to buy a firearm, carry a firearm, go to a public range of purchase ammunition. To get one, you need a CCW level background check from your local sheriff and take a class that includes comprehensive gun safety, use of force, home defense, and safe storage education, along with range time where an instructor signs off that you are safe and competent with a firearm.

- With a separate and comprehensive training class, provide an endorsement for that license that effectively becomes a nationwide CCW permit that would be valid in schools. Provide a path for teachers who are qualified to receive comprehensive training to arm themselves in schools. As batty as they are, the NRA has already offered to train those teachers for free.

- Enforce current gun laws, and enact a law that puts criminal penalties on gun owners for negligent storage of firearms and criminal straw sales. Provide a tax credit for anyone with a license who purchases a combination lock, fire-resistant gun storage safe.

- End the war on drugs. 80% of victims and 90% of perpetrators of murder (with or without a firearm) in the United States have a recorded conviction for a drug offense. Ipso facto, they are people involved in some level of the drug trade. Much as the prohibition empowered criminal enterprise, the drug war has had the same effect. End it and cut the revenue out from under that trade and the violence will (just as it did after prohibition was ended) ebb from society very very quickly"

I like your ideas.. Market solution: Mandatory Firearms Personal Liability Insurance. Imagine Dick Cheney's premiums... :)
 
2013-01-04 10:06:53 AM  

manimal2878: keithgabryelski: they're about the least-suitable type of gun for self defense,

Your premise is wrong. everything else you said after this is irrelevant.


care to elaborate?
 
2013-01-04 10:30:08 AM  

BuckTurgidson: AR-15 is among the absolutely worst choices for either hunting or home defense.

Anyone who tells you differently is selling something.


My AR upper chambered in .308 is balistically no different than my .308 savage lever action rifle.

My Smith M&P will shoot through interior walls of my house....even after going through the intruder.....the ME at Newtown claimed all the rounds from the .223 stayed within the body cavity of the 6 year olds and there was no through and throughs, no over penetration

What makes the AR a bad choice for hunting or home denfense...because I'm gonna say you don;t know what you are talking about.
 
2013-01-04 11:50:11 AM  

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.



I can take out F/A-18 superhornets with no real difficulty with an M-16 or ar-15..... parked on a flightline the inlet is not a hard target from 200 meters, and if I can't get that close then security on military bases has improved immensely since 2006 (which I doubt). The A-10 has a more robust Turbofan but 3 or 4 rounds in each of those is possible from the same range and should do the trick of crippling the airplane. Now truth of the matter is I probably won't get away, but in all honesty a handful (3 to 5) of fairly good woodsmen if they are willing to accept that it will probably be a 1 way trip can take out a squadron of modern jet fighters with semi-auto rifles as long as the jets aren't in hardened shelters.
 
2013-01-04 12:14:10 PM  

mizchief: GanjSmokr: kanesays: A bit antiquated if you ask me.

Such as the 2nd Amendment, drafted when men carried flintlock muskets and had wooden teeth. Also antiquated.

Did they draft the 1st Amendment on a computer? Or is the 2nd the only one that gets the "antiquated" treatment?

They did it with the 4th. Your papers are secured when they are at your house in physical form, but if written in an email stored by someone like google or any other email provider on their servers, it's fair game for the feds to read without warrant.


Incorrect. The feds cannot read your email without a warrant just because it is stored on a yahoo server. This was proposed initially by Leahy the ass, but it was revised. Did I miss something?
 
2013-01-04 12:17:30 PM  
can take out F/A-18 superhornets with no real difficulty with an M-16 or ar-15..... parked on a flightline the inlet is not a hard target from 200 meters, and if I can't get that close then security on military bases has improved immensely since 2006 (which I doubt). The A-10 has a more robust Turbofan but 3 or 4 rounds in each of those is possible from the same range and should do the trick of crippling the airplane. Now truth of the matter is I probably won't get away, but in all honesty a handful (3 to 5) of fairly good woodsmen if they are willing to accept that it will probably be a 1 way trip can take out a squadron of modern jet fighters with semi-auto rifles as long as the jets aren't in hardened shelters.

This. Folks who say irregulars would have no chance seems to believe that the US military somehow has unlimited supplies of tanks, planes, soldiers and materiel and the unlimited ability to replace losses. In the event of a real civil war, it might not be that easy.
 
2013-01-04 12:18:47 PM  

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

Yeah. Who really "needs" a subwoofer in their car?


imgs.xkcd.com
 
2013-01-04 12:19:44 PM  

saturn badger: Same caliber as an AR-15. Shoots just as fast with as much power.


In the strictest sense of "caliber", yes. In the way you're using it, no. For example, the muzzle energy of the FN 5.7×28mm is from about 350 to 400 ft-lbf. The 5.56 NATO, on the other hand, seems to range from around 1200 to 1500 ft-lbf, with some interesting variants beyond either extreme.
 
2013-01-04 12:24:55 PM  

ElBarto79: Kit Fister: I should also point out what has already been said: 10,000 deaths by guns, 60% of which are suicides. 80% of the remainder, if we are to believe the FBI's data, are drug/gang-related.

That leaves sub-1000 deaths caused by causes not of the above, just in gun crime.

Those numbers are wrong. Here's some info I found:

"Firearms were used to kill 30,143 people in the United States in 2005, the most recent year with complete data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.1 A total of 17,002 of these were suicides, 12,352 homicides, and 789 accidental firearm deaths. Nearly half of these deaths occurred in people under the age of 35. When we consider that there were also nearly 70,000 nonfatal injuries from firearms, we are left with the staggering fact that 100,000 men, women, and children were killed or wounded by firearms in the span of just one year."

This quote also doesn't factor in gun crimes where no one is injured, something like an armed robbery where no shots are fired. If you look at the total number of gun crimes it approaches half a million a year.


Posted this in another thread, but it works here too....

Estimated number of guns in the US: 270,000,000 (various sources state this number)

Using 2011 data, let's swing the argument in your favor and say that 20,000,000 came into being in the US this year... (plus it gives us nice round numbers), so let's say in 2011, there were only 250,000,000 guns.

In 2011, all gun deaths reported were 32,163 (taken from the CDC data).

Again, to strengthen your argument, and weaken mine, let's say 1 gun was used for each of those gun deaths. (that way more of the evil guns are to blame)

So we have 32,163 guns out of 250,000,000 that killed someone. That's 0.013% of guns used to kill someone.

In 2009, it was reported that there were 352,810 gun-related crimes in the US. (Bureau of Justice Statistics). Let;s round that up (again strengthening your argument) to 375,000 for 2011. Again, let's assume they were all different guns.

So we have 375,000 out of 250,000,000 guns used in crimes. That's 0.15% of guns used in a crime.

Since a portion of those guns would be used in multiple crimes and/or deaths, the actual rates are lower.

You're looking for an overreaching solution to a very small (but significant) problem. It's not logical, it's emotional. Laws, restrictions, or any freedom reducing measure should NEVER be done out of a reaction to emotion. Otherwise we get pieces of trash like the PATRIOT Act.
 
Displayed 50 of 1346 comments

First | « | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | » | 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