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 233
    More: Interesting, semi-automatic rifle, semiautomatic pistols, federal assault weapons ban, Freedom Group, target shooting, Ayn Rand, car fire, long guns  
•       •       •

34424 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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-01-03 12:17:23 PM  
15 votes:
I own an AR-15.

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

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

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

But let's go batshiat insane over one particular type of rifle.
2013-01-03 12:38:34 PM  
7 votes:
The NRA doesn't represent gun owners; it represents the gun industry. Big difference there. Their purpose is not to advocate for more gun rights, it's to sell more guns.
2013-01-03 12:26:36 PM  
6 votes:
I don't have any guns, but I think ending the War on Drug Users would easily prevent half our murders.
2013-01-03 12:24:58 PM  
6 votes:
I think we should start banning everything we think other people "don't need." Who wants to go first?
2013-01-03 01:07:14 PM  
5 votes:
Cars are a necessary component of our current civilization, assault rifles in the hands of citizens are not. Cars are not designed to kill people and have numerous legitimate uses. Assault rifles were designed specifically to kill people and are not a particularly good tool for much else.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Guns are to Democrats what gay marriage is to Conservatives, a crypto issue. Democrats don't like guns, they have no personal connection to them, so banning them is no skin off their back. On the other hand, the redneck, rural, backwoods hicks that Democrats love to hate all like guns, so calling for bans and restrictions is really just a culture war win.
2013-01-03 12:30:25 PM  
5 votes:

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

The bottom line (literally)

/responsible gun owner


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

So, really, the point that the AR is somehow special in this is really rather misleading.  It's just the most modern example of it.
2013-01-03 12:28:26 PM  
5 votes:
I'm sure I could do some serious damage with my 300 ultramag, but no one seems interested in taking this away from me.

(Not mine, but similar in nature)

i205.photobucket.com

Guess it's not 'military looking enough'.
2013-01-03 12:23:52 PM  
5 votes:
Keene ridiculed the notion that AR-15-style rifles ought to be banned just because "a half dozen [AR-15s] out of more than three million have been misused after illegally falling into the hands of crazed killers." And, sure. But the AR-15 is very good at one thing: engaging the enemy at a rapid rate of fire. When someone like Adam Lanza uses it to take out 26 people in a matter of minutes, he's committing a crime, but he isn't misusing the rifle. That's exactly what it was engineered to do.

The bottom line (literally)

/responsible gun owner
2013-01-03 12:22:22 PM  
5 votes:

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

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


Absolutely.
2013-01-03 12:19:30 PM  
5 votes:
Short version:

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

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

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

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

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

Vilifying the method of killing is just a ploy to start down the slippery slope of eliminating a gun or class of guns and superimposing the actions of violent criminals onto inanimate objects.
Let's not get into the entire black market issue.Once we ban guns we'll create a prohibition like market for guns.The illegal import market will be happy to import hand grenades, rocket launchers, machine guns, etc.See my point?This is completely the wrong direction.
2013-01-03 11:28:22 AM  
5 votes:
I own an AR-15. I'm not a survivalist or a gun nut or a hunter. I'm a guy who enjoys going out in the desert and shooting assorted targets for fun. It's really that simple. If you like shooting as a sport, the AR-15 is a lot of fun to shoot. I understand that some people don't like shooting as a sport and think "why do you need that kind of gun" but that's just because it's not their thing. AR-15 owners don't buy AR-15s because they have some inherent desire to have more "killing power."

Also, many people here in rural Utah use AR-15s as varmint control weapons. As the article states, a .223 cartridge is not ideal for large game hunting, but it is good for varmint control and a lot more flexible than a bolt-action rifle.
2013-01-03 12:50:18 PM  
4 votes:

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



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

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

These are NOT Steve Rogers-types eager to rush into the fray of battle to test their mettle and unfortunately held back by physical misfortune. These are LARPers who want to play dress up as far away from the field of actual battle as possible.
2013-01-03 12:47:48 PM  
4 votes:
I have an AR-15 type rifle. If it would bring back those 20 kids, you can have it. If taking it will keep another 20 alive, you can have it. The problem is, it won't. The Sandy Creek shooter (we should not use their names and give them the satisfaction of knowing they will be famous), had two handguns with him that were perfectly capable of doing the exact same damage in the same amount of time. Take away the rifle and even cut the magazine capacities on the handguns down to 10 and he could have done the same thing in the same amount of time. How long do you think it takes to drop a mag out of a handgun and pop in another while kids are cowering in closets? We like to believe we can fix all problems if we just pass a smart law. You may have noticed that is not working out so well for us.
2013-01-03 12:42:32 PM  
4 votes:
Also just to play devil's advocate. Lets assume we pull assault rifles off the market. Yet we'll still need home defense weapons, because a large part of this country is not densely populated and LEO response can be 20+ minutes away.

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

Going after the AR style and 30 round magazines is just feel good dickery that fails to address the real problem of nutcases. You hamstring the AR and all you're doing is reducing the death toll of the incident. I'd rather address why we have crazy farkers running around. The Aurora guy had a psych profile and some people were afraid of him, the Newton guy was in the process of involuntary commitment, the Swiss shooter had known mental health issues. The rifle is just the common tool, something else is the common cause.
2013-01-03 12:39:17 PM  
4 votes:

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

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

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

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


actually, the phrase discussing a well-regulated militia, and the phrase discussing the right of the people to bear arms, are separate statements, not acting on each other. This has been pointed out time and time again by scholars of the document, and upheld by the courts.
2013-01-03 12:37:20 PM  
4 votes:
So a guy who says he "generally" supports the 2nd amendment, does not own a gun because New York makes it hard, says AR-15s are scary. Got it.

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

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

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

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

None of this even solves the problem, which is bad people in society, or crazy people in society. They need to be beaten down, locked away, and parents slapped in the face until they raise their kids right.
2013-01-03 12:35:43 PM  
4 votes:
It's the SUV of guns. Looks cool but not particularly useful.
2013-01-03 12:34:38 PM  
4 votes:
When you shoot it, it'll overpenetrate-sending bullets through the walls of your house and possibly into the walls of your neighbor's house-unless you purchase the sort of ammunition that fragments on impact. (This is true for other guns, as well, but, again, the thing with the AR-15 is that it lets you fire more rounds faster.)

Funny how they slip that in there... If you are using fragmenting rounds, they either fragment or they don't, firing them faster doesn't suddenly stop them from working. It's kind of subtle how they slip that bullshiat in there...
2013-01-03 12:33:58 PM  
4 votes:
Hey, while we're at it, let's ban planes since some jackholes killed 3000 people with a few of them a decade ago. And don't give me that "But we need them!" bullshiat, because we sure as hell didn't need them a century ago when they didn't exist.

/same solution to both problems: Ban jackholes.
2013-01-03 12:32:54 PM  
4 votes:

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

The article makes some good points - it's a fun gun to fire, relatively cheap on ammo and the shoulder, and is extremely reliable and customizable. Why wouldn't people like it?
2013-01-03 12:28:52 PM  
4 votes:

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


Civilian-marketed AR-15 rifles are not "military-grade". Any claim that they are is a lie.
2013-01-03 12:23:56 PM  
4 votes:
Got this with a simple search.
The following is a list of some of the calibers that the AR-15 can use,

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

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

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

This list is in no way complete.

Story seems to be done by someone who has no clue but a agenda.
2013-01-03 12:23:42 PM  
4 votes:
looks like a hell of a lot of fun to shoot out in the desert. doesn't mean i'm going to defend either side with any vigor.

handguns are most certainly the most commonly used murder tool in the US. and something needs to be done to keep them out of the hands of criminals while respecting the rights of law abiding citizens. and something needs to be done to keep AR-type weapons out of the hands of crazies who wants to kill lots of people quickly, while still trying to allow for recreational use by law abiding citizens.
2013-01-03 12:23:12 PM  
4 votes:
Not any good for defense? Then why do the police have them? Offensive purposes?
2013-01-03 12:18:17 PM  
4 votes:
Facepalm article.

It's popular and underpowered, so people with guns should be forced to buy more powerful and less popular guns. Ok then.
2013-01-03 01:06:07 PM  
3 votes:

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.
2013-01-03 01:01:45 PM  
3 votes:

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


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

Another thing to consider is that on a per-shot basis, when used within its range limitations, the 12 gauge shotgun is far more lethal than the AR-15.
2013-01-03 12:53:30 PM  
3 votes:
2013-01-03 12:51:07 PM  
3 votes:
I just like how the AR15 is only ever available in one caliber so let's keep farking that football.

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

But that's all too scary so forget I said anything. Continue your sensationalism and believing that you're more progressive and somehow better because you ignore that bad things can happen to good people and the second amendment's real intent was to protect the populace from the government and "well regulated" means "orderly and trained" and "militia" was defined as "males of age not otherwise barred from or already enlisted into service".
2013-01-03 12:46:35 PM  
3 votes:

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


The same people who like to ban scary black guns are the same people that like to ban "hate speech."
2013-01-03 12:40:32 PM  
3 votes:

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

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

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

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


Why would "the people" mean something different in this amendment than the others? Also, the amendment grants nothing. It *GUARANTEES* it.
2013-01-03 12:36:51 PM  
3 votes:

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

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


Another thing I find amusing is the caricature that hunters using an AR and army surplus gear when they hunt are somehow different than more traditional hunters. I'm sorry, since when did I have to fill your Fudd-esque image of what a hunter is to be a hunter? Am i out to kill an animal? Am I going to do so in a safe, humane way? Well then, shut the hell up, I'll wear a goddamn clown suit if it pleases me.
2013-01-03 12:34:52 PM  
3 votes:
If they made a musket look like a AR-15, the same group of people would want to ban it.
2013-01-03 12:34:42 PM  
3 votes:

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


Did you just hear a whistling sound over your head?
2013-01-03 12:33:21 PM  
3 votes:
Here is an excellent article explaining why 2A ain't about "Bambi and burglars" Link
2013-01-03 12:32:44 PM  
3 votes:

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


Assault rifles are already federally restricted and are not commonly available.
2013-01-03 12:31:15 PM  
3 votes:

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


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

/2nd Amendment isn't about duck hunting, dork.
2013-01-03 12:29:17 PM  
3 votes:

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


If anything needs to banned, it's crazy people.  Let's start with Congress.
2013-01-03 12:28:45 PM  
3 votes:

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


I dunno about you, but I personally don't think I got any entertainment out of the deaths of twenty 6 year olds. Okay, maybe I got some entertainment out of the derp in the threads following the incident from folks like you.
2013-01-03 12:27:28 PM  
3 votes:
If isn't really about disarming Americans, but about restricting access to military-grade weapons, then for every assault rifle the government 'confiscates', let the government supply either a hunting rifle or shotgun (sporting or home defense - owner's choice).
2013-01-03 12:24:08 PM  
3 votes:

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


bluefoxicy: AR-15 sucks for hunting.


The AR is quite capable as a hunter. Sorry, but any claim otherwise is simply a non-starter.
2013-01-03 12:20:10 PM  
3 votes:
Article sort of misses the point... The AR-15 is not necessarily absolutely ideal for hunting of home defense, but it's quite good for either. It's a single, versatile platform. Good home defense ammo is available. It's highly maneuverable-- sorry, TFA is just plain wrong about that. It's highly accurate. In short, if you can only afford one quality rifle, it may be a great choice for you. On the other hand, if you're hunting big game (elk, moose, blue whales), you're going to have to shell out for something more potent.
2013-01-03 12:19:44 PM  
3 votes:
Who wants an AR15? Someone that wants a relatively weak rifle that "looks mean."
Oooh, scary.
2013-01-03 12:18:07 PM  
3 votes:

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


I enjoy shooting too, and have fired my friend's AR-15 a couple times, but do people honestly believe our entertainment justifies twenty dead six-year-olds?
2013-01-03 12:17:40 PM  
3 votes:
Fat white men who were rejected from the military?
2013-01-03 12:12:19 PM  
3 votes:

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

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

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


It's good to see people admit that this hoopla is really about their 2nd Amendment right to have "fun."
2013-01-03 11:27:04 AM  
3 votes:
But the AR-15 is not ideal for the hunting and home-defense uses that the NRA's Keene cited today. Though it can be used for hunting, the AR-15 isn't really a hunting rifle. Its standard .223 caliber ammunition doesn't offer much stopping power for anything other than small game. Hunters themselves find the rifle controversial, with some arguing AR-15-style rifles empower sloppy, "spray and pray" hunters to waste ammunition.

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

Yea it's an anecdotal CSB, but I have seen their uses beyond just murder machines.
2013-01-03 11:00:46 PM  
2 votes:

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 07:02:39 PM  
2 votes:
Anyone who seriously supports magazine cap limits knows jack and shiat about firearms.
10 rounds makes as much sense as 9 rounds or 11 rounds. It is totally arbitrary.

A 30 round magazine is a standard magazine, not a hi-capacity magazine.

If the standard magazine holds 30 rounds anything over 30 would be hi-capacity. Anything under 30 is low capacity. Therefore anyone arguing for banning hi-capacity magazines, meaning mags that hold over 10 rounds, knows jack and shiat about firearms. This makes the same amount of sense as arguing for banning hi-capacity gas tanks, meaning any gas tank that holds over 10 gallons of gas. No serious car owner needs a gas tank that holds over 10 gallons. All hi-capacity gas tanks allow you to do is run from the police or drive your stolen car longer.

That said, lets say they do ban standard capacity mags.

All the bad guy shooter has to do is this ....
i.imgur.com
And the reload takes barely a second. And don't give me shiat about reloads being different for those of you in combat vs those at the range. MASS SHOOTERS aren't in 'combat' they are shooting fish in a farking barrel, people in a disarmed victim zone people in gun free zones...

That or they just remove the mag limiter from their 10 round mag and make it into a 30 round magazine. Or stick some 10 round mags together into a Frankenstein like magazine.

Criminals don't give a shiat about laws.

Case in point for Sandy Hook:

Stealing is illegal
Breaking and entering is illegal
Driving with a loaded weapon is illegal
Having a gun on school property is illegal
Trespassing is illegal
Breaking and entering is illegal
Shooting inside of city limits is illegal
Killing people is illegal
Suicide is illegal

Do you honestly think extra laws would help at this point? Do you really think more laws are the answer here?
Why not make 'Crime' illegal while you're yelling for more bullshiat do nothing laws.
2013-01-03 05:05:27 PM  
2 votes:

keithgabryelski: I can advocate for any change I wish to the constitution, thank you very much.

You still don't have a right to insurrection.



Insurrection:
"an act or instance of rising in revolt, rebellion, or resistance against civil authority or an established government."

The Citizens of Washington State and Colorado just legalized recreational marijuana - in direct, in-your-face defiance of Federal law.

Should they be expecting a visit from the US military soon?
2013-01-03 04:02:22 PM  
2 votes:

dudicon: Could someone give me a Tl;dr for this thread?


stop liking civil rights that I don't like
2013-01-03 03:53:35 PM  
2 votes:

Kit Fister: jeffco55: [sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net image 640x360]

So, I'm not sure what you're trying to say. It's better to shut up and suffer the rape, and the lifetime of psychological trauma that goes with it, than to defend yourself?


I'm sure this is a 'shooped image, but if you follow the gun grabbers logic to its extreme, that is what they want. Hear me out:

It is very difficult for human beings to accept shades of grey. Binary thinking, us vs. other, good vs. evil, is a very effective way to make a cohesive society. Too much free thinking and muddy waters make getting things done tough.

Those who would control us want us to be powerless victims. Bad guy kills good guy. Police arrest bad guy. Bad guy goes to prison. See how clean that is? Almost no thinking involved! What's more is that it creates dependency on the government. It would be a perfect system if not for the inconvenient little part where the good guy is still dead and the police are powerless to actually protect you, only to shovel your corpse into a van and fill out paperwork.

So what happens if bad guy hurts good guy. Good guy kills bad guy in self defense? Now there are all these questions. What if the good guy had booze in his system at the time? What if he was a total piece of shiat? What if he was a she and she was a drug addicted hooker? It's messy, it's too much to think about and it exposes how rigid laws sometimes fail to match reality.

So no, gun control advocates don't necessarily want you to sit back and be a passive victim, but it's a hell of a lot more convenient for their worldview if you do.
2013-01-03 03:28:15 PM  
2 votes:

ElBarto79: I'd be happy to leave gun owners alone if they were capable of leaving the rest of us alone and weren't constantly barging into our public spaces blasting everyone in sight.


There are 90 million gun owners in this country, at best 2007 estimate, owning about 300 million firearms. In the last 5 years, there has been a spike of gun purchases, adding perhaps another 5 million new gun owners to that figure.

If 'gun owners' were 'constantly' 'barging' into '(y)our' public spaces, 'blasting' 'everyone' in sight, there wouldn't be a single one of you left alive.

The fact that you breathe air today, Elbarto79 and everyone that agrees with his statement, is because your fundamental assumptions about gun owners are wrong. Not just a little bit wrong, but so profoundly wrong that we have to use scientific notation to describe how you are wrong. Let me break it down for you:

9.5 x 107 estimated lawful gunowners who didn't shoot anyone today or any other day
times
3.65 x 102 days in the year
times
38 median age of US citizens minus 18 years (age to legally own a gun)
equals
6.9 x 1011 gun-owner-days-without-killing-anyone

If we very generously interpret 'constantly' to mean 'at least once per day' instead of something closer to the actual definition of 'constantly', and 1.0 is considered to be the gold standard of correct and 0.0 is the standard for wrong, the statement you have made is (within an order of magnitude) 0.0000000000014 correct.

In other words, let someone else do the thinking for you, because you are quantifiably not good at it.
2013-01-03 03:12:04 PM  
2 votes:

ElBarto79: Why have we put so much effort into combating terrorism?


We haven't. We've put a lot of effort into looking like we are, especially when it comes to things done on US soil.
2013-01-03 01:27:31 PM  
2 votes:

rufus-t-firefly: Let's just stick with the Founders' intention and say everyone has a right to own blunderbusses and muskets - let's throw in flintlock pistols as well.


I will agree with such regulation only if you agree that the First Amendment to the United States Constitution does not apply to speech transmitted through any electronic format and that the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution does not prohibit warrantless searches of automobiles.
2013-01-03 01:23:41 PM  
2 votes:

Cymbal: Pretty small sacrifice to make on your part actually. You still get off on shooting your favorite guns, just in a regulated environment, in exchange for thousands of senseless deaths year.


Please explain how prohibiting private possession of a single type of rifle would prevent "thousands of senseless deaths year" when all rifles combined are used in fewer than 400 homicides annually.
2013-01-03 01:19:20 PM  
2 votes:
Yet another tard who thinks the 2nd is for hunting.... so sad.
Dont like guns? Dont buy guns. Dont let your gunaphobia affect my right to buy a gun.
2013-01-03 01:18:03 PM  
2 votes:

Lets rip this fool apart line by line, shall we


He shot them with a Bushmaster AR-15-style semi-automatic rifle-the same weapon that Adam Lanza used 10 days earlier when he shot and killed 26 people at Sandy Hook Elementary.

Fact: An AR style rifle was in the car, but was not used in the shooting
Link , so right off the bat this "reporter" shows (s)he is not trustworthy.

Keene noted there are several valid, non-murderous uses for rifles like the AR-15

Hyperbole. journalism 101 fail

I generally consider myself a Second Amendment supporter,
Really? Citation please? Links to all your "pro Second Amendment" articles would be a good start.


But the AR-15 is not ideal for the hunting and home-defense uses that the NRA's Keene cited today. Though it can be used for hunting, the AR-15 isn't really a hunting rifle. Its standard .223 caliber ammunition doesn't offer much stopping power for anything other than small game.

* Not only does this fool contradict himself, ala it's not suited to hunting (said twice) then backtracking saying that it can be used and the .223 works well on small game.

* .223 takes deer this uninformed "reporter" considers that small game?

* Uses the term "Stopping power" a myth anyone informed about firearms (watching "Lethal Weapon" on DVD doesn't count) knows is a bull--it term.
-- See
----- FBI report on "handgun wounding Factors and Effectiveness" (July 1989)
----- http://www.thegunzone.com/quantico-wounding.html


When you shoot it, it'll overpenetrate-sending bullets through the walls of your house and possibly into the walls of your neighbor's house
So can almost all handgun ammo.
Link

unless you purchase the sort of ammunition that fragments on impact
Which is a common it the market. Again, (s)he's shot down his/her own point.

the thing with the AR-15 is that it lets you fire more rounds faster
No faster than any semi-automatic pistol (or even revolver for that matter), like the 1911 from ... 1911.

AR-15-style rifles are very useful, however, if what you're trying to do is sell guns.
Wow, when you threaten to ban something market demand goes up? Wow thanks for the news flash there Skippy we would never have known that one kennedy )


Smith & Wesson Holding Corporation announced that bolt-action hunting rifles accounted for 6.6 percent of its net sales in 2011 (down from 2010 and 2009), while modern sporting rifles (like AR-15-style weapons) accounted for 18.2 percent of its net sales.

Wait.... didn't he say
The AR-15 was designed in 1957
What does "modern" mean again?
*Emphasis mine

Also note that since AR Style rifles were the only rifle I could find in S&W's page, it would stand to reason that they would account for a large portion of their net sales. I wonder is this "reporter" is familiar with the term "Lie of omission".

As the NRA's David Keene notes, a lot of people do use modern sporting rifles for target shooting and in marksmanship competitions.
So (s)he's now admitting many hunters do use sporting rifles for hunting? Didn't he just say these were not suited for that use? You can't have it both ways.

But the guns also appeal to another demographic that doesn't get nearly as much press-paranoid survivalists who worry about having to fend off thieves and trespassers in the event of disaster.
Ignoring the silly hyperbole (s)he's using, does that mean "paranoid survivalists" like this?
4.bp.blogspot.com

An article on ar15.com titled "The Ideal Rifle" notes that "the threats from crime, terrorism, natural disaster, and weapons of mass destruction are real. If something were to happen today, you would need to have made a decision about the rifle you would select and be prepared for such an event. So the need to select a 'survival' rifle is real. Selecting a single 'ideal rifle' is not easy. The AR-15 series of rifles comes out ahead when compared to everything else."
So those that (unlike this "reporter) are informed about firearms do agree that the AR is a fine home defense gun

But the Newtown shooting caused me to re-examine my stance-as is, I think, fitting-and to question some of the rhetoric advocates use
When you're using the amount of hyperbole and outright misinformation*cough*lies*cough* this "reporter" engages in you have lost all right to words like 'rhetoric".
2013-01-03 01:11:17 PM  
2 votes:

Cymbal: Wow, don't think I've ever seen so many NRA schills in one thread before.

Really wish you gun nuts could just all have fun with paintball instead. Would be a lot less senseless deaths. But that will never happen because you slack-jawed troglodytes have to be the most selfish and degenerate subhuman wasted of life assholes to ever live.


Let us know when you take up that crusade against alcohol. It kills 80,000 people every year, far more than guns do, and it serves no purpose other than "having fun".
2013-01-03 01:05:35 PM  
2 votes:

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

How about no?

Why not?

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

---


And look where it got him... :)

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

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

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

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


.
We The People were able to purchase fully automatic weapons up until the 60's, then our government started getting nervous. That shiat needs to be undone and has been a slippery slope since then.
2013-01-03 01:01:55 PM  
2 votes:

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

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


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

Secondly, killing people is a perfectly legitimate thing to do under some circumstances. If the police find an AR-15 to be an appropriate tool to use in keeping the peace and defending innocents, why shouldn't any other citizen who hasn't lost the right to do so via due process?
2013-01-03 01:00:47 PM  
2 votes:

jbuist: NATO


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

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

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

You'll run into people who say "Ah, it's no big deal. Go ahead. I do it all the time." I wouldn't take their advice.
2013-01-03 01:00:46 PM  
2 votes:

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


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

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

/Hypothetically speaking you don't have to fight the entire military, just put two rounds in the skull of the guy who declares himself dictator for life
2013-01-03 12:59:03 PM  
2 votes:

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

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

This, that that and that.

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

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

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


Isn't the militia any able-bodied adult?
2013-01-03 12:58:49 PM  
2 votes:
Article is rubbish with the intent to give a biased perspective. I have hunted smaller game with no issues with an AR-15 style weapon and for larger game I use my H&K G3A3 with no issues.

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

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

Now if I had neighbors that were of closer proximity I would choose a weapon with less penetrating power but that's because I'm a responsible law abiding gun owner, which I'd say that over 99% of those that own and use such scary weapons are.
2013-01-03 12:57:35 PM  
2 votes:
And no surprise, it is by someone who does not own guns and is misinformed. In fact, an AR-15 variant is quite good for home defense. In a realistic home defense scenario, you are not going to go madly running room to room trying to clear it like an action hero. You can going to hunker down. A rifle or shotgun works just fine for that. Now in terms of the AR-15 itself, it is good at home defense because of its round. .223/5.56 has a few highly desirable properties:

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

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

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

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

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

If we want to restrict things based on what they do, ok that's a real argument, but let's stop crying because something looks scary.
2013-01-03 12:52:01 PM  
2 votes:

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

These are pretty much all the things a non-military person would look for as well. In fact, most of these criteria are the same ones you use when buying a car. So, if the military criteria for what makes a good weapon (outside of full-auto vs semi-auto) are the same as a rational civilians criteria, is it any wonder that the designs converge? Considering the innovation that is happening in the civilian market for the AR-15, essentially dragging the glacier slow military market forward, I think it would be more appropriate at this point to call the M-16/M-4 the militarized version of the civilian AR-15.
2013-01-03 12:44:59 PM  
2 votes:
Its noones business how many guns I have, or what type. God bless America.
2013-01-03 12:43:56 PM  
2 votes:

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

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

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


You are attributing to malice what is more easily attributed to incompetence.
2013-01-03 12:38:01 PM  
2 votes:
I'm fine with people owning weapons. Even weapons that look scary but use slightly better ammunition than a .22 (I don't own a gun, mostly due to financial reasons. When a better job comes around, I'd certainly consider it)

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

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

If you pass those, I've got no problem with the people mentally able to hold a firearm having them.
2013-01-03 12:36:07 PM  
2 votes:
"A well educated House of Representatives, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed."

Do you believe this sentence says that only government officials can own and read books?
2013-01-03 12:32:34 PM  
2 votes:

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


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

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


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

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


I used the M-16 in the military.
It's a piece of shait. (as far as a killing machine goes)
/Much prefer the M-60 or AK.
2013-01-03 12:31:44 PM  
2 votes:
Surprisingly well thought out piece.  I am a gun advocate, but assault rifles serve only a few real purposes.  Sport shooting and Survivalist Wet Dreams.

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

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

/Oh, but there is the persuation factor I guess.  Someone points an AR-15 at your head and says "move along" you might just loot the house next door.
2013-01-03 12:31:11 PM  
2 votes:
Why is it that the same people who love to point out the first phrase of the 2nd amendment, which concerns arms' potential to be used against people, are the same people who say that if a gun is suited to anything more than hunting, it's too much gun?
2013-01-03 12:30:27 PM  
2 votes:

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

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

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

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


Actually, the unalienable right to "fun" - aka "Pursuit of Happiness" - goes back even further, to the Preamble of the Declaration of Independence.
2013-01-03 12:30:05 PM  
2 votes:

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

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


I will also demand payment for my additional magazines and for my .22LR bolt replacement that would become useless under such a confiscation.
2013-01-03 12:27:58 PM  
2 votes:

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


What kind of american are you?

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

That's all you need to know.
2013-01-03 12:26:23 PM  
2 votes:
Having been a NRA member.....I got better....and having been a hunter since I was a teen, I know exactly the type of man who wants an AR-15: Rambo wannabe.
2013-01-03 12:25:59 PM  
2 votes:

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


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

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

/Own one.
2013-01-03 12:24:15 PM  
2 votes:
Where exactly in the 2nd Amendment does it mention hunting?
2013-01-03 12:18:49 PM  
2 votes:
Who are we kidding here?

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

And that's it.

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

And school security will continue to consist of crossing fingers.
2013-01-03 12:17:04 PM  
2 votes:
In before the whiny anti-gun nuts who think the mere act of holding a gun makes one a psychopathic killer.
2013-01-03 12:16:45 PM  
2 votes:

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


  Much of it is.  I could have a shotgun and a .45 pistol and be about as protected as I'm going to get in my home, barring some kind of riot outside or something.  But - shooting is fun.  It's been a hobby since guns were invented.  I go back and forth on banning assault weapons because I do appreciate the hobby of shooting, but I would be in favor of banning high capacity magazines.  Assault weapons can be used for "fun", but high capacity magazines are ONLY meant for producing a high casualty count in a short period of time.  There is no other realistic use.  For target practice, you don't need a 30+ rnd magazine.
2013-01-03 11:40:13 AM  
2 votes:

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


 This is me as well.  I own some hand guns (one .45 and two 9mms) for "home defense" but I also just enjoy shooting.  I've been considering getting an AR15 for a while now.  Used to own an AK-47 and, although the ammo is damned expensive, they're fun to shoot.
2013-01-03 11:16:44 AM  
2 votes:
So we should consider banning the AR-15 because they sell well and are popular with shootists?

Okay then...
2013-01-04 05:22:40 PM  
1 votes:

Artisan Sandwich: BigNumber12: Artisan Sandwich: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Do you have an actual thought on the matter?

I'm one of those guys who the Government spent lots of money on, working very hard to kill as many of our Nations enemies as possible. Thunderpipes and his buds would be a VERY soft target. I encourage people out there to research the mechnics of a gun battle (not war itself, we'll start small), and then try to reconcile the vision of hunters/shooting enthusiasts winning a war against professionals who do this work for a living.

If there ever was a widespread civil unrest (as suggested by several mental masturbators in here), you don't have the autonomy and cultural/language/physical appearance protection afforded the Taliban/ Al Qaeda. It would be way too easy.

Morally, another story. But practically: way, way too easy.


What the fark did you just farking say about me, you little biatch? I'll have you know I graduated top of my class in the Navy Seals, and I've been involved in numerous secret raids on Al-Quaeda, and I have over 300 confirmed kills. I am trained in gorilla warfare and I'm the top sniper in the entire US armed forces. You are nothing to me but just another target. I will wipe you the fark out with precision the likes of which has never been seen before on this Earth, mark my farking words. You think you can get away with saying that shiat to me over the Internet? Think again, farker. As we speak I am contacting my secret network of spies across the USA and your IP is being traced right now so you better prepare for the storm, maggot. The storm that wipes out the pathetic little thing you call your life. You're farking dead, kid. I can be anywhere, anytime, and I can kill you in over seven hundred ways, and that's just with my bare hands. Not only am I extensively trained in unarmed combat, but I have access to the entire arsenal of the United States Marine Corps and I will use it to its full extent to wipe your miserable ass off the face of the continent, you little shiat. If only you could have known what unholy retribution your little "clever" comment was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would have held your farking tongue. But you couldn't, you didn't, and now you're paying the price, you goddamn idiot. I will shiat fury all over you and you will drown in it. You're farking dead, kiddo.

Exactly what your comments make me think of.
2013-01-04 05:18:42 PM  
1 votes:

Artisan Sandwich: I, and everyone I work with, is going to be working 24/7. And I won't be staying at my house, getting cheeseburgers after work so you can run some GTA style drive-by on me.


How long do you think you can keep that up? It's much easier for them to wait for you to wear yourself down and become complacent, than it is for you to work 24/7 indefinitely. Remember - you have to be lucky every single time, but they only need to be lucky once.

Artisan Sandwich: If it ever gets to that point- which I emphatically believe it will not- then the people who are holed up in the woods, or trying to run snatch and grabs on Military/police, will not have the support of the general populace.


Seriously - have you heard of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? When the populace decides that the government is tyrannical and illegitimate, the insurgents don't need to hide in the woods. They go back to their apartment at the end of each day, and everyone else in the building will smile at you and tell you that they wish they could help you, but they haven't seen anything suspicious, so sorry.

Artisan Sandwich: You also assume that all military personnel walk around in uniform.


I've said the opposite of that several times. We're talking about hometown occupation. You're not anonymous, no matter what you're wearing. People know who you are and what you do for a living. And they'll certainly take note of you if you're a collaborator.

Artisan Sandwich: But to go from working as a computer programmer (which seems to describe most of Fark) to running a successful insurgency is far more difficult and dangerous than you are imagining it to be.


It seems like you're being deliberately obtuse. If you want to be simplistic and only discuss "computer programmers," then they'll be hammering the government networks 24/7. And they're very good at it. But rest assured that a society of 300+ million that already creates the most advanced weapons in the world contains millions upon millions of highly-educated people who would happily contribute their technical knowledge to their more fabrication-oriented countrymen, who would then supply their more operations-oriented countrymen.

Artisan Sandwich: Easy friend, no need to get worked up.


It's frustrating that mentalities like yours still exist within our armed forces. Fortunately, it's being drummed out at the more senior levels, in favor of people who actually understand counter-insurgency.

Artisan Sandwich: The dream of waging a modern war against the tyrannical gov't is just that- a dream.


You should spend more time reading world news.
2013-01-04 03:04:44 PM  
1 votes:

Artisan Sandwich: I'm one of those guys who the Government spent lots of money on, working very hard to kill as many of our Nations enemies as possible.


Yeah, well, I'm part of a crack commando unit was sent to prison by a military court for a crime we didn't commit.
2013-01-04 12:40:30 PM  
1 votes:

Maul555: lostcat: 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.


[www.joelbieber.com image 625x464]


Not quite, sport. You must be a Pagan. Pagans embraced the fallacy of Idolotry... that evil lurks in objects, not in people. That, is insane, but if that is your chicken of choice to f*ck, keep at it. I never witnessed any of my ARs get up, stroll out of the house, go massacre someone, and then come back for dinner.

Fark libtards amaze me. They can look at something as awful as Sandy Hook, and see no other problem than those damn guns. Here is the real problem:

We have people walking among us that are so mentally deranged, that they can shoot a six year old child in the face at point blank range with no more angst than picking their nose!!!! But you mental deficients don't even want to go there, do you? Every one of these shootings is exactly the same broken record: Whack job on meds, tons of signs (for years) of how far gone they are, but all ignored. Let's just pick on whatever implement they happen to use when they go off, that's much easier, eh?

I think we should disarm an entire nation of free, law-abiding people just so you don't have to address the real problems in America.

/Libtard logic 101
2013-01-04 11:50:11 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:07:30 AM  
1 votes:

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

(Not mine, but similar in nature)

[i205.photobucket.com image 598x307]

Guess it's not 'military looking enough'.


Can it accept a detachable magazine with off-the shelf bolt on parts? Then yes it would be banned in the bill unless it was one of the hand-picked allowed weapons.
2013-01-04 10:04:37 AM  
1 votes:
I think the short answer of "what are they good for" is any situation where you would normally need a pistol, but at a range greater than 15 yards.
2013-01-04 07:42:01 AM  
1 votes:

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.
2013-01-04 12:35:41 AM  
1 votes:
AR-15 is among the absolutely worst choices for either hunting or home defense.

Anyone who tells you differently is selling something.
2013-01-03 10:52:10 PM  
1 votes:

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 09:34:42 PM  
1 votes:

ElBarto79: Your next argument falls into a basic category which is "if we can't completely control gun violence then we shouldn't try and control it at all." Legislating against high capacity mags is not going to eliminate crime entirely, and no one has suggested it will. But it might slow a criminal down a little, it might make him think twice before committing some crime. In conjunction with a variety of other gun control measures it would probably serve to reduce gun violence. Of course we will never eliminate violent crime but we have a duty to society to do our best to reduce it.


Look, even though I am a pretty biased gun nut, I do want to do something about violent crime and mass shootings. The problem is that, out of all the possible tools we could apply, the Democrat party has run back to the most provably ineffective, rights trampling and divisive answer: Assault Weapon Bans.

Democrats claim they want a "comprehensive approach" to this issue, and a national "conversation." That's so much bullshiat. In the last 24 hours, the IL house attempted to jam through a de-facto ban on every semi-automatic firearm with limited grandfathering, forced registration and even forcing gun ranges to get federal firearms licenses (why? who the hell knows?). While that was unsuccessful, New York state also introduced a new AWB that includes outright confiscation and turns the possession of a magazine with more than 10 rounds into a felony on par with rape and manslaughter. On the Federal level, a high-capacity magazine bill was introduced a few hours ago, DiFi will introduce her new AWB soon and god knows what Joe the Biden will cook up with his Blue Ribbon Panel.

I don't know how many ways that this can be explained to people, but the basic gist is the fact that, while assault weapons may be the weapon of choice for spree killers, there is absolutely no evidence that their use had an effect on the actual lethality of the crime. The Newton shooter was in that building for 10 minutes and fired only 100 rounds; the fact that he had an AR clearly had little bearing on the overall lethality of his crime. Neither of the Columbine shooters used ARs or high capacity magazines - they used shiatty Tec9 pistols and shotguns (one carried a 50 and 30 round magazine, but he never used them). The Aurora shooter used an AR with one of those shiatty 100 round drum magazines, and it jammed on him almost instantly, so he switched to a pump action shotgun and a Glock 22 pistol. The Virginia Tech shooter used a Glock 19 with 15 round magazines (he carried 19 of them) and a Walther P22 (yup, a .22).

So even if the Democrats got everything they wanted in the DiFi bill, it is obvious to me that the gains would be almost immeasurable as far as actually stopping the problem or limiting the lethality of spree shooters.

Even without much in the way of factual evidence behind them though, the Democrats are appealing to the fears of a liberal base who generally detest guns and recoil at the sight of something like an AR-15. They are doing so precisely because it allows them to have the appearance of "doing something," even though the data makes it quite clear that an AWB/Mag ban will do precisely *nothing*.

Oh, it will do something for their careers though. Gun owners love a fight. Between the dirty trick playing Republicans, millions of pissed off gun-nuts like myself and the NRA (recently infused with millions of dollars from individuals and an industry that sold 3 years of inventory in 72 hours), we will make sure that an AWB becomes the Democrat party's Waterloo. Just like it was back in 1994.

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.

None of the ideas mentioned above have been mentioned by Democrats. Just the same, simplistic, ineffective bans that they always trot out on these occasions, before the blood has even dried from the floors.
2013-01-03 08:39:04 PM  
1 votes:

o5iiawah: In a home defense situation, the .223 is likely to simply go through the attacker and embed itself into a wall


Yes...we know this from the autopsies of the children killed in Newtown....oh wait..thats not right....the ME said the rounds stayed within the body cavity and there was no over penetration.
2013-01-03 08:35:59 PM  
1 votes:

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.


Actually, it doesn't.

Since you are using data from 2005 that is over 6 years old.

i.imgur.com

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.
2013-01-03 08:04:09 PM  
1 votes:

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.


Why the fark would I want to make more work for myself by making harvesting meat more difficult? It's not a game, it's a chore. Sure, it's nice to get outside, but I'm there to fill my freezer, not sit my ass in a tree stand a goddamn day.
2013-01-03 06:42:26 PM  
1 votes:

keithgabryelski: Rifles

I'd like to talk about rifles first because they're about the least-suitable type of gun for self defense, so let's get them out of the way.

Rifles are wonderful things, and are certainly the most accurate type of commonly made firearm there is. They are also usually fairly powerful, and tend to fire a single projectile, or bullet.

When it comes to home defense, great accuracy is almost never needed. Fights are fought at spitting distance, and they need to be won quickly and decisively - without endangering your neighbors by slinging bullets through walls.

Rifles are the most likely to over-penetrate, and the most unwieldy to handle in close quarters... especially a bolt action hunting rifle. Even the much-touted AR type rifles are at the bottom of the heap for home defense in most situations, although they provide ease of use and large magazine capacities.

Rifles can do the job of killing an assailant - any firearm can - but they are not well-suited for the task of close-quarters defense against a small number of assailants in your home. If you decide to use a rifle, though, then please carefully consider which rifle caliber to use for home defense.


1) The increased accuracy isn't necessary for the rifle, however most people in stressful situations will miss surprisingly easy shots. A longer gun is easier to instinctively aim, which makes you more accurate.

2) Over-penetration isn't an issue if you select the right bullet type, which leads to..

3) Stopping power, a handgun has no chance of attaining the one shot stopping probability that a rifle has, and that probability is increased by using rounds that deform or fragment on impact, which is what minimizes the chance of killing anyone in an adjacent room.

That article is utter crap as far as rifles are concerned, especially if you're using a collapsible stock, which allows fairly easy maneuvering through a house. In all honesty though, if you found yourself in such a situation, it's best to stay in one room and call the police while keeping the gun aimed at the door.
2013-01-03 06:22:03 PM  
1 votes:

keithgabryelski: facts that more guns = more gun murders and more murders overall.


Does that assertion take into account the fact that murders are going down even as guns sales go up?
2013-01-03 05:32:30 PM  
1 votes:
sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net
2013-01-03 05:26:47 PM  
1 votes:

Thunderpipes: It could pass. Then when compliance became an issue, there goes the 4th amendment. I could see an Obama-like President giving the ATF unrestricted powers of search and seizure as the next step.


They'll run out of agents pretty quickly. Then it's up to the US Marshals, FBI, DEA, State police, and local police, etc. to see if they want to help out and end up hanging up their own 'Help Wanted' signs as well.
2013-01-03 05:24:03 PM  
1 votes:

keithgabryelski: or is it possible that the AR-15 is really good at medium range killing of crowds and really bad at home defense (assuming close quarters).


If that's all it's good for, than the police certainly have no need for them.
2013-01-03 05:05:09 PM  
1 votes:

ElBarto79: BojanglesPaladin: ElBarto79: This is an old argument from the pro-gun crowd which has been pretty thoroughly discredited so I'm not even going to get into it.

Awww go ahead and get into it anyway. I'm curious.

You can google it and find plenty of info if you're interested. I will say this though; I don't even advocate "banning guns" as so many in the pro gun crowd like to howl about. You can still have guns, but I don't think you need assault weapons, I don't think you need high capacity mags or semi-auto weapons at all. I don't think you need a basement full of guns either. If you want a few weapons for hunting then fine, if you want a revolver for self defense then ok. But it should a lot more difficult to get them and there should be more restrictions on the types of guns you can own.


Fascinating screed, but I can;t help but notice you didn't actually address the question.

/But I do applaud your absolute conviction that your opinion of what is an 'acceptable' level of exercising a constitutional right has any value.
2013-01-03 04:42:52 PM  
1 votes:

BigNumber12: The Southern Dandy: This is an old argument from the pro-gun crowd which has been pretty thoroughly discredited so I'm not even going to get into it.


For 100 points, who can name that logical fallacy?


rectal extraction?
2013-01-03 04:37:17 PM  
1 votes:
This thread is further proof that the Left didn't hate G.W. Bush because he was a power-expanding, freedom-restricting, value-pushing authoritarian, they hated him because he was the Other Team's power-expanding, freedom-restricting, value-pushing authoritarian.
2013-01-03 04:33:20 PM  
1 votes:

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?
2013-01-03 04:20:14 PM  
1 votes:

ElBarto79: In 2011 there were 24 people murdered every day by guns. That figured doesn't take into account all the other violent crimes - shootings, robberies, rapes, etc. that also involve guns, just the ones where people actually died. So "constantly" used in the sense that this is a very frequent occurrence is not inaccurate. Also interesting is to compare this number to other countries where guns are banned; in the UK there were 1.5 people murdered per day in the same year.


It is estimated that between 100,000 and 2,500,000 people annually use a gun to stop a violent crime upon their person. The actual figure is up for debate, but these are the high and low boundaries.

That's 274 to 6,849 people saved from unlawful violence, up to an including attempted murder, by their own lawful use of a firearm, per day.

The vast majority of the deaths you count are committed by people that aren't allowed to have a gun in the first place. They're totally prohibited now. There's no reason to believe that a double-super-prohibition would make any dent in that figure.

You can't do cost/benefit analysis if you only consider costs.

I'll turn it around for you: You are advocating a position that will result in an guaranteed increase in completed violent crimes while having no anticipated benefit in preventing the existing murder-with-gun rate. Your position is all cost and little to no benefit.
2013-01-03 04:16:19 PM  
1 votes:

MythDragon: give me doughnuts: MythDragon: Who buys an AR-15?

Only sheeple who can't appreciate the elegance of this beauty:
[combatrifle.net image 850x321]

Another design that discriminates against the left-handed. So what if your brass is ejected forward? In a bullpup design, that still means hot brass in the face.

[i102.photobucket.com image 578x380]

Except that, no it does not.


How is he able to aim effectively with that black box covering his eyes?
2013-01-03 04:14:39 PM  
1 votes:

FlashHarry: kombat_unit: FlashHarry: is there any other country that fetishizes the gun like the US? i mean, i know the swiss like to shoot. the brits love hunting. but guns are just tools to them. only here are they worshipped and glorified above all else. it's fascinating.

/not anti-gun
//just anti-stupid

Bullshiat, you're a grabber. Admit it!

not at all. in fact, i'm looking to buy a lee-enfield .303 at the moment. i'm just not opposed to rational regulation.


I have observed "rational regulation" proposals. I have never observed such proposals submitted by any elected legislator.
2013-01-03 04:07:39 PM  
1 votes:

Red_Fox: Great farking country when you gotta buy machine guns for home defence.

I wonder if y'all even realize how insane that sounds.



You know what is really insane?  Thinking that AR rifles are "machine guns".
2013-01-03 04:00:46 PM  
1 votes:

BigNumber12: jeffco55: I forgot just how many liberal pussies posted over here.

The sad thing is that an actual "liberal" would oppose increasing regulations on firearms. I guess the "anti-gun liberal" is the Left's version of the "big-government conservative."


Let me rephrase, I forgot just how many progressive statist pussies post here.
2013-01-03 03:49:05 PM  
1 votes:

inner ted: come on now you can surely do better

i mean - at least try to compare it to something really stupid like you did earlier

but hey - if "i got nothing" is all you got... so be it.


So I guess this is going to replace your answer to my comment about 10 vs. 11 rounds?

How about this, what do you think is acceptable magazine capacity for violent maniacs shooting up a school? What number of rounds will make that situation safe?
2013-01-03 03:37:24 PM  
1 votes:

Kit Fister: jeffco55: [sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net image 640x360]

So, I'm not sure what you're trying to say. It's better to shut up and suffer the rape, and the lifetime of psychological trauma that goes with it, than to defend yourself?


jeffco55 is attempting to imply, through what is obviously a fake image, that the Brady Center advocates denying women an effective tool to prevent rape. While I am aware that some irrational individuals (including at least one Farker) hold the belief that killing an attempted rapist in self-defense is murder, I am certain that the Brady Center does not advocate such a position.
2013-01-03 03:15:50 PM  
1 votes:

Moderator: Hey y'all,

Just as a reminder we don't like to see dead animals posted in Fark threads.  If you're looking to brag about your hunting please link the pic with a warning that it contains corpses.

Thanks,
ME


WARNING! WARNING! WARNING!

3.bp.blogspot.com
2013-01-03 03:13:42 PM  
1 votes:

ElBarto79: Kit Fister: ElBarto79: I'd be happy to leave gun owners alone if they were capable of leaving the rest of us alone and weren't constantly barging into our public spaces blasting everyone in sight.

Constantly? Really? Statistically speaking you'll sooner contract AIDS or die in a car wreck than have someone barge in on you and start shooting. The way you talk, Newtown happened in 50 different places at the same time!

Isn't that a bit dishonest? A tragedy is a tragedy, but let's be realistic. 10,000 deaths a year in a population of 300,000,000...And if we're going to be specific about it, unlike a previous poster said, that number includes the numbers of handgun-related suicides at a rate of about 60% of them, and the remaining deaths are 80% related to drug and gang violence.

So, to recap, you have a .00333333% chance of being killed, by population. Not going to kill yourself? Well, then you're down to a .0013333% chance of being killed, by population. Not involved in the drug trade or gangs? assuming that a full 80% of non-suicide deaths by firearm are related to that (based on FBI data), you now have a whopping .00026666667% chance of death, by population.

The chances of a spree killer shooting up your place is astronomically low. Little comfort, but let's face reality here.

I'd be willing to bet that you have a better chance of getting hit by a bus and simultaneously contracting HIV than be involved in such an event.

You're right...it's really nothing right? And terrorists only killed ~3000 people during the September 11 attacks. Sucks for sure but in the big scheme of things it's puny. Why have we put so much effort into combating terrorism?


So what you're saying is that you agree with warrantless searches, indefinite detention, rendition, blanket wiretaps, arbitrary and unchallengeable "no fly/terrorism watch lists", and torture?

Interesting.
2013-01-03 02:57:41 PM  
1 votes:

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

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

Got it.


Nice try. I don't own a Hummer or a Corvette, just a Ford Focus. I didn't get an AR-15 because it looks cool and makes me feel tough; I bought it because it's fun. If having fun makes me a douche, I guess you win.
2013-01-03 02:57:16 PM  
1 votes:
This all sounds a little like Germany in the 1930s, and we are Jews.
2013-01-03 02:54:52 PM  
1 votes:

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

Okay then...

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


It's actually an 1800's western term for people who use guns.

But you're an unlettered person, so it's very likely you wouldn't have encountered any real vocabulary in your travels across the funny pages.
2013-01-03 02:54:29 PM  
1 votes:

Dimensio: Wolf_Blitzer: Dimensio: Additionally, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives is already overwhelmed with request for items currently covered by the National Firearms Act. Obtaining federal permission to purchase a noise suppressor can take up to eight months. Senator Feinstein's proposal would only further overwhelm the agency; waiting times for processing would exceed one year.

Then provide better funding for the ATF. How much do you think the NRA's solution of putting an armed guard in every possible place a shooting might happen would cost?

The stupidity of the National Rifle Association's proposal is not an excuse for Senator Feinstein to produce an equally (or more) stupid proposal.


If it is a stupid proposal, why do Obama's children have armed protection at their school? Why do many rich and powerful people have their children in schools with armed security personnel? Another case of good enough for them, the peasants cannot have it.
2013-01-03 02:48:59 PM  
1 votes:
mbillips

This is the weirdest of the many weird NRA crusades, right up there with Teflon-coated bullets.
Thank you for demonstrating so perfectly my earlier quote that idiots use the film "Lethal Weapon" to get their education about firearms.

In In January of 1982 when NBC started this bulls--it by broadcasting their "special" on cop-killer bullets not one single cop had EVER been shot with one. Not one.

The NRA opposed the proposed law since it would have banned not only "armor piercing" handgun rounds, but nearly all conventional rifle ammunition as well.

It is a made up term used to get fools like you all worked up. Congrats ... you are a fool.

/// not an NRA member.
2013-01-03 02:43:24 PM  
1 votes:
It's all in the name...

We're possibly looking at the dawn of a new era in firearms. The terms "assault" and "tactical" have become politically charged buzzwords, and many are calling for changes. Well, I think I've found the perfect change. It's no longer an "assault" style rifle. I present...the Sport Utility Carbine.

tg3k.com

The SUC comes fully equipped with scope, iron sights, laser, flashlight, horn, rear-view mirror, and sports bottle holder. This baby's ready for some serious plinking!
2013-01-03 02:42:21 PM  
1 votes:
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.
2013-01-03 02:39:53 PM  
1 votes:

you have pee hands: When was the last time a major world power was overthrown from within by guerrilla fighters?



Seriously. I can't imagine a group of determined individuals using low-tech rifles and homemade explosives ever being able to cause any sort of difficulty for the American or Soviet militaries. Now that things like stealth bombers and SSBNs exist, asymmetric guerrilla resistance will never be able to deter a modern military!
2013-01-03 02:37:05 PM  
1 votes:

aninconvenienterection: tricycleracer: It's the SUV of guns

This statement is 100% accurate. Like an SUV, the AR is extremely versatile and comes in many different sizes and shapes depending on the job you want to do. Also like an SUV, no one "needs" an AR- but what does "need" have to do with anything? Do you "need" a big house? Why, because you have lots of kids? Do you "need" to have lots of kids and suck more resources out of our planet? Do you "need" that new iPhone that some poor bastard is assembling in a Foxconn prison camp?

I dont "need" to hear about how ARs kill so we shouldnt have them- our big houses and big SUVs and iPhones kill plenty of people, it just so happens that these people are in third world hovels and we cant see them.


Also:
"A citizen may not be required to offer a 'good and substantial reason' why he should be permitted to exercise his rights. The right's existence is all the reason he needs." - Woollard v Sheridan
2013-01-03 02:26:34 PM  
1 votes:

BigNumber12: Reading this thread is giving me flashbacks to 2001. Emotion-inducing event that is nevertheless so uncommon that its likelihood of happening to the average American is statistically irrelevant? Loud, emotionally-based, ill-conceived public outcry for the government to remove rights from the 99.999% of the population who has never committed a crime of the type being targeted, because SECURITY, and "think of the victims"-type emotional appeals? Proposal of a sweeping set of regulations that only really affect law-abiding people who willingly submit to them in the first place?

There are quite a few people in here who must fap vigorously every time the PATRIOT Act is renewed and expanded.


4.bp.blogspot.com
2013-01-03 02:25:59 PM  
1 votes:
i.imgur.com
2013-01-03 02:23:58 PM  
1 votes:
Reading this thread is giving me flashbacks to 2001. Emotion-inducing event that is nevertheless so uncommon that its likelihood of happening to the average American is statistically irrelevant? Loud, emotionally-based, ill-conceived public outcry for the government to remove rights from the 99.999% of the population who has never committed a crime of the type being targeted, because SECURITY, and "think of the victims"-type emotional appeals? Proposal of a sweeping set of regulations that only really affect law-abiding people who willingly submit to them in the first place?

There are quite a few people in here who must fap vigorously every time the PATRIOT Act is renewed and expanded.
2013-01-03 02:18:18 PM  
1 votes:

Gyrfalcon: FTFA: When someone like Adam Lanza uses it to take out 26 people in a matter of minutes, he's committing a crime, but he isn't misusing the rifle. That's exactly what it was engineered to do.

Bears repeating.

Look, guys, the AR-15 is an ASSAULT RIFLE. Let's stop pretending it is anything but a military weapon with a few modifications that make it salable in the civilian market. Yes, you can use it to hunt, but it wasn't designed to do so. It is NOT a good home defense weapon, although it can be used to CLEAR a small area of intruders, because it was designed for that purpose. It was designed to fill a room with high-velocity shot by people who don't care that the rounds will go through the target, probably the walls, and likely anyone on the other side. Like, you know, in a military assault. Where the user is killing a roomful of the enemy and probably more in the next room. This makes it wrong for use in an apartment building, where the people in the next room are NOT the enemy.

Which is fine, if you want to go out to the desert and rock and roll; but at least let's all ADMIT that that's why the AR-15 exists and why it is in use. There are better weapons for hunting; there are much better weapons for home defense; the AR-15 is for killing large numbers of people or animals and for suppressive fire in combat. Don't tell me you're going to go out and shoot a deer on full auto and then eat whatever's left. At least not if you still have all your teeth.


Ahh, another post about the history, purpose and design intent of the AR-15, from someone who has most likely never actually fired one.

In most major city police departments, a number of patrol officers are trained on and issued AR-15s. They are logged into the dispatch system as long gun officers. If a cop is ever going on a call where they have reasonable suspicion the suspect may be armed, the very first thing they do is get on the radio and ask for a couple of more cops with ARs.

Why? Because the AR-15 is simply the best weapon ever built for engaging in an armed confrontation. The low recoil means it is easily controlled. The ergonomics make it very fast to handle. The magazine capacity is a good thing when even police officers who engage an armed suspect only have a hit rate of 13%. The 5.56/.223 round actually displays the best overpenetration resistance of any other modern, commonly issued ammunition - so unlike a 9mm handgun round, it is LESS lethal after having gone through a wall or door.

I can list off a dozen reasons why the AR-15 is actually the very best weapon for self defense. I came to that conclusion after taking a number of self defense classes from well known schools and instructors. Every single one of them (i.e. people who are subject matter experts) will tell you that the only reason we have handguns is because we can't exactly go about our daily business slinging a rifle.

Of course, that doesn't matter. I'm just a "gun nut." Clearly the people who have zero experience with firearms, who's only knowledge of the subject was acquired through movies, TV shows and 2 weeks of internetting know what is best for self defense.
2013-01-03 02:15:58 PM  
1 votes:

dofus:
c) with a shotgun in the dark, you don't need to worry about aiming much. With other stuff, you better be pretty good if you're expecting to hit anything.


If I had a dollar every time I heard this BS I could retire and fark supermodels all day long.

What kind of spread do you really think that a shotgun has? Especially at ranges inside of a house?
2013-01-03 02:14:49 PM  
1 votes:

Richard Flaccid: The Southern Dandy: A militia keeping a state free isn't about shooting at deer or burglars. It's about fighting a world class military power like England, or the USA. Assault rifles are the very least you would need to fight such an opponent.

Yeah, but that would be treason. Like all of those traitor citizens in Germany that used their private weapons to fight against Hitler's government in the 40's. Farking traitors, how dare they stand up to their own government!


Like that traitor that said "We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately."
2013-01-03 02:14:40 PM  
1 votes:

Cymbal: Guess you've never heard of gun buy-back programs or guns for toys, etc.


Buy BACK?

Does the state think they owned them in the first place?

One man with a gun can tell 100 what to do....Lenin.
2013-01-03 02:07:51 PM  
1 votes:

BgJonson79: 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?

What kind of felon? Tax evasion? Hacking? Being 18 years and 1 day old with a 15 year old and 364 day old GF?


Actually I agree with him.

A felon, on release, should be allowed to any any gun they want. And vote. And everything else.

Treating felons so differently is one of the major reasons it's so hard for them to get out of a life of crime. If a felon is too dangerous too own a gun, then they're probably too dangerous to own a knife, which probably means they're just "too dangerous" and should still be in prison.
2013-01-03 02:02:48 PM  
1 votes:

The Southern Dandy: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The 2nd amendment is one sentence. Is does not mention hunting or home defense. It mentions MILITIA for a free state, and the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms.

A militia keeping a state free isn't about shooting at deer or burglars. It's about fighting a world class military power like England, or the USA. Assault rifles are the very least you would need to fight such an opponent.

You may not like that the founding fathers gave us that right, but a lot of people don't like the rights the founding fathers gave us. The religious right don't like that the founding fathers gave us separation of church and state. Everybody hates that the founding fathers gave Westboro Baptist Church the right to free speech, and others the right to burn the US flag, but they did give us those rights for a reason. To keep our state free.


Honestly, it's no use. Fark idiots refuse to recognize the truth.
2013-01-03 02:00:14 PM  
1 votes:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The 2nd amendment is one sentence. Is does not mention hunting or home defense. It mentions MILITIA for a free state, and the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms.

A militia keeping a state free isn't about shooting at deer or burglars. It's about fighting a world class military power like England, or the USA. Assault rifles are the very least you would need to fight such an opponent.

You may not like that the founding fathers gave us that right, but a lot of people don't like the rights the founding fathers gave us. The religious right don't like that the founding fathers gave us separation of church and state. Everybody hates that the founding fathers gave Westboro Baptist Church the right to free speech, and others the right to burn the US flag, but they did give us those rights for a reason. To keep our state free.
2013-01-03 01:56:08 PM  
1 votes:

JesseL: I'd love for someone to define for me in the sort of technical terms suitable for a well-written law exactly what constitutes a "military grade" rifle that is currently available to the general public, and coherently explain what about those features should make it illegal.
Bonus points if you can point to a time when civilians didn't have "military grade" firearms.

.
1039 A.D. Link
2013-01-03 01:55:39 PM  
1 votes:

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

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

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


Sounds like that's the very definition of murder machine: 12 dead things in 2 minutes. I'm not crying for the hogs, but that anecdote really isn't making the point you're hoping it'll make.
2013-01-03 01:55:35 PM  
1 votes:

ElBarto79: Personally I would be in favor of banning semi-automatic weapons entirely. Bolt action rifles, pump action shotguns and revolvers and that's it. But banning assault weapons is a good start.


Most revolvers are semi-automatic, and their design allows them to easily fire much more powerful rounds than an auto-loading handgun. A cheap, .38 snub nosed revolver has probably been used in more violent crimes since the 20th century than any other gun (with the possible exception of the .22lr, you know, the one the boy scouts use).

You don't know what you are talking about.
2013-01-03 01:54:56 PM  
1 votes:

Spade: lostcat: stiletto_the_wise: lostcat: It makes me sick that I have to worry about my wife and/or daugther being randomly gunned down in the street by some lunatic stranger who is just having a bad day, or doesn't give a shiat about the world.

The chances of that happening are miniscule--less than the chance that both your wife and daughter get struck by lightning at the exact same time.

We're talking orders of magnitude less than their very real chance of being killed in a car accident. I'd pick something better to worry about.

Tell that to the parents of the 20 dead kids...

Awe, appeal to emotion. That's cute.


Emotion...yes...Maybe you should look into it. It's the thing that makes you imagine a bullet entering the cowering back of a terrified six-year-old girl every time you pull the trigger on your COOL GUN TOY!
2013-01-03 01:52:41 PM  
1 votes:
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 01:51:59 PM  
1 votes:

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 01:48:18 PM  
1 votes:
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 01:46:01 PM  
1 votes:
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 01:44:03 PM  
1 votes:

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 01:34:20 PM  
1 votes:
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 01:32:31 PM  
1 votes:
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 01:32:06 PM  
1 votes:

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 01:29:39 PM  
1 votes:

rufus-t-firefly: jshine: ...so owning weapons (the right guaranteed by the Constitution) should be legal, while using them to shoot people should be illegal.

And only criminals shoot people - not law-abiding gun owners.

Of course, when someone who legally owns a (or has easy access to a legally owned) gun kills a few people, then he's a criminal and we can still say "Law-abiding gun owners don't commit gun crimes."

[www.brainygamer.com image 351x343]
And keep pretending that the threat of legal punishment has a deterrent effect on someone who plans to die at the end of his rampage.



In a country of 300,000,000 people, there are always going to be some undiagnosed nuts who wig out and kill people. Its inevitable. One can make a value judgement: is it worth restricting the rights of everyone in society in the hope that it might make it somewhat more difficult for a few of those nuts to kill as many people as they might otherwise?

In my opinion, no, its not worth it. I value my rights more than the very tiny increase in safety that one might hope to achieve. These murders -- famous as they are due to the 24-hour news cycle -- are *incredibly* rare as an actual safety concern. You're much more likely to die being hit by lightning (so maybe a better crusade would be for mandatory lightning rods?).
2013-01-03 01:29:21 PM  
1 votes:

lostcat: Joe Blowme: Yet another tard who thinks the 2nd is for hunting.... so sad.
Dont like guns? Dont buy guns. Dont let your gunaphobia affect my right to buy a gun.

Don't let your guns affect my right to live.

Either because you have a bad day and decide to become a killer, or becasue you get burgled and the theif then uses or sells the gun to someone who does.

It makes me sick that I have to worry about my wife and/or daugther being randomly gunned down in the street by some lunatic stranger who is just having a bad day, or doesn't give a shiat about the world.


maybe you should move to a country that bans guns and was not founded by people using guns to gain freedom. Your same argument can be made about you getting drunk and killing my family when you are stupid and drive because you are mad at your job or lack thereof.
2013-01-03 01:25:26 PM  
1 votes:

ElBarto79: jshine: Of course "Your right to swing your arms ends just where the other man's nose begins." (incorrectly attributed to Oliver Wendell Holmes, but still a good quote).

...so owning weapons (the right guaranteed by the Constitution) should be legal, while using them to shoot people should be illegal.

Owning weapons should be legal, owning certain weapons that were designed specifically to kill people and have few practical uses that there are not already better and safer tools for should be illegal.


All weapons are designed to kill

That's why they are weapons.

If some ass hole comes after my wife while she's jogging I don't want her carrying something that's "safer". I want it to be specifically designed to be as dangerous as possible.
2013-01-03 01:24:14 PM  
1 votes:

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: This thread seems to say a lot about who really buys the AR-15.
And a lot about them, too.


Not as much as the morons who think they should be banned.
2013-01-03 01:23:36 PM  
1 votes:

Cymbal: Pretty small sacrifice to make on your part actually. You still get off on shooting your favorite guns, just in a regulated environment, in exchange for thousands of senseless deaths year. Seems pretty rational to me.


I own about 20acres of isolated land and shoot into the side of a hill.
So now I should drive with my firearms into the city to go to a gun range to prevent senseless deaths when I'm shooting up old computers?
2013-01-03 01:23:17 PM  
1 votes:

you have pee hands: Mostly because people keep piling up make believe quotes and laws and don't bother to fact check their own bullshiat, but partly because people aren't generally willing to shoot back at a fascist when they know they'll get a couple potshots off before their entire family is killed in retribution.  You know what all these dictatorships actually do have in common?  Whoever controls the military wins.  When the military starts to defect en masse, that's when the gig's up.  Regardless of weaponry there's an enormous difference between trained soldiers and disorganized rabble and militias replacing authoritarian dictatorships with anything but other authoritarian dictatorships in an armed revolution almost never happens.


Soldiers make up a minuscule percentage of the population. In general, assume only say 20% of the population fights back. Each soldier might realistically be outnumbered 10 to 1. Do you really think they can fight an insurgency of that magnitude effectively? Do you think a dictator is going to roll those dice? No, and that's why they disarm the public first.
2013-01-03 01:22:58 PM  
1 votes:

Cymbal: Pretty small sacrifice to make on your part actually. You still get off on shooting your favorite guns, just in a regulated environment, in exchange for thousands of senseless deaths year. Seems pretty rational to me. But I have a feeling rational thoughts escape you all the time now.


ALL rifles put together are not even attributed to 400 murders in any given year. That's miles away from thousands.
2013-01-03 01:21:23 PM  
1 votes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



images.christianpost.com


And yet, it doesn't seem to be in very good working order, now does it?
2013-01-03 01:19:41 PM  
1 votes:

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


Let's throw this out right now. Most tests I've seen with drywall show that an AR-15 round is less likely to overpenetrate than handgun or shotgun rounds. Small rifle rounds going through drywall tend to tumble and disintegrate, while handgun/shotgun rounds tend to keep going (see: box of truth, use of weapons by police and military when trying to reduce collateral damage).

Beyond that, understand this point: the most protected firearms, constitutionally, are those that "serve some relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia" (US v. Miller). I'm tired of seeing "but they're no good for hunting!" when it comes to talking about any type of firearm. While using a firearm for the purpose of hunting is also preserved by the 2nd amendment, it's by no means its core. The fact that US v. Miller is the case that is most often thrown around by those claiming that the 2nd amendment protects a "collective" right (despite it never addressing that notion), then is turned around and ignored by those same people speaks volumes. They're not concerned with the right at all, it's a play to piecemeal ban things as they see fit. Start with "military style weapons" because someone who doesn't know much about guns says they're "unusual and unusually dangerous", then switch to banning weapons good for hunting because "the second amendment only protects arms for militia use". It's an iterative method of eliminating a right, and it's utter bullshiat.
2013-01-03 01:19:20 PM  
1 votes:

TheOther: a hunting rifle


What is a "hunting rifle"?
2013-01-03 01:18:32 PM  
1 votes:

H31N0US: BraveNewCheneyWorld: There isn't an argument here, because you didn't even bother to look up what "well regulated" meant when the 2nd amendment was written. Here, let me show you yet another reason why you're wrong.

Ok I'll play. What part of some asshole shooting up a bunch of first graders seems to import "functioning correctly" to you? Adam Lanza was part of a "Well Regulated" (per your interpretation of the syntax) militia?


Are you barely literate? That's not what the 2nd amendment says at all. The 2nd amendment outlines that it is necessary for the formation of a well equipped militia, it does not in any way state that it is the sole reason for the existence of the 2nd. We already have laws in place keeping guns out of the hands of people like Adam Lanza, but surprise surprise.. a criminal didn't obey the law. How is it that your mind is so defective that the "obvious solution" is to make more restrictive laws. You have the thought process of a crazy person.
2013-01-03 01:17:14 PM  
1 votes:

Thunderpipes: You don't know any gun nuts. No gun nut would associate with a liberal crybaby pants.


I miss having a Prius and plan on buying a Nissan Leaf for my next car (yet I race motorcycles, and restored and own a classic Mustang fastback, '52 Dodge truck and '48 Willys) My house and office are powered almost entirely with solar panels that I installed myself. I typically vote for liberals, but occasionally vote for a moderate republican.

And I own enough guns that I require a couple safes to house them. From a Tarus .38 snub nose, to my SKS, 10/22, an Enfield, my takedown Winchester Model 12 shotgun and almost every example of a Winchester lever action (each manufactured in the 19th century, in museum quality). I only lack an Model 1895, and an authentic Henry rifle. Although I am thinking of adding a Sig 556 to my collection, in light of a possible AWB.

That's me, a Prius driving liberal sissy crybaby, with more guns than room and a concealed carry permit. You might want to rethink your stereotypes.
2013-01-03 01:15:46 PM  
1 votes:
fark you anti freedom assholes. raise your kids properly you TV watching, Walmart shopping zombies, don't infringe on my rights. going out to buy my first 2 AR-15's this weekend and 10,000 rounds too. fark you, it's your kid, your problem, not ours. stop deflecting and straw manning.
2013-01-03 01:15:40 PM  
1 votes:

ElBarto79: jshine: BarkingUnicorn: cr7pilot: CPT Ethanolic: cr7pilot: I own an AR-15. I'm not a survivalist or a gun nut or a hunter. I'm a guy who enjoys going out in the desert and shooting assorted targets for fun. It's really that simple. If you like shooting as a sport, the AR-15 is a lot of fun to shoot. I understand that some people don't like shooting as a sport and think "why do you need that kind of gun" but that's just because it's not their thing. AR-15 owners don't buy AR-15s because they have some inherent desire to have more "killing power."

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

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

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


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

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

You have a right as long as doesn't infringe upon someone else in some way. You have a right to free speech but you do not have a right to slander someone or yell "fire" in a crowded theater. See the difference? In the same way if your idea of fun requires a tool which was specifically designed to kill lots of people, has few or zero practical uses that there are not better tools for and which is incredibly deadly in the wrong hands then you may be out of luck with regards to that particular kind of "fun".



Of course "Your right to swing your arms ends just where the other man's nose begins." (incorrectly attributed to Oliver Wendell Holmes, but still a good quote).

...so owning weapons (the right guaranteed by the Constitution) should be legal, while using them to shoot people should be illegal.
affordablehousinginstitute.org
2013-01-03 01:14:45 PM  
1 votes:

H31N0US: Yeah. It's about a well regulated militia and grants "The People" the right to bear arms. Notice "The People" is capitalized, meaning the population as a collective, not every person..


That argument makes no sense. Civilians have had the right to own rifles from the time the first pilgrim set foot on this continent. If the 2nd Amendment only pertained to the militia, why did literally every house have a rifle in it?

And contrary to popular belief, civilian gun ownership has always been roughly on par with the military firearms of the day. Back in the early days, flint lock rifles were the best technology in the world and that's what armies used and that's what they used to hunt deer. Today, gun control advocates hold up the bolt action, center fire rifle as the quintessential "hunting rifle" that embodies the practical spirit of the 2nd Amendment, but during WWI and the beginning of WWII, the ability to quickly fire 4 or 5 rounds was the bleeding edge of military lethality, and men returning from war took them into the woods for hunting and self defense almost immediately.

What is that old saying about being wary of any legislation named after a tragedy? These current talks of gun bans are nothing more than emotional knee jerk reactions and they will do nothing to affect crime or safety in any meaningful way. But they will create an opening for more and more aggressive gun bans that eventually guts the 2nd Amendment and makes us that much less a free people.

It's not a political thing with me either, I usually vote D and I was just as opposed to the Patriot Act, NDAA, DUI checkpoints, and no knock warrants. There are people all over the political spectrum who want to chip away at this freedom or that freedom for a whole myriad of reasons, and they should all be opposed.
2013-01-03 01:14:34 PM  
1 votes:

Cymbal: Dimensio: Cymbal: Wow, don't think I've ever seen so many NRA schills in one thread before.

Really wish you gun nuts could just all have fun with paintball instead. Would be a lot less senseless deaths. But that will never happen because you slack-jawed troglodytes have to be the most selfish and degenerate subhuman wasted of life assholes to ever live.

Do you have any rational commentary to offer, or are you relying upon ad hominem attacks due to an awareness that you advocate a position devoid of any intellectual merit?

See my comments up thread. AR-15 and guns like it should only be available to rent at shooting ranges, period.


So your answer is "no", you have no rational commentary to offer. Thank you for your honest admission.
2013-01-03 01:11:05 PM  
1 votes:
It says "well-regulated" right there in the amendment.

Yeah, except "well-regulated" doesn't mean "subject to regulation" in this context. It means "fully equipped".
2013-01-03 01:10:00 PM  
1 votes:

Cymbal: Wow, don't think I've ever seen so many NRA schills in one thread before.

Really wish you gun nuts could just all have fun with paintball instead. Would be a lot less senseless deaths. But that will never happen because you slack-jawed troglodytes have to be the most selfish and degenerate subhuman wasted of life assholes to ever live.


Do you have any rational commentary to offer, or are you relying upon ad hominem attacks due to an awareness that you advocate a position devoid of any intellectual merit?
2013-01-03 01:07:03 PM  
1 votes:

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

Got it.


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

Got it.
2013-01-03 01:05:09 PM  
1 votes:
Drug test people before providing any gun license and retest yearly.
2013-01-03 01:03:17 PM  
1 votes:

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

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


That's ridiculous, and you should be ashamed to have said it. I advocate for "gun control," but not "gun banning."
2013-01-03 01:00:38 PM  
1 votes:

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

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

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


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

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

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

How about no?

Why not?

sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net


---


And look where it got him... :)

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

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

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

/cue someone pointing out that Oswald used a bolt-action rifle
2013-01-03 12:58:35 PM  
1 votes:

scottydoesntknow:

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

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


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

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

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



I'm sure the fact that most Texas "hunters" have a deer feeder set with a timer to spew corn every hour or so has nothing to do with the hog problem.
That's not hunting, it's shooting.
2013-01-03 12:57:31 PM  
1 votes:

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

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

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

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



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

Similar arguments could be made about the 1st: since neo-Nazis and KKK members use their freedom of speech in ways you find objectionable, maybe we should just curtail it a little bit...
2013-01-03 12:57:25 PM  
1 votes:
Let's talk about the purpose of the 2nd amendment.

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

--Ice T.

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

--Thomas Jefferson

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

The free citizens of the United States.
2013-01-03 12:57:20 PM  
1 votes:

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

Perhaps you might ask me.


This is an issue where, if you're not in full lock-step with one side or the other, you're dismissed as either a "gun-grabber" or "gun-nut".  Only blind adherence to the extremes is allowed.
2013-01-03 12:57:11 PM  
1 votes:
You always hear the argument that no one needs a gun whose sole design and purpose is to "kill people" stated as a fact.

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

Now, argue over whether a person ever has a legitimate reason to kill another person.
2013-01-03 12:54:57 PM  
1 votes:

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


Or as we like to call them, journalists.
2013-01-03 12:53:40 PM  
1 votes:
I'm glad that an article written by someone with absolutely no training in the topic has informed me of what is and is not effective for self defense.
2013-01-03 12:53:40 PM  
1 votes:

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


An upper limit is less than 3% of homicides; all rifles (of which AR-15 rifles are a smaller subset) were used to commit fewer than 3% of homicides in 2011. More homicides in that year were committed with unarmed attacks.
2013-01-03 12:53:25 PM  
1 votes:

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


Yes ,because the government would never encroach citizens' rights for no good reason whatsoever.
2013-01-03 12:52:59 PM  
1 votes:

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

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

This, that that and that.

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


Why shouldn't I be able to have what Uncle Sam has?
2013-01-03 12:52:58 PM  
1 votes:

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

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


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

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

i.imgur.com

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-t h e-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8
Link
2013-01-03 12:52:21 PM  
1 votes:

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


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

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

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


You are a liberal, you don't know any gun nuts. You fantasize about them.
2013-01-03 12:51:32 PM  
1 votes:

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


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

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

Sure, people with single shot guns will also shoot at trees, but they are a good bit less effective decimating the local vegetation. And no, the argument that "it will grow back" really doesn't hold water.
2013-01-03 12:50:54 PM  
1 votes:
My only worry is that if the day comes, and I can barely imagine it, where the American military turns it's guns on us, and we don't have guns; What then?

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

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

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

I think I should run for President!
2013-01-03 12:49:32 PM  
1 votes:

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

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


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

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

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

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

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

Obviously, this means the 1st and 4th amendment both refer to a "collective" right too... Your argument is asinine to anyone who's literate.  Of course these rights are individual rights, otherwise they'd be meaningless.
2013-01-03 12:48:54 PM  
1 votes:
On a related note, the company which makes extended capacity magazines has sold out a 3 and 1/2 year supply in the last 10 days.

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

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

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

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

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


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

/Learn history. Start with the Federalist papers and go from there.
//If the 2nd A. doesn't grant rights to individuals, ALL individuals, it's the only one in the entire Bill of Rights.
2013-01-03 12:47:46 PM  
1 votes:

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

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

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

Same here. Works well for coyotes, too.

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

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

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

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


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

As to not seeing it happen with cars...how many people died in the last month/year due to drunk drivers? I seem to recall quite a few cases involving DUIs and/or texting where a driver killed or caused an accident that killed lots of people at a time. But yeah, that's totally not the same thing, right?
2013-01-03 12:44:43 PM  
1 votes:

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


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

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

/I have nothing against spoilers lot of ordinary people have them too
//the same as AR15s
2013-01-03 12:43:13 PM  
1 votes:
People who are afraid of ARs need to watch this. Seriously

What Is An "Assault Rifle"? - You've Probably Been Lied To
2013-01-03 12:42:58 PM  
1 votes:

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

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


It's the big lie theory. Keep repeating 'assault rifle', 'military grade', 'assault weapon', 'military weapon' over and over until people believe it. The press could be accurate but since gun control/banning fits into their political philosophy...
2013-01-03 12:42:07 PM  
1 votes:

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


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

"Back when we audited the FBI academy in 1947, I was told that I ought not to use my pistol in their training program because it was not fair. Maybe the first thing one should demand of his sidearm is that it be unfair." -- Jeff Cooper
2013-01-03 12:41:21 PM  
1 votes:

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

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

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

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


Hey, you arbitrarily pick an object to ban that is part of an overarching right, I pick one too. I just happen to choose a tool or two useful to the right of free speech and freedom of the press, rather than the right to keep and bear arms.
2013-01-03 12:41:11 PM  
1 votes:

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

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

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

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


Are you saying that if it wasn't capitalized, you'd agree it refers to individual rights?
2013-01-03 12:40:43 PM  
1 votes:

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

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


I enjoy shooting. I also enjoy reasonable arguments on this issue because if we don't get reasonable on all sides of this, it's gonna go nowhere.
2013-01-03 12:40:43 PM  
1 votes:

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

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

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

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

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

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


I'm willing to concede only types of fun that don't hurt other people should be allowed. Drugs and guns would be allowed under my interpretation.
2013-01-03 12:40:06 PM  
1 votes:

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

(Not mine, but similar in nature)

[i205.photobucket.com image 598x307]

Guess it's not 'military looking enough'.

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


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

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

Get it?
2013-01-03 12:40:02 PM  
1 votes:

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

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

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

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


What "limitation" would you apply to rounds of ammunition purchased at one time? What would prevent ammunition purchasers from making multiple simultaneous transactions? How would you address the fact that such a measure would result in substantially increased interest in reloading?
2013-01-03 12:40:00 PM  
1 votes:

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


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

The Constitution does not allow the Federal Government to set speed limits.
2013-01-03 12:39:34 PM  
1 votes:

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

How about no?

Why not?


sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net
2013-01-03 12:38:11 PM  
1 votes:
Adam Lanza's mother, Nancy Lanza, has been described as "a gun-hoarding survivalist who was stockpiling weapons in preparation for an economic collapse."

Yeah, she owned a whopping 5 guns. Mitt Romney has more houses than that, is he "hoarding" them?
2013-01-03 12:38:09 PM  
1 votes:

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

How about no?

Why not?



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

2) Do you think the government would give me an equivalent rifle or shotgun that is at the same market value as my rifle?
2013-01-03 12:37:55 PM  
1 votes:

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


No, I was performing a "dumb joke". Lighten up, Francis. Go shoot something. It'll help you relax.
2013-01-03 12:37:39 PM  
1 votes:

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

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

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


Don't be an ass. You have the right to defend yourself, but there will always be limits as to the means by which you do so. You can't keep an ICBM in your basement to defend yourself, either. If you need an assault rifle to defend yourself, you're a pussy.
2013-01-03 12:36:17 PM  
1 votes:
This "reporter" is a liar. Nothing new here. His/her bulls--t claims that (s)he is progun is just another lie.
2013-01-03 12:35:48 PM  
1 votes:
So if/when there's a ban on AR-15s and other scary black guns along with the "high-capacity" magazines, how will the success of the ban be measured?
2013-01-03 12:35:41 PM  
1 votes:
The article talks about over penetration and how the rifle is not suited for home defense because it is long.....well you can build an SBR and take that 16 inch barrel down to 8.5 maybe even less...and the autopsies on the kids in Newtown showed that all the rounds stayed in the body cavity so there is no worries about over penetration.

The author of the article was wrong about a couple other things too....and they had to have known...because in one sentence they claim the rifles standard .223 chambering is too weak for hunting...yet in another sentence they claim the rifle is highly modular allowing you to swap out an upper chambered in .223 for one chambered in something else.
2013-01-03 12:34:50 PM  
1 votes:

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

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


You can drive across the country in a rusted out Yugo, if you want, but it doesn't mean it's the right tool for the job.
2013-01-03 12:33:56 PM  
1 votes:
the AR-15 Is Useful for Hunting and Home Defense. Not Exactly.

BS. The kid on (I think it's called) Yukon Men, uses an AR to hunt. He got a caribou and a bear with it on the few episodes I've seen.
2013-01-03 12:33:17 PM  
1 votes:

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

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

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

Same here. Works well for coyotes, too.

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


Yeah, my pickup truck works well for children, too. Plow into a group and back up a few times, takes out just as many, with less effort. Just because a person can USE it for bad things, doesn't mean that it is FOR bad things.
2013-01-03 12:32:16 PM  
1 votes:

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

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


.
Oh puhlease. Many here have a warm tingly feeling running up their leg at that thought of taking away basic human rights from their fellow Americans. In this case the human right of self defense.
2013-01-03 12:31:23 PM  
1 votes:

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


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

/Has a full-auto, legally registered M60 Machine gun. Belt-fed full-auto, baby. hellatiously expensive, but I'm retiring on what I can sell it for.
2013-01-03 12:30:41 PM  
1 votes:

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


Duh, it's not black. It's a proven fact that a black rifle is much, much more powerful than a green one. It's like the red "R" stickers on ricers. That alone adds about 250 horsepower. Paint it black and maybe add some rails and some sort of laser. You'll see.
2013-01-03 12:30:11 PM  
1 votes:
The US Gubmint should just issue stock AR-15's to every citizen. With all the mods, and individual setups that can be had for that weapon, we'd fix our economy in no time at all.
2013-01-03 12:28:43 PM  
1 votes:
.223 rounds kill deer just fine...with one shot.
2013-01-03 12:28:26 PM  
1 votes:
I always figured the AR-15 was for people that wanted to put holes in paper and people. Lately it's more about people because we know the fascists are coming.
2013-01-03 12:28:20 PM  
1 votes:
Who cares who buys them and why? They shouldn't be available to the general public. If a shooting range wants to rent one out to you to use on the premises that would be fine, and the ONLY situation where I can see them being available to use.
2013-01-03 12:28:05 PM  
1 votes:

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

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

(ETC.)

This list is in no way complete.

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


You may want to RTFA before hypocritically accusing the author of failing to know what he's talking about. The entire point is that while the AR-15 is versatile, making arguments similar to the one you're making is disingenuous at best. Way to miss the point (understandable as you didn't actually read it).
2013-01-03 12:27:35 PM  
1 votes:

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


.
Smartphones, those things make people walk in front of moving trains.
2013-01-03 12:26:58 PM  
1 votes:

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

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

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


Same here. Works well for coyotes, too.
2013-01-03 12:23:54 PM  
1 votes:

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


5.56
2013-01-03 12:23:27 PM  
1 votes:

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

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

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


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

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

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

/I still want an AR style that handles 7.62×63
//the WASR 10 is nice
/we have a huge hog problem too and go help out various farmers by clearing them out
2013-01-03 12:21:46 PM  
1 votes:

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


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

2.bp.blogspot.com
2013-01-03 12:18:48 PM  
1 votes:
" ...able to penetrate both sides of a standard Army helmet at 500 meters rifle..."

With or without a head inside?

And why are we creating guns designed to shoot through our own soldiers helmets?
2013-01-03 11:41:02 AM  
1 votes:

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

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


where do you go that you find AK ammo expensive?
2013-01-03 11:40:04 AM  
1 votes:
is the .223/.556 the same NATO round that the current western militaries use? it's essentially a high-powered .22, right?
2013-01-03 11:12:30 AM  
1 votes:
interesting piece.
 
Displayed 233 of 233 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
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