The "What is an Assault Rifle?" thread

[JohnnySavage]

Hell... more articulate people stole my thunder

 

[KimGordon67]

Here's the problem with this type of emotional appeal: Any gun powerful enough to bring down a deer, is powerful enough to bring down a person. Even the most reasonable anti-gun people repeatedly say, "We don't want to take away your hunting guns" ...well, the AR-15 isn't really all that powerful of a gun and banning that model would still leave everyday deer rifles that make much bigger holes.

It seemed pretty grounded in actual empirical observation to me - but yes, also emotional, because teenagers getting shot to shit actually should provoke some sort of emotional reaction. He explained, quite clearly, why some weapons cause way more damage than some other weapons. He picked on what I"m assuming is an AR-15 in this instance because, I'm assuming, that's what was used in the shooting? And maybe they're more readily available - or are just commonly used in this instances because they look 'cool' or something? But I think he really means anything that does what he's described. If banning the first sort of weapons means you can't hunt deer ... well, that's sad. There's a few things I can't do but can't because they're illegal. I don't feel like my basic human rights have been compromised - it's just a bit annoying sometimes. But I get why the good of society is more important than my access to those things.

 

[JohnnySavage]

It seemed pretty grounded in actual empirical observation to me - but yes, also emotional, because teenagers getting shot to shit actually should provoke some sort of emotional reaction. He explained, quite clearly, why some weapons cause way more damage than some other weapons. He picked on what I"m assuming is an AR-15 in this instance because, I'm assuming, that's what was used in the shooting? And maybe they're more readily available - or are just commonly used in this instances because they look 'cool' or something? But I think he really means anything that does what he's described. If banning the first sort of weapons means you can't hunt deer ... well, that's sad. There's a few things I can't do but can't because they're illegal. I don't feel like my basic human rights have been compromised - it's just a bit annoying sometimes. But I get why the good of society is more important than my access to those things.

You miss the point - the author, essentially, says the AR-15 should be banned because it makes a big hole. The AR-15 uses a .223 caliber bullet (i.e., the bullet is .223 inches in diameter). A typical deer rifle uses a larger caliber bullet and makes a bigger hole.

These nuts seem to prefer the AR-15 not because it's so available or because if it's ballistic characteristics; they prefer it because it looks cool. Ironically enough, the proposed bans only deal with how a gun looks, not it's ballistics. They want to ban bayonet lugs FFS. When was the last time anyone fixed bayonets???

 

[WoundedKnee]

That's because they lived with an understanding of the law rather than just paying lip service to it. In order to conduct ones self in business at the time, one had to have more than a passing familiarity of the concepts behind the laws. And certainly beyond the mere knowledge there is some nebulous thing called "law" which can be interpreted to mean whatever you want it to mean at the moment. An argument legal scholars of today seem to be enamored with.

They also lived in close proximity to a hostile frontier and between two colonial powers.

 

[KimGordon67]

You miss the point - the author, essentially, says the AR-15 should be banned because it makes a big hole. The AR-15 uses a .223 caliber bullet (i.e., the bullet is .223 inches in diameter). A typical deer rifle uses a larger caliber bullet and makes a bigger hole.

These nuts seem to prefer the AR-15 not because it's so available or because if it's ballistic characteristics; they prefer it because it looks cool. Ironically enough, the proposed bans only deal with how a gun looks, not it's ballistics. They want to ban bayonet lugs FFS. When was the last time anyone fixed bayonets???

I"m not missing the point at all. He's referring to the AR-15 because that's the gun he was dealing with. (Well, he was dealing the consequence of that gun, but you get my point.)
I'm saying if hunting rifles can the same or similar things, maybe think about banning them too, or at least making them a heap more difficult to get. Although I like eating game, I don't think that trumps the rights of school kids to not get shot to shit.
Your point about shooters choosing AR-15s because they look cool is precisely my point.
Maybe y'all need to take the argument about 'this gun actually causes more damage but looks less scarey' to the mass shooters, because they don't seem to have that information, and are clearly lacking some important education.

 

[WoundedKnee]

The doctor quoted in that article -- and anywhere gun grabbers want to make the point about how terrible the wounds were -- is comparing apples to oranges. ANY high-velocity rifle round will cause more damage than a handgun round (except for handguns that fire rifle caliber rounds.)

Pretty much any "gun nut" could have told him that the wounds would be worse than handgun wounds. They could also tell him that "full-power" rifle bullets would do a lot more damage.

That begs the question of why "gun grabbers" only want to ban the specific model of rifle used in this massacre. Also why they're not more outraged at the local LEOs and FBI for not following up on the "terroristic threats" and other warning flags the shooter practically waved in their faces.

Something needs to be done to reduce the number of school shootings in the US. I submit that following up on tips of "terrorist threats" -- like Las Vegas Metro has done twice in the last week and Texas LEOs have done three or four times that have made Google News -- is far more effective than trying to ban guns.

I'll tell you why. They want the camel's nose under the tent. They are hoping and praying for just even the briefest hesitation on the part of the general public and they can snatch away the AR15 legally. The now for a fact that that will not stop shootings, but then with precedent set, they can widen the scope of their ban especially when the pendulum swings and they hold the Congress and Executive branches.

 

[JohnnySavage]

These school shootings are horrific, and I wish I knew the answer to stopping them. But they are not the norm and rather rare when compared against the number of schools and the number of students. 17 dead? That's awful, but that's a weekend in most major cities.

And that's how the people in my region of the country look at it. I have no data, but I'd bet that people around here have the highest per capita gun ownership in the country, and gun violence is unheard of here. The last murder (within 50 or 60 miles) was over a decade ago, and everybody has multiple guns. People here, look at gun violence as a city-folk problem. That's not to say it couldn't happen here, but the attitude is "Why should we be punished because city people keep shooting each other?" We are far removed from the goings on in DC, and you will never, ever, ever get people here (and in most of rural America, I suspect) to change their views on guns.

 

[WoundedKnee]

True dat. Same here, but we do have some gun violence in town, but that's drug-driven violence. There's also the occasional domestic shooting, but nothing like we see elsewhere. I like the AR because it was basically the gun I learned to shoot with (other than your basic bb-gun and .22, but those were just toys.) and there is a level of comfort there. I am thinking of picking up a new lower, I have some uppers just sitting around not really doing anything, just in case some movement emerges (which I'm not really seeing).

 

[JohnnySavage]

True dat. Same here, but we do have some gun violence in town, but that's drug-driven violence. There's also the occasional domestic shooting, but nothing like we see elsewhere. I like the AR because it was basically the gun I learned to shoot with (other than your basic bb-gun and .22, but those were just toys.) and there is a level of comfort there. I am thinking of picking up a new lower, I have some uppers just sitting around not really doing anything, just in case some movement emerges (which I'm not really seeing).

I have an AR-15 but it very rarely gets out of the safe. I don't know why, I just never take it out. I'm a 30-30 man, although as I get older I find myself switching to a 12-gauge. It's lighter to lug around the woods, and I can't really see far enough anymore to shoot at anything outside its range

 

[Amoebah]

I have an AR-15 but it very rarely gets out of the safe. I don't know why, I just never take it out. I'm a 30-30 man, although as I get older I find myself switching to a 12-gauge. It's lighter to lug around the woods, and I can't really see far enough anymore to shoot at anything outside its range

Do you enjoy killing?

 

[toeskr]

I"m not missing the point at all. He's referring to the AR-15 because that's the gun he was dealing with. (Well, he was dealing the consequence of that gun, but you get my point.)
I'm saying if hunting rifles can the same or similar things, maybe think about banning them too, or at least making them a heap more difficult to get. Although I like eating game, I don't think that trumps the rights of school kids to not get shot to shit.
Your point about shooters choosing AR-15s because they look cool is precisely my point.
Maybe y'all need to take the argument about 'this gun actually causes more damage but looks less scarey' to the mass shooters, because they don't seem to have that information, and are clearly lacking some important education.

Maybe you are just having an emotional meltdown over shit you don't understand.

 

[BobaFetaCheese]

I have an AR-15 but it very rarely gets out of the safe. I don't know why, I just never take it out. I'm a 30-30 man, although as I get older I find myself switching to a 12-gauge. It's lighter to lug around the woods, and I can't really see far enough anymore to shoot at anything outside its range

At my age the shotgun is better cuz I just need to shoot in it's general direction. I should look up if they make bi-focal scopes.

 

[Amoebah]

Maybe you are just having an emotional meltdown over shit you don't understand.

Go easy; she still thinks Jacob Hoggard is going to see her again.

 

[BobaFetaCheese]

I"m not missing the point at all. He's referring to the AR-15 because that's the gun he was dealing with. (Well, he was dealing the consequence of that gun, but you get my point.)
I'm saying if hunting rifles can the same or similar things, maybe think about banning them too, or at least making them a heap more difficult to get. Although I like eating game, I don't think that trumps the rights of school kids to not get shot to shit.
Your point about shooters choosing AR-15s because they look cool is precisely my point.
Maybe y'all need to take the argument about 'this gun actually causes more damage but looks less scarey' to the mass shooters, because they don't seem to have that information, and are clearly lacking some important education.

It's one thing to ban scary looking accessories that don't do anything but those pesky hunting rifles are the very core of the 2nd. It's not only a legitimate sport that millions of people participate in but it is no doubt exactly the type of weapon the founders were thinking of because it was the ONLY type of personal gun at the time. Ok not really but very very close.

 

[beew]

The online discussions would often be quite comical if there weren't victims involved.

I hate to admit: Watching all the posturing, or seeing some men react as if people were trying to rob them of their manhood
made me chuckle at times.

 

[Amoebah]

Long guns are good. Burp guns are bad.

If the citizens should ever have to rise up in militia form to end government tyranny, would the tyrannical Army only use single shot weapons to keep it fair?

They should put that in the Constitution.

Or potato guns only. Make revolutions fun again!

 

[BobaFetaCheese]

Long guns are good. Burp guns are bad.

If the citizens should ever have to rise up in militia form to end government tyranny, would the tyrannical Army only use single shot weapons to keep it fair?

They should put that in the Constitution.

Or potato guns only. Make revolutions fun again!

Nope, if it were all out war they'd use bombs, tanks, missiles, carrier groups and anything else our zillion bucks in defense spending has bought us. No chance against that.
But as it's been said, they would have a difficult time with hearts and minds. A little thing like Waco turned the country against them. It'd be a tough sell but I'm sure Trump could do it because he's the greatest salesman there is. His sales skills are yuge.

 

[toeskr]

Go easy; she still thinks Jacob Hoggard is going to see her again.

I'm sorry, wait, wrong thread.

Not sorry but I will go easy.

 

[Amoebah]

I don’t think anyone outside of texas, jann wenner and conspiracy nuts gives two shits about Waco. Not a thing.

Okay. And I’ll give you Bruce Cockburn.

 

[Que]

These school shootings are horrific, and I wish I knew the answer to stopping them. But they are not the norm and rather rare when compared against the number of schools and the number of students. 17 dead? That's awful, but that's a weekend in most major cities.

And that's how the people in my region of the country look at it. I have no data, but I'd bet that people around here have the highest per capita gun ownership in the country, and gun violence is unheard of here. The last murder (within 50 or 60 miles) was over a decade ago, and everybody has multiple guns. People here, look at gun violence as a city-folk problem. That's not to say it couldn't happen here, but the attitude is "Why should we be punished because city people keep shooting each other?" We are far removed from the goings on in DC, and you will never, ever, ever get people here (and in most of rural America, I suspect) to change their views on guns.

Not incidently, their views on guns are based on practical knowledge and experience. Other than some virtue signaling nitwits who gained some sort of experience with firearms in the military, in it is rare to meet a raving anti-gun nut who is familiar with even the basics about what is being talked about.

Possessing a milk crate full of various colors of spray paint doesn't make one any more inclined to vandalize your neighbor's property.

It takes some serious sociopathy to go out and kill another human being. The opportunity to acquire the means to do that is the least of it.

 

[Que]

Not my country. Decent countries have no written constitution. They work by tacit understanding, common decency, a healthy scepticism, a willingness to treat even the most powerful as equals before the law, and a keen sense that every person living under the laws has a vital role in maintaining those laws.

None of which is true any longer in Britain. But it used to be. Judges could throw out mischievous claims basically due to common sense - we even had a phrase, 'the man on the Clapham omnibus', meaning that what counted as sensible was something that the ordinary person would understand as sensible. That only works, though, where you can assume a common cultural understanding. Note I do not say a common background. Thousands of people, perhaps millions, came to Britain from across the world because of a respect for its ways, and those men and women from India, Uganda, the Caribbean, are still here, and are still openly proud of their adopted country in a way that the locally born left-wing types like me so rarely are.

But now we have millions from all cultures, absolutely including white British culture, who do not share those attitudes. I will never understand how people wish to live in a country they despise, and seek to change everything that made it decent - I do not say great, but decent. It may be old-fashioned, but I still broadly believe that 'when in Rome'.

We specifically tossed your lot out (not irrelevantly by an armed insurrection) because we wanted to be a nation ruled by immutable law, not the the whims of whoever was in power at the moment.

A wise, benevolent dictator is absolutely the best form of government in terms of efficiency and justice. Snce absolute power corrupts absolutely it's a pretty stupid gamble though.

By trial and error, you have muddled your way through to a hybrid compromise that's working for you for now. You survived to this point with heavy doses of religious indoctrination, superstition and fear to keep the population civili(s)ed. And funded with resources that modern thinking would say you stole from exploited people. (I would dispute that, but have to throw that in for intellectual consistency with what I am ascribing as your worldview. )

These days, you're leaning heavier and heavier towards mob rule. You personally lean towards benevolent redistribution which is a perfectly lovely thought. Sharing is in fact caring. There is probably nothing uglier that I can imagine then a large dependent class clamoring for more and more of other people's money.

You can keep your reliance on the basic generosity and goodwill of subsequent generstions, I'll take my flawed, black-letter law, thanks.

 

[Rightguide]

We specifically tossed your lot out (not irrelevantly by an armed insurrection) because we wanted to be a nation ruled by immutable law, not the the whims of whoever was in power at the moment.

Yep, the Constitution, as much of it as remains, is still preferable to the mental instabilities of George lll or his modern incarnations.

 

[toeskr]

Last I heard, Sweden is doing okay and they are armed to the teeth.

Probably better mental health screening.

 

[toeskr]

I don’t think anyone outside of texas, jann wenner and conspiracy nuts gives two shits about Waco. Not a thing.

Okay. And I’ll give you Bruce Cockburn.

I like that Jo Gaines gal and how she can make a shitty house way better.

Btw, who ended up with the Davidian's property?

 

[Amoebah]

I like that Jo Gaines gal and how she can make a shitty house way better.

Btw, who ended up with the Davidian's property?

"Today, a church where the remaining Branch Davidians worship is on the land. It was built on top of the foundation where the original building was burned, Dan Bell said. “It’s very strange that there are still Branch Davidians living here,” Bell shared while filming the land. “They still kind of worship David Koresh. It’s very … kind of unnerving when you’re there, to think these people cannot see how he was wrong.”

Heavy.com