The Truth About "Assault Weapons"

[-joe-]

Question purely out of curiosity (Faggy vegetarian, so no hunting for me when I get licensed. Shame, looks like something I'd enjoy) - wouldn't a bolt action rifle, or at least a semi auto sniper rifle make more sense, at least for longer range stuff. For birds, it seems like a shotgun would make the most sense? What use does an AR serve in that respect?

(don't get me wrong, fully support assault rifle legality)

 

[netbert]

Bah, I was hoping to see The Truth About Six-Pack Assault Weapons.

 

[schockergd]

Question purely out of curiosity (Faggy vegetarian, so no hunting for me when I get licensed. Shame, looks like something I'd enjoy) - wouldn't a bolt action rifle, or at least a semi auto sniper rifle make more sense, at least for longer range stuff. For birds, it seems like a shotgun would make the most sense? What use does an AR serve in that respect?

(don't get me wrong, fully support assault rifle legality)

AR's are a jack of all trades.

With quality ammo they're immensely accurate. My 20" AR build with match ammo would do well under 1" at 100yds. The ammo is (or was) very cheap, one of the cheapest centerfire cartridges available on the market (762x39, 5.45x39 and 762x54r are also very cheap calibers but the first two are for AKs). If you maintain them decently, they're also pretty reliable overall. If you don't like anything with the gun, it can be changed including the caliber.

So, while the AR isn't as useful as a bolt gun for long range, it's still pretty good overall.

 

[dreamache]

:banana_sml:

:music06:

Is this your way of trolling? Is it because you know your arguments are so ridiculous, you have to supplement them with little cartoons?

 

[SgtSlaughter]

Question purely out of curiosity (Faggy vegetarian, so no hunting for me when I get licensed. Shame, looks like something I'd enjoy) - wouldn't a bolt action rifle, or at least a semi auto sniper rifle make more sense, at least for longer range stuff. For birds, it seems like a shotgun would make the most sense? What use does an AR serve in that respect?

(don't get me wrong, fully support assault rifle legality)

Hey man you can go hunting just eat the hair.

AR rifle you can hunt deer (where it's legal)
You can hunt boars
You can sport shoot
You can protect your family
You can protect yourself from tyranny

Bolt action more accurate yes, but AR is still plenty accurate for hunting.

The problem comes down to power. A .223 / 5.56 cartridge the AR shoots only has enough power to take down a deer from within 200 yds. 200 is really pushing it too. I would say the at most 100 to 150 yds or below which is typically within range of most deer hunting shots anyway in my experience.

A bolt action deer rifle chambered in 30.06 on the other hand has enough energy to drop a deer in excess of 500 yds. Much larger cartridge with a lot more power.

 

[bluecoyote]

question for people in the know;

is there anything in the ar15 that differs from regular rifles in regards to easy modifications???

is the way the AR15 built makes for easy modification to make it into an automatic????

or no???

 

[schockergd]

question for people in the know;

is there anything in the ar15 that differs from regular rifles in regards to easy modifications???

is the way the AR15 built makes for easy modification to make it into an automatic????

or no???

To convert a AR15 to run full auto (Which is illegal) you have two options.

#1 Is somewhat simple, and takes about 30 minutes to do and requires a few easily purchased tools. Every time you fire the gun, there's a very real chance the rifle will explode and kill you. *Most* of the guides/videos out there show this specific modification, which is a very, very , very bad idea.

#2 Is to convert the FCG to what a M16/M4 uses. It requires complex tools, machine equipment and the knowledge to fabricate specific parts. If you have the equipment/skill to go about it this way, you can also manufacture your own machine guns from blocks of metal. Remember, with machine equipment during ww2 children in the UK & Russia were producing thousands of machine guns a day from scrap metal for the military.

 

[yast]

This hole discussion about a assault weapon ban is a farce. It surprises me always again how easy the general public is manipulated and never focuses on what really matters.
What has a AW ban to do with mass killings, killing sprees and maniacs running around killing everything what moves ?

Let's check some numbers.
List of rampage killers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I know it's wikipedia but it will serve the purpose.

ok, i ran some numbers:
List of rampage killers: Europe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Quote:
"This section does not include school massacres, workplace killings, hate crimes, or mass murders that took place primarily in a domestic environment, like familicides, which form their own categories. Cases where the primary motive for the murders was to facilitate or cover up another felony, like robbery, are also not included."

I excluded also Russia,Ukraine and everything before 1900.

86 incidents

List of rampage killers: Americas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
same rules as above, and i only counted the US

91 incidents

Now let's look at school massacres:
List of rampage killers: School massacres - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Quote:
"To be included in this list at least one of the following must apply:

• Incidents with six or more dead (excluding the perpetrator)
• Incidents with a double digit number of victims (dead plus injured)
• Mass murders by intention with at least a dozen victims (dead plus injured)"

14 incidents in europe
17 incidents in the US

Next is School shootings which != school massacres, apparently:
List of school shootings in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
126 incidents with 319 death's

School shooting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ->europe:
20 incidents with 107 death's
^^ i doubt somehow that this is a complete list, only 8 school shootings in all of europe before 2000 ? hm..

So, looking at those numbers on can clearly see that in general rampage killings there is almost no difference between gun free europe and the armed US.
But what really stands out is this insane high number of school shootings with 126 incidents.
If you compare US school shootings with the number of EU one's (given we accept those wiki numbers) one can't deny that there is a problem.

Closer look at the US numbers:
of those 126 incidents with 319 death's where
27 incidents with 0 death's.
55 incidents where with 1 death each.

So. While "adult" killing sprees and massacres are +- the same in the US and Europe; and school massacres are also +- the same - school shootings are definitely out of line.

Do kid's in the US have to easy access to firearms ? Does the glorifying of the rap culture with it's drugs and violence do play some part ? Are parents at fault ? Education ?
Maybe, but i will tell you what has nothing to do with it at all and will not solve the problem:
Banning "Assault Weapons".
Oh god the lulz.

Until the general public start's to educate them self, nothing will change, ever.

/rant

 

[cabezon]

Until the general public start's to educate them self, nothing will change, ever.

Well, most of the general public can plainly see that a wingnut psycho with an AR-15 and a stack of thirty round mags is many times deadlier than a wingnut psycho with a bolt action rifle or a typical handgun. Until those in the avid assalt rifle camp recognize and respond to this simple fact, this debate will continue in the same polarized circle jerk vein. There's plenty of fault on both sides, I'm just saying.

AR rifle you can hunt deer (where it's legal)
You can hunt boars
You can sport shoot
You can protect your family
You can protect yourself from tyranny

Where I'm from, hunting European wild boar imports with a 5.56 would be highly irresponsible, if you give a shit about killing animals cleanly. If the boar was close enough to know where you were, you'd be risking getting your ass seriously fucked up.

I don't own an assault rifle, but I can understand why somebody would. But, pretending an AR-15, or AK-47, or SKS, or HK-91 or whatever isn't a very different weapon than a Remington 700, or anything else a typical hunter would use is disingenuous, and self-defeating in the long run.

 

[dmnEPC]

shall not be infringed.

/thread

 

[schockergd]

Well, most of the general public can plainly see that a wingnut psycho with an AR-15 and a stack of thirty round mags is many times deadlier than a wingnut psycho with a bolt action rifle or a typical handgun. Until those in the avid assalt rifle camp recognize and respond to this simple fact, this debate will continue in the same polarized circle jerk vein. There's plenty of fault on both sides, I'm just saying.



Where I'm from, hunting European wild boar imports with a 5.56 would be highly irresponsible, if you give a shit about killing animals cleanly. If the boar was close enough to know where you were, you'd be risking getting your ass seriously fucked up.

I don't own an assault rifle, but I can understand why somebody would. But, pretending an AR-15, or AK-47, or SKS, or HK-91 or whatever isn't a very different weapon than a Remington 700, or anything else a typical hunter would use is disingenuous, and self-defeating in the long run.

In the US, AR15s and AK47s are by far the most popular boar rifles available. Specialty ammo is made for the respective calibers that is extremely effective on boar.

I don't know if the boar problem is the same as it is in the US, but there are instances of where 5 to 10 guys with AR15s/AKs are needed to cull just one group of hogs effectively.

 

[cabezon]

In the US, AR15s and AK47s are by far the most popular boar rifles available. Specialty ammo is made for the respective calibers that is extremely effective on boar.

I don't know if the boar problem is the same as it is in the US, but there are instances of where 5 to 10 guys with AR15s/AKs are needed to cull just one group of hogs effectively.

I'm talking about the U.S. I'm talking about European boars imported to California about eighty years ago, just a few miles from where I sit. A mature boar can easily go three or four hundred pounds, big ass tusks, and thick armor plating of cartilage along their vitals. Typical shots can easily be 200+ yards in the early morning. Personally, there's no way I'd bring an AR, much less an AK for that. To each their own, I guess.

Then again, some people hunt them here with dogs. The idea being the dogs wear them down until you can get close enough to cut their throat or femoral with a knife. Macho bullshit, in my opinion, since the dogs do the real work and often get killed or cut to shit doing it.

 

[Unarmed Gunman]

Well, most of the general public can plainly see that a wingnut psycho with an AR-15 and a stack of thirty round mags is many times deadlier than a wingnut psycho with a bolt action rifle or a typical handgun. Until those in the avid assalt rifle camp recognize and respond to this simple fact, this debate will continue in the same polarized circle jerk vein.

The deadliest school shooting in US history was the Virgina Tech Shooting - 32 killed / 17 wounded

Weapons used - 2 handguns

You were saying?

 

[Fatbat]

Well, most of the general public can plainly see that a wingnut psycho with an AR-15 and a stack of thirty round mags is many times deadlier than a wingnut psycho with a bolt action rifle or a typical handgun. Until those in the avid assalt rifle camp recognize and respond to this simple fact, this debate will continue in the same polarized circle jerk vein. There's plenty of fault on both sides, I'm just saying.

You clearly didn't view the website above. Virginia Tech, which remains the deadliest mass shooting in the US, was committed with two "typical" handguns and a stack of 10 and 15 round magazines. Not including Sandy Hook, here are the 10 deadliest shootings in the US thus far...

1. April 16, 2007 – Virginia Tech campus in Blacksburg. 32 students dead plus the shooter. << Glock 19, Walther P22 (pistols) with 10 and 15 round magazines.

2. Oct. 16, 1991 – Luby’s Cafeteria in Killeen, Tex. 23 dead plus the shooter. << Glock 17, Ruger P89 (pistols).

3. July 18, 1984 – McDonald’s restaurant in San Ysidro, California. 21 dead plus the shooter. << Uzi carbine, Browning HP, 12-gauge Winchester 1200 (semi auto "assault weapon", pistol & shotgun).

4. Aug. 1, 1966– University of Texas at Austin. 16 dead plus the shooter. << too many weapons to list, but primarily a shotgun and a Remington hunting rifle

5. Aug. 20, 1986 – A post office in Edmond, Oklahoma. 14 dead plus the shooter. << Two Remington-manufactured M1911 (.45 ACP) Semi-automatic Pistols, One Ruger (.22-caliber) Semi-automatic Pistol.

6. April 20, 1999 – Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado. 13 dead plus two shooters. << Intratec TEC-DC9, Hi-Point 995 Carbine, Savage 67H pump-action shotgun, Stevens 311D double barreled sawed-off shotgun (and 10 round capacity magazines). Debatable if any of these weapons qualify as "assault weapons".

7. April 3, 2009 – Immigration services center in Binghamton, New York. 13 dead plus the shooter. << 9mm Beretta 92FS Vertec Inox, Beretta Px4 Storm .45 caliber (pistols).

8. Nov. 5, 2009 – Soldier Readiness Processing Center at Fort Hood, Texas. 13 dead. << FN Five-seven pistol, Smith & Wesson .357 Magnum revolver.

9. Sept. 6, 1949 – Camden, New Jersey. 13 dead. Howard Unruh, 28, killed neighbours while walking near his home. He never went to trial; he was determined to be a paranoid schizophrenic. << Luger P08 pistol (a single handgun from WWII).

10. July 20, 2012 – movie theatre in Aurora, Colorado. 12 dead. << Smith & Wesson M&P15 rifle, Remington 870 Express Tactical shotgun, 2 Glock 22 handguns (as far as I understand things, the majority of the shooting was done with the handguns after the rifle jammed).

So, as we can see, the majority of these shootings were perpetrated with semi automatic handguns, which are no less deadly than semi-automatic rifles, or "assault weapons". The differences are purely cosmetic.

 

[schockergd]

The deadliest school shooting in US history was the Virgina Tech Shooting - 32 killed / 17 wounded

Weapons used - 2 handguns

You were saying?

With low capacity magazines mind you. Half were killed by 9mm half by 22lr.

 

[profitmotive]

Question purely out of curiosity (Faggy vegetarian, so no hunting for me when I get licensed. Shame, looks like something I'd enjoy) - wouldn't a bolt action rifle, or at least a semi auto sniper rifle make more sense, at least for longer range stuff. For birds, it seems like a shotgun would make the most sense? What use does an AR serve in that respect?

(don't get me wrong, fully support assault rifle legality)

AR's are a jack of all trades.

With quality ammo they're immensely accurate. My 20" AR build with match ammo would do well under 1" at 100yds. The ammo is (or was) very cheap, one of the cheapest centerfire cartridges available on the market (762x39, 5.45x39 and 762x54r are also very cheap calibers but the first two are for AKs). If you maintain them decently, they're also pretty reliable overall. If you don't like anything with the gun, it can be changed including the caliber.

So, while the AR isn't as useful as a bolt gun for long range, it's still pretty good overall.

The DC snipers were using an AR15 for those long shots as well.

 

[cabezon]

Actually, I did read the website in the OP, and I understand, and mostly agree with, the argument presented.

I'm not arguing for an "assault weapons" ban. I'm arguing that the debate on this issue is polarized and unproductive. I'm arguing that the public perception of weapons such as AR-15s is that they are on one end of a spectrum of weapons. And to some degree, they're right. The differences between an AR and a Remington 760 are not just "cosmetic." Quoting stats about how many people have been killed by bolt action rifles, pistols, or machetes does not disprove that assertion.

And, with all due respect, saying the difference between a semi-automatic pistol and an AR are "purely cosmetic" is disingenuous. If so, then let's see you make a 300 yard head shot with a Glock, or put thirty rounds through a human silhouette at 100 yards in under thirty seconds with a 1911. If you want to talk firepower, or the ability to kill humans, then in my opinion it comes down to bullet power X firing rate/capacity X accuracy/range.

Just for the record, I like guns. I've shot them since I was nine years old. I own several. I'm sympathetic to the reasons people want to own ARs, AKs, or whatever, even if I don't own one myself.

What I'm trying to communicate, obviously not very successfully, is that there is a public perception about these weapons that is grounded in both hysteria and reality. I think it behooves every responsible gun owner to understand and appreciate that perception, even if they don't accept it. I think the "lots of hunters use them" and "purely cosmetic" arguments are going to be non-starters.

Either way, I doubt we have anything to worry about vis-a-vis a Federal assault weapons ban. I have very little faith one would be effective at reducing gun violence or mass shootings by psychos anyway. But, I'd like to see some discussion of this issue that made an attempt at mutual understanding by both sides. It's something we should take a serious look at, in my opinion.

I don't think I've done a very good job of expressing myself here, probably because I'm deeply ambivalent about it all. I appreciate the conversation though.

 

[Moxie]

And, with all due respect, saying the difference between a semi-automatic pistol and an AR are "purely cosmetic" is disingenuous. If so, then let's see you make a 300 yard head shot with a Glock, or put thirty rounds through a human silhouette at 100 yards in under thirty seconds with a 1911. If you want to talk firepower, or the ability to kill humans, then in my opinion it comes down to bullet power X firing rate/capacity X accuracy/range.

You're right that there some differences between certain types of guns, but notice that the two examples you gave had to do with killing people at a distance. Under most circumstances it would be difficult for someone to do a mass shooting from a distance because people would scramble and take cover.

These type of killers usually choose smaller areas where people are packed in. A bow and arrow is different than a knife, but in close quarter combat the knife would be more effective.

In a room, this :

could be more deadly than this :