The Truth About "Assault Weapons"
- Thread starter Fatbat
- Start date
You are probably right. If I wasn't so fucking busy I might actually take a crack at it.
I actually like it better than an infographic. It forces the user to engage by using the arrow keys. Infographics are busy looking and info tends to get skipped over on them.
That's pretty interesting, although maybe a bit oversimplified, like most of the gun debate in this country. Security theater though, I agree.
But having hunted quite a bit, and knowing many hunters, none of them pack an AR to go deer hunting. That'd be a silly choice.
But, as we all know, for the hard core who are rolling heavy to take down bank or some such, semi-auto just ain't gonna cut it.
Especially if you've got to shoot it out with few dozen cops after Trejo spills the beans on the heist because fucking Waingro tortures it out of him.
Having said that, I'll take one. Although, I'd prefer a ranch rifle. I find AR-15s to be a bit gauche.
But having hunted quite a bit, and knowing many hunters, none of them pack an AR to go deer hunting. That'd be a silly choice.
But, as we all know, for the hard core who are rolling heavy to take down bank or some such, semi-auto just ain't gonna cut it.
Especially if you've got to shoot it out with few dozen cops after Trejo spills the beans on the heist because fucking Waingro tortures it out of him.
Having said that, I'll take one. Although, I'd prefer a ranch rifle. I find AR-15s to be a bit gauche.
Not discounting your personal experience, but many o' of hunters use AR-15's to hunt and manage property, where it's legal. If they have any style, they use an AK.
maybe its also html5 too thoughI'm not sure what kind of hunting that would be. Shooting coyotes or feral dogs, I can see. But the 5.56 is too light for even small deer, in my opinion, particularly with FMJs.
That's the thing, the 5.56 was specifically designed to maim and not kill. The idea being that you put a couple rounds through your enemy that don't kill him, so resources have to be redirected to care for wounded.
There are firearms that are clearly designed for hunting, and those that are clearly anti-personnel. And, there's a spectrum between the two. AR-15s and AK-47s are clearly anti-personnel weapons. A bolt action 30-06, while it might make a good sniper rifle, is on the other end of the spectrum.
Not discounting your personal experience, but in mine, an AK would be a ridiculous choice to take deer hunting. An AK, while certainly an excellent battle weapon, is designed to put lots of FMJs downrange, very reliably. With a deer rifle, you want something that will put the first, soft-point bullet right where you want it, and kill the animal quickly and cleanly.
I'm sympathetic to the argument presented in the OP's site. But, I think it's disingenuous to ignore these distinctions. And I say that as a gun owner and shooter. Like most political debates in this country, we're polarized, and we ignore the complexity and nuance of the issue.
Here is an interesting read:
First Reports Evaluating the Effectiveness of Strategies for Preventing Violence: Firearms Laws
Spoiler:
Frankly, it wouldn't matter if there was clear evidence that gun regulations reduce or prevent violence. Macro stats are fun to compare, but they don't address a far more important issue: why do some people (cops, soldiers, etc.) get to legally own and carry firearms that others are prohibited from owning and carrying?
Clearly, wearing a badge doesn't make someone a good person. Neither does wearing fatigues. So, if clothes, badges, and vocations don't reflect goodness (or lack thereof), why does the guy in the cop suit get to carry an item I am prevented from carrying?
What makes him special?
If you spend a minute thinking about that question, you'll notice that most advocacy of gun laws is based on nothing more than opinion. It is not based on principles. Nor is it based on any moral belief. The fact that a gun law applies to some, but not others, precludes any sense of universality.
The only sensible argument a gun control advocate can present - and it too is deeply flawed - is to ban all firearms from every person. Nobody, including cops, soldiers, and employees of the state, gets to own any firearm. The law would at least apply to everybody.
First Reports Evaluating the Effectiveness of Strategies for Preventing Violence: Firearms Laws
Spoiler:
Frankly, it wouldn't matter if there was clear evidence that gun regulations reduce or prevent violence. Macro stats are fun to compare, but they don't address a far more important issue: why do some people (cops, soldiers, etc.) get to legally own and carry firearms that others are prohibited from owning and carrying?
Clearly, wearing a badge doesn't make someone a good person. Neither does wearing fatigues. So, if clothes, badges, and vocations don't reflect goodness (or lack thereof), why does the guy in the cop suit get to carry an item I am prevented from carrying?
What makes him special?
If you spend a minute thinking about that question, you'll notice that most advocacy of gun laws is based on nothing more than opinion. It is not based on principles. Nor is it based on any moral belief. The fact that a gun law applies to some, but not others, precludes any sense of universality.
The only sensible argument a gun control advocate can present - and it too is deeply flawed - is to ban all firearms from every person. Nobody, including cops, soldiers, and employees of the state, gets to own any firearm. The law would at least apply to everybody.
That's pretty interesting, although maybe a bit oversimplified, like most of the gun debate in this country. Security theater though, I agree.
But having hunted quite a bit, and knowing many hunters, none of them pack an AR to go deer hunting. That'd be a silly choice.
But, as we all know, for the hard core who are rolling heavy to take down bank or some such, semi-auto just ain't gonna cut it.
Especially if you've got to shoot it out with few dozen cops after Trejo spills the beans on the heist because fucking Waingro tortures it out of him.
Having said that, I'll take one. Although, I'd prefer a ranch rifle. I find AR-15s to be a bit gauche.
I'm working on a photo gallery of hunters that use ARs, there are thousands of people who do.
Remington recently released dozens of purpose-built deer ARs.
Non-fragmenting 223/556 ammo does a number on deer. The problem is that for humans, light+fast ammo is most effective. For deer you need a heavy round with a thick jacket.