General Politics Discussion [ARCHIVED] • Page 126

The difference between semi-automatic and automatic is moot when the force the gun fires with is enough to fucking decapitate people or "render what was essentially a flesh wound fatal." A handgun's flesh wound becomes a death blow when fired from a semi automatic AR-15. You are seizing on a point that is wholly irrelevant.

Also, out of curiosity, how do you insist the AR-15 is not a military weapon when the link and documents I just posted clearly show it being extensively researched and used for military purposes?

 

So you're saying that holding down the trigger and spraying wildly is the same as pointing and firing each bullet at a time? You don't see the difference in that?

Because the AR-15 is semi-auto...the M16 is either full-auto or 3-round burst. So technically, the AR-15 is not for use in the military, it's sold to the public while the M16 is not.

Here is a comparison for various ammo velocity for a handgun vs rifle. If you don't want to look, the differences aren't as drastic as you're assuming. Plus, there is this thing called "stopping power". Some bullets are meant to penetrate while others are meant for high impact, each available in either handgun or rifle. There are cases where a rifle would be weaker than a handgun.

www.leverguns.com/articles/rifle_handgundata.htm

 

Thanks for the info.

I was under the impression that power of the shot was affected by more than mere caliber. Not the case?

Either way, this is still consistent with my lone policy preference, which is restrictions on ammunition capability.

Capable of holding considerably more ammunition
Much less recoil, so better for rapid fire
More powerful-- this may not be the case, I now see.

 

Okay but you are not actually responding to the meat of what is being said, which is that the difference between semi and fully automatic weapons is moot when the AR-15 is designed and functioned the way it does and was originally marketed and shopped to governments around the world for military purposes before it was accepted by the US in a modified form as the M16.

AR-15 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

I would like to know why people think the AR-15, if it's not a particularly special gun, has popped up in most of the deadliest mass shootings in the recent history?

 

So, apparently BLM protesters interrupted the Orlando vigil for the shooting victims.

I'm at work. Any more details on this?

 

Think of it this way:

There is ammo out there that is meant for high penetration, while others are meant for maximum impact force (stopping power).

The basic comparison is the 9mm vs .45, the 9mm will penetrate for sure, but doesn't "hit that hard", while the 45 will knock someone on their ass while penetrating.

 

I believe it's cheap compared to other guns of its type

 

Popularity. From what I understand, it was the first of its kind commercially available, so it was the first to benefit from the branding benefit of subsequent movies and video games. Thousands of those things get sold every day, per a documentary that I am not citing.

 

Besides ease of use and availability?

 

One person went up and spoke:

And said some other stuff about racial tension.

 

Look, I agree that a typical person does not need this weapon, I know I don't need it. If I ran a farm and had vermin all over the place (the AR uses ammo for deer or smaller), I'd probably get one of these.

Why are we still talking about the AR when that wasn't even the gun used? I understand the similarities to the SIG, but I mean it's false.

 

So aren't all of those characteristics that, while not impacting lethality on a mechanical level, can be regulated to at least make a dent in how frequently this gun makes international news for being used for slaughter? We can regulate how products are allowed to be advertised, taxes, and ease of access?

 

Regardless of whether the AR-15 was used in the Orlando shooting, it has been present and used in an abnormally high number of mass shootings in the last two decades. This one incident not involving it does not mean that it is absolved of being involved in however other many shootings and that its off the table for a discussion of it's merits.

 

In certain states, it's pretty damn hard to get a gun legally. On the streets though, I could probably go get one right now if I wanted.

 

I mean I dunno.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/20...laims_the_ar_15_rifle_is_for_hunting_and.html

 

I think the best thing to do is limit the manufacturing of ammunition. You can't control the amount of guns out on the streets, but you can make sure that once the person uses their ammo, they can't buy any more.

 

This is because there's no regulations between states. It's patchy at best.

 

Take this for example:

I lived in KS and I still have my KS driver license. I can go there right now and buy whatever I wanted and walk out with it the same day. California has a "bringing guns from out of state" policy where all you need to do is fill out a form and declare what you have, pass their little background check and you're good to go. That bypasses the safety exam by the way and licensing for anything.

 

it this what you're talking about?

 

Right... But if you don't do that, they would basically have no way of knowing.

 

Haha nope, they wouldn't know!

I drove from KS to CA about 3 months ago in a big ass Uhaul. When you get a little into CA there is a check point and if you're in a moving truck they'll make you open the back. I didn't have the key to the lock (wife did and she was through the check already miles ahead). So they said they'll have to cut it, I said ok go for it. They were giving me attitude like I was hiding something the whole time.

We go back there, they cut the lock and open the roll up door like a foot, then tell me I can go. I was considering bringing in a shotgun but I didn't, but what good did this do?

 

Right, which I think illustrates one of the core issues of gun regulation: it's gotta be federal or else it's pretty much useless.

 

Yup.

In case you're confused on how I feel about the gun control argument, I believe that if I want one, I should be able to buy it, but there should be stringent checks in order to buy one. California does it right by including drug/mental illness charges as a prohibiting factor, among other violent misdemeanors and anything more serious than that.

I don't think arming everyone is the answer, but for me, and where I live, I'd like to have that extra bit of protection in my home.

I live in San Bernardino by the way. The police force here does not respond to 911 calls unless it's a violent offense.

I'm sharing a bit too much right now, but my sister in law called the cops on her own brother, because he hopped up on something and threatening her and her daughter. She called the cops, my wife called the cops too and were told that they can't come out unless something actually happens. Knowing that type of shit and experiencing it first hand makes me have no faith in the local police right now.