My hot take - if you own an AR-15 you have a few loose screws

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a fifty-three yr. old Female & am terrified of all types of firearms in general.

This specific one actually seems like one of the worst.

It’s scary because it looks terrifying.

I can’t define dangerousness but I know it when I see it.

You sound like one of those guys who has a screw loose. Let me guess, you own an AR-19 and think children getting shot to bits is completely worth it!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Table 1: List of Assault Weapons Named in Statutes

Weapon Name

Algimec Agmi

Heckler & Koch HK-91, HK-93, HK-94 and SP-89

AK-47 or -74*

Holmes MP-83

AKM*

Intratec TEC-DC9 & AB 10*

AKS-74U*

Intratec TEC-9 and Scorpion

American Spirit AR-15*

I.O. Inc. Hellpup AK-47*

AR-10 or -15*

I.O. Inc. PPS-43C*

ARM*

Iver Johnson enforcer model 3000

Armalite AR-180

IZHMASH Saiga AK*

Armalite M 15*

Kel-Tec PLR-16 Pistol*

Australian Automatic Arms SAP pistol

Kel-Tec Sub-2000, SU rifles, and RFB*

Auto-Ordnance Thompson type

MAC-10, MAC-11, and MAC 11 carbine type

Avtomat Kalashnikov AK-47 type

MAADI AK 47*

Barrett M107A1 or REC7*

MAK90*

Barrett Light-Fifty model 82A1

Masterpiece Arms MPA pistols*

Beretta AR-70

Mini-Draco AK 47*

Beretta Storm*

MISR*

Bushmaster auto rifle

NHM90 & NHM91*

Bushmaster auto pistol

Norinco 56, 56S, 84S, & 86S*

Bushmaster Carbon 15*

Olympic Arms AR-15, A 1, CAR, PCR, K3B, K30R, K16, K48, K8, & K9 rifles*

Bushmaster XM 15 *

Poly Technologies AKS and AK 47*

Bushmaster ACR rifles*

Remington tactical Rifle Model 7615*

Bushmaster MOE rifles*

Rock River Arms LAR-47*

Calico Liberty III and III Tactical Pistols*

Rock River Arms LAR 15*

Calico Liberty 50, 50 Tactical 100, 100 Tactical, I, 1 Tactical, II and II Tactical Rifles*

Ruger Mini-14/5F folding stock model

Calico Models M-900, M-950, and 100-P

SA 85 or SA 93*

Chartered Industries of Singapore SR-88

SAR-8, SAR-4800, SR9*

Chiappa Firearms Mfour-22*

Scarab Skorpion

Centurion 39 AK*

SIG 57 AMT and 500 series

Colefire Magnum*

SIG Sauer P516 and P556 pistols*

Colt AR-15

Sig Sauer 551-A1, 556, 516, 716, and M 400 Rifles*

Colt Match target Rifles*

SLG 95*

Colt Sporter

SLR 95 or 96*

Daewoo AR 100 and AR 110C*

Smith and Wesson M&P15 rifles*

Daewoo K-1, K-2, Max-1 and Max-2

Spectre Auto Carbine

Doublestar AR rifles*

Spectre auto pistol

Doublestar Corporation AR*

Springfield Armory BM59, SAR-48 and G3

DPMS AR-15*

Sterling MK-6 and MK-7

DPMS Tactical rifles*

Steyr AUG

Draco AK-47*

Street Sweeper and Striker 12 revolving cylinder shot gun

DSA SA58 PKP FAL*

Thompson TA 5 pistols*

Encom MK-IV, MP-9, and MP-45

TNW M230 and M2HB*

Fabrique Nationale/F/N 308 Match and L1A1 Sporter*

USAS-12

Fabrique Nationale FN/FAL, FN/LAR, or FN/FNC

UZI carbine

FAMAS MAS 223

UZI mini-carbine

Feather AT-9 and Mini-AT

UZI pistol

Federal XC-900 &XC-450

Valmet M62S, M71S & M78S*

Franchi SPAS-12 & LAW 12

Vector Arms AK-47 or UZI*

Galil AR & ARM

Velocity Arms VMA pistols*

Galil and Galil Sporter*

VEPR*

German Sport 522PK*

WASR-10*

Goncz High-Tech carbine

Weaver Arms Nighthawk

Gonz High-Tech long pistol

Wilkinson “Linda” pistol

HCR AK-47*

Wilkinson Arms Linda Carbine*

Hi-Point Carbine Rifles*

WUM*

HK USC*

Yugo Krebs Krink*

HK-PSG-1*

So it's defined to be an assault weapon because of its name and not any particular set of features. That won't scale.

That won't scale.

. That won't "scale." Bring that awesome corporate speak, douchey Republican, bring it!

I can use simpler language. If you are going to ban guns by name, legislatures will be unable to keep up. They can't keep up with the synthetic "illegal" drug market, what makes you think this would be any different?

They do more than ban by name. Don’t be obtuse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

“Assault rifle.” An AR15 lacks fully automatic capability. It cannot, by any definition, be an “assault weapon.” It is no different in operation than numerous other rifles, many if not most of them predating WWII. It just “looks scary.”

Nobody here claimed that AR-15s are fully automatic.

And if you are struggling with the definition of “assault rifle”, here is a good start for you:
https://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/rpt/2013-R-0241.htm

The law defines an “assault weapon” as (1) a selective-fire firearm capable of fully automatic, semiautomatic, or burst fire at the user's option; (2) any of more than 150 named semiautomatic firearms, including semiautomatic centerfire rifles and semiautomatic pistols (see Appendix 1); (3) a semiautomatic firearm that has certain features; and (4) a shotgun with a revolving cylinder.

The definition of an “assault weapon” includes any part or combination of parts designed or intended to convert a firearm into an assault weapon or any combination of parts from which one may be rapidly assembled if possessed or controlled by the same person. It does not include (1) firearms rendered permanently inoperable or (2) unassembled parts or combination of parts possessed by a licensed gun dealer or gunsmith he or she employs for repairing or servicing a lawfully possessed weapon.

An AR-15 is not select fire.

It’s listed under #2.

More detailed definition if you looked at the link:
Assault Weapon Defined

The law, as amended by PA 13-3, defines an “assault weapon” as:

1. any selective-fire firearm capable of fully automatic, semiautomatic, or burst fire at the user's option;

2. any of a list of named semiautomatic firearms, pistols, or centerfire rifles or copies or duplicates with their capability in production on or before April 4, 2013 (see Appendix 1);

3. any IZHMASH Saiga 12 shotguns or copies or duplicates with their capability in production on or before April 4, 2013;

4. a semiautomatic pistol or semiautomatic centerfire rifle that has a fixed magazine that can hold more than 10 rounds;

5. a semiautomatic centerfire rifle shorter than 30 inches;

6. a semiautomatic shotgun that can accept a detachable magazine;

7. a semiautomatic shotgun that has both (a) a folding or telescoping stock and (b) a grip, including a pistol grip, thumbhole stock, or other stock that, when used, would allow a person to grip the weapon, resulting in any finger on the trigger hand and trigger finger being directly below any part of the action of the weapon when firing; and

8. a shotgun with a revolving cylinder.

The definition of an assault weapon includes any semiautomatic centerfire rifle that can accept a detachable magazine (one that can be removed without disassembling the firearm action) and has at least one of the following features:

1. a folding or telescoping stock;

2. a grip, such as a pistol grip, a thumbhole stock, or other stock, the use of which would allow an individual to grip the weapon, resulting in any finger on the trigger hand in addition to the trigger finger being directly below any portion of the action of the weapon when firing;

3. a forward pistol grip;

4. a flash suppressor; or

5. a grenade launcher or flare launcher.

The definition of an assault weapon also includes any semiautomatic pistol that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least one of the following features:

1. the ability to accept a detachable ammunition magazine that attaches at some location outside of the pistol grip;

2. a threaded barrel capable of accepting a flash suppressor, forward pistol grip, or silencer;

3. a shroud attached to, or that partially or completely encircles the barrel and permits the shooter to fire the firearm without being burned, except a slide that encloses the barrel; or

4. a second hand grip.

Lol these are easy to get around the specific are stupid

It’s a start. We can make it broader, if needed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a fifty-three yr. old Female & am terrified of all types of firearms in general.

This specific one actually seems like one of the worst.

It’s scary because it looks terrifying.

I can’t define dangerousness but I know it when I see it.

We’ve defined it.

Gun manufacturers market them as “scary”. That’s precisely why the paranoid nuts buy them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a fifty-three yr. old Female & am terrified of all types of firearms in general.

This specific one actually seems like one of the worst.

It’s scary because it looks terrifying.

I can’t define dangerousness but I know it when I see it.

You sound like one of those guys who has a screw loose. Let me guess, you own an AR-19 and think children getting shot to bits is completely worth it!

WTF.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My ex-military DH owns a crappy handgun (I posted about in a previous thread) but would never own an AR. He comes from a military/cop family.

But also note than an AR-15 isn't exactly an assault rifle, despite its name. The "AR" part doesn't stand for "assault rifle." I'm not saying that any of the other points aren't valid, just the assault rifle point isn't. It is a convenient rifle for hunting for many reasons. My DH is not a hunter, though.

I know some big boy LARP's will come in here and say "But I use it for hoggin'!," however the truth is that it is designed for hunting a group of humans. And that's it.

There are better and more noble rifles for deer hunting.

I'm the PP and would say that a bolt-action rifle would be better for hunting but hunters do use the AR-15 for various reasons. There are ways to make them better for hunting big game.

I guess a question could be - would a bolt-action rifle do less damage than the AR did in these terrible scenarios?

No, it would not

[Anonymous]

I am newly in Pat Toomey’s state (moved from the bluest of blue states) and am thrilled that my vote will finally mean something. This week I’ll start my lobbying efforts. I know I’m only one person, but Pat needs to know that we celebrate him for taking any kind of initiative on gun laws, especially in the sad political climate we live in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know a dozen people with AR15s. None of them have a screw loose except my brother, and he’s not dangerous, just a religious fundamentalist.

They are really fun to shoot, so I can see the appeal for sport. I’ve shot one a few times. I’d be happy if they were banned tomorrow, but it’s disengenuous to infer anyone who has one is a lunatic. It also makes you seem really closed-minded. It would be much more effective to say “hey, I know this thing is fun and I can see the appeal, but it’s currently impossible to keep schools safe right now with them readily available…why don’t we close down sales of assault weapons and meanwhile use that 100 billion of unused COVID relief school have just sitting there to update safety measures and hire more and better trained security at the same time.”

It's easy enough for anyone to become mentally unstable, and I would argue, especially a religous zealot. Just look at the extremist muslims. And I say this as a Christian.

Which is why having teachers/admins in school have guns is a really bad idea. What would happen if someone had a bad day, and they have access to guns.

Our society has clearly shown that people are unstable + access to guns = lots of dead people.

We can't lock away everyone, and we don't have Precogs to foretell if someone is about to lose it, so that only leaves banning these types of guns.

What "safety" measure would have helped in this situation? The cops did zilch. They were "trained", and they broke every protocol. How would a metal detector stopped this guy?

The only thing that will work, as other countries have shown, is to ban those types of guns.

I think what was particularly devastating about this particular attack is that it completely, and I mean completely destroyed the “good guy with a gun” propaganda that had basically permeated the national consciousness.

I mean, police seem to shoot black people left and right, so of course they would get to a school shooter, right? And instead they dithered and people died.

I think we all hoped that the “good guy with a gun” would minimize harm in these situations even if we knew that logic is stupid, those of us in liberal states sort of feel helpless anyway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

“Assault rifle.” An AR15 lacks fully automatic capability. It cannot, by any definition, be an “assault weapon.” It is no different in operation than numerous other rifles, many if not most of them predating WWII. It just “looks scary.”

Nobody here claimed that AR-15s are fully automatic.

And if you are struggling with the definition of “assault rifle”, here is a good start for you:
https://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/rpt/2013-R-0241.htm

The law defines an “assault weapon” as (1) a selective-fire firearm capable of fully automatic, semiautomatic, or burst fire at the user's option; (2) any of more than 150 named semiautomatic firearms, including semiautomatic centerfire rifles and semiautomatic pistols (see Appendix 1); (3) a semiautomatic firearm that has certain features; and (4) a shotgun with a revolving cylinder.

The definition of an “assault weapon” includes any part or combination of parts designed or intended to convert a firearm into an assault weapon or any combination of parts from which one may be rapidly assembled if possessed or controlled by the same person. It does not include (1) firearms rendered permanently inoperable or (2) unassembled parts or combination of parts possessed by a licensed gun dealer or gunsmith he or she employs for repairing or servicing a lawfully possessed weapon.

An AR-15 is not select fire.

It’s listed under #2.

More detailed definition if you looked at the link:
Assault Weapon Defined

The law, as amended by PA 13-3, defines an “assault weapon” as:

1. any selective-fire firearm capable of fully automatic, semiautomatic, or burst fire at the user's option;

2. any of a list of named semiautomatic firearms, pistols, or centerfire rifles or copies or duplicates with their capability in production on or before April 4, 2013 (see Appendix 1);

3. any IZHMASH Saiga 12 shotguns or copies or duplicates with their capability in production on or before April 4, 2013;

4. a semiautomatic pistol or semiautomatic centerfire rifle that has a fixed magazine that can hold more than 10 rounds;

5. a semiautomatic centerfire rifle shorter than 30 inches;

6. a semiautomatic shotgun that can accept a detachable magazine;

7. a semiautomatic shotgun that has both (a) a folding or telescoping stock and (b) a grip, including a pistol grip, thumbhole stock, or other stock that, when used, would allow a person to grip the weapon, resulting in any finger on the trigger hand and trigger finger being directly below any part of the action of the weapon when firing; and

8. a shotgun with a revolving cylinder.

The definition of an assault weapon includes any semiautomatic centerfire rifle that can accept a detachable magazine (one that can be removed without disassembling the firearm action) and has at least one of the following features:

1. a folding or telescoping stock;

2. a grip, such as a pistol grip, a thumbhole stock, or other stock, the use of which would allow an individual to grip the weapon, resulting in any finger on the trigger hand in addition to the trigger finger being directly below any portion of the action of the weapon when firing;

3. a forward pistol grip;

4. a flash suppressor; or

5. a grenade launcher or flare launcher.

The definition of an assault weapon also includes any semiautomatic pistol that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least one of the following features:

1. the ability to accept a detachable ammunition magazine that attaches at some location outside of the pistol grip;

2. a threaded barrel capable of accepting a flash suppressor, forward pistol grip, or silencer;

3. a shroud attached to, or that partially or completely encircles the barrel and permits the shooter to fire the firearm without being burned, except a slide that encloses the barrel; or

4. a second hand grip.

Lol these are easy to get around the specific are stupid

DP. So go ahead and propose a different definition. Unless the answer is that you’re pro-murder and want to facilitate future mass shootings by keeping these weapons legal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know a dozen people with AR15s. None of them have a screw loose except my brother, and he’s not dangerous, just a religious fundamentalist.

They are really fun to shoot, so I can see the appeal for sport. I’ve shot one a few times. I’d be happy if they were banned tomorrow, but it’s disengenuous to infer anyone who has one is a lunatic. It also makes you seem really closed-minded. It would be much more effective to say “hey, I know this thing is fun and I can see the appeal, but it’s currently impossible to keep schools safe right now with them readily available…why don’t we close down sales of assault weapons and meanwhile use that 100 billion of unused COVID relief school have just sitting there to update safety measures and hire more and better trained security at the same time.”

You really think if people just asked nicely that everyone you know who owns an AR-15 would willingly turn it over? I highly doubt that.

We don’t really need that. Just stopping sales of new ones would be a huge help…incremental change. You aren’t going to get a full ban or a government confiscation, that will NEVER happen. Why not consider what might actually be possible?

I know, I know. All or nothing. Which is why Dems can’t get an effing thing done right now. Congrats on being completely ineffective, Biden admin! So frustrating as a moderate who thought that was what we voted for.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know a dozen people with AR15s. None of them have a screw loose except my brother, and he’s not dangerous, just a religious fundamentalist.

They are really fun to shoot, so I can see the appeal for sport. I’ve shot one a few times. I’d be happy if they were banned tomorrow, but it’s disengenuous to infer anyone who has one is a lunatic. It also makes you seem really closed-minded. It would be much more effective to say “hey, I know this thing is fun and I can see the appeal, but it’s currently impossible to keep schools safe right now with them readily available…why don’t we close down sales of assault weapons and meanwhile use that 100 billion of unused COVID relief school have just sitting there to update safety measures and hire more and better trained security at the same time.”

You really think if people just asked nicely that everyone you know who owns an AR-15 would willingly turn it over? I highly doubt that.

We don’t really need that. Just stopping sales of new ones would be a huge help…incremental change. You aren’t going to get a full ban or a government confiscation, that will NEVER happen. Why not consider what might actually be possible?

I know, I know. All or nothing. Which is why Dems can’t get an effing thing done right now. Congrats on being completely ineffective, Biden admin! So frustrating as a moderate who thought that was what we voted for.

There are at least two Democratic senators who, for whatever reason, are effectively Republicans, and the Republicans themselves have no interest in governance and are never punished for that.

So… that is why the Biden administration cannot get anything done.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Guns are to many men the symbolic equivalent of red-soled Louboutins, they are a cheap purchase of an identity that is the shortcut past actually being a man (or woman). Guns signal toughness, manliness, brutality, etc. When you are a young man living in 2022 without a war to fight, a woman to woo or a house to build, how else is your manhood tested? How can you be sure you’re a real man? No one expects anything from you, just don’t be in the way.

Check out gun commercials if you want to know how aspirational masculinity is packaged for a generation grown up without fathers.

Exactly. I wonder how these young men can find a sense of purpose today?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am newly in Pat Toomey’s state (moved from the bluest of blue states) and am thrilled that my vote will finally mean something. This week I’ll start my lobbying efforts. I know I’m only one person, but Pat needs to know that we celebrate him for taking any kind of initiative on gun laws, especially in the sad political climate we live in.

Thank you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know a dozen people with AR15s. None of them have a screw loose except my brother, and he’s not dangerous, just a religious fundamentalist.

They are really fun to shoot, so I can see the appeal for sport. I’ve shot one a few times. I’d be happy if they were banned tomorrow, but it’s disengenuous to infer anyone who has one is a lunatic. It also makes you seem really closed-minded. It would be much more effective to say “hey, I know this thing is fun and I can see the appeal, but it’s currently impossible to keep schools safe right now with them readily available…why don’t we close down sales of assault weapons and meanwhile use that 100 billion of unused COVID relief school have just sitting there to update safety measures and hire more and better trained security at the same time.”

You really think if people just asked nicely that everyone you know who owns an AR-15 would willingly turn it over? I highly doubt that.

We don’t really need that. Just stopping sales of new ones would be a huge help…incremental change. You aren’t going to get a full ban or a government confiscation, that will NEVER happen. Why not consider what might actually be possible?

I know, I know. All or nothing. Which is why Dems can’t get an effing thing done right now. Congrats on being completely ineffective, Biden admin! So frustrating as a moderate who thought that was what we voted for.

There are at least two Democratic senators who, for whatever reason, are effectively Republicans, and the Republicans themselves have no interest in governance and are never punished for that.

So… that is why the Biden administration cannot get anything done.

Continue living in that delusion, going for full gun bans, and we’ll end up in the same place we are today with nothing done after Sandy Hook.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Agree or disagree? It's not a good gun for hunting - you'll disintegrate the trophy or meat. It's actually pretty terrible for home defense, as the the firearm is 4x more powerful than a 9mm handgun and will go through multiple walls and potentially hit your family.

So that really comes down to two reasons: (1) you intend to massacre a group of people as quickly and efficiently as possible or (2) because you LARP as an "operator" and somehow that gives you a sense of self-worth and confidence.

There's no reason to own this fire arm, unless you're a bit of a nutcase.

The. End.

Why would an AR-15 "disintegrate" the meat? I don't think you really understand how firearms work. I'm no fan of the AR-15, but many models fire the same cartridges as a hunting rifle.