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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As long as the law allows it, it's not for me to judge. No, I don't own one, I don't ever will.

[b]I’m sure many people said the same about slavery</b> 170
Years ago. I wouldn’t own one but it’s not for me to judge? Of course it is for us to judge, if you e are responsible citizens.

Or abortion. Zing!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As long as the law allows it, it's not for me to judge. No, I don't own one, I don't ever will.

[b]I’m sure many people said the same about slavery</b> 170
Years ago. I wouldn’t own one but it’s not for me to judge? Of course it is for us to judge, if you e are responsible citizens.

Or abortion. Zing!

If you have to announce that your comment is a “zing,” it’s not a zing.

[Anonymous]

"Assault rifles are popular from coast to coast." Maybe so, but I'm betting more people in the US want to get rid of them than own them. We need to be as single-minded in our voting as the gun rights supporters are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"Assault rifles are popular from coast to coast." Maybe so, but I'm betting more people in the US want to get rid of them than own them. We need to be as single-minded in our voting as the gun rights supporters are.

Only 30% of Americans personally own a gun and even fewer own a semi-auto rifle like an AR-15

We are talking about a small, highly radicalized segment of the country running roughshod over the rest of us. Us who do not own firearms are the silent majority!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

There appears to be a ton of bad information, even completely mad up nonsense like disintegrating meat and “ban the sweet spot,” in this thread.

I don’t think we should wildly start banning things before we even understand the underlying facts (and this thread is full of bad facts).

Ok. Share your facts. Let’s discuss.

They don’t have facts. I know exactly the type. When you point out real facts, like that nearly all of the deadliest shootings used a semi-automatic rifle/AR-15, they talk about completely unrelated things like hunting and meat.

They claim you need an official, scientific study to prove guns are the problem, without having any basic understanding of the scientific method and how you can’t perform a controlled, double blind study on mass shootings. They just throw their hands up in the air and say “if only people raised their kids better!”

Whatever facts you present, they’ll point out something not even remotely related and think they won. I was talking with a pro-massacre relative the other day who said more people are killed by cars than guns. I pulled up actual statistics on how gun deaths have now surpassed car deaths and are climbing. They then said “we’ll more people are INJURED by cars, so ha! Cars are a bigger problem!” And they think that’s a legit argument. As if whiplash is just as bad as children being massacred.

You can’t win with these people. They’re dumb. I would rather they just be upfront and say “yes, we know people are murdered at extremely high rates and we’ve decided owning these weapons is worth that price”. Then we can recognize it’s a character and values problem, and deal with them appropriately.

What is you want exactly? For posters to just start dropping random facts on random topics? Firearms and ballistics are quite broad subjects. If you have a question about either, then throw it out and there and knowledgeable posters can respond to it. But the PP was right -- this chat is rife with incorrect statements about guns. What happened this week was an unspeakable tragedy. Maybe now is the time to have an informed public debate about reasonable steps that can be taken to prevent these things from continuing to happen. But it needs to be an "informed" debate.

What exactly are the incorrect statements?

I don’t need questions answered about guns. My close family is LEO. I’ve had guns in my home and I’ve done plenty of shooting. My family knows more about firearms and ballistics than anyone on this thread.

Every LEO I know (and I know a lot) who has worked shootings all agree that semi automatic rifles need to be banned and we need stricter laws around obtaining firearms. Period. Every other developed country in the world has figured this out.

We don’t need to nitpick over what things are called or how good they are for hunting. Those are irrelevant.

How much more information is needed to have an “informed” debate?

Great questions.

Hopefully PP will reply in good faith.

Not PP but will reply in part. At a bare minimum, a discussion should start with an accurate understanding of what laws and regulations are already in place, to what extent they are having any meaningful impact on gun-related offenses, and whether amending them will help prevent these tragedies going forward. Between this thread and recent others on DCUM, there are all kinds of inaccurate statements. Some are pounding the table insisting on certain requirements that already exist. To pick one issue, I think a lot more could be done strengthening "red flag" laws. But let's be honest, we aren't repealing the 2nd Amendment and I don't see a political path forward for any kind of broad ban on semi-automatic rifles. Those rifles are popular with too many citizens from coast to coast.

The question was: what exactly are the inaccurate statements?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Assault rifles are popular from coast to coast." Maybe so, but I'm betting more people in the US want to get rid of them than own them. We need to be as single-minded in our voting as the gun rights supporters are.

Only 30% of Americans personally own a gun and even fewer own a semi-auto rifle like an AR-15

We are talking about a small, highly radicalized segment of the country running roughshod over the rest of us. Us who do not own firearms are the silent majority!!!

Exactly! Before I was willing to "live and let live" - if people elsewhere wanted to play dress-up with these weapons of war or lived in fear of imaginary threats - then whatever - but that just changed. The wants of a small section of gun owners (and a even smaller fraction of Americans) are now not acceptable given the cost we all saw those poor children and their parents paid. We had a sniper shooting at a school about a month ago here in DC and it didn't even cause a ripple - this is different - our eyes have been opened at how crazy we let it get.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:if you are on nextdoor, there is a huge spike in crime in northern Virginia from groups of criminals driving in from DC. A pistol isn't going to protect you from a pack of these criminals.

Next-door is for paranoid right wing boomers, so there's that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:if you are on nextdoor, there is a huge spike in crime in northern Virginia from groups of criminals driving in from DC. A pistol isn't going to protect you from a pack of these criminals.

Next-door is for paranoid right wing boomers, so there's that.

Dcum must be for the nutty left, so there’s that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP no one cares about your dumb hot take or hot flash or whatever other weird syndrome you clearly suffer from.

-1. I agree with OP. You people are psychotic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP no one cares about your dumb hot take or hot flash or whatever other weird syndrome you clearly suffer from.

-1. I agree with OP. You people are psychotic.

+1 Even my retired military, Fox News-brainwashed dad can’t fathom why the average citizen should be able to own these guns. The gun fetishists are nutters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It’s really a function of muzzle velocity though, right? Which translates into kinetic energy. A Remington .223 semiauto isn’t a great weapon for killing a buck at 400 yards, despite long range accuracy and low recoil. But it’s terribly effective at pulverizing bone, flesh, organs and blood vessels and blowing fist size holes in humans at close range. And to do so with dozens of rounds in seconds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It’s really a function of muzzle velocity though, right? Which translates into kinetic energy. A Remington .223 semiauto isn’t a great weapon for killing a buck at 400 yards, despite long range accuracy and low recoil. But it’s terribly effective at pulverizing bone, flesh, organs and blood vessels and blowing fist size holes in humans at close range. And to do so with dozens of rounds in seconds.

With appropriate hunting bullets loaded in the cartridge, the 5.56 NATO / 223 Remington is legal and ethical for hunting deer in numerous states.

[Anonymous]

Yeah, it is a lie that the AR-15 is not used for deer hunting:

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It’s really a function of muzzle velocity though, right? Which translates into kinetic energy. A Remington .223 semiauto isn’t a great weapon for killing a buck at 400 yards, despite long range accuracy and low recoil. But it’s terribly effective at pulverizing bone, flesh, organs and blood vessels and blowing fist size holes in humans at close range. And to do so with dozens of rounds in seconds.

With appropriate hunting bullets loaded in the cartridge, the 5.56 NATO / 223 Remington is legal and ethical for hunting deer in numerous states.

…if you’re a cuck on a canned hunt who can’t hit a deer with an accurate shot from a bolt-action rifle or bow. Man the f#ck up.

[Anonymous]

True.

Tons of false information being spread on this forum by gun control advocates.