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

[Anonymous]

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.

The “standard” caliber of the AR15 (.233 or 5.56mm) is generally banned for hunting larger game (deer, etc) because the bullet is too small to kill game animals quickly and humanely. So much for your idiotic “DiSiNteRgraTe tHe MeAt!!!” nonsense….

The small, high speed 55grain bullet from the AR is terrible for penetrating walls because it has very little mass, and begins to shatter into fragments when it hits a hard surface. Slower moving and heavier pistol bullets like the 9mm you cite as “safer” actually penetrate residential walls far better than .223 rifle bullets…. Again, thanks for demonstrating you know nothing about the science here.


If the only reason for having an AR15 is to massacre large numbers of people quickly and efficiently - then why is there an AR15 in the trunk of literally every police car in this country? What large numbers of people are police planning on massacring quickly and efficiently?

You're sort of right and sort of wrong about the ballistics. Yes, the reason they ban .223 bullets for hunting deer is because they tend to wound larger animals rather than kill them instantly, but trying to kill a single deer and trying to kill 19 schoolchildren are different scenarios. No one is trying to shoot 19 deer in a field as quickly as possible; if they were they'd never pick a .30-06 because the recoil would make it really difficult to fire 19 times with enough accuracy to do that. There's a reason the military went with the 5.56 rather than 7.62, and part of it is that in an environment where you're shooting a lot of rounds at a lot of targets, it's a better choice; unfortunately that utility is there even in a classroom.

Also, all of the "actually, it's NOT a great weapon for a mass shooting" people have to explain why so many mass shooters pick it. None of you have done that.

And the thing about the AR 15 that the Ammosexuals love is that it can be configured to different calibers. And yet they trot out the ".223 is the standard" argument all the time to cloud the issue.

If it's so harmless then why do school shooters choose it then?

Btw I distinguish between responsible gun owners and Ammosexuals. I grew up around responsible gun owners. They didn't need to open carry a rifle into Wendy's. They didn't stick handguns into the waist of their jeans or yoga pants.

Prohibition failed with alcohol and the same thing is true for an assault weapons ban.

It will not work.

It worked really well after the attempted assassination of Reagan, until fellow republicans repealed it. And the mass shootings started. Are you 20 or something?

No, it really did not. Claiming it “worked really well” is simply not true.

[Anonymous]

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.

The “standard” caliber of the AR15 (.233 or 5.56mm) is generally banned for hunting larger game (deer, etc) because the bullet is too small to kill game animals quickly and humanely. So much for your idiotic “DiSiNteRgraTe tHe MeAt!!!” nonsense….

The small, high speed 55grain bullet from the AR is terrible for penetrating walls because it has very little mass, and begins to shatter into fragments when it hits a hard surface. Slower moving and heavier pistol bullets like the 9mm you cite as “safer” actually penetrate residential walls far better than .223 rifle bullets…. Again, thanks for demonstrating you know nothing about the science here.


If the only reason for having an AR15 is to massacre large numbers of people quickly and efficiently - then why is there an AR15 in the trunk of literally every police car in this country? What large numbers of people are police planning on massacring quickly and efficiently?

You're sort of right and sort of wrong about the ballistics. Yes, the reason they ban .223 bullets for hunting deer is because they tend to wound larger animals rather than kill them instantly, but trying to kill a single deer and trying to kill 19 schoolchildren are different scenarios. No one is trying to shoot 19 deer in a field as quickly as possible; if they were they'd never pick a .30-06 because the recoil would make it really difficult to fire 19 times with enough accuracy to do that. There's a reason the military went with the 5.56 rather than 7.62, and part of it is that in an environment where you're shooting a lot of rounds at a lot of targets, it's a better choice; unfortunately that utility is there even in a classroom.

Also, all of the "actually, it's NOT a great weapon for a mass shooting" people have to explain why so many mass shooters pick it. None of you have done that.

And the thing about the AR 15 that the Ammosexuals love is that it can be configured to different calibers. And yet they trot out the ".223 is the standard" argument all the time to cloud the issue.

If it's so harmless then why do school shooters choose it then?

Btw I distinguish between responsible gun owners and Ammosexuals. I grew up around responsible gun owners. They didn't need to open carry a rifle into Wendy's. They didn't stick handguns into the waist of their jeans or yoga pants.

Prohibition failed with alcohol and the same thing is true for an assault weapons ban.

It will not work.

I would consider myself one of those who believes the 2nd amendment needs to be overhauled/amended (or something) because it’s outdated. But I agree an outright ban won’t work (a la prohibition of alcohol). That’s why we need to better control who gets to own one of these guns, and if it takes a neuropsych work up, a safety class and several references, then so be it. I don’t think this infringes on the 2nd amendment at all.

[Anonymous]

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.

This is the stupidest thing. I judge people for doing legal things all the time.

[Anonymous]

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.

The “standard” caliber of the AR15 (.233 or 5.56mm) is generally banned for hunting larger game (deer, etc) because the bullet is too small to kill game animals quickly and humanely. So much for your idiotic “DiSiNteRgraTe tHe MeAt!!!” nonsense….

The small, high speed 55grain bullet from the AR is terrible for penetrating walls because it has very little mass, and begins to shatter into fragments when it hits a hard surface. Slower moving and heavier pistol bullets like the 9mm you cite as “safer” actually penetrate residential walls far better than .223 rifle bullets…. Again, thanks for demonstrating you know nothing about the science here.


If the only reason for having an AR15 is to massacre large numbers of people quickly and efficiently - then why is there an AR15 in the trunk of literally every police car in this country? What large numbers of people are police planning on massacring quickly and efficiently?

You're sort of right and sort of wrong about the ballistics. Yes, the reason they ban .223 bullets for hunting deer is because they tend to wound larger animals rather than kill them instantly, but trying to kill a single deer and trying to kill 19 schoolchildren are different scenarios. No one is trying to shoot 19 deer in a field as quickly as possible; if they were they'd never pick a .30-06 because the recoil would make it really difficult to fire 19 times with enough accuracy to do that. There's a reason the military went with the 5.56 rather than 7.62, and part of it is that in an environment where you're shooting a lot of rounds at a lot of targets, it's a better choice; unfortunately that utility is there even in a classroom.

Also, all of the "actually, it's NOT a great weapon for a mass shooting" people have to explain why so many mass shooters pick it. None of you have done that.

And the thing about the AR 15 that the Ammosexuals love is that it can be configured to different calibers. And yet they trot out the ".223 is the standard" argument all the time to cloud the issue.

If it's so harmless then why do school shooters choose it then?

Btw I distinguish between responsible gun owners and Ammosexuals. I grew up around responsible gun owners. They didn't need to open carry a rifle into Wendy's. They didn't stick handguns into the waist of their jeans or yoga pants.

Prohibition failed with alcohol and the same thing is true for an assault weapons ban.

It will not work.

I would consider myself one of those who believes the 2nd amendment needs to be overhauled/amended (or something) because it’s outdated. But I agree an outright ban won’t work (a la prohibition of alcohol). That’s why we need to better control who gets to own one of these guns, and if it takes a neuropsych work up, a safety class and several references, then so be it. I don’t think this infringes on the 2nd amendment at all.

you really don't think a neuropsych workup infringes on someone's rights at all?

[Anonymous]

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.

The “standard” caliber of the AR15 (.233 or 5.56mm) is generally banned for hunting larger game (deer, etc) because the bullet is too small to kill game animals quickly and humanely. So much for your idiotic “DiSiNteRgraTe tHe MeAt!!!” nonsense….

The small, high speed 55grain bullet from the AR is terrible for penetrating walls because it has very little mass, and begins to shatter into fragments when it hits a hard surface. Slower moving and heavier pistol bullets like the 9mm you cite as “safer” actually penetrate residential walls far better than .223 rifle bullets…. Again, thanks for demonstrating you know nothing about the science here.


If the only reason for having an AR15 is to massacre large numbers of people quickly and efficiently - then why is there an AR15 in the trunk of literally every police car in this country? What large numbers of people are police planning on massacring quickly and efficiently?

You're sort of right and sort of wrong about the ballistics. Yes, the reason they ban .223 bullets for hunting deer is because they tend to wound larger animals rather than kill them instantly, but trying to kill a single deer and trying to kill 19 schoolchildren are different scenarios. No one is trying to shoot 19 deer in a field as quickly as possible; if they were they'd never pick a .30-06 because the recoil would make it really difficult to fire 19 times with enough accuracy to do that. There's a reason the military went with the 5.56 rather than 7.62, and part of it is that in an environment where you're shooting a lot of rounds at a lot of targets, it's a better choice; unfortunately that utility is there even in a classroom.

Also, all of the "actually, it's NOT a great weapon for a mass shooting" people have to explain why so many mass shooters pick it. None of you have done that.

And the thing about the AR 15 that the Ammosexuals love is that it can be configured to different calibers. And yet they trot out the ".223 is the standard" argument all the time to cloud the issue.

If it's so harmless then why do school shooters choose it then?

Btw I distinguish between responsible gun owners and Ammosexuals. I grew up around responsible gun owners. They didn't need to open carry a rifle into Wendy's. They didn't stick handguns into the waist of their jeans or yoga pants.

Prohibition failed with alcohol and the same thing is true for an assault weapons ban.

It will not work.

I would consider myself one of those who believes the 2nd amendment needs to be overhauled/amended (or something) because it’s outdated. But I agree an outright ban won’t work (a la prohibition of alcohol). That’s why we need to better control who gets to own one of these guns, and if it takes a neuropsych work up, a safety class and several references, then so be it. I don’t think this infringes on the 2nd amendment at all.

you really don't think a neuropsych workup infringes on someone's rights at all?

I was half kidding about the neuropsych workup, but I do think a requirement of mental fitness should be part of the process. I'll admit, I don't know how exactly one would do that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow, you people are over-thinking this. I am a late life (and retired law enforcement) gun collector. It’s a hobby I enjoy with my two sons and we like going to the range to shoot together. We aren’t into hunting; it’s not an obsession; there’s no political or doomsday reasoning behind it. Its just something that we find fun.

+1. The delusions some of these DCUM posters have about gun owners is incredible. There are certainly some wackos out there, but 99+% of gun owners will never harm anyone with their firearm, will never point their firearm at another human being, and have absolutely no desire to do so. It's not just that these posters don't like guns; it is that they absolutely hate those that do.

Those 99% need to get their house in order.

Push hard for common sense gun control or you get lumped with the irrational (and potentially dangerous) gun nuts.
https://www.bradyunited.org/legislation

Define “common sense gun control”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow, you people are over-thinking this. I am a late life (and retired law enforcement) gun collector. It’s a hobby I enjoy with my two sons and we like going to the range to shoot together. We aren’t into hunting; it’s not an obsession; there’s no political or doomsday reasoning behind it. Its just something that we find fun.

+1. The delusions some of these DCUM posters have about gun owners is incredible. There are certainly some wackos out there, but 99+% of gun owners will never harm anyone with their firearm, will never point their firearm at another human being, and have absolutely no desire to do so. It's not just that these posters don't like guns; it is that they absolutely hate those that do.

Those 99% need to get their house in order.

Push hard for common sense gun control or you get lumped with the irrational (and potentially dangerous) gun nuts.
https://www.bradyunited.org/legislation

Define “common sense gun control”

“Common sense gun control” = “a total ban on guns”.


Read that here many times.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow, you people are over-thinking this. I am a late life (and retired law enforcement) gun collector. It’s a hobby I enjoy with my two sons and we like going to the range to shoot together. We aren’t into hunting; it’s not an obsession; there’s no political or doomsday reasoning behind it. Its just something that we find fun.

+1. The delusions some of these DCUM posters have about gun owners is incredible. There are certainly some wackos out there, but 99+% of gun owners will never harm anyone with their firearm, will never point their firearm at another human being, and have absolutely no desire to do so. It's not just that these posters don't like guns; it is that they absolutely hate those that do.

Those 99% need to get their house in order.

Push hard for common sense gun control or you get lumped with the irrational (and potentially dangerous) gun nuts.
https://www.bradyunited.org/legislation

Define “common sense gun control”

Proposed legislation on Brady link above.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow, you people are over-thinking this. I am a late life (and retired law enforcement) gun collector. It’s a hobby I enjoy with my two sons and we like going to the range to shoot together. We aren’t into hunting; it’s not an obsession; there’s no political or doomsday reasoning behind it. Its just something that we find fun.

+1. The delusions some of these DCUM posters have about gun owners is incredible. There are certainly some wackos out there, but 99+% of gun owners will never harm anyone with their firearm, will never point their firearm at another human being, and have absolutely no desire to do so. It's not just that these posters don't like guns; it is that they absolutely hate those that do.

Those 99% need to get their house in order.

Push hard for common sense gun control or you get lumped with the irrational (and potentially dangerous) gun nuts.
https://www.bradyunited.org/legislation

Define “common sense gun control”

“Common sense gun control” = “a total ban on guns”.

Read that here many times.

You’d get less of that if you get your house in order.

[Anonymous]

Allow the government to fund scientists to study the issue. NRA Republicans have been blocking even that since the 90's.

There are solutions to this problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow, you people are over-thinking this. I am a late life (and retired law enforcement) gun collector. It’s a hobby I enjoy with my two sons and we like going to the range to shoot together. We aren’t into hunting; it’s not an obsession; there’s no political or doomsday reasoning behind it. Its just something that we find fun.

+1. The delusions some of these DCUM posters have about gun owners is incredible. There are certainly some wackos out there, but 99+% of gun owners will never harm anyone with their firearm, will never point their firearm at another human being, and have absolutely no desire to do so. It's not just that these posters don't like guns; it is that they absolutely hate those that do.

No delusions here. I'm simply not prepared to indulge your hobby if the price is mass shootings of innocents. Agree 99% of gun owners are fine - but the lack of moral clarity in many to allow themselves to be lumped in with an extreme fringe (including the NRA) rather than sensible self-regulation. We understand the courts are packed and the politicians are bought and paid for - but I'm not going to stop until assault weapons aren't available to any including these domestic terrorists and we have universal background checks, mental fitness assessments and licensing, and liability insurance. It may take 20 years but I'm prepared to fight for the future generations of our country.

👏 👏 Really don’t care if PP is a “responsible” gun owner. There has to be some level of psychosis or rage inside these people to have any kind of gun and it needs to be well regulated.

Freud had a term for people with your particular mental illness.

https://psychtimes.com/hoplophobia-fear-of-firearms/


Perhaps it’s time for you to seek the help of a qualified mental health professional who can provide you the treatment you need.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The idea that AR15s are not used for hunting is a myth.

Do not trust anyone who perpetuates that lie. They are not honest.

Double-Plus-Unpossible!

I’ve read right here on DCUM that the rail of bullets from an assault rifle would shred and destroy a deer to the point where there’s no meat left to eat.

Are you suggesting people on DCUM aren’t experts with regards to hunting? DCUM are experts about everything, darling! We went to an Ivy!

[Anonymous]

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.

The “standard” caliber of the AR15 (.233 or 5.56mm) is generally banned for hunting larger game (deer, etc) because the bullet is too small to kill game animals quickly and humanely. So much for your idiotic “DiSiNteRgraTe tHe MeAt!!!” nonsense….

The small, high speed 55grain bullet from the AR is terrible for penetrating walls because it has very little mass, and begins to shatter into fragments when it hits a hard surface. Slower moving and heavier pistol bullets like the 9mm you cite as “safer” actually penetrate residential walls far better than .223 rifle bullets…. Again, thanks for demonstrating you know nothing about the science here.


If the only reason for having an AR15 is to massacre large numbers of people quickly and efficiently - then why is there an AR15 in the trunk of literally every police car in this country? What large numbers of people are police planning on massacring quickly and efficiently?

You're sort of right and sort of wrong about the ballistics. Yes, the reason they ban .223 bullets for hunting deer is because they tend to wound larger animals rather than kill them instantly, but trying to kill a single deer and trying to kill 19 schoolchildren are different scenarios. No one is trying to shoot 19 deer in a field as quickly as possible; if they were they'd never pick a .30-06 because the recoil would make it really difficult to fire 19 times with enough accuracy to do that. There's a reason the military went with the 5.56 rather than 7.62, and part of it is that in an environment where you're shooting a lot of rounds at a lot of targets, it's a better choice; unfortunately that utility is there even in a classroom.

Also, all of the "actually, it's NOT a great weapon for a mass shooting" people have to explain why so many mass shooters pick it. None of you have done that.

And the thing about the AR 15 that the Ammosexuals love is that it can be configured to different calibers. And yet they trot out the ".223 is the standard" argument all the time to cloud the issue.

If it's so harmless then why do school shooters choose it then?

Btw I distinguish between responsible gun owners and Ammosexuals. I grew up around responsible gun owners. They didn't need to open carry a rifle into Wendy's. They didn't stick handguns into the waist of their jeans or yoga pants.

Prohibition failed with alcohol and the same thing is true for an assault weapons ban.

It will not work.

It worked really well after the attempted assassination of Reagan, until fellow republicans repealed it. And the mass shootings started. Are you 20 or something?

No, it really did not. Claiming it “worked really well” is simply not true.

Abstract
Background
The Federal Assault Weapons Ban (FAWB) was in effect from 1994 to 2004. We sought to examine its impact on firearm-related homicides.

Methods
All firearm-related homicides occurring in three metropolitan United States cities were analyzed during the decade preceding (PRE), during (BAN), and after (POST) the FAWB. Files were obtained from the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Rates of firearm-related homicides were stratified by year and compared using simple linear regression.

Results
21,327 firearm-related homicides were analyzed. The median number of firearm-related homicides per year decreased from 333 (PRE) to 199 (BAN) (p = 0.008). This effect persisted following expiration of the ban (BAN 199 vs POST 206, p = 0.429). The rate of firearm-related homicides per 1 M population also decreased from 119.4 in 1985 to 49.2 in 2014 (β = −2.73, p < 0.0001).

Conclusions
During the FAWB, there was a significant decrease in firearm-related homicides in three of the most dangerous cities, underscoring the need for better directed prevention efforts.

[Anonymous]

Complete citation:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0002961022002057

The sustained effect of a temporary measure: Urban firearm mortality following expiration of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban

The comments here alone pretty much back up OP's hot take.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow, you people are over-thinking this. I am a late life (and retired law enforcement) gun collector. It’s a hobby I enjoy with my two sons and we like going to the range to shoot together. We aren’t into hunting; it’s not an obsession; there’s no political or doomsday reasoning behind it. Its just something that we find fun.

+1. The delusions some of these DCUM posters have about gun owners is incredible. There are certainly some wackos out there, but 99+% of gun owners will never harm anyone with their firearm, will never point their firearm at another human being, and have absolutely no desire to do so. It's not just that these posters don't like guns; it is that they absolutely hate those that do.

Those 99% need to get their house in order.

Push hard for common sense gun control or you get lumped with the irrational (and potentially dangerous) gun nuts.
https://www.bradyunited.org/legislation

Define “common sense gun control”

“Common sense gun control” = “a total ban on guns”.


Read that here many times.

NP.

There are literally over 100 pages here on DCUM in the other thread about the shooting.

People here always screech “ban all guns!”