The Media's Latest Depictions of the AR-15 - Is it fair?

[agent00f]

So Counterstrike then?

I suspect you think someone is going to say, well, it's just like a full automatic, the death toll is the same, there's no difference at all...

Problem is there are differences, and many many guns just as or more capable than an AR.

Look, guns are dangerous, bombs are dangerous, cars are dangerous, stuff under the kitchen sink is dangerous, your style of argument is tiresome, and it seems everyone is smarter than you and not taking the bait.

Some of your comments are interesting, like the one about "expensive AR's".

I don't think it's very difficult to categorize guns into various levels of suitability for murderous violence. It's in fact simple enough that most gun enthusiasts themselves admit rifles with an automated mechanism for reloading are largely fungible in that regard.

If that's the case, it becomes interesting why they fall silent when people agree this category of weapons is about equally dangerous to society. Surely the next logical step is determining whether their benefits outweigh that danger (and even conservative now see how dangerous they are), and then possible legal hurdles for restricting unjustifiably dangerous tools. Recollect that my posts here largely reflect that natural process of problem solving.

Now that we think about it, it's not a mystery at all why some want to avoid such a process, electing instead to talk about every distraction possible instead.

Who is anyone else, since you have sunk into an inane posting black hole of responses that do not mean anything more or less lately ?

The vast majority have been pointless responses that do not mean much for awhile now.

Just posting things in a nonsensical roundabout manner doesn't lend any credibility to what you are posting.

Most of these discussions are a complete waste of time rehashing the same political back and forth.

This is particularly evident when reality is much more straightforward, such as in this case.

However, when people are used to the habit of regurgitating the same old, any change to the program is potential disorienting even if with some consideration & perspective it produces greater overall clarity of the situation.

In any case, if anything doesn't make sense it's best to ask for clarification first.

 

[Artdeco]

If these discussions are a waste of time, go somewhere else. You keep saying the same thing over and over, do you honestly think you'd going to influence anyone? We've already told you we don't value your opinion and find your knowledge base rather shallow.

 

[MongGrel]

In any case, if anything doesn't make sense it's best to ask for clarification first.

At this point you've went way beyond clarifying anything, and way beyond spam even.

 

[Z15CAM]

As a Canadian: In my opinion the 223 or 556 AR round is useless as ias the 762x39 AK round isn't much better but does give you a chance to knock down a deer or perhaps a moose at 200 yards and no further - Give me a Lee Infield 303 any day.

 

[MongGrel]

I've still never heard of a 576 round, I think that was a typo by someone.

A .223 or a 5.56 is not legal to even hunt whitetails that I'm aware of anywhere, let alone an elk or moose.

 

[Artdeco]

As a Canadian: In my opinion the 223 or 576 AR round is useless and the 756x39 AK round isn't much better but does give you a chance to knock down a deer or perhaps a moose at 200 yards and no further - Give me a Lee Infield 303 any day.

Personally, I'm an AR pistol fan, small, decent firepower, great home defense weapon and range toy, but yeah, the caliber is just a step or two above a 22 magnum IMHO.

 

[agent00f]

If these discussions are a waste of time, go somewhere else. You keep saying the same thing over and over, do you honestly think you'd going to influence anyone? We've already told you we don't value your opinion and find your knowledge base rather shallow.

I don't think injecting some reality into these discussions is a waste of time. The statements I've made are in every measure pretty simple, and the way highlight insecurities makes it evident they are apropos. People with facts on their side only need to present them instead of mouthing off about everything else.

It's like as if a crowd believed both 2+2=22 and that they're great at math, you wouldn't expect they'd welcome working through some counting exercises.

It's also bizarre that I'm the one accused of repetition.

At this point you've went way beyond clarifying anything, and way beyond spam even.

To the contrary, the post above is exceedingly clear. To the point it perfectly explains why people might want to vehemently deny this.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

I'm perfectly willing to accept the any explanation of these substantial differences from anyone else. As previously mentioned, it's unclear how adding auto/select is meaningful for these shootings in the US. Surely it would be trivial to lord expertise over someone who doesn't know these things from a stick in the ground.

Maybe you should get your wealthy, smart buddies to let you shoot one of theirs............If they actually exist.

 

[Z15CAM]

Personally, I'm an AR pistol fan

I'm a 22 cal Pistol Fan as well but give me a 30 Cal Herstal Browning Hi-Power FN P35 9mm pistol and I doubt you would stand much a chance running or hiding at 200 yards.

I carried one for years in the bush when I was young and never used it to kill a thing.

Emergency animal defense and reports - YES - 3 shots every 1/2 hour with a broken leg - Whatever.

 

[agent00f]

Maybe you should get your wealthy, smart buddies to let you shoot one of theirs............If they actually exist.

I'd hate to be repetitive, but this sort of mouthing off is a perfect illustration of why politics never gets anywhere in this country. People doing most of the talking evidently aren't that serious about it; it's discussed on a level with Ford vs Chevy or AMD/nvidia.

The question here is whether that's a salvageable situation. Current signs point to no.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Poor baby, things in life rarely go the way most people want them to go. You tried to jump in and show your smarts but showed your ass instead.

In closing, as far as I'm concerned at this point you can go piss up a rope.

 

[MongGrel]

I'd hate to be repetitive, but this sort of mouthing off is a perfect illustration of why politics never gets anywhere in this country. People doing most of the talking evidently aren't that serious about it; it's discussed on a level with Ford vs Chevy or AMD/nvidia.

The question here is whether that's a salvageable situation. Current signs point to no.

You love to be repetitive, it has become one of your defining traits about the last 100 posts or so.

The Bond reference was never brilliant to begin with, for several reasons.

 

[Z15CAM]

I not against the American 2nd Amend of their Constitution but man there's definitely something wrong with how a lot of Americans view and utilize this privilege.

Sadly it's creeping North into Canada.

 

[Pipeline 1010]

I thought we were talking about classes of weapons that makes mass shootings & other gun violence particularly effective. In the case of other tools like cars and pools, convincing arguments can be made their benefits outweigh the costs.

No, if you re-read our conversation it started with someone asking why somebody else NEEDS a 30 round magazine.

Since you want to change what we are talking about, I'll play along: we are talking about classes of weapons that are responsible for about 100 deaths per year, as compared to over 10,000 deaths by handguns. These are deaths that would have likely occurred even if this class of weapons were illegal, since an alternate weapon type would have been used. Something like 99.9% of all weapons in this class are never used to kill somebody. Banning these is a truly shitty way to try and make a real life difference...unless the ban is part of a long term incrementalist approach to banning all guns. Admit it.

 

[Z15CAM]

In Canada for Semi Auto Fire Arms we are allowed a 3 round mag in shot guns and 5 in the Mag for Center Fire rifles and that includes the SKS, AK, Tavor or a Remingtom Auto 30.06.

Who Needs more then that.

You can pump out as many Rim Fires as you want.

 

[agent00f]

No, if you re-read our conversation it started with someone asking why somebody else NEEDS a 30 round magazine.

Since you want to change what we are talking about, I'll play along: we are talking about classes of weapons that are responsible for about 100 deaths per year, as compared to over 10,000 deaths by handguns. These are deaths that would have likely occurred even if this class of weapons were illegal, since an alternate weapon type would have been used. Something like 99.9% of all weapons in this class are never used to kill somebody.

I'm pretty sure those handguns in question also include this aforementioned technology to make repeated firing trivial.

Banning these is a truly shitty way to try and make a real life difference...unless the ban is part of a long term incrementalist approach to banning all guns. Admit it.

I don't see why not all solutions shouldn't be on the table even now.

You love to be repetitive, it has become one of your defining traits about the last 100 posts or so.

The Bond reference was never brilliant to begin with, for several reasons.

Can you clarify any substance in your point here? I mean the part other than I'm a poopy head.

 

[Z15CAM]

Canadian Law's will NOT prevent a law breaker from defeating it, but if you're caught - You go to jail with no Pass Go if you exceed that max magazine capacity.

An what's gets me is why doa lot American Citizens feel that they need more rounds, unless they can't hit what their shooting at or even bother to see what they are shooting at. I was a Guide with 5 rounds. The American Tourists with 100 rounds never hit a thing and guess who shoot their game!

I don't like that Hi-Capacity Mag gun mentality and neither do most Canadians especially, like me, who has grown up with guns.

Practice to shoot straight - All you need is one round to kill and that's providing you're the greatest shot in world but can you kill?

ou can see the round hit even before you pull the trigger or else you lay back and wait because you didn't have the shot or else it happened and the target is down. Other then time stalking the site takes less then 1 second and you know what to do - Other wise you never pulled the trigger and the target is still there and alive.

Don't care for killing animals at whatever yardage and don't think I could ever do Human Being unless me or my family was under attack.

Being Married with Kids and owning property, I wanted Guns for protection of my loved ones but as I got older with the Family dispersing with no need for property, I see no need for a Gun - Particularly a 556 AR 15 with a 30 round Mag.

Maybe a Mid Night 38 Special - Can't carry in Canada - LOL

 

[Pipeline 1010]

I'm pretty sure those handguns in question also include this aforementioned technology to make repeated firing trivial.

I'm genuinely confused as to what your point is (sorry). Assault weapons, as legally defined, are used to kill about 100 people per year. What does that have to do with handguns? What does a ban on assault weapons change other than to force millions of people to choose between giving up their (innocent) property or to become felons? How many deaths are we talking about preventing? Would not MOST of the 100 deaths still happen, just with a different style weapon? What exactly are you trying to outlaw and what positive effects are you anticipating?

I don't see why not all solutions shouldn't be on the table even now.

This is just nonsense. What problem are you trying to solve? If it's not really a problem then why should the solution be on the table? Why should stupid solutions be considered? Why not go with the most effective, most right-protecting, most life-saving, most violence-reducing solution possible: end the war on drugs. That would be more effective than all your magazine limit and assault weapon owning felony laws combined.

 

[ivwshane]

Sounds like it to me that the issue with is the legal definition of assault weapons.

I'm genuinely confused as to what your point is (sorry). Assault weapons, as legally defined, are used to kill about 100 people per year. What does that have to do with handguns? What does a ban on assault weapons change other than to force millions of people to choose between giving up their (innocent) property or to become felons? How many deaths are we talking about preventing? Would not MOST of the 100 deaths still happen, just with a different style weapon? What exactly are you trying to outlaw and what positive effects are you anticipating?



This is just nonsense. What problem are you trying to solve? If it's not really a problem then why should the solution be on the table? Why should stupid solutions be considered? Why not go with the most effective, most right-protecting, most life-saving, most violence-reducing solution possible: end the war on drugs. That would be more effective than all your magazine limit and assault weapon owning felony laws combined.

 

[Pipeline 1010]

Canadian Law's will NOT prevent a law breaker from defeating it, but if you're caught - You go to jail with no Pass Go if you exceed that max magazine capacity.

An what's gets me is why doa lot American Citizens feel that they need more rounds, unless they can't hit what their shooting at or even bother to see what they are shooting at. I was a Guide with 5 rounds. The American Tourists with 100 rounds never hit a thing and guess who shoot their game!

I don't like that Hi-Capacity Mag gun mentality and neither do most Canadians especially, like me, who has grown up with guns.

Practice to shoot straight - All you need is one round to kill and that's providing you're the greatest shot in world but can you kill?

ou can see the round hit even before you pull the trigger or else you lay back and wait because you didn't have the shot or else it happened and the target is down. Other then time stalking the site takes less then 1 second and you know what to do - Other wise you never pulled the trigger and the target is still there and alive.

Don't care for killing animals at whatever yardage and don't think I could ever do Human Being unless me or my family was under attack.

Being Married with Kids and owning property, I wanted Guns for protection of my loved ones but as I got older with the Family dispersing with no need for property, I see no need for a Gun - Particularly a 556 AR 15 with a 30 round Mag.

Maybe a Mid Night 38 Special - Can't carry in Canada - LOL

So how many deaths will you prevent by limiting magazine sizes? Why does someone NEED a 15 round magazine? A 5 round magazine? 2 rounds? At what point do you decide that the number is just arbitrary and passing a ban on magazine size is no more that a "feel good" law that doesn't accomplish anything other than taking people's stuff away or making them into felons who will serve hard, ass-rape jail time for not giving up their stuff? Are you ready to see men ass-raped and jailed for years over not giving up a 30 round magazine? If so, then look in the mirror and ask yourself what is wrong with you.

 

[Pipeline 1010]

Sounds like it to me that the issue with is the legal definition of assault weapons.

Now we're getting somewhere. What is your personal definition of assault weapons? What exactly do we need to ban? What kinds of things that someone might own have you decided should result in felony prison time? And what benefits do you see to enacting such laws?

And most importantly: do you support a repeal of the war on drugs?

 

[ivwshane]

Now we're getting somewhere. What is your personal definition of assault weapons? What exactly do we need to ban? What kinds of things that someone might own have you decided should result in felony prison time? And what benefits do you see to enacting such laws?

And most importantly: do you support a repeal of the war on drugs?

You seem to be the one hung up on the definition of the term assault weapon. You are the one who keeps pointing out that there have only been 100 deaths from "assault weapons". I'm merely pointing out that your concern seems to stop with the deaths caused by a legal definition.

As far as proposals go, I don't have any that I'd fall on my sword for. Personally I'd like to see federal funding go to a comprehensive study of the problem and a comprehensive solution to the issue (the issue being deaths by guns). Death by guns aren't caused by one reason, they aren't caused by one type of gun, so believing that any one solution can address the issue is stupid. I'm all for an informed debate on the subject and as it stands now, Congress and the government are prohibited from even researching the matter.

 

[agent00f]

I'm genuinely confused as to what your point is (sorry). Assault weapons, as legally defined, are used to kill about 100 people per year. What does that have to do with handguns? What does a ban on assault weapons change other than to force millions of people to choose between giving up their (innocent) property or to become felons? How many deaths are we talking about preventing? Would not MOST of the 100 deaths still happen, just with a different style weapon? What exactly are you trying to outlaw and what positive effects are you anticipating?

If the bulk of the problem is more rapid-firing weapons than assault rifles per se, why arbitrarily limit ourselves?

This is just nonsense. What problem are you trying to solve? If it's not really a problem then why should the solution be on the table? Why should stupid solutions be considered? Why not go with the most effective, most right-protecting, most life-saving, most violence-reducing solution possible: end the war on drugs. That would be more effective than all your magazine limit and assault weapon owning felony laws combined.

If the many solutions out there are non-overlapping, why limit yourself to one?

Also take note that the pro-gun crowd significantly overlap with the crime & punishment one.

 

[Pipeline 1010]

If the bulk of the problem is more rapid-firing weapons than assault rifles per se, why arbitrarily limit ourselves?

What are you proposing should be banned? What do you anticipate the benefit to be?

If the many solutions out there are non-overlapping, why limit yourself to one?

I would argue that much of what is being proposed doesn't have much effect other than to force law abiding citizens to give up things that have never harmed anybody. That can hardly be described as a "solution" to anything other than an incrementalist step along the path to a blanket gun ban.

Also take note that the pro-gun crowd significantly overlap with the crime & punishment one.

I know it is a hard sell. But if people truly genuinely want to prevent gun deaths then ending the war on drugs would provide an enormous and immediate benefit to that cause and many others. Why are we even talking about assault weapons when we could be focusing on the elimination of 100 times the number of deaths that an assault weapon ban or large capacity magazine ban could ever hope to achieve? And countries that have legalized drugs have actually seen a long term decrease in drug usage. I think this is something a crime and punishment crowd could find beneficial. Or not

 

[agent00f]

What are you proposing should be banned? What do you anticipate the benefit to be?

I would argue that much of what is being proposed doesn't have much effect other than to force law abiding citizens to give up things that have never harmed anybody. That can hardly be described as a "solution" to anything other than an incrementalist step along the path to a blanket gun ban.

I know it is a hard sell. But if people truly genuinely want to prevent gun deaths then ending the war on drugs would provide an enormous and immediate benefit to that cause and many others. Why are we even talking about assault weapons when we could be focusing on the elimination of 100 times the number of deaths that an assault weapon ban or large capacity magazine ban could ever hope to achieve? And countries that have legalized drugs have actually seen a long term decrease in drug usage. I think this is something a crime and punishment crowd could find beneficial. Or not

Any gun ban is a very long term solution, especially in country with so many. It's certainly effective since gun violence is surely reduced with no guns available.

As mentioned in the other thread, drug legalization/decriminalization requires social services to fill the void. The way politics is divided in this country, the pro-gun folks are also the anti-"welfare" ones which makes it an intractable problem in practice.