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

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Bitek

Lifer
Aug 2, 2001
10,658
5,228
136
Also, I've heard several variations of semi-auto rifles having no legitimate use; which is not entirely true.

Outside of target practice they may have limited use, but in those instances you really don't want anything else.

Primarily, in the country where you may come up against varmints (animals that may be killed year-round without a hunting license) or other medium to large animals that pose a risk to humans. Such as wolves, coyotes, bear, or boar. (Mostly boar, as the others are typically only a nuisance to live-stock and will avoid humans. With boar it can be more of a crap shoot between fight/flight (still more likely to flee than charge though))
But if a boar is charging at you, you'll want a caliber that can put it down quickly, and a rifle with the capacity and rate of fire to be forgiving of a few misses. An AR-15 or similar fits this roll very nicely. Seriously, some boar can get big enough that a semi-auto hand gun may just piss it off. (Might die later, but too late to save you)

In the city or for a personal protection roll; it's really only suited (IMO) to protecting your property after a natural disaster when law enforcement isn't what it should be, or anytime you may be faced with multiple aggressors. (Such as if you're expecting a drive-by... though in that case my preferred defence would be a swift relocation... or sandbag wallpaper.)

I think is in line with my post. The situations where these prove as necessary tools are incredibly limited and/or borderline fantastical (eg govt breakdown and anarchy.) 99%+ of the population is not in the woods fighting boars and bears.

Where I've seen coyotes, usually a scoped deer rifle is plenty to do the job unless you shoot like shit.
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
36,289
28,144
136
It doesnt aid in shooting, but allows for easier transportation. I have an AR-10 with a stock non-adjustable buttstock and 20" barrel. Thing is a pita to transport due the case being like 3 feet long.

That's no bigger then softball bat. I carry them around all the time. I still don't get it.
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
36,289
28,144
136
Going home on a bus with the ancient M16's from basic training was like carrying a large broom with you.
#Tavor4life

Again, similar story. I've taken skis on vacation with me via air travel. Bit bulky but more then doable.
 

alien42

Lifer
Nov 28, 2004
12,668
3,067
136
anyone who has shot an AR-15 knows just how easy they are to shoot with incredible accuracy. i'll be the first to say they are a blast to shoot and if i owned a large piece of land that i could shoot on i would probably own one.

that being said, they are weapons of war and have as much practical use as a tank or mortar. i have no problems with assault rifle restrictions.
 

Artdeco

Platinum Member
Mar 14, 2015
2,682
1
0
Much as I hate to admit it, the pieces are fairly accurate, still see the confusion between semi automatic and full auto. I actually just emailed the author of The Vox's piece about the selective fire options of the M16, and how she got it wrong.

I was around during the first AWB, the reason it expired without renewal is because it was just feel good legislation and had virtually no effect on the availability and function of evil black guns.

To truly be effective, semi auto guns (rifles and pistols) need to be banned en mass, and they need to offer a federal buy back program, then a program to outlaw semi automatic weapons already in people's hands.

What we'll end up with is AWB #2, with a focus on AR15 style features and magazine capacity limits for rifles and handguns.

Also, keep in mind, a lot of politicians and high profile individuals are going to be reluctant to pass laws that would neuter what their personal security folks have access to. The highly placed Feds have federal officers that have different rules than the general public, but other high profile folks don't have those protections for their security people

The 2nd Ammendment isn't intended to protect hunting rights, it's intent is to allow arms to protect citizens from it's own and foreign governments/actors.
 
Last edited:

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,095
513
126
Again, similar story. I've taken skis on vacation with me via air travel. Bit bulky but more then doable.

When the state requires you to case those items get back to us. Your analogies are rather funny. Only shows how little experience you have with handling these weapons that you cant fathom why reducing their length would be a benefit for transportation.
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
36,289
28,144
136
When the state requires you to case those items get back to us. Your analogies are rather funny. Only shows how little experience you have with handling these weapons that you cant fathom why reducing their length would be a benefit for transportation.

I'm not saying it wouldn't make transporting easier but it also makes it easier to sneak weapon into places.

BTW - You have to case skis to check them on an airplane. People who travel with golf clubs, same answer.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
110,820
29,571
146
By the Centers For Disease Control. Come back when you understand why guns are not a disease.

CDC is responsible for various topics related to public health and safety, of which guns are certainly a prominent data point.

Might as well tell them to stop looking into traffic and pollution among other areas, if you think your understanding of "disease" should be their only mandate.
 
Oct 16, 1999
10,490
4
0
<- preface: gun owner

Do the technical details really matter all that much to the overall discussion? They should be doing a better job on it, but still...

Is there a good reason for these guns to be available to the general public when their primary function is to kill many people quickly and efficiently?

These are not guns designed for game hunting, and don't serve well as CC personal protection due to size.

They are a shooters dream offensive weaponry, as Orlando and the other shootings have proved.

You're right, but it's not an excuse for sloppy journalism though. It just gives defenders of the status quo something to criticize and dodge the core issue. And you don't have to fudge the numbers to make the case that these are very effective weapons.

But really, this is just the media understanding the technicalities of guns about as well as they understand the technicalities of most things.
 
Oct 16, 1999
10,490
4
0
CDC is responsible for various topics related to public health and safety, of which guns are certainly a prominent data point.

Might as well tell them to stop looking into traffic and pollution among other areas, if you think your understanding of "disease" should be their only mandate.

Sounds to me like a pretty good argument for an additional .gov agency.
 

Artdeco

Platinum Member
Mar 14, 2015
2,682
1
0
<- preface: gun owner

Do the technical details really matter all that much to the overall discussion? They should be doing a better job on it, but still...

Is there a good reason for these guns to be available to the general public when their primary function is to kill many people quickly and efficiently?

These are not guns designed for game hunting, and don't serve well as CC personal protection due to size.

They are a shooters dream offensive weaponry, as Orlando and the other shootings have proved.

The 2nd Ammendment has NO language in it referring to hunting, not one word.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
I think is in line with my post. The situations where these prove as necessary tools are incredibly limited and/or borderline fantastical (eg govt breakdown and anarchy.) 99%+ of the population is not in the woods fighting boars and bears.

Where I've seen coyotes, usually a scoped deer rifle is plenty to do the job unless you shoot like shit.

Partial birth abortion was a very limited use case also and pro-choice people fought like hell against it. Those same people are using the same argument that "it's rarely useful anyway so why shouldn't we ban it?" and it's not convincing in either case.

Just because you're scared of a right being used by another person doesn't mean you get to ban it, freedom is scary sometimes. You put on your adult pants and deal with your fear rather than employing your ban-o-matic antirights assault weapon.
 

Ackmed

Diamond Member
Oct 1, 2003
8,478
524
126
anyone who has shot an AR-15 knows just how easy they are to shoot with incredible accuracy. i'll be the first to say they are a blast to shoot and if i owned a large piece of land that i could shoot on i would probably own one.

that being said, they are weapons of war and have as much practical use as a tank or mortar. i have no problems with assault rifle restrictions.

Cool story bro. The AR15 is not an assault weapon. You're also wrong comparing it to a mortar and tank, but whatever.
 
Last edited:

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
23,654
10,517
136
Typical gun freak frame reference. Stay out of discussions about anything to do with controlling guns unless you know about every gun ever made. As soon as they detect any error on the technical merits of a gun, the discussion is over. As if that has anything to do with the arguments about access to guns.
 
Oct 16, 1999
10,490
4
0
Typical gun freak frame reference. Stay out of discussions about anything to do with controlling guns unless you know about every gun ever made. As soon as they detect any error on the technical merits of a gun, the discussion is over. As if that has anything to do with the arguments about access to guns.

Look out if you say "clip" instead of "magazine" though, then you'll get more discussion than you can imagine.
 

pauldun170

Diamond Member
Sep 26, 2011
9,139
5,074
136
The type of gun is irrelevant.

In this day and age where everyone wants fame, where they want to be remembered, how they inflict casualties is not important.

Does it matter if someone wants to inflict mass casualties? It won't help the victims if they were taken out with a homemade pipe bomb or improvised device or AR-15 or plain old waistband filled with handguns?

Those who are broken enough to want to inflict mass casualties are going to use whatever method they can get there hands on to do it.
Pushing the assault rifle narrative is lazy reporting done for ratings only.
 

IBMer

Golden Member
Jul 7, 2000
1,137
0
76
The fact is, one person was able to kill 50 and injure 50 more by himself. Some might say that if he used a bomb he would have done the same thing. Know why we don't have more bombings in the US? Because there isn't an NRA for Bombs and they carefully monitor purchases for bomb making supplies.

The NRA handicaps even the most logical of gun regulations and they do this for one purpose only. They don't give one damn about gun ownership in the US. They just know that time and time again, anytime they scare their people about gun regulations, their real masters, the gun industry, makes millions.
 

Artdeco

Platinum Member
Mar 14, 2015
2,682
1
0
Typical gun freak frame reference. Stay out of discussions about anything to do with controlling guns unless you know about every gun ever made. As soon as they detect any error on the technical merits of a gun, the discussion is over. As if that has anything to do with the arguments about access to guns.

The problem is some of the errors are a big mistake, and they're basing laws on them.

-Huff Po says fully automatic weapons are readily available at gun shows

-CNN says the Ruger 10/22 is an assault weapon, and that allows them to claim assault weapons are only $250

-VOX says the M16 fires in semi automatic and 3 round bursts, ignoring the full auto mode.

On and on... The whole magazine vs clips is funny though.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
The fact is, one person was able to kill 50 and injure 50 more by himself. Some might say that if he used a bomb he would have done the same thing. Know why we don't have more bombings in the US? Because there isn't an NRA for Bombs and they carefully monitor purchases for bomb making supplies.

The NRA handicaps even the most logical of gun regulations and they do this for one purpose only. They don't give one damn about gun ownership in the US. They just know that time and time again, anytime they scare their people about gun regulations, their real masters, the gun industry, makes millions.

You can imagine whatever nefarious motivations for the NRA you wish and it won't change the fact that they're correct.

I don't own an AR-15 variant but that's by my choice, not because you're a fucking pussy that's terrified of others owning things that scare you.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
The problem is some of the errors are a big mistake, and they're basing laws on them.

-Huff Po says fully automatic weapons are readily available at gun shows

-CNN says the Ruger 10/22 is an assault weapon, and that allows them to claim assault weapons are only $250

-VOX says the M16 fires in semi automatic and 3 round bursts, ignoring the full auto mode.

On and on... The whole magazine vs clips is funny though.

How hard is magazine vs. clip? All you have to remember is that calling it a magazine will be correct like 99% of the time, why would you obtusely call something what it's not? That would be like saying "this is a diesel engine car" and when being corrected that it's a gas engine car saying "WTF they're both cars, what's the difference."
 
Feb 16, 2005
14,035
5,338
136
who, yes who will speak for the poor little ar-15, such a tragedy that it's being persecuted, and maligned. Only the brave patriots will, that's who, we will get the ar-15 to a respectable position and then and only then will everything be ok.
 

boomerang

Lifer
Jun 19, 2000
18,890
642
126
Typical gun freak frame reference. Stay out of discussions about anything to do with controlling guns unless you know about every gun ever made. As soon as they detect any error on the technical merits of a gun, the discussion is over. As if that has anything to do with the arguments about access to guns.
So, you're saying it's like talking about any other topic with a liberal.
 

Tormac

Senior member
Feb 3, 2011
255
52
101
Hello DLeRium,

I own two AR-15 style rifles. One is an old Armalite from before the Clinton awb, chambered in the 5.56mm that the military uses, and a Colt that has been modified to fire .40 S&W handgun rounds.

The 5.56 mm and or .223 cartridges are not powerful at all compared to other rifle cartridges. Compared to say a .30-06 or .308 that is the most common round found in traditional “deer rifles” the cartridge that the AR-15 uses is very weak. The 5.56mm/.223 round fire very small light weight .22 caliber bullets at a medium speed. The rifles are loud as the round is supersonic, but they have very little “kick” to them. The 5.56/.223 round is a weak round as far as rifles go, and much of the “kick” of an AR-15 is absorbed by the reloading mechanism of the rifle. Anyone who complains about the kick of a 5.56/.223 round is just not ready to fire a centerfire rifle.

The military uses an “M4” carbine that can be set to burst fire or in some cases full auto. If these guns have full auto then they can fire 750 rounds a minute. However the “AR-15” is a civilian version of this, and will be semi-automatic. For those of you not in the know “full auto” means one can hold the trigger down and spray bullets, while semi-automatic means that one trigger pull fires one round. AR-15’s can fire as fast as one can pull the trigger, a skilled shooter may get a round a second off with an AR-15 accurately. Having a full auto rifle that fires 750 rounds a minute is not much of an advantage over a semi-automatic rifle that fires 60 rounds a minute, as it is impossible to aim and hit with most of those 750 rounds.

The AR-15’s are accurate rifles, not the best, but good. They are easy to shoot with very little recoil, and this leads to them being easy to fire quickly and accurately. They are, as you said, the Toyota Camry of rifles, good enough at everything.

As far as them being home defense weapons, the best answer is it depends on the round that one uses. The one I have that is chambered in .40S&W is an excellent home defense weapon, as long as an expanding bullet is used. The one chambered in 5.56/.223 is problematic because it is a rifle cartridge, and rifle cartridges will penetrate the walls of a house or apartment. Again the AR-15 is a particularly weak cartridge, much weaker than the traditional .30-06 or .308 that one would find in a traditional “deer rifle”, but rifles by design are set up to shoot over a long range, and so require a very fast bullet (I know there are rare exception like subsonic .300 blackout before anyone points those out).

My wife is very petite, and if she asked me to teach her how to shoot for a home defense situation I would start her out on a .22 rifle I have to familiarize her with shooting, and then move her up to the .40S&M AR-15 that I have. The AR-15 is a light weapon with very little recoil that is easy for a beginner to control. The magazine for it has 20 rounds, meaning that she will not have to deal with reloading the magazine in all likely hood, and if it does jam it is easy to correct. It is a “rifle” so longer than a hand gun, but for a beginner that is a benefit imho as it is less likely to be dropped or get out of control.

Contrary to the advice of our vice president, and others, I would not suggest to my wife that she try my double barrel shotgun for home defense. My shotgun kicks like a mule, and would be difficult for smaller person to control. It also only has two rounds, so it is more likely that she would have to break the gun open and reload it. Also, contrary to what some people claim, buckshot, birdshot, or a slug will go through walls.

As far as the popularity of the AR-style rifle goes for mass shooters, they are, as you said, the Camry of rifles. If you go to any gun store it is likely that you will see AR-15’s for sale. The round they fire is just powerful enough to kill or seriously wound a human, but not so powerful that they have a lot of recoil that makes it difficult to control. They are easy to operate, accurate enough, and reliable enough. Hand guns are more commonly used for committing crimes because they are concealable, but if one just wants to walk into a place and shoot it up, and does not care about getting away, then why not go with a long gun? Concealability is no longer a factor. These kinds of “mass shootings” are still very rare, but horrific when they do occur. In general long guns are more powerful than hand guns, so if someone is going for maximum damage to make headlines, and don’t care if they can get away anyways, then why not pick a long gun? I have a friend that likes shooting an older style semi-automatic rifle, the M1a1 that was used in WW2, and that would work just as well as an AR-15, but if you go to a big box gun store chances are they will have AR-15 style rifles and AK-47’s, but not as likely that they will have other older rifles like an M1A1, or FN FAL, or more exotic brands of rifles.

As you said the AR-15 style rifle is the Toyota Camry of rifles now. So if one was going to go out and buy a rifle to shoot up a place it is the easy, obvious choice. In some ways the 5.56/.223 cartridge is not the best to commit these types of crimes, and it is not particularly deadly. The round that the older M1A1 uses is much more deadly. I dread the day that these kinds of criminals start using auto loading shotguns with buck-shot. If I was going to shoot up an enclosed room like a night club or school cafeteria, that would be my first choice. Although to be fair if one is shooting unresisting people who have their back turned to you and are just trying to get away, it likely does not matter which weapon one uses. It is easy to shoot helpless people in the back.
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |