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

[Jhhnn]

Another military sourced rifle that needs banned:

https://d262ilb51hltx0.cloudfront.net/max/800/1*FPvQViQ36NuU2DGjOhiruw.jpeg

Virtually every single gun can be traced back to military use, back to flintlocks.

So what?

Modern firearms are specialized, purpose built. They have different features depending on that. The M16 in all its variants was built to kill a lot of people in a short period of time which explains its features. It is an extremely well designed firearm in that respect. The AR 15 is just one variant built to satisfy the law wrt semi-auto firing exclusively.

Mexican cartels, terrorists & nutjobs buy them for that purpose. They're not really much good for anything else other than shoot 'em up fun & self defense fantasy.

While the Constitution affirms the right to bear arms the right of the people to reasonably restrict the kinds of guns available to civilians is well established. If all the AR15 variants disappeared from gun stores tomorrow there would remain literally hundreds of others not nearly as well suited for mass murder.

 

[glenn1]

So what?

Modern firearms are specialized, purpose built. They have different features depending on that. The M16 in all its variants was built to kill a lot of people in a short period of time which explains its features. It is an extremely well designed firearm in that respect. The AR 15 is just one variant built to satisfy the law wrt semi-auto firing exclusively.

Mexican cartels, terrorists & nutjobs buy them for that purpose. They're not really much good for anything else other than shoot 'em up fun & self defense fantasy.

While the Constitution affirms the right to bear arms the right of the people to reasonably restrict the kinds of guns available to civilians is well established. If all the AR15 variants disappeared from gun stores tomorrow there would remain literally hundreds of others not nearly as well suited for mass murder.

I and lots of others are just as proficient with weapons platforms other than the AR-15. Mini 14, M1 Garand, G3, FAL, Remington 700, whatever man I like them all.

 

[Artdeco]

So what?

Modern firearms are specialized, purpose built. They have different features depending on that. The M16 in all its variants was built to kill a lot of people in a short period of time which explains its features. It is an extremely well designed firearm in that respect. The AR 15 is just one variant built to satisfy the law wrt semi-auto firing exclusively.

Mexican cartels, terrorists & nutjobs buy them for that purpose. They're not really much good for anything else other than shoot 'em up fun & self defense fantasy.

While the Constitution affirms the right to bear arms the right of the people to reasonably restrict the kinds of guns available to civilians is well established. If all the AR15 variants disappeared from gun stores tomorrow there would remain literally hundreds of others not nearly as well suited for mass murder.

And wrong again. There are a ton of semiautomatic rifles that are just as capable, and you're ignoring the bulk of homicides are committed with handguns, but the media keeps bleating about AR15's, sigh...

Do you think other types of guns shoot flowers instead of bullets?

Use some critical thinking, don't repeat what the media is telling you, read Wikipedia watch some YouTube videos, etc.

Seriously, watch this video and take a deep breath

https://youtu.be/P20xln3H3nk

 

[alien42]

You're completely missing the point, think about it, the image I linked to was the state of the art military firearm at the time, hunting rifles are really sniper rifles, they just look pretty, matter of fact, some of the best snipers used a hunting rifle for sniping.

This is a non assault rifle: https://youtu.be/p-3YE13dqW0

i still don't see your point and contend that you didn't make one.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Only you're pretending it's a binary choice: more and more laws or no laws.

It's more about fruitless and/or redundant laws. We'll have to deal with them and not the criminals. Laws have unintended consequences of the negative sort; that's axiomatic. A useless/fruitless law brings no benefit yet carries those unintended consequences.

More law enforcement? You mean like Fast & Furious where the BATF virtually gave guns to criminals? Or maybe 'Stop and Frisk', that while it worked, got the Left's panties in a bunch? What exactly do you mean?

Let's review a bit:

1. The CO theater mass shooting: The guy was insane. The psychologist notified the police. Guess what, he still bought guns. How about we fix break down of enforcement of good laws before we willy-nilly begin enacting new laws of dubious quality.

2. Sandy Hook school mass shooting: Didn't the shooter murder someone (his mother IIRC) and steal her locked up weapons? Gee, there should be a law against that.

3. Mateen: (A bit reluctant to use this as so much bad info exists for these type cases until well after its been investigated and sorted out.) He's a licensed security professional, I've heard for gun possession state-wide in both NY and FL. Hmmmm, licensed security professionals do use semi-auto rifles. Remember Black Water in New Orleans after the hurricane? So, under these proposed laws he'd have access to these guns and we wouldn't? Does that make any sense?

It's a difficult problem to solve and feel good laws aren't a solution.

Fern

I wasn't trying to make it binary. You chose the classic argument of comparing areas with strict gun laws and lax gun laws. I appreciate your response, and I share this sentiment as well. Passing idiotic laws as a kneejerk response doesn't really benefit us (keep in mind how the majority supported a temporary Muslin ban after Trump brought it up and how we passed the Patriot Act right after 9/11).

There isn't a simple solution to all of this.

 

[Artdeco]

i still don't see your point and contend that you didn't make one.

My point is that the argument is that "the AR 15 is a military weapon and has no place as a civilian weapon."

There are many many guns just as deadly, and all guns can be traced back to military use.

https://youtu.be/KpTOzZoVHAQ

Not an Ar15 or a variant, there are a ton of equivalent guns.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

And wrong again. There are a ton of semiautomatic rifles that are just as capable, and you're ignoring the bulk of homicides are committed with handguns, but the media keeps bleating about AR15's, sigh...

Do you think other types of guns shoot flowers instead of bullets?

Use some critical thinking, don't repeat what the media is telling you, read Wikipedia watch some YouTube videos, etc.

Seriously, watch this video and take a deep breath

https://youtu.be/P20xln3H3nk

So in the OP I did acknowledge that most homicides are committed with handguns, but there seems to be a rise in AR-15 usage. Now some of it can obviously be attributed to the fact that AR-15s are quite popular to begin with so you should expect them to show up anyway.

My post to begin with was that the AR-15 is probably getting a lot of negative press, a lot of which is unjustified. However I don't doubt that had the killers been armed with 9mm pistols, the damage would've been less. The solution obviously isn't to ban AR-15s but I think we need to recognize that the AR-15 with 30 round magazines, in the hands of a mass killer cause more damage than say a 9mm pistol. The solution isn't easy, but if the trend continues with AR-15s and other rifles being used more and more in mass killings, we might have to admit that mass shooters are upgrading weapons into more capable ones to inflict more casualties.

Without a doubt there's always more powerful rifles. That's not the point. The choice of an AR-15 is likely due to its ubiquity on the market as well as its ability to inflict a decent amount of damage.

 

[Artdeco]

So in the OP I did acknowledge that most homicides are committed with handguns, but there seems to be a rise in AR-15 usage. Now some of it can obviously be attributed to the fact that AR-15s are quite popular to begin with so you should expect them to show up anyway.

My post to begin with was that the AR-15 is probably getting a lot of negative press, a lot of which is unjustified. However I don't doubt that had the killers been armed with 9mm pistols, the damage would've been less. The solution obviously isn't to ban AR-15s but I think we need to recognize that the AR-15 with 30 round magazines, in the hands of a mass killer cause more damage than say a 9mm pistol. The solution isn't easy, but if the trend continues with AR-15s and other rifles being used more and more in mass killings, we might have to admit that mass shooters are upgrading weapons into more capable ones to inflict more casualties.

Without a doubt there's always more powerful rifles. That's not the point. The choice of an AR-15 is likely due to its ubiquity on the market as well as its ability to inflict a decent amount of damage.

The weapon of choice will just change.

https://youtu.be/ub4OswUhLwo

https://youtu.be/Y4BeJ-64294

 

[alien42]

My point is that the argument is that "the AR 15 is a military weapon and has no place as a civilian weapon."

There are many many guns just as deadly, and all guns can be traced back to military use.

https://youtu.be/KpTOzZoVHAQ

Not an Ar15 or a variant, there are a ton of equivalent guns.

which circles right back around to my original question...

can you really not see the difference between guns that humans can use to hunt and for self defense vs weapons of mass destruction and war?

 

[glenn1]

which circles right back around to my original question...

can you really not see the difference between guns that humans can use to hunt and for self defense vs weapons of mass destruction and war?

Why don't you tell us since your vision seems to be a bit better.

 

[Artdeco]

which circles right back around to my original question...

can you really not see the difference between guns that humans can use to hunt and for self defense vs weapons of mass destruction and war?

1.) all guns can be traced back to their introduction on the battlefield

What don't you understand? Do I need to post each and every gun and their military precursor?

 

[Ackmed]

The repeated phrase of calling a rifle a "weapon of mass destruction" is idiotic. Just like the media spinning things up with ignorance.

 

[Artdeco]

The repeated phrase of calling a rifle a "weapon of mass destruction" is idiotic. Just like the media spinning things up with ignorance.

Exactly, the hair splitting is ridiculous.

The author of an article for the Vox had something wrong, I emailed her and she corrected it, I was impressed as hell. She had the fire modes for the M16 wrong.

 

[alien42]

1.) all guns can be traced back to their introduction on the battlefield

What don't you understand? Do I need to post each and every gun and their military precursor?

yes, and going by your "logic", mortars, land mines and grenades should be legal.

that's what you don't understand.

 

[alien42]

Exactly, the hair splitting is ridiculous.

The author of an article for the Vox had something wrong, I emailed her and she corrected it, I was impressed as hell. She had the fire modes for the M16 wrong.

you are the one splitting hairs.

the solution is really quite simple, setting the line between what an American can legally own to hunt and for self defense and what they can't. i'll leave off the war part so you don't flip out again.

 

[Artdeco]

yes, and going by your "logic", mortars, land mines and grenades should be legal.

that's what you don't understand.

We're not talking about them, my "logic" is that you don't know what your talking about, you were bleating about AR15's, not other weapons of war.

Impress me, educate yourself instead of repeating talking points without critical thinking.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

The weapon of choice will just change.

https://youtu.be/ub4OswUhLwo

https://youtu.be/Y4BeJ-64294

You do realize I didn't call for a ban on AR-15s right? I acknowledged a good part of the spike we see AR-15s as a common weapon used in shootings is because of its popularity.

At the same time we probably need to look into if shooters are packing more heat then they have in the past. It looks like the past few major shootings have all been conducted with AR-15s or similar weapons. That doesn't mean they're bad necessarily.

The solution to all this isn't to turn a blind eye. It's to acknowledge the nature and thinking and tools behind mass shootings but not to go on kneejerk reactions banning things left and right.

 

[alien42]

We're not talking about them, my "logic" is that you don't know what your talking about, you were bleating about AR15's, not other weapons of war.

Impress me, educate yourself instead of repeating talking points without critical thinking.

yes, we are talking about "them", as in all guns and weapons. the single most important part of this discussion is the line between what should be legal to own and what shouldn't.

why can't you address that very simple issue instead of constantly diverting with the "i know everything about guns and you don't" bullshit.

now you impress me, and actually address the issue at hand, what is the line of what can and should be legally owned?

feel free to start with tanks, bazookas, land mines, whichever you prefer.

 

[glenn1]

yes, we are talking about "them", as in all guns and weapons. the single most important part of this discussion is the line between what should be legal to own and what shouldn't.

why can't you address that very simple issue instead of constantly diverting with the "i know everything about guns and you don't" bullshit.

now you impress me, and actually address the issue at hand, what is the line of what can and should be legally owned?

feel free to start with tanks, bazookas, land mines, whichever you prefer.

Is this your long winded way of saying that no, you won't or can't explain 'difference between guns that humans can use to hunt and for self defense vs weapons of mass destruction and war'?

I was sooooooo looking forward to your answer.

 

[FerrelGeek]

So much of this discussion is pointless. Even if the .gov banned all evil, scary black weapons tomorrow or for that matter shut down every gun shop,


<inserting a pause to allow certain libs' to calm down that hard-on they just got>


there's already plenty of them out there, along with lots of ammo. And given that we have pathetic security on our southern border, there would be plenty of opportunity to bring weapons into the country. Given the above, the only thing that will make libs happy is the .gov actively using methods to remove the guns from the hands of provate citizens: amnesty, buy-back, tax breaks, .gov bennies, confiscation. How else would one propose to REDUCE the existing stock that's out there. And good luck trying to get the drug cartels, radicalized Muslims, and gang-bangers to turn their stuff in, not to mention those who are mentally ill or the ones that'll hide their weapons. The can of worms has been opened.

 

[alien42]

Is this your long winded way of saying that no, you won't or can't explain 'difference between guns that humans can use to hunt and for self defense vs weapons of mass destruction and war'?

I was sooooooo looking forward to your answer.

sounds like you can't explain the difference.

it's real simple, i have no problems with the vast majority of guns being owned legally. is it really that difficult for you to accept that no one is trying to take all of your guns from you?

 

[alien42]

So much of this discussion is pointless. Even if the .gov banned all evil, scary black weapons tomorrow or for that matter shut down every gun shop,


<inserting a pause to allow certain libs' to calm down that hard-on they just got>


there's already plenty of them out there, along with lots of ammo. And given that we have pathetic security on our southern border, there would be plenty of opportunity to bring weapons into the country. Given the above, the only thing that will make libs happy is the .gov actively using methods to remove the guns from the hands of provate citizens: amnesty, buy-back, tax breaks, .gov bennies, confiscation. How else would one propose to REDUCE the existing stock that's out there. And good luck trying to get the drug cartels, radicalized Muslims, and gang-bangers to turn their stuff in, not to mention those who are mentally ill or the ones that'll hide their weapons. The can of worms has been opened.

no one is trying to take all of your guns, why do you nut jobs have such a difficult time understanding this? it isn't a black and white issue.

 

[Artdeco]

yes, we are talking about "them", as in all guns and weapons. the single most important part of this discussion is the line between what should be legal to own and what shouldn't.

why can't you address that very simple issue instead of constantly diverting with the "i know everything about guns and you don't" bullshit.

now you impress me, and actually address the issue at hand, what is the line of what can and should be legally owned?

feel free to start with tanks, bazookas, land mines, whichever you prefer.

I'm not trying to show off gun knowledge, and I don't know shit about tanks and mortars, what I'm asking is for you to read up a little, just a little about guns, spend 1/2 a day, learn something so we can have an intelligent discussion.

 

[alien42]

I'm not trying to show off gun knowledge, and I don't know shit about tanks and mortars, what I'm asking is for you to read up a little, just a little about guns, spend 1/2 a day, learn something so we can have an intelligent discussion.

you have no idea what i know about guns and you are assuming wrong. i know enough to have an intelligent discussion, so why do you continue to avoid that discussion?

ftr, my uncle was a lifelong Illinois state trooper and taught me gun safety and how to shoot decades ago when i was a teenager.

i also never claimed to have all of the solutions, unlike you.

 

[glenn1]

sounds like you can't explain the difference.

it's real simple, i have no problems with the vast majority of guns being owned legally. is it really that difficult for you to accept that no one is trying to take all of your guns from you?

LOL, I already did explain the difference - namely there is none. The same flintlock was used by both solider and hunter 200 years ago. The same AR-15 is used by both soldier and hunter today. Sure there might be cases where a different weapon might be more appropriate (e.g. you wouldn't hunt water buffalo with an AR-15, just as you wouldn't want to use a Casull .454 on a battefield) but that's been the same for centuries also.