100 replies to this topic

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

Uncle Sam, on 08 February 2013 - 01:51 AM, said:

Instead of shielding children from firearms, they must introduce them at a early age and teach them what is appropriate when it comes to firearms. You could take a child who been around firearms all their life and set a firearm in front of them, they will never touch the gun without a parent permission. Now you take a child who never been around a firearms and set a firearm in front of them, they will automatically pick it up and start playing with it because they don't understand what it is. Until parents and politicians understand this, there will be many sandy hook situations because the children just don't understand.

I may have to agree with this.
Sadly, interacting as I do with parents on a regular basis, I can't see many of them getting behind the idea (admittedly I'm talking from both an Australian and a "Independent School" (ie shoes optional) perspective).

[Uncle Sam]

For most of you that don't understand, an AR-15 isn't a assault rifle, it is more of a glorified hunting rifle that hunters use. AR doesn't stand for Assault Rifle like most politicians want us to believe, it stands for ArmaLite Rifle and is a civilian model. Unlike their military counter-parts, this rifle has only single fire which is mostly used by hunters and sportsmen.  It comes with many accessories, allowing for customization of the rifles. The type of bullets that can be used ranges from .223 to 5.56mm rounds, giving a variety that most civilians love. Civilians can get a modified version that fires more than one bullet per trigger pull, but it requires modifying the original stock model.

Instead of banning the firearm outright, a effective measure would to take away the option to have the rifle modified to fire off more than one round per shot. This will allow civilians to keep their AR-15, but limiting the customization of the rifle. This is one of the most misunderstood and most highly recognized rifle there is in the United States because it is highly customizable. To call a AR-15 an assault rifle is ignorant at best, it falls mostly under semi-automatic rifle. Semi-automatic means automatic feed of rounds to the chamber and only fires one shot. Modified versions use burst fire which fires off three rounds per shot, which is still under the classification of semi-automatic rifle, not a fully automatic assault rifle. So next time an politicians states that it is a fully automatic assault rifle, please educate them on what a AR-15 is.

Edited by Uncle Sam, 08 February 2013 - 02:13 AM.

[Yamato]

Uncle Sam, on 08 February 2013 - 02:13 AM, said:

Instead of banning the firearm outright, a effective measure would to take away the option to have the rifle modified to fire off more than one round per shot. This will allow civilians to keep their AR-15, but limiting the customization of the rifle. This is one of the most misunderstood and most highly recognized rifle there is in the United States because it is highly customizable. To call a AR-15 an assault rifle is ignorant at best, it falls mostly under semi-automatic rifle. Semi-automatic means automatic feed of rounds to the chamber and only fires one shot. Modified versions use burst fire which fires off three rounds per shot, which is still under the classification of semi-automatic rifle, not a fully automatic assault rifle. So next time an politicians states that it is a fully automatic assault rifle, please educate them on what a AR-15 is.

The AR-15 is the most customizable rifle in rifle history.   People take advantage of its modular design and just replace the upper to any configuration they want to.   Want to fire .50 caliber?  You can do that with any AR with just a simple modification.

I'm not sure how banning a full-auto select-fire AR mod is going to satisfy anyone, since nobody is suggesting that as a solution, much less as the problem to be solved.  Their problem boils down to scary looking guns (that are also semi-automatic, or that also were used in some particular tragedy they want to focus on, or also have a magazine that can hold n bullets, and/or etc. etc).   They're not interested in facts, like nearly all gun crimes are committed with hand guns.  They want to legislate around the singular tragedy like Sandy Hook instead.  And when they successfully prevent 0.009% of gun crimes after doing that, then they'll be chasing after their next banishment/infringement since their previous one will prove horribly inadequate to what their political indoctrination tells them to care about.

[Uncle Sam]

Yamato, on 08 February 2013 - 05:39 AM, said:

The AR-15 is the most customizable rifle in rifle history.   People take advantage of its modular design and just replace the upper to any configuration they want to.   Want to fire .50 caliber?  You can do that with any AR with just a simple modification.

I'm not sure how banning a full-auto select-fire AR mod is going to satisfy anyone, since nobody is suggesting that as a solution, much less as the problem to be solved.  Their problem boils down to scary looking guns (that are also semi-automatic, or that also were used in some particular tragedy they want to focus on, or also have a magazine that can hold n bullets, and/or etc. etc).   They're not interested in facts, like nearly all gun crimes are committed with hand guns.  They want to legislate around the singular tragedy like Sandy Hook instead.  And when they successfully prevent 0.009% of gun crimes after doing that, then they'll be chasing after their next banishment/infringement since their previous one will prove horribly inadequate to what their political indoctrination tells them to care about.

True... getting rid of the modification won't successfully halt mass murders...

[Yamato]

Uncle Sam, on 08 February 2013 - 05:41 AM, said:

True... getting rid of the modification won't successfully halt mass murders...

Nor will it affect the 99.4% of gun crimes that have nothing to do with "assault" rifles.   And it's like they don't even care.   They want to keep yapping about the 0.6% anyway.

Getting rid of mass murders will successfully halt mass murders.  And we should start with Washington DC's institutionalized and legitimized version before we address or try to treat isolated cases in our own population that are already illegal and in many cases prevented.

Imagine what a nut case everyone would think an individual is if he goes around his neighborhood killing people he suspects are a threat to his security.   Government does this as a matter of course, and we're all so compliant and obedient that we don't even question it?    I've always had to wonder, why is that?   Well they're wacking people who are 7,000 miles away.   And they're brown.   And they believe in a different invisible man in the sky.   And they have different values that seem foreign to us.   And we don't have to worry about our own kids getting randomly splattered into hamburger meat by government bombers, so it's all okay?   But then it gets even worse than that.  Then we're expected to rely on that institution to keep us safe?   Seriously?   That's good for a joke.  But for serious consideration of a solution?  

We seem to have a society that doesn't respect life anymore.  That's reflected in the government we keep hiring back into office and in many other ways too.   We do respect the convenience and the instant gratification of the consumer.  We have millions of pills we're passing around like candy, and these drugs are changing the values of the people who take them.  If someone feels depressed, he's given a pill that makes him believe that his life is worthless.   Maybe to the money changers in the temple who aren't getting the production or the consumption out of this guy they were looking for, it is.   And so, *Bang!*   Blame the gun for that suicide.  It's what caused his death after all, so they say.

[Stellar]

Quote

The type of bullets that can be used ranges from .223 to 5.56mm rounds, giving a variety that most civilians love.

Do you know the difference between .223 and 5.56? Tell me about this "variety" you speak of.

[aztek]

5,56 is a military load.
223 is a civilian load.
the differennce is chamber pressure, the bullets are the same. from 55gr. to 80gr, from short tail to boat tail.

you can shoot 223 from 5,56 marked barrels, but vise versa is not recomended.

same as 357mag, and .38 spl.

Edited by aztek, 08 February 2013 - 03:59 PM.

[Stellar]

aztek, on 08 February 2013 - 03:58 PM, said:

5,56 is a military load.
223 is a civilian load.
the differennce is chamber pressure, the bullets are the same. from 55gr. to 80gr, from short tail to boat tail.

you can shoot 223 from 5,56 marked barrels, but vise versa is not recomended.

same as 357mag, and .38 spl.

Exactly. .223 an 5.56 are the same size round, and come in different "grains". The only "difference" is not with the round but the tolerances to which the barrel and the round were designed for. The bullets are, for all intents and purposes, the same. Every time I hear Sam talking about the AR firing a .22, and how the type of bullet that a AR15 fires "ranges from" a .223 to a 5.56mm seems to indicate to me that Sam doesn't really know what he's talking about...

Theres no difference in size, no "range" between .223 and 5.56mm. They're the same measurement, using two different systems. They're the same round, except one is made with tighter tolerances than the other.

[aztek]

if you get shot in a right place, you will be just as dead from.22 or from .223\5,56. ask half a dozen of grocery store owners, that were shot at in brroklyn with a .22 rifle by a man that hated muslims, oh you can't ask, they are dead, and it only took 1 shot for each. ruger 10\22 does just as good job of killing as ar15. proven fact.
it doesn't make any difference how .22 is different from .223

[Clyde the Glyde]

And finding either for sale now  is about as rare as hen's teeth.

( Unless you're willing to pay around a buck a round )

[aztek]

i never liked that round much anyway, i'll take 7,62x39 over .223 anyday

[Stellar]

aztek, on 08 February 2013 - 05:03 PM, said:

if you get shot in a right place, you will be just as dead from.22 or from .223\5,56. ask half a dozen of grocery store owners, that were shot at in brroklyn with a .22 rifle by a man that hated muslims, oh you can't ask, they are dead, and it only took 1 shot for each. ruger 10\22 does just as good job of killing as ar15. proven fact.
it doesn't make any difference how .22 is different from .223

It makes a huge difference! Yes a .22 can kill, but a .223 can kill from much farther away with much less accuracy required. And if you miss with a .223? It can go on and kill something in the next room or building.

Now, I'm not advocating banning .223 rifles, what I am saying is that it's dishonest to tell people that there's no difference between a .22 and a .223

[questionmark]

Stellar, on 08 February 2013 - 05:11 PM, said:

It makes a huge difference! Yes a .22 can kill, but a .223 can kill from much farther away with much less accuracy required. And if you miss with a .223? It can go on and kill something in the next room or building.

Now, I'm not advocating banning .223 rifles, what I am saying is that it's dishonest to tell people that there's no difference between a .22 and a .223

You always have to consider that the smaller (military) calibers were not designed to kill but seriously maim and injure. Killing a enemy takes one out, maiming one that screams and howls will take out another 2 or three to carry the guy back as he demoralizes the rest of the troops.


Many people will see themselves on the wrong side of a law suit after defending themselves with a castrated assault rifle.

[AsteroidX]

Quote

You always have to consider that the smaller (military) calibers were not designed to kill but seriously maim and injure. Killing a enemy takes one out, maiming one that screams and howls will take out another 2 or three to carry the guy back as he demoralizes the rest of the troops.

Unless your hitting body armor a 22LR can be much more painful and destructive. A larger round is likely to kill outright or go through and through not so with .22/.223

[aztek]

Stellar, on 08 February 2013 - 05:11 PM, said:

It makes a huge difference! Yes a .22 can kill, but a .223 can kill from much farther away with much less accuracy required. And if you miss with a .223? It can go on and kill something in the next room or building.

Now, I'm not advocating banning .223 rifles, what I am saying is that it's dishonest to tell people that there's no difference between a .22 and a .223

lets not get into dishonesty part, cuz there is a lot more dishonesty on gunhaters side, than facts.

also they are not banning assult rifles based on how lethal the round is,  there is also very few crimes commited with AR\AK,, next to handguns.

yet al we hear, is assult rifles this, and assult rifles that.  that is a lot bigger dishonesty.

actually i 've heard of more murders using .22 weapon, than .223.