Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
Yamato

Women Need AR-15 (Scary Looking Guns)

102 posts in this topic

I don't need to 'scare' someone with my gun. It's meant for protection, I'll be firing it, that should be scary enough.

You have to identify your target(s) to the extent that you don't just start firing, and wind up shooting someone you know or didn't mean to shoot. And if they start returning fire with their guns then it'll be scary enough for you and your suddenly woefully inadequate firepower. The point is, you're not going to be outgunned in a 5-on-1 situation with AR-15. If you have 30 round magazines and hundreds of rounds of ammo ("What in the world would someone need that for?", the gun-fear liberals ask) you can protect yourself in any scenario against even PCP or bath-salt goons with suppressing fire alone until the cops arrive. If that doesn't provide peace of mind for you, then be relieved that Barack Obama and his bureaucrat horde is going to bestow how many bullets thou may safely place in thy magazine. Because you're a threat to society when it crosses the magic line drawn by the bureau, and it could be a felony that puts you in a cage. Sorry, but the fear factor is extremely relevant on both ends of the trigger. A single girl and a pistol? We've been through worse, some criminals will think. They can handle you, easier than you think.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't go as far as saying its easy to aim from the hip... I really think that would be the worst idea, considering the strength of the round and concerns for overpenetration.

Not even the military fires it from the hip, even when doing room clearing.

strength of the round? Have you ever shot one? Just curious not looking to argue i promise. I own an equivalent aryan style rifle and the recoil is almost non existent. Honestly its a glorified .22 round. More powder yes. And a tiny bit more length to the projectile itself but the way they are set up they are very comfortable to shoot whether it be from the hip or shoulder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the strength of the round was what mattered, we'd be banning every rifle in sight. Ignorant gun-fear isn't going to win this legal argument. Liberals, go rant about your heroes Obama, Biden and Clinton mass murdering "suspects" overseas and sustaining this moral hazard of terrorist attack on our country before daring to blab that law-abiding citizens (who happen to be highly-correlated to disagree with you politically) are somehow the problem.

AR-15.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

all it news now is receiver painted neon green, and purple glitter splashes.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't take armed security guards, bullet proof doors and windows, background checks, or hundreds of gun laws to make a schools or work areas safe. All that is required is proper education and safety training that will make the household or schools much safer environment that they crave. They will understand that the firearms isn't something to be handling, they will not be toys in the eyes of children all ages but items that can cause serious injuries or even death, which will help reduce accidental deaths that are reported every year in households. As they get older, they will come to respect the firearms and know they are not something to be playing with.

Mainly it is up to the parents to see the overall gun safety training of their children if they are brought up in a environment that has multiple types of firearms. Parents should introduce their children to firearms as soon as they reach a certain age, properly around 5 to 10 years old, so they get a firm understand what a firearm is and what they are used for. When first introduce children to firearm, get them a BB gun which can be used to teach them the fundamentals to gun safety. Never should they let their children use a BB gun unless they are under supervision of one of the parents, thus firmly embedding the ideals of gun safety and understanding at a very early age. As they get older, introduce them to a wide variety of fire arms, thus giving them a much broader understand of firearms.

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.

Edited by Uncle Sam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Myth. The smaller caliber bullets such as the 5.56mm NATO, although does not have the stopping power that a larger caliber may have, was designed to tumble and fragment once it hits the body, causing much more complex injuries which will cause the enemy combatant to bleed out and die.

In fact, although I'll have to do a bit of sleuthing to find the exact article, I'm quite certain its against the Laws of Armed Conflict to use weapons designed to maim.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

I'm not arguing any of that here, nor am I arguing that there are more .223 related deaths than .22. What I'm saying is that its dishonest to tell people that somehow a .22 is virtually the same as a .223

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Myth. The smaller caliber bullets such as the 5.56mm NATO, although does not have the stopping power that a larger caliber may have, was designed to tumble and fragment once it hits the body, causing much more complex injuries which will cause the enemy combatant to bleed out and die.

In fact, although I'll have to do a bit of sleuthing to find the exact article, I'm quite certain its against the Laws of Armed Conflict to use weapons designed to maim.

After quite an agonizing time, yes. You will also die if a .22 hits you from 400 yards away in the guts, just not immediately. but you will unless rushed to a hospital. Wit a man stopper you will keel over and that is the end of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In fact, although I'll have to do a bit of sleuthing to find the exact article, I'm quite certain its against the Laws of Armed Conflict to use weapons designed to maim.

I believe that has more to do with landmines and such that maim after the conflict and pose a great danger to civilians even after the conflict has moved on. But not to bullets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe that has more to do with landmines and such that maim after the conflict and pose a great danger to civilians even after the conflict has moved on. But not to bullets.

I didnt think it was in specific reference to landmines... its just that landmines were the logical extension of it.

After quite an agonizing time, yes.

Bleeding out doesnt take "quite an agonizing time". Its not instantaneous, but neither is it as long as I believe you think.

The 5.56 (and the M16) was designed so that soldiers with relatively little amount of training could carry a lot of ammunition and fire it on full auto with a decent amount of accuracy while still being able to kill the enemy.

The problem with wounding the enemy is this: They can still fire back, and they can still fight another day. If you wound a member of the enemy force thats attacking you, thats not going to take 2 others out of the fight to "rescue" him--- no no, the attack continues. It continues until you're dead and the opposing force has won the battle --- only then do they deal with their injured.

One of the Sgts in my unit actually works for Colt and did a whole presentation on the design and effects of the 5.56mm NATO round we use... it is not "designed to wound", I can tell you that for sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.