15 ms·

Correct. There is no one brand of AR-15. It’s an interoperable platform (for the most part). You can buy a bare lower receiver from any manufacture (basically j

Correct. There is no one brand of AR-15. It’s an interoperable platform (for the most part). You can buy a bare lower receiver from any manufacture (basically just a part with no moving parts milled from a single block of AL). Then just go and buy various parts kits or buy the parts individually to customize to you own needs. It’s what makes them so popular. You can customize them infinitely and they’re extremely affordable and very reliable, safe and accurate. People who own them don’t think of them as the crazy “military style” weapons you hear them described as. Most who own then just think of them as “the most standard and obvious rifle you can possibly buy”. Like you go into most gun store and it’s just the platform that is everywhere. It’s “gun” in the dictionaries in heads of gun wonders. It’s nothing “crazy” to them.

tyingq 7y ago
What's funny is that a Mini14 ranch rifle would be more acceptable to anti-assault rifle people. Even though it's roughly the same thing.
- kls 7y ago
  While I agree with you, the driving factor in most of these shootings is the fact that the AR is one of the cheapest platforms that one can purchase. You can get a functional AR for a little over $400, Mini-14's are closer to a grand. The Columbine shooter used a Hi Point rifle which at the time where much cheaper than the AR-15 platforms offered. The driving factor in most of these are that the guns used are the cheaper platforms. I have always said one of the deadliest firearm platforms for mass killings would be a Saiga-12 with a bag full of 20 round drums loaded with 3 inch 00 buck. But you don't see them being used because a decent one that has has the ports drilled and has been converted is over 3K and the drums run close to $100 each. If the AR is eliminated the shootings will not stop they will transfer over to the next cheap platform, or handguns and honestly in a corridor setting, such as a school and unarmed civilians with no body armor, a handgun is going to be just as effective as far as body count is concerned. They just don't fit the image that these shooters want to portray. there is a reason that most of them wear a bunch of tactical gear when they commit these criminal acts.
- codezero 7y ago
  This comment makes it seem like you think that people against high powered rifles are unaware of the technology and capabilities of weapon systems. I also think you are wrong.
  - rayiner 7y ago
    Based on the assault weapons bans in place in states like Maryland, that’s exactly what I think. The Maryland State Police maintains a buyers guide for helping you find an assault rifle that’s legal within the state: https://mdsp.maryland.gov/Organization/Pages/CriminalInvestigationBureau/LicensingDivision/Firearms/FirearmSearch.aspx https://mdsp.maryland.gov/Organization/Pages/CriminalInvesti... There are numerous great choices!
    - tptacek 7y ago
      I'm not clear on what the argument here is. Are current assault rifle regulations bad? Yes, clearly. But they didn't start out that way; most centerfire semi-automatic rifles that accepted detachable magazines would have been (properly) considered assault rifles under the original 1980s proposals. (The AR-15 itself, of course, was designed by Eugene Stoner to be a standard-issue US military rifle.) The only thing I think we can conclude about the incoherence of firearms legislation is that they have staunch and effective opposition from firearms advocates. I do not think it is at all valid to look at them and say "legislators don't know what an assault rifle is".
      - cthalupa 7y ago
        >The only thing I think we can conclude about the incoherence of firearms legislation is that they have staunch and effective opposition from firearms advocates. I do not think it is at all valid to look at them and say "legislators don't know what an assault rifle is". Well, if we're calling AR-15s and centerfire semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines assault rifles, then we don't know what assault rifles are. The term has been in use since WW2 and refers to selective fire rifles with intermediate cartridges and detachable magazines. I'm not entirely sure what you mean about the original 1980s proposals - afaik the only major 1980s attempts at legislation occurred after a school shooting in California, had limited opposition in California, and was enacted into law. It included classifying rifles as assault weapons if they had detachable magazines plus at least one of other relatively features, such as pistol grips, barrel shrouds, folding/telescoping stocks, etc. Most of those features have limited to no impact on the ability of the rifle to be a deadly weapon. >(The AR-15 itself, of course, was designed by Eugene Stoner to be a standard-issue US military rifle.) The ArmaLite AR-15 designed for the military was a select fire rifle that ultimately became the M16. The trademark was sold to Colt. Colt later used that trademark in producing the semi-automatic civilian version. An AR-15 or AR-15 clone a civilian can buy is not the same AR-15 that Eugene Stoner designed. As best as I can tell, most legislators have no idea what assault weapons are, what assault rifles are, or much at all about guns in general. And this includes those on the conservative side. I'm pro gun control, if we can find a way to effectively do it, but if we're actually concerned about human life, assault weapons don't even make sense to be the focus. Over 60% of homicides committed with firearms are done with handguns. Rifles only make up about 4%. Mass shootings are scary, and make news, and are terrifying. But they're responsible for a tiny fraction of gun related homicides, and the focus on rifles (and particularly features that are more related to appearance than efficacy in being deadly weapons) screams to me that it is almost entirely a political play and less related to any real concern over the healthy and safety of those living in America.
- tptacek 7y ago
  People like to bring up the Mini-14 in gun arguments, and I never quite understand what they mean to prove. The Mini-14 is a tactical rifle (note caps). It's not a black rifle, but neither is a classic AK-47, which also features a wooden stock. The fact that it doesn't look like an AR-15 (or its successor, the M16) was a feature of the weapon, not because people in the 1970s were afraid of mass shooters, but because the M16 had acquired a reputation for unreliability. Is your point that the Mini-14 should be regulated the same way as a Colt AR-15? Of course, you're right. Obviously, Mini-14 regulation isn't that much of a problem today, since the AR-15 platform became the default sporting rifle platform.
  - homonculus1 7y ago
    The point is to show by contradiction that "assault weapons" regulations are not based in any systematic or factual threat assessment. There are better arguments in favor of the right to bear arms, this one is directed specifically at how the irrationialities of gun control betray its motivation.
    - kls 7y ago
      If we where serious about gun deaths we would not be debating the emotional issue of mass shootings and black guns, rather we would be focused on the real tragedy of handgun deaths which does not just eclipse the rare and significantly smaller portion of mass shooting deaths by long-arms rather it statistically makes them almost null in comparison. On average handguns kill 19 times as many people than all other guns combined. The number of people killed in mass shootings is a even significantly smaller percentage of that 1 in 19.
  - tyingq 7y ago
    "Is your point that the Mini-14 should be regulated the same way as a Colt AR-15?" Partially. It's allowed in some places where the AR-15 is banned. People tend to react to the tactical appearance. There's almost no functional difference.
    - qball 7y ago
isostatic 7y ago
“Safe”
gnu8 7y ago
That is an excellent description of the AR-15 platform. It is very much the PC of firearms.
nailer 7y ago
> There is no one brand of AR-15. I see what you're saying but a better way of saying it would be: 'Armalite is the brand, but it's like IBM - there are many IBM-compatible models'
justinator 7y ago
> Then just go and buy various parts kits or buy the parts individually to customize to you own needs. OK curious: examples of what these, "needs" are?
- swasheck 7y ago
  Feral hogs, apparently. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/aug/05/feral-hogs-memes-twitter-30-50-running-into-my-yard-small-kids https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/aug/05/feral-hogs-m...
- MrLeap 7y ago
  I sense an undercurrent of incredulity here. The AR-15 accessory market shares some similarities to the after market PC market. The kind of people who play dress-up with their guns remind me a lot of the people who customize their workstations. Sometimes it's for a "need", sometimes it's for a "personal aesthetic" and sometimes it's just a hobby. One of these days I'll go through the process of getting a threaded barrel and suppressor for my AR so I can shoot on my rural land without ear protection. You need subsonic ammo to truly make it ear safe, and 5.56 is kind of a bad sub sonic round (not enough mass, has a tendency to key hole on earth), so maybe I get a .300BLK upper receiver.That means a new bolt carrier group. Maybe I'll get one of those slick nitrile ones, or the bronze coated one so it looks cooler.. I already have a 1911, so I'll probably get a .45ACP upper instead of the .300BLK. Ammo is also cheaper. Maybe I get rich and buy a drop in auto sear so I can turn ammo into noise. Maybe I'm a weirdo nerd so I buy one of those rail mounted chainsaws to help me trim the hedges. I like the color purple so I'm probably going to get one of those acrylic transparent lower receivers. Those are cool. Giselle triggers are nice. There's different barrel lengths for different applications. A home defense rifle might have a shorter barrel, maybe a folding stock, tactical light and a red dot sight. Do I use a holographic sight like an eotech, or do I use an aim-point? Aimpoints can last like eons on a single battery, but eotechs are really easy to use.. I could leave an aim-point ON next to my bed for 5 years and it wouldn't run out of juice. That's one less button to press if I needed to use it in the night. I like a bipod, longer barrel, and a 2x optic if I want to use it for plinking. What style of sling do I get, if any? Single point, double point? Probably depends on my barrel length and what I've practiced with. Maybe I need special magazines because of preferences or local ordinances. We could debate direct impingement vs. piston gas systems like you might hear two people discussing intel vs. AMD. I've got these small boulders that have really been bugging me. I've hit them with a sledgehammer for a few hours, but they're indestructible! I could buy a rock drill, or maybe masonry disks for my angle grinder.. I'm trying to use this "problem" to justify purchasing a .50BMG upper receiver. Wholly impractical, yeah.. but I could blow up my boulders from the comfort of my deck a mile away. Kaboom! If you're left handed/left-eye dominant you might want the ejection port on the left side and an ambidextrous safety. Once cool thing about the AR is that the charging handle is ambi by design. I could go on, but does this add any context to what someone's "needs" might be?

tyingq 7y ago

What's funny is that a Mini14 ranch rifle would be more acceptable to anti-assault rifle people. Even though it's roughly the same thing.

kls 7y ago
While I agree with you, the driving factor in most of these shootings is the fact that the AR is one of the cheapest platforms that one can purchase. You can get a functional AR for a little over $400, Mini-14's are closer to a grand. The Columbine shooter used a Hi Point rifle which at the time where much cheaper than the AR-15 platforms offered. The driving factor in most of these are that the guns used are the cheaper platforms. I have always said one of the deadliest firearm platforms for mass killings would be a Saiga-12 with a bag full of 20 round drums loaded with 3 inch 00 buck. But you don't see them being used because a decent one that has has the ports drilled and has been converted is over 3K and the drums run close to $100 each. If the AR is eliminated the shootings will not stop they will transfer over to the next cheap platform, or handguns and honestly in a corridor setting, such as a school and unarmed civilians with no body armor, a handgun is going to be just as effective as far as body count is concerned. They just don't fit the image that these shooters want to portray. there is a reason that most of them wear a bunch of tactical gear when they commit these criminal acts.
codezero 7y ago
This comment makes it seem like you think that people against high powered rifles are unaware of the technology and capabilities of weapon systems. I also think you are wrong.
- rayiner 7y ago
  Based on the assault weapons bans in place in states like Maryland, that’s exactly what I think. The Maryland State Police maintains a buyers guide for helping you find an assault rifle that’s legal within the state: https://mdsp.maryland.gov/Organization/Pages/CriminalInvestigationBureau/LicensingDivision/Firearms/FirearmSearch.aspx https://mdsp.maryland.gov/Organization/Pages/CriminalInvesti... There are numerous great choices!
  - tptacek 7y ago
    I'm not clear on what the argument here is. Are current assault rifle regulations bad? Yes, clearly. But they didn't start out that way; most centerfire semi-automatic rifles that accepted detachable magazines would have been (properly) considered assault rifles under the original 1980s proposals. (The AR-15 itself, of course, was designed by Eugene Stoner to be a standard-issue US military rifle.) The only thing I think we can conclude about the incoherence of firearms legislation is that they have staunch and effective opposition from firearms advocates. I do not think it is at all valid to look at them and say "legislators don't know what an assault rifle is".
    - cthalupa 7y ago
      >The only thing I think we can conclude about the incoherence of firearms legislation is that they have staunch and effective opposition from firearms advocates. I do not think it is at all valid to look at them and say "legislators don't know what an assault rifle is". Well, if we're calling AR-15s and centerfire semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines assault rifles, then we don't know what assault rifles are. The term has been in use since WW2 and refers to selective fire rifles with intermediate cartridges and detachable magazines. I'm not entirely sure what you mean about the original 1980s proposals - afaik the only major 1980s attempts at legislation occurred after a school shooting in California, had limited opposition in California, and was enacted into law. It included classifying rifles as assault weapons if they had detachable magazines plus at least one of other relatively features, such as pistol grips, barrel shrouds, folding/telescoping stocks, etc. Most of those features have limited to no impact on the ability of the rifle to be a deadly weapon. >(The AR-15 itself, of course, was designed by Eugene Stoner to be a standard-issue US military rifle.) The ArmaLite AR-15 designed for the military was a select fire rifle that ultimately became the M16. The trademark was sold to Colt. Colt later used that trademark in producing the semi-automatic civilian version. An AR-15 or AR-15 clone a civilian can buy is not the same AR-15 that Eugene Stoner designed. As best as I can tell, most legislators have no idea what assault weapons are, what assault rifles are, or much at all about guns in general. And this includes those on the conservative side. I'm pro gun control, if we can find a way to effectively do it, but if we're actually concerned about human life, assault weapons don't even make sense to be the focus. Over 60% of homicides committed with firearms are done with handguns. Rifles only make up about 4%. Mass shootings are scary, and make news, and are terrifying. But they're responsible for a tiny fraction of gun related homicides, and the focus on rifles (and particularly features that are more related to appearance than efficacy in being deadly weapons) screams to me that it is almost entirely a political play and less related to any real concern over the healthy and safety of those living in America.
tptacek 7y ago
People like to bring up the Mini-14 in gun arguments, and I never quite understand what they mean to prove. The Mini-14 is a tactical rifle (note caps). It's not a black rifle, but neither is a classic AK-47, which also features a wooden stock. The fact that it doesn't look like an AR-15 (or its successor, the M16) was a feature of the weapon, not because people in the 1970s were afraid of mass shooters, but because the M16 had acquired a reputation for unreliability. Is your point that the Mini-14 should be regulated the same way as a Colt AR-15? Of course, you're right. Obviously, Mini-14 regulation isn't that much of a problem today, since the AR-15 platform became the default sporting rifle platform.
- homonculus1 7y ago
  The point is to show by contradiction that "assault weapons" regulations are not based in any systematic or factual threat assessment. There are better arguments in favor of the right to bear arms, this one is directed specifically at how the irrationialities of gun control betray its motivation.
  - kls 7y ago
    If we where serious about gun deaths we would not be debating the emotional issue of mass shootings and black guns, rather we would be focused on the real tragedy of handgun deaths which does not just eclipse the rare and significantly smaller portion of mass shooting deaths by long-arms rather it statistically makes them almost null in comparison. On average handguns kill 19 times as many people than all other guns combined. The number of people killed in mass shootings is a even significantly smaller percentage of that 1 in 19.
- tyingq 7y ago
  "Is your point that the Mini-14 should be regulated the same way as a Colt AR-15?" Partially. It's allowed in some places where the AR-15 is banned. People tend to react to the tactical appearance. There's almost no functional difference.
  - qball 7y ago

isostatic 7y ago

“Safe”

gnu8 7y ago

That is an excellent description of the AR-15 platform. It is very much the PC of firearms.

nailer 7y ago

> There is no one brand of AR-15. I see what you're saying but a better way of saying it would be: 'Armalite is the brand, but it's like IBM - there are many IBM-compatible models'

justinator 7y ago

> Then just go and buy various parts kits or buy the parts individually to customize to you own needs. OK curious: examples of what these, "needs" are?

swasheck 7y ago
Feral hogs, apparently. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/aug/05/feral-hogs-memes-twitter-30-50-running-into-my-yard-small-kids https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/aug/05/feral-hogs-m...
MrLeap 7y ago
I sense an undercurrent of incredulity here. The AR-15 accessory market shares some similarities to the after market PC market. The kind of people who play dress-up with their guns remind me a lot of the people who customize their workstations. Sometimes it's for a "need", sometimes it's for a "personal aesthetic" and sometimes it's just a hobby. One of these days I'll go through the process of getting a threaded barrel and suppressor for my AR so I can shoot on my rural land without ear protection. You need subsonic ammo to truly make it ear safe, and 5.56 is kind of a bad sub sonic round (not enough mass, has a tendency to key hole on earth), so maybe I get a .300BLK upper receiver.That means a new bolt carrier group. Maybe I'll get one of those slick nitrile ones, or the bronze coated one so it looks cooler.. I already have a 1911, so I'll probably get a .45ACP upper instead of the .300BLK. Ammo is also cheaper. Maybe I get rich and buy a drop in auto sear so I can turn ammo into noise. Maybe I'm a weirdo nerd so I buy one of those rail mounted chainsaws to help me trim the hedges. I like the color purple so I'm probably going to get one of those acrylic transparent lower receivers. Those are cool. Giselle triggers are nice. There's different barrel lengths for different applications. A home defense rifle might have a shorter barrel, maybe a folding stock, tactical light and a red dot sight. Do I use a holographic sight like an eotech, or do I use an aim-point? Aimpoints can last like eons on a single battery, but eotechs are really easy to use.. I could leave an aim-point ON next to my bed for 5 years and it wouldn't run out of juice. That's one less button to press if I needed to use it in the night. I like a bipod, longer barrel, and a 2x optic if I want to use it for plinking. What style of sling do I get, if any? Single point, double point? Probably depends on my barrel length and what I've practiced with. Maybe I need special magazines because of preferences or local ordinances. We could debate direct impingement vs. piston gas systems like you might hear two people discussing intel vs. AMD. I've got these small boulders that have really been bugging me. I've hit them with a sledgehammer for a few hours, but they're indestructible! I could buy a rock drill, or maybe masonry disks for my angle grinder.. I'm trying to use this "problem" to justify purchasing a .50BMG upper receiver. Wholly impractical, yeah.. but I could blow up my boulders from the comfort of my deck a mile away. Kaboom! If you're left handed/left-eye dominant you might want the ejection port on the left side and an ambidextrous safety. Once cool thing about the AR is that the charging handle is ambi by design. I could go on, but does this add any context to what someone's "needs" might be?