4 ms·

He doesn't tho, he compares an AR-15 to an AK-47 and says an AR-15 is designed to broken down in the jungle (that's the M-16, which was what was used in Vietnam

by surge 7y ago

He doesn't tho, he compares an AR-15 to an AK-47 and says an AR-15 is designed to broken down in the jungle (that's the M-16, which was what was used in Vietnam, they conflated the two, trying to disingenuously frame AR-15's as a war weapon used by the military). Rifles are superior for self defense at a distance. So in the "wild hog" scenario, best to pick them off from a tree, or before they get close. In a more realistic case, shooting someone coming at you from across your yard (especially if you have a large yard or live close to wilderness). But if wild hogs aren't your concern, but assailants coming across your yard that are armed: https://www.wsbtv.com/news/local/homeowner-shoots-kills-men-wearing-mask-deputies-say/986744589/ https://www.wsbtv.com/news/local/homeowner-shoots-kills-men-... Any closer than that you're probably better off with a shot gun for home defense, unless...you're defense needs are different or you're concerned about multiple assailants, which case a pistol might be better. Pistols are more apt for shooting and more easily handled in a close quarter environment, where accuracy isn't difficult to achieve and you need to move the gun quickly, so an assailant that is close to you. They're also easier to conceal and carry with you. That's when you'd want a Glock, with hollow points which would do far more that 5.56 ammo since the caliber on even a 9mm much less a 45 is significantly larger. The tip of a 5.56 bullet isn't much larger than a .22 so to say its more dangerous, unless you count velocity, but unless you're wearing body armor, a 9mm or .45 pistol would be worse. It's why police generally carry pistols, and honestly, if you're worried about the "active shooter" in a building, pistols are just as much and have been as much of a threat, to say nothing of what most gun homicides are caused by.

joshuamorton 7y ago
> He doesn't tho, he compares an AR-15 to an AK-47 No, he points out that an AK-47 has a wooden stock. > that's the M-16, which was what was used in Vietnam, they conflated the two, trying to disingenuously frame AR-15's as a war weapon used by the military The M16 is an AR-15. Like, it's the same platform, it's just that the M16 variant is automatic and uses nato rounds. The AR-15 was designed to be broken down in the jungle in vietnam, which is why the US army adopted it under the designation M16. This isn't really controversial[0], "The M16 rifle is a family of military rifles adapted from the ArmaLite AR-15 rifle for the United States military." But before it was designated the M16, the US Army procured standard, automatic, AR-15s. Early M16 and early AR-15s are practically identical, and early M16s were stamped as AR-15s, so yes, in the early 60s, the US military absolutely used AR-15s as a war weapon. So yes, he's exactly right, and demonstrably better educated on firearm history than you are. Its again worth noting that an AR-15 has a higher muzzle velocity, stopping power, and range than any handgun you'd be able to fire accurately. It's also easier to hit things with a rifle than with a handgun, not that it's particularly hard with a handgun, it's just much, much easier with a rifle. So I'll just reiterate, your argument that an AR-15 is no more dangerous than a Glock is nonsense. They absolutely are. They're meant to be, a Glock is a tool for self defense, an AR-15 is a marginally dumbed down military tool. > unless you count velocity Yes, the fact that you aren't counting velocity is strange. A single bullet from an AR-15 will knock you over. The same isn't true for your average 9mm. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M16_rifle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M16_rifle
- surge 7y ago
  Well the velocity argument is a factor of it being a rifle, thus can hold a larger charge and are designed to because the bullets need to go further without losing accuracy due to gravity and air resistance, etc. This is a something it has in common with any hunting rifle. Yes you can knock someone down, certain hollow points can do that too. Yes, we all know the AR-15's are made by the same people and 90% similar, but the part that matters, the part the ATF cares about, the part that makes it ready for military use or an assault weapon is whether its automatic or not. Take that away and its no more capable for military use then any other hunting rifle. You say its designed to broken down and repaired in the wilderness, that doesn't make it inherently more deadly or more military/assault style. So is a Glock, having a simple, reliable mechanism that's easily repaired and doesn't break down is a good feature to have, it doesn't make it militaristic, its a design a hunter would want who will spend days or weeks at a time in the wilderness (watch Meat Eater), or a safety feature as gun failures lead to accidental discharges, which is a factor on the range. It's not the first thing to be designed based on a need in the military, that applicability to civilians (like GPS) being designed to be easy to repair. The thing that makes an M16 militaristic is automatic fire, which a soldier needs for suppressing fire or hitting an enemy with multiple shots. Everything else you described is a feature of any other rifle. It's like saying a Humvee shouldn't be driven by civilians because the military uses Humvees and some have turrets (which are removed in the civilian version), when every other feature of the Humvee can be found in other civilian SUVs (just as every other feature of the AR-15 exists in other civilian use rifles). The aspects of the gun you're complaining about exist in other rifles that are not military rifles.
  - tptacek 7y ago
    I think if you take any serious time digging into this you'll find that people who actually use tactical rifles in military operations do not attach the same significance to fully automatic fire that you're alleging they do. There's a reason that military carbines are selective fire, that many selective fire weapons do 3-round burst instead of fully automatic, and that most combat operations are performed exclusively using semi-automatic fire. The simple fact is that MSRs are tactical military weapons; that's what the AR-15 was designed to be as well. "MSR" is an Orwellian term. It's proponents believe that citizens should have unregulated access to military weapons, but lack the courage needed to make that argument forthrightly to the public. I don't know what Humvees have to do with anything. I suppose you could be concerned that military vehicles might tear up the streets? Who knows: despite the fact that Scalia himself, in the text of Heller, affirmed the right of states to regulate military weapons, states have in reality almost total authority to regulate vehicles, and almost none to regulate firearms. (I don't think semi-automatic rifles are going anywhere; they're too useful for hog and coyote hunting. I'm not an advocate for a national "ban" on really any firearm, or really any national firearm policy at all. Let Montana regulate how it wants to.)

by surge 7y ago

joshuamorton 7y ago

> He doesn't tho, he compares an AR-15 to an AK-47 No, he points out that an AK-47 has a wooden stock. > that's the M-16, which was what was used in Vietnam, they conflated the two, trying to disingenuously frame AR-15's as a war weapon used by the military The M16 is an AR-15. Like, it's the same platform, it's just that the M16 variant is automatic and uses nato rounds. The AR-15 was designed to be broken down in the jungle in vietnam, which is why the US army adopted it under the designation M16. This isn't really controversial[0], "The M16 rifle is a family of military rifles adapted from the ArmaLite AR-15 rifle for the United States military." But before it was designated the M16, the US Army procured standard, automatic, AR-15s. Early M16 and early AR-15s are practically identical, and early M16s were stamped as AR-15s, so yes, in the early 60s, the US military absolutely used AR-15s as a war weapon. So yes, he's exactly right, and demonstrably better educated on firearm history than you are. Its again worth noting that an AR-15 has a higher muzzle velocity, stopping power, and range than any handgun you'd be able to fire accurately. It's also easier to hit things with a rifle than with a handgun, not that it's particularly hard with a handgun, it's just much, much easier with a rifle. So I'll just reiterate, your argument that an AR-15 is no more dangerous than a Glock is nonsense. They absolutely are. They're meant to be, a Glock is a tool for self defense, an AR-15 is a marginally dumbed down military tool. > unless you count velocity Yes, the fact that you aren't counting velocity is strange. A single bullet from an AR-15 will knock you over. The same isn't true for your average 9mm. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M16_rifle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M16_rifle

surge 7y ago
Well the velocity argument is a factor of it being a rifle, thus can hold a larger charge and are designed to because the bullets need to go further without losing accuracy due to gravity and air resistance, etc. This is a something it has in common with any hunting rifle. Yes you can knock someone down, certain hollow points can do that too. Yes, we all know the AR-15's are made by the same people and 90% similar, but the part that matters, the part the ATF cares about, the part that makes it ready for military use or an assault weapon is whether its automatic or not. Take that away and its no more capable for military use then any other hunting rifle. You say its designed to broken down and repaired in the wilderness, that doesn't make it inherently more deadly or more military/assault style. So is a Glock, having a simple, reliable mechanism that's easily repaired and doesn't break down is a good feature to have, it doesn't make it militaristic, its a design a hunter would want who will spend days or weeks at a time in the wilderness (watch Meat Eater), or a safety feature as gun failures lead to accidental discharges, which is a factor on the range. It's not the first thing to be designed based on a need in the military, that applicability to civilians (like GPS) being designed to be easy to repair. The thing that makes an M16 militaristic is automatic fire, which a soldier needs for suppressing fire or hitting an enemy with multiple shots. Everything else you described is a feature of any other rifle. It's like saying a Humvee shouldn't be driven by civilians because the military uses Humvees and some have turrets (which are removed in the civilian version), when every other feature of the Humvee can be found in other civilian SUVs (just as every other feature of the AR-15 exists in other civilian use rifles). The aspects of the gun you're complaining about exist in other rifles that are not military rifles.
- tptacek 7y ago
  I think if you take any serious time digging into this you'll find that people who actually use tactical rifles in military operations do not attach the same significance to fully automatic fire that you're alleging they do. There's a reason that military carbines are selective fire, that many selective fire weapons do 3-round burst instead of fully automatic, and that most combat operations are performed exclusively using semi-automatic fire. The simple fact is that MSRs are tactical military weapons; that's what the AR-15 was designed to be as well. "MSR" is an Orwellian term. It's proponents believe that citizens should have unregulated access to military weapons, but lack the courage needed to make that argument forthrightly to the public. I don't know what Humvees have to do with anything. I suppose you could be concerned that military vehicles might tear up the streets? Who knows: despite the fact that Scalia himself, in the text of Heller, affirmed the right of states to regulate military weapons, states have in reality almost total authority to regulate vehicles, and almost none to regulate firearms. (I don't think semi-automatic rifles are going anywhere; they're too useful for hog and coyote hunting. I'm not an advocate for a national "ban" on really any firearm, or really any national firearm policy at all. Let Montana regulate how it wants to.)