5 ms·

It's definitely framed by where you live. I had a buddy in rural West Texas who had a loaded AR-15 mounted on the wall of his living room. I thought it was some

by tharne 6y ago

It's definitely framed by where you live. I had a buddy in rural West Texas who had a loaded AR-15 mounted on the wall of his living room. I thought it was some insane gun nut thing, until I asked him about it. He explained that the nearest sheriff was 45 minutes away and he'd also had problems with coyotes attacking his chickens. For him, it would be crazy not have a high-powered weapon at the ready since there was no one nearby to help and there was significant wildlife in the area. On the other hand, having an AR-15 in NYC would be a nightmare for obvious reasons. I think folks on both sides of gun debate forget this - that there are dramatically different living situations across America. In this respect, it really doesn't make sense to talk about gun laws at the federal level (I know, 2nd Amendment), because what makes good sense in New York is ridiculous to someone living in rural Texas and vice-versa. It's not purely political, there's a very real practical element that doesn't often get discussed.

badrequest 6y ago
Yeah, I can't possibly think of a single method of dealing with coyotes that isn't an AR-15. Until that specific model of firearm was invented, people just sort of let coyotes eat their chickens, as there was nothing they could possibly do. They couldn't use humbler firearms with less capacity for committing mass shootings, they just let their chickens die.
- tharne 6y ago
  You don't know much about firearms based on your response. An AR-15 is a high-powered rifle that has a lot of stopping power even at long range and is very accurate - that's why my buddy had one. It also doesn't have the spread of a shotgun, which is important if you need to shoot a coyote that's too close to your chickens -- you don't want to fire a round of buckshot and take out a bunch of your chickens in the process. The AR is not materially different from other semi-automatic hunting rifles you can buy. The AR has become a political symbol because it happened to be used in mass shootings, but there's nothing about it that makes it unique in terms of it's ability to do harm. Even if you live in a state that's banned the AR-15, you can get a gun that's virtually identical that's not an AR. This speaks to the fact that Democrats talking about guns are like Republicans talking about tech. They're trying to control an industry and have made zero effort to understand anything about it.
  - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
    I do think this is a bit unfair. When the average person says "AR-15", they mean "rifle with a big ol' external mag", and it's a pretty new phenomenon for the average gun owner to have those. Until the assault weapons ban expired in 2004, even gun enthusiasts really did tend to think that a "normal" rifle was one with a wood stock and a fixed internal magazine.
    - defnotashton2 6y ago
      It's unfairly targeted and irrational. Pistols kill more in Chicago on any given weekend then die from a mass shooting annually. You can get a pistol with 17 rounds and fit that in your pocket. It's targeted because it looks scary. Gun enthusiasts have been purchasing and owning 'assault rifles' since they were invented. The ban was temporary and sunset from the beginning because of the outrage of the alternative indicating a market need and desire. They are extremely versatile stable shooting platform. And there are millions of law abiding gun owners around the country and tens of thousands of them stop crimes with their guns every yearp
      - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
        Whether it's rational (or correct) to ban them is a very different question. I think it's simply false as a matter of fact that AR-style rifles have been common since they were invented. They hit the civilian market in 1964, but I've never seen information suggesting they were common or popular until the 90s.
    - boring_twenties 6y ago
      The assault weapons ban that was only first enacted in 1994?
  - badrequest 6y ago
    Your first paragraph describes the ways the AR-15 is unique in its ability to do harm, and your second paragraph claims there is nothing that makes it unique in its ability to do harm.
- AdrianB1 6y ago
  AR15 is a lighter, lower powered gun than your typical hunting rifle; the energy of a .223 bullet is a lot lower than a .30. The capacity is almost irrelevant, changing multiple mags is no problem for anyone with decent training. I am the kind of guy that loads only 5 rounds in each 10 round mag (sport shooting), so changing mags is as natural as firing the next round. People telling that "high-capacity overpowered mass destruction weapons" should be forbidden, on the other side...
  - yeetawayhn 6y ago
    >People telling that "high-capacity overpowered mass destruction weapons" should be forbidden, on the other side... Are like the people who are saying the Casio F91W is a "terrorist watch" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23971045 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23971045
  - croutonwagon 6y ago
    In point of fact. typical AR-15 calibers (.223/5.56) are not legal for hunting anything bigger than small game in most areas. You cant hunt deer or bigger with them....because of the lack of power. Its considered inhumane. They are great for varmit/small game (ie: coyote and pigs) though.
    - aaronax 6y ago
      .223 is actual legal for hunting deer in most states. Many of the ones where you can't use it simply don't don't allow rifles at all.
  - badrequest 6y ago
    I'm fully in favor of making bolt-actions the only legal form of firearm.
    - artificialLimbs 6y ago
      Is that because this has never happened to you? https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/a-georgia-man-shot-and-killed-three-masked-teens-as-they-attempted-to-rob-him-at-his-home/ar-AAHptCz?ocid=mailsignout https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/a-georgia-man-shot-and-...
- sio8ohPi 6y ago
  People who don't own guns tend to think of AR-15s as something exotic or particularly dangerous. Those of us who own guns tend to just think of them as the default rifle, for various reasons. You're saying "why wouldn't some other firearm suffice", while we just buy ARs unless that default is somehow unsuitable.
throwaway0a5e 6y ago
>It's definitely framed by where you live. It's not nearly that sensible and straighforward. Drive south of DC to the point where subdivisions give way to farms and you can shoot all day without being bothered. Drive the same distance outside of Boston or NYC and you've got the same low population density but if you shoot anything in your back yard you'll get a visit from the SWAT team. This kind of stuff really should depend on population density but we've gutted all legislative capacity at the county level and pushed it to the state level so you get a dumb situation where a state has to go entirely one way or the other which is not very efficient when it comes to making people live under sensible laws for their living situation. There's really no fundamental reason the cities and rural areas shouldn't be able to just do their own thing on this issue. It's just that people insist on having this legislation be at the state level.
- look_lookatme 6y ago
  > Drive the same distance outside of Boston or NYC The North American headquarters for Sig Sauer is only an hour from Boston. Do you live in New England? It's not a big deal at all. Not just in NH, but in MA too.
  - throwaway0a5e 6y ago
    >The North American headquarters for Sig Sauer is only an hour from Boston NH is a different state and much more friendly to shooting. Also having a corporate HQ doesn't really mean much. >It's not a big deal at all. Not just in NH, but in MA too. There's probably a couple pockets in MA further east but for the most part you need to get to the Western edge of Worcester county (which is definitely more than an hour from Boston) before you can be pretty assured none of your neighbors will call the cops. Even then it's kind of iffy because of the laws. You really don't want to have the cops called on you even if you're just target shooting (unlike in NH where getting the cops called wouldn't be a big deal). >Do you live in New England? The crappy half. But I've lived all over the east coast.
Koshkin 6y ago
> (I know, 2nd Amendment) Why do American people put up with the authorities breaking the law instead of simply having the law changed? The constitution is not a bible, it can be updated. (Or, perhaps, it is indeed a "bible", in a sense?) And, incidentally, the constitution says nothing about hunting, sporting, or even self-defense as the "legal" justification for gun ownership.
- smegger001 6y ago
  Well there is an argument that it is actually a Bible. and that much of American culture is a pseudo-religion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_civil_religion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_civil_religion
  - mixedCase 6y ago
    This just sounds like the traditional concept of nation.

by tharne 6y ago

badrequest 6y ago

Yeah, I can't possibly think of a single method of dealing with coyotes that isn't an AR-15. Until that specific model of firearm was invented, people just sort of let coyotes eat their chickens, as there was nothing they could possibly do. They couldn't use humbler firearms with less capacity for committing mass shootings, they just let their chickens die.

tharne 6y ago
You don't know much about firearms based on your response. An AR-15 is a high-powered rifle that has a lot of stopping power even at long range and is very accurate - that's why my buddy had one. It also doesn't have the spread of a shotgun, which is important if you need to shoot a coyote that's too close to your chickens -- you don't want to fire a round of buckshot and take out a bunch of your chickens in the process. The AR is not materially different from other semi-automatic hunting rifles you can buy. The AR has become a political symbol because it happened to be used in mass shootings, but there's nothing about it that makes it unique in terms of it's ability to do harm. Even if you live in a state that's banned the AR-15, you can get a gun that's virtually identical that's not an AR. This speaks to the fact that Democrats talking about guns are like Republicans talking about tech. They're trying to control an industry and have made zero effort to understand anything about it.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  I do think this is a bit unfair. When the average person says "AR-15", they mean "rifle with a big ol' external mag", and it's a pretty new phenomenon for the average gun owner to have those. Until the assault weapons ban expired in 2004, even gun enthusiasts really did tend to think that a "normal" rifle was one with a wood stock and a fixed internal magazine.
  - defnotashton2 6y ago
    It's unfairly targeted and irrational. Pistols kill more in Chicago on any given weekend then die from a mass shooting annually. You can get a pistol with 17 rounds and fit that in your pocket. It's targeted because it looks scary. Gun enthusiasts have been purchasing and owning 'assault rifles' since they were invented. The ban was temporary and sunset from the beginning because of the outrage of the alternative indicating a market need and desire. They are extremely versatile stable shooting platform. And there are millions of law abiding gun owners around the country and tens of thousands of them stop crimes with their guns every yearp
    - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
      Whether it's rational (or correct) to ban them is a very different question. I think it's simply false as a matter of fact that AR-style rifles have been common since they were invented. They hit the civilian market in 1964, but I've never seen information suggesting they were common or popular until the 90s.
  - boring_twenties 6y ago
    The assault weapons ban that was only first enacted in 1994?
- badrequest 6y ago
  Your first paragraph describes the ways the AR-15 is unique in its ability to do harm, and your second paragraph claims there is nothing that makes it unique in its ability to do harm.
AdrianB1 6y ago
AR15 is a lighter, lower powered gun than your typical hunting rifle; the energy of a .223 bullet is a lot lower than a .30. The capacity is almost irrelevant, changing multiple mags is no problem for anyone with decent training. I am the kind of guy that loads only 5 rounds in each 10 round mag (sport shooting), so changing mags is as natural as firing the next round. People telling that "high-capacity overpowered mass destruction weapons" should be forbidden, on the other side...
- yeetawayhn 6y ago
  >People telling that "high-capacity overpowered mass destruction weapons" should be forbidden, on the other side... Are like the people who are saying the Casio F91W is a "terrorist watch" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23971045 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23971045
- croutonwagon 6y ago
  In point of fact. typical AR-15 calibers (.223/5.56) are not legal for hunting anything bigger than small game in most areas. You cant hunt deer or bigger with them....because of the lack of power. Its considered inhumane. They are great for varmit/small game (ie: coyote and pigs) though.
  - aaronax 6y ago
    .223 is actual legal for hunting deer in most states. Many of the ones where you can't use it simply don't don't allow rifles at all.
- badrequest 6y ago
  I'm fully in favor of making bolt-actions the only legal form of firearm.
  - artificialLimbs 6y ago
    Is that because this has never happened to you? https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/a-georgia-man-shot-and-killed-three-masked-teens-as-they-attempted-to-rob-him-at-his-home/ar-AAHptCz?ocid=mailsignout https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/a-georgia-man-shot-and-...
sio8ohPi 6y ago
People who don't own guns tend to think of AR-15s as something exotic or particularly dangerous. Those of us who own guns tend to just think of them as the default rifle, for various reasons. You're saying "why wouldn't some other firearm suffice", while we just buy ARs unless that default is somehow unsuitable.

throwaway0a5e 6y ago

>It's definitely framed by where you live. It's not nearly that sensible and straighforward. Drive south of DC to the point where subdivisions give way to farms and you can shoot all day without being bothered. Drive the same distance outside of Boston or NYC and you've got the same low population density but if you shoot anything in your back yard you'll get a visit from the SWAT team. This kind of stuff really should depend on population density but we've gutted all legislative capacity at the county level and pushed it to the state level so you get a dumb situation where a state has to go entirely one way or the other which is not very efficient when it comes to making people live under sensible laws for their living situation. There's really no fundamental reason the cities and rural areas shouldn't be able to just do their own thing on this issue. It's just that people insist on having this legislation be at the state level.

look_lookatme 6y ago
> Drive the same distance outside of Boston or NYC The North American headquarters for Sig Sauer is only an hour from Boston. Do you live in New England? It's not a big deal at all. Not just in NH, but in MA too.
- throwaway0a5e 6y ago
  >The North American headquarters for Sig Sauer is only an hour from Boston NH is a different state and much more friendly to shooting. Also having a corporate HQ doesn't really mean much. >It's not a big deal at all. Not just in NH, but in MA too. There's probably a couple pockets in MA further east but for the most part you need to get to the Western edge of Worcester county (which is definitely more than an hour from Boston) before you can be pretty assured none of your neighbors will call the cops. Even then it's kind of iffy because of the laws. You really don't want to have the cops called on you even if you're just target shooting (unlike in NH where getting the cops called wouldn't be a big deal). >Do you live in New England? The crappy half. But I've lived all over the east coast.

Koshkin 6y ago

> (I know, 2nd Amendment) Why do American people put up with the authorities breaking the law instead of simply having the law changed? The constitution is not a bible, it can be updated. (Or, perhaps, it is indeed a "bible", in a sense?) And, incidentally, the constitution says nothing about hunting, sporting, or even self-defense as the "legal" justification for gun ownership.

smegger001 6y ago
Well there is an argument that it is actually a Bible. and that much of American culture is a pseudo-religion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_civil_religion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_civil_religion
- mixedCase 6y ago
  This just sounds like the traditional concept of nation.