5 ms·

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 accu

by 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.
- Koshkin 6y ago
  To be fair, nothing was said about it being "unique." And, indeed, there are other rifles with comparable characteristics.
korethr 6y ago
> An AR-15 is a high-powered rifle that has a lot of stopping power even at long range This clause is untrue. The most common chamberings of .223 Remington or 5.56x45mm NATO are not "high-powered". That is an intermediate-power cartridge. More power than a plinking/training round like .22 or .17 HMR, or common handgun rounds, but still less power than a traditional full-size rifle round. Furthermore, the action and magazine well of an AR-15 are too short to even physically accommodate full-size rifle rounds like .308 Winchster / 7.62x51mm NATO, .270, .30-06, etc, to say nothing of rounds that would actually be justifiably called "high-power", like .300 Winchester Magnum or .338 Laupa. The rest of your post is spot-on, but the meme that the AR-15 is "high-powered" is factually wrong and needs to die.
abstractbarista 6y ago
AR-15 isn't a specific rifle. Why do people talk this way? There are AR-15 that can shoot .22LR, and 9mm. They're decently accurate when configured properly. Unless you mean the real "ArmaLite AR-15", or a clone, which shoots https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.223_Remington https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.223_Remington. Now that round will absolutely wreck things. But even then, it's not really a high-powered round...
HelloNurse 6y ago
Having neither coyote nor rifles where I live, I'm curious: what is the practical range for shooting a coyote approaching a farm? If accuracy and stopping power "at long range" make a difference, wouldn't a larger caliber hunting rifle be equally suitable?
- korethr 6y ago
  The fun of an affected machismo and showing up your friends at the target range notwithstanding, there is such a thing as overkill, and there comes a point where it is economically silly to address varmint problems with higher-power, longer-range cartridges. A cartridge that will humanely drop an elk at 300 meters will, without question, ruin a coyote's day just as thoroughly. But why spend $2-$3 per shot when $0.50-$1 will do just as well?
  - HelloNurse 6y ago
    So there is a significant market segment of people who buy an AR-15 or a similar intermediate caliber rifle for genuine animal defense purposes, because they aren't interested in a more expensive hunting rifle for actual hunting use? Or coyote and bears are a convenient excuse for a gun that is very suitable to kill people?
    - voldacar 6y ago
      There are plenty of reasons why someone might prefer an AR-15 over a hunting rifle to defend against animal pests. Just to think of a few: - The AR-15 is semiautomatic, compared to hunting rifles which are often bolt-action, and thus less convenient/ergonomic to operate - Plethora of aftermarket parts and accessories. Extreme customizability. - Cheap ammo - AR barrels are usually shorter than what would come with a hunting rifle, resulting in a gun that is less cumbersome and requires less space
    - defnotashton2 6y ago
      Also cost, they are mass printed, you can get a solid albiet boring AR for 500$. I think you'd be hard pressed to get a higher powered rifle without spending 800$+.
hajile 6y ago
AR-15 isn't high powered. It's not considered suitable for hunting many types of game in many states. 30-06 was introduced in 1906 (the -06 bit) to fix the 30-03 (making it a hair shorter and a lighter 150 grain spitzer "pointy" bullet instead of the 220 grain round nose). The result was faster, lighter, and a flatter trajectory at a weight of around 27 grams per cartridge (I don't know the weight of the 30-30, but I think around 30 grams is probably accurate). The 7.62x51 went down a little to 147 grain, but shaved almost a half inch off the length reducing weight to around 24 grams at a somewhat minor expense of velocity, range, and impact strength (very few people could make use of the extra range and power in combat). The first 5.56x45 was all about reducing size. 55 grain bullet was a fraction of the size while the overall length dropped by almost 3/4 of an inch resulting in around an 11.5 gram cartridge (the 62 grain version adds another half gram or so). The effective range dropped dramatically and kinetic energy was cut in half, but once again, very few people can shoot that far in combat and the kinetic energy was deemed sufficient (though that's debated by some soldiers today). Double the ammo for the same weight is a much more important metric for the army. It's a good cartridge for a lot of things, but it's the weakest rifle cartridge the US army has ever used and probably the weakest intermediate cartridge used in any army in the world.
- Rebelgecko 6y ago
  There was a Washington Post article a few years ago that referred to a Ruger 10/22 (which shoots .22LR) as a "high powered rifle". By all means keep trying, but I've found that efforts to inject facts into the gun control debate are often poorly received. Folks have their preconceived notions, and it's easiest to just cling to them.

by tharne 6y ago

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.

Koshkin 6y ago
To be fair, nothing was said about it being "unique." And, indeed, there are other rifles with comparable characteristics.

korethr 6y ago

> An AR-15 is a high-powered rifle that has a lot of stopping power even at long range This clause is untrue. The most common chamberings of .223 Remington or 5.56x45mm NATO are not "high-powered". That is an intermediate-power cartridge. More power than a plinking/training round like .22 or .17 HMR, or common handgun rounds, but still less power than a traditional full-size rifle round. Furthermore, the action and magazine well of an AR-15 are too short to even physically accommodate full-size rifle rounds like .308 Winchster / 7.62x51mm NATO, .270, .30-06, etc, to say nothing of rounds that would actually be justifiably called "high-power", like .300 Winchester Magnum or .338 Laupa. The rest of your post is spot-on, but the meme that the AR-15 is "high-powered" is factually wrong and needs to die.

abstractbarista 6y ago

AR-15 isn't a specific rifle. Why do people talk this way? There are AR-15 that can shoot .22LR, and 9mm. They're decently accurate when configured properly. Unless you mean the real "ArmaLite AR-15", or a clone, which shoots https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.223_Remington https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.223_Remington. Now that round will absolutely wreck things. But even then, it's not really a high-powered round...

HelloNurse 6y ago

Having neither coyote nor rifles where I live, I'm curious: what is the practical range for shooting a coyote approaching a farm? If accuracy and stopping power "at long range" make a difference, wouldn't a larger caliber hunting rifle be equally suitable?

korethr 6y ago
The fun of an affected machismo and showing up your friends at the target range notwithstanding, there is such a thing as overkill, and there comes a point where it is economically silly to address varmint problems with higher-power, longer-range cartridges. A cartridge that will humanely drop an elk at 300 meters will, without question, ruin a coyote's day just as thoroughly. But why spend $2-$3 per shot when $0.50-$1 will do just as well?
- HelloNurse 6y ago
  So there is a significant market segment of people who buy an AR-15 or a similar intermediate caliber rifle for genuine animal defense purposes, because they aren't interested in a more expensive hunting rifle for actual hunting use? Or coyote and bears are a convenient excuse for a gun that is very suitable to kill people?
  - voldacar 6y ago
    There are plenty of reasons why someone might prefer an AR-15 over a hunting rifle to defend against animal pests. Just to think of a few: - The AR-15 is semiautomatic, compared to hunting rifles which are often bolt-action, and thus less convenient/ergonomic to operate - Plethora of aftermarket parts and accessories. Extreme customizability. - Cheap ammo - AR barrels are usually shorter than what would come with a hunting rifle, resulting in a gun that is less cumbersome and requires less space
  - defnotashton2 6y ago
    Also cost, they are mass printed, you can get a solid albiet boring AR for 500$. I think you'd be hard pressed to get a higher powered rifle without spending 800$+.

hajile 6y ago

AR-15 isn't high powered. It's not considered suitable for hunting many types of game in many states. 30-06 was introduced in 1906 (the -06 bit) to fix the 30-03 (making it a hair shorter and a lighter 150 grain spitzer "pointy" bullet instead of the 220 grain round nose). The result was faster, lighter, and a flatter trajectory at a weight of around 27 grams per cartridge (I don't know the weight of the 30-30, but I think around 30 grams is probably accurate). The 7.62x51 went down a little to 147 grain, but shaved almost a half inch off the length reducing weight to around 24 grams at a somewhat minor expense of velocity, range, and impact strength (very few people could make use of the extra range and power in combat). The first 5.56x45 was all about reducing size. 55 grain bullet was a fraction of the size while the overall length dropped by almost 3/4 of an inch resulting in around an 11.5 gram cartridge (the 62 grain version adds another half gram or so). The effective range dropped dramatically and kinetic energy was cut in half, but once again, very few people can shoot that far in combat and the kinetic energy was deemed sufficient (though that's debated by some soldiers today). Double the ammo for the same weight is a much more important metric for the army. It's a good cartridge for a lot of things, but it's the weakest rifle cartridge the US army has ever used and probably the weakest intermediate cartridge used in any army in the world.

Rebelgecko 6y ago
There was a Washington Post article a few years ago that referred to a Ruger 10/22 (which shoots .22LR) as a "high powered rifle". By all means keep trying, but I've found that efforts to inject facts into the gun control debate are often poorly received. Folks have their preconceived notions, and it's easiest to just cling to them.