13 ms·

What we do in the civilized world is we don't allow everyone to have assault rifles at home. Meh. Almost no Americans own assault rifles. The VAST majority of

What we do in the civilized world is we don't allow everyone to have assault rifles at home. Meh. Almost no Americans own assault rifles. The VAST majority of weapons described as "assault rifles" in the media are nothing of the sort. An AR-15 is a civilian weapon that is just a semi-automatic hunting rifle that looks scary to people who are ignorant with regards to firearms and have been brainwashed by the propaganda from the anti-gun groups. While it is true that you can own an actual assault rifle (defined as a rifle with full-automatic or select-fire capability), it requires a ton of paperwork, a lot of money, and you can't buy any weapon manufactured after 1986 (this was the so-called "Volkmer/McClure Act"). And as best as I can remember, per FBI stats, no legally owned weapon of this type has ever been used in the commission of a violent crime. Or if one has, the number was so small that it rounds to zero.

Koshkin 5y ago
Also, it should be noted that all such acts are in violation of the 2A (because the latter says nothing about hunting, sporting, or even self-defense).
- gameman144 5y ago
  > Also, it should be noted that all such acts are in violation of the 2A Wait, are you saying that hunting/sporting/self-defense are in violation of the second amendment, or am I misunderstanding? Because that's certainly untrue. There's a difference between certain rights not being enumerated in the Constitution and those rights violating the Constitution.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - castlecrasher2 5y ago
    I misread at first, too, but I believe they mean that gun control laws, particularly ones that cite hunting/sporting/self-defense, are in violation of the 2A.
    - gameman144 5y ago
      Ah, that makes way more sense, thanks!
greedo 5y ago
Dismissing the AR-15 and it's like as a "semi-automatic hunting rifle" is propaganda. The AR-15 type rifles are modeled very accurately towards what is issued to US servicemen and women. These are primarily targeted for hunting, but hunting a different animal than you're contending...
- Koshkin 5y ago
  The hypocrisy (committed for purely political reasons, no doubt) is that in some of the states the semi-auto AR-15 and AK-47 have been banned while, say, Mini-14, Tavor, and SKS, which have exactly the same capabilities, have not - a decision made simply based on the "looks."
  - greedo 5y ago
    I don't think it's hypocrisy so much as ignorance. Most people recognize an AR-15 and Kalashnikov. But few now the origins of the Mini-14 nor the other weapons you've described.
- mindcrime 5y ago
  "Modeled after" - yes. But they are not functionally equivalent to the weapons issued to servicemen and women. They are in every sense that matters, functionally equivalent to any generic semi-automatic hunting rifle. In fact, one could say that many of these media-demonized "assault rifles" are less "powerful" than common hunting rifles, as from a pure ballistic energy standpoint, many common hunting cartridges exceed the power of .223 Remington / 5.56 NATO rounds.
  - teachrdan 5y ago
    As the owner of a Mini-14--which fires .223 rounds--I think this comment is disingenuous. There are certainly rifles that fire more powerful rounds. But they are typically heavier, more unwieldy, and are bolt action and thus have a lower rate of fire. Even a stock "hunting rifle"-type Mini-14 can shoot 10+ high powered rounds accurately in a very short length of time. With a pistol grip, an amateur could easily shoot and kill a bunch of people with one, essentially combining the ease of use of a pistol with the power of a long gun. Common sense dictates that a AR-type rifle with a pistol grip and large capacity magazine is far more deadly for killing people than a technically more powerful .308 rifle.
coldtea 5y ago
>An AR-15 is a civilian weapon You, see, that's a culture problem right there... A "civilian weapon" should be something more like their fists, or a stick they've picked... An AR-15 would be very near the end of things to call "a civilian weapon" in a civilized country.
- BizarroLand 5y ago
  Every AR-15 I've ever seen was either a .22 pistol or a 9mm pistol in army rifle drag.
- miles 5y ago
  > A "civilian weapon" should be something more like their fists, or a stick they've picked... https://old.reddit.com/r/PublicFreakout/comments/onpu1m/conceal_carry_for_the_win/ https://old.reddit.com/r/PublicFreakout/comments/onpu1m/conc...
- tekknik 5y ago
  > An AR-15 would be very near the end of things to call "a civilian weapon" in a civilized country. Why?
blacksmith_tb 5y ago
Likely people have a mental association between ARs and crime not because of frequency but severity[1]. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15_style_rifle#Use_in_crime_and_mass_shootings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15_style_rifle#Use_in_crime...
- tekknik 5y ago
  The media also has a large role to play in this.
LorenPechtel 5y ago
Depends on how you define "violent". There was *one*--a guy used a machine gun to shoot up the *car* belonging to someone he was mad at (I forget the exact situation.) The car was parked and empty at the time, nobody was in danger beyond the inherent danger of firing without an adequate backstop.
williamtwild 5y ago
Add "legally" to everything you said. Illegal? Its not so hard.

Koshkin 5y ago

Also, it should be noted that all such acts are in violation of the 2A (because the latter says nothing about hunting, sporting, or even self-defense).

gameman144 5y ago
> Also, it should be noted that all such acts are in violation of the 2A Wait, are you saying that hunting/sporting/self-defense are in violation of the second amendment, or am I misunderstanding? Because that's certainly untrue. There's a difference between certain rights not being enumerated in the Constitution and those rights violating the Constitution.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- castlecrasher2 5y ago
  I misread at first, too, but I believe they mean that gun control laws, particularly ones that cite hunting/sporting/self-defense, are in violation of the 2A.
  - gameman144 5y ago
    Ah, that makes way more sense, thanks!

greedo 5y ago

Dismissing the AR-15 and it's like as a "semi-automatic hunting rifle" is propaganda. The AR-15 type rifles are modeled very accurately towards what is issued to US servicemen and women. These are primarily targeted for hunting, but hunting a different animal than you're contending...

Koshkin 5y ago
The hypocrisy (committed for purely political reasons, no doubt) is that in some of the states the semi-auto AR-15 and AK-47 have been banned while, say, Mini-14, Tavor, and SKS, which have exactly the same capabilities, have not - a decision made simply based on the "looks."
- greedo 5y ago
  I don't think it's hypocrisy so much as ignorance. Most people recognize an AR-15 and Kalashnikov. But few now the origins of the Mini-14 nor the other weapons you've described.
mindcrime 5y ago
"Modeled after" - yes. But they are not functionally equivalent to the weapons issued to servicemen and women. They are in every sense that matters, functionally equivalent to any generic semi-automatic hunting rifle. In fact, one could say that many of these media-demonized "assault rifles" are less "powerful" than common hunting rifles, as from a pure ballistic energy standpoint, many common hunting cartridges exceed the power of .223 Remington / 5.56 NATO rounds.
- teachrdan 5y ago
  As the owner of a Mini-14--which fires .223 rounds--I think this comment is disingenuous. There are certainly rifles that fire more powerful rounds. But they are typically heavier, more unwieldy, and are bolt action and thus have a lower rate of fire. Even a stock "hunting rifle"-type Mini-14 can shoot 10+ high powered rounds accurately in a very short length of time. With a pistol grip, an amateur could easily shoot and kill a bunch of people with one, essentially combining the ease of use of a pistol with the power of a long gun. Common sense dictates that a AR-type rifle with a pistol grip and large capacity magazine is far more deadly for killing people than a technically more powerful .308 rifle.

coldtea 5y ago

>An AR-15 is a civilian weapon You, see, that's a culture problem right there... A "civilian weapon" should be something more like their fists, or a stick they've picked... An AR-15 would be very near the end of things to call "a civilian weapon" in a civilized country.

BizarroLand 5y ago
Every AR-15 I've ever seen was either a .22 pistol or a 9mm pistol in army rifle drag.
miles 5y ago
> A "civilian weapon" should be something more like their fists, or a stick they've picked... https://old.reddit.com/r/PublicFreakout/comments/onpu1m/conceal_carry_for_the_win/ https://old.reddit.com/r/PublicFreakout/comments/onpu1m/conc...
tekknik 5y ago
> An AR-15 would be very near the end of things to call "a civilian weapon" in a civilized country. Why?

blacksmith_tb 5y ago

Likely people have a mental association between ARs and crime not because of frequency but severity[1]. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15_style_rifle#Use_in_crime_and_mass_shootings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15_style_rifle#Use_in_crime...

tekknik 5y ago
The media also has a large role to play in this.

LorenPechtel 5y ago

Depends on how you define "violent". There was *one*--a guy used a machine gun to shoot up the *car* belonging to someone he was mad at (I forget the exact situation.) The car was parked and empty at the time, nobody was in danger beyond the inherent danger of firing without an adequate backstop.

williamtwild 5y ago

Add "legally" to everything you said. Illegal? Its not so hard.