5 ms·

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 t

by 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.
  - mindcrime 5y ago
    But they are typically heavier, more unwieldy, and are bolt action and thus have a lower rate of fire. It's a continuum though. Go up in ballistic power from .223 only a little bit and you still find plenty of lightweight semi-auto rifles. And you can certainly find semi-autos all the way to at least 7mm Remington Mangum. With a pistol grip, an amateur could easily shoot and kill a bunch of people with one, Personally I have a lot of doubt about how much difference a pistol grip actually makes, but I could be convinced if anybody has researched that and has some evidence. with a pistol grip and large capacity magazine is far more deadly for killing A skilled operator can change magazines so quickly that I feel like magazine capacity is almost a moot point. To me the real distinction is binary "has a detachable magazine" or "does not have a detachable magazine." Of course, I suppose in the context of how much damage an unskilled operator can do, then yes, a larger magazine is more "deadly" in a sense. But large magazines are not specific to the AR series. Even if the original manufacturer doesn't provide them, there's little reason in principle that someone else can't manufacture a higher capacity magazine for any rifle that uses detachable magazines.
    - aksss 5y ago
      > mag cap is moot The kid in CT that murdered his own mother, stole her guns and killed all the students was dropping half-full mags and reloading. IIRC, law enforcement interpreted this behavior as mirroring his FPS “training”. That would seem to indicate capacity didn’t matter as much as simply having a detachable mag. The guy that shot up that Batman theater in CO or wherever brought in a 50 or 100 rnd drum mag (IIRC) and had it jam on him (as they do).
    - LorenPechtel 5y ago
      Exactly. We have a total of two mass shootings where magazine capacity had *any* relevance. One guy got jumped while "reloading"--but since his second magazine was damaged and wouldn't feed that's not really of much relevance--from a practical standpoint he was out of ammo. If he had smaller mags that might actually have increased the death toll because a dinged mag would have removed less of his ammo. The second is the Las Vegas case--and in that case he had a ton of guns, mostly he was switching guns rather than reloading. Detachable or not is the only meaningful distinction.
- greedo 5y ago
  Well, other than having selective fire modes, they're functionally identical. And considering their rate of fire, and that full-auto is discouraged in most militaries, yes, I consider them equivalent. And "generic semi-automatic hunting rifle" has become the AR-15. It used to be a bolt action, or maybe an Mini-14. But the whole benefit (and the social drawback) of widespread ownership of AR-15s is the high rate of fire, and the magazine capacity. Comparing it to a bolt-action .308 isn't the point.
aksss 5y ago
It’s a question of function which can be objectively determined. Guns are a very old technology and whilst elegant, are mechanically quite simple. An AR-15 pattern action is a semi-auto. One trigger pull, one round fired. Functionally identical to any other semi auto rifle. AR-patterned rifles are absolutely used for hunting a wide variety of game. That it’s largely made of aluminum and composites means it’s lighter than steel and wood, and also more weather resistant. People like modern materials for good reason. The AR design (itself over 60 yrs old) is so popular because it is highly modular (customizable) and can be accurized to a high degree. And it should be pointed out that the military rejected the pattern design before adopting it. So what is this “modeled after” quality you’re talking about? Firearm action designs are all quite old, and have been used by both the military and civilians since firearms were a thing. There was a time in the late 19th century when firearms designs in the hands of civilians outclassed (in rate of fire) the service weapons of the US Army. Gas systems on weapons are quite old, back to the 19th century again. What you probably think of as the stereotypical “hunting rifle” would fit the same profile as a military sniper rifle in service today (e.g. Remington model 700). Are hunting rifles “modeled after” sniper rifles? Or the other way around? It really is an artificial debate.

by greedo 5y ago

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.
- mindcrime 5y ago
  But they are typically heavier, more unwieldy, and are bolt action and thus have a lower rate of fire. It's a continuum though. Go up in ballistic power from .223 only a little bit and you still find plenty of lightweight semi-auto rifles. And you can certainly find semi-autos all the way to at least 7mm Remington Mangum. With a pistol grip, an amateur could easily shoot and kill a bunch of people with one, Personally I have a lot of doubt about how much difference a pistol grip actually makes, but I could be convinced if anybody has researched that and has some evidence. with a pistol grip and large capacity magazine is far more deadly for killing A skilled operator can change magazines so quickly that I feel like magazine capacity is almost a moot point. To me the real distinction is binary "has a detachable magazine" or "does not have a detachable magazine." Of course, I suppose in the context of how much damage an unskilled operator can do, then yes, a larger magazine is more "deadly" in a sense. But large magazines are not specific to the AR series. Even if the original manufacturer doesn't provide them, there's little reason in principle that someone else can't manufacture a higher capacity magazine for any rifle that uses detachable magazines.
  - aksss 5y ago
    > mag cap is moot The kid in CT that murdered his own mother, stole her guns and killed all the students was dropping half-full mags and reloading. IIRC, law enforcement interpreted this behavior as mirroring his FPS “training”. That would seem to indicate capacity didn’t matter as much as simply having a detachable mag. The guy that shot up that Batman theater in CO or wherever brought in a 50 or 100 rnd drum mag (IIRC) and had it jam on him (as they do).
  - LorenPechtel 5y ago
    Exactly. We have a total of two mass shootings where magazine capacity had *any* relevance. One guy got jumped while "reloading"--but since his second magazine was damaged and wouldn't feed that's not really of much relevance--from a practical standpoint he was out of ammo. If he had smaller mags that might actually have increased the death toll because a dinged mag would have removed less of his ammo. The second is the Las Vegas case--and in that case he had a ton of guns, mostly he was switching guns rather than reloading. Detachable or not is the only meaningful distinction.
greedo 5y ago
Well, other than having selective fire modes, they're functionally identical. And considering their rate of fire, and that full-auto is discouraged in most militaries, yes, I consider them equivalent. And "generic semi-automatic hunting rifle" has become the AR-15. It used to be a bolt action, or maybe an Mini-14. But the whole benefit (and the social drawback) of widespread ownership of AR-15s is the high rate of fire, and the magazine capacity. Comparing it to a bolt-action .308 isn't the point.

aksss 5y ago

It’s a question of function which can be objectively determined. Guns are a very old technology and whilst elegant, are mechanically quite simple. An AR-15 pattern action is a semi-auto. One trigger pull, one round fired. Functionally identical to any other semi auto rifle. AR-patterned rifles are absolutely used for hunting a wide variety of game. That it’s largely made of aluminum and composites means it’s lighter than steel and wood, and also more weather resistant. People like modern materials for good reason. The AR design (itself over 60 yrs old) is so popular because it is highly modular (customizable) and can be accurized to a high degree. And it should be pointed out that the military rejected the pattern design before adopting it. So what is this “modeled after” quality you’re talking about? Firearm action designs are all quite old, and have been used by both the military and civilians since firearms were a thing. There was a time in the late 19th century when firearms designs in the hands of civilians outclassed (in rate of fire) the service weapons of the US Army. Gas systems on weapons are quite old, back to the 19th century again. What you probably think of as the stereotypical “hunting rifle” would fit the same profile as a military sniper rifle in service today (e.g. Remington model 700). Are hunting rifles “modeled after” sniper rifles? Or the other way around? It really is an artificial debate.