5 ms·

Summary: Rifle rounds are more deadly than pistol rounds, which is well known to anyone who knows anything about guns. Aside from that one sentence of common k

Summary: Rifle rounds are more deadly than pistol rounds, which is well known to anyone who knows anything about guns. Aside from that one sentence of common knowledge it is just a lot of fear mongering about AR-15’s. “ The Post determined that there is a public interest in demonstrating the uniquely destructive power of the AR-15 when used to kill. “ Firstly, there is nothing unique about an AR-15 compared to other intermediate caliber rifles. There are a plethora of other rifles on the market with the exact same capabilities. Secondly, the .223/5.56 round they use called intermediate for a reason. It is illegal to use for hunting deer in many states because it doesn’t have enough power for humane kills. The reason militaries use them is for better recoil control during fully automatic fire and so you can carry more ammo for suppressive fire. It is nonsensical that gun control advocates hold it up as some kind of absurdly powerful super bullet and a clear indicator that they have no idea what they are talking about.

NickC25 3y ago
>It is nonsensical that gun control advocates hold it up as some kind of absurdly powerful super bullet and a clear indicator that they have no idea what they are talking about. Nonsensical or not, the damage the weapon does to humans is clear. Otherwise, this wouldn't be an issue. Semantics aside, there's a reason you don't see gun control advocates arguing for banning single-shot hunting rifles or basic handguns. There's self-defense of one's person and homestead, and then there's "self-defense" as defined by a lobbying group backed by gun manufacturers, "patriots", and Russian psy-ops.
- CharleFKane 3y ago
  “… there's a reason you don't see gun control advocates arguing for banning single-shot hunting rifles or basic handguns.” Actually, you do see that. “Single-shot hunting rifles” are “sniper weapons”. Handgun bans have been advocated since the 1960s.
- aksss 3y ago
  You do see gun control advocates arguing for banning basic handguns and single-shot hunting rifles. The Brady organization comes from a political predecessor literally named "Handgun Control Inc." That was the push several decades ago. Here's Gabby Giffords advocating for banning all guns just a couple weeks ago: https://time.com/6274979/gabby-giffords-gun-control/ https://time.com/6274979/gabby-giffords-gun-control/
  - NickC25 3y ago
    I completely understand why Gabby wants all guns banned. I was on my way to that specific Safeway on that day when it happened. Everyone who had any connection to Pima CC knew Loughner was a psycho with some major mental illnesses. it would be so much easier if someone who is clearly troubled and has a history of anti-social behavior not be allowed to own an excessive amount of firearms. Most gun owners don't want to give up their guns. Most gun owners also don't want some deranged lunatic with severe mental illnesses shooting up a supermarket parking lot.
    - aksss 3y ago
      > [opinions] In this context, the important take away is acknowledging and incorporating the idea that the larger gun control movement didn’t start with semi-autos and it doesn’t end there. Anyone who has been involved in this arena for enough time, or otherwise sufficiently familiar with the history of the gun control inclination, is incredulous listening to someone say, “we only want this one thing.”[1] It’s a non-starter. [1] https://ifunny.co/picture/illustrated-guide-to-gun-control-will-you-ceutinue-a-reasenable-gLRiaCHM8 https://ifunny.co/picture/illustrated-guide-to-gun-control-w...
- wilsonnb3 3y ago
  > there's a reason you don't see gun control advocates arguing for banning single-shot hunting rifles or basic handguns. Not sure what you mean by basic but people advocate for handgun bans all the time. DC had one until the Supreme Court overturned it in 2008. Gun control advocates should spend most of their effort trying to ban handguns rather than AR-15s, seeing as rifles (all rifles, not just AR-15s) are only used in something like 3% of firearm homicides.
- brodouevencode 3y ago
  2A is to prevent a tyrannical government.
  - NickC25 3y ago
    That's a tired trope which has no standing in reality. Some overweight Trump fan in the middle of Arkansas or Montana with an AR-15 has no chance against a single 5th gen Fighter, let alone an entire military with nuclear weapons, and a whole range of classified weaponry that us citizens can't even dream of conceptualizing.
    - CharleFKane 3y ago
      "Some overweight Trump fan in the middle of Arkansas or Montana with an AR-15 has no chance against a single 5th gen Fighter, let alone an entire military with nuclear weapons, and a whole range of classified weaponry that us citizens can't even dream of conceptualizing. " Yeah! That's why the US military had such overwhelming victories in Vietnam and Afghanistan, against primative peoples who couldn't even conceptualize our advanced weaponry!
      - NickC25 3y ago
        We "lost" in Afghanistan because we spent too much time and money trying to drag the middle east into the modern world....and to also enrich military contractors whose boards were also made up of active politicians all the way up to folks who worked in the Oval Office. Hell, we didn't even have a plan going in there - Bush II had Osama Bin Laden dead-to-rights and ignored the intelligence briefs because he wanted to go kill Saddam. There was no objective besides spend time and waste money.
    - brodouevencode 3y ago
      There are several problems with this very bad argument. All modern wars are largely fought with small arms. This is primarily due to the fact that most battlegrounds are now urban areas. For example the reason the Israel-Palestine conflict has gone on so long is because Israel (having armament that could wipe out all of Palestines territories) does not want the spectacle of killing millions of innocents. The second any 1st world country uses heavy armament against it's own people, it's done. Especially if they're nuclear. The world will turn their back on them, and some agitator (like China or Russia) will see this as an easy opportunity to invade. This also assumes that the military hasn't couped - most service people are ardent 2A supporters. Even your local police department will likely not abide. You may think it's a trope but that purpose of the 2A was exactly as stated, stemming back as far as English Bill of Rights with self-preservation and natural rights as being fundamental.
brodouevencode 3y ago
It's black, so it's super scary </sarcasm>

NickC25 3y ago

>It is nonsensical that gun control advocates hold it up as some kind of absurdly powerful super bullet and a clear indicator that they have no idea what they are talking about. Nonsensical or not, the damage the weapon does to humans is clear. Otherwise, this wouldn't be an issue. Semantics aside, there's a reason you don't see gun control advocates arguing for banning single-shot hunting rifles or basic handguns. There's self-defense of one's person and homestead, and then there's "self-defense" as defined by a lobbying group backed by gun manufacturers, "patriots", and Russian psy-ops.

CharleFKane 3y ago
“… there's a reason you don't see gun control advocates arguing for banning single-shot hunting rifles or basic handguns.” Actually, you do see that. “Single-shot hunting rifles” are “sniper weapons”. Handgun bans have been advocated since the 1960s.
aksss 3y ago
You do see gun control advocates arguing for banning basic handguns and single-shot hunting rifles. The Brady organization comes from a political predecessor literally named "Handgun Control Inc." That was the push several decades ago. Here's Gabby Giffords advocating for banning all guns just a couple weeks ago: https://time.com/6274979/gabby-giffords-gun-control/ https://time.com/6274979/gabby-giffords-gun-control/
- NickC25 3y ago
  I completely understand why Gabby wants all guns banned. I was on my way to that specific Safeway on that day when it happened. Everyone who had any connection to Pima CC knew Loughner was a psycho with some major mental illnesses. it would be so much easier if someone who is clearly troubled and has a history of anti-social behavior not be allowed to own an excessive amount of firearms. Most gun owners don't want to give up their guns. Most gun owners also don't want some deranged lunatic with severe mental illnesses shooting up a supermarket parking lot.
  - aksss 3y ago
    > [opinions] In this context, the important take away is acknowledging and incorporating the idea that the larger gun control movement didn’t start with semi-autos and it doesn’t end there. Anyone who has been involved in this arena for enough time, or otherwise sufficiently familiar with the history of the gun control inclination, is incredulous listening to someone say, “we only want this one thing.”[1] It’s a non-starter. [1] https://ifunny.co/picture/illustrated-guide-to-gun-control-will-you-ceutinue-a-reasenable-gLRiaCHM8 https://ifunny.co/picture/illustrated-guide-to-gun-control-w...
wilsonnb3 3y ago
> there's a reason you don't see gun control advocates arguing for banning single-shot hunting rifles or basic handguns. Not sure what you mean by basic but people advocate for handgun bans all the time. DC had one until the Supreme Court overturned it in 2008. Gun control advocates should spend most of their effort trying to ban handguns rather than AR-15s, seeing as rifles (all rifles, not just AR-15s) are only used in something like 3% of firearm homicides.
brodouevencode 3y ago
2A is to prevent a tyrannical government.
- NickC25 3y ago
  That's a tired trope which has no standing in reality. Some overweight Trump fan in the middle of Arkansas or Montana with an AR-15 has no chance against a single 5th gen Fighter, let alone an entire military with nuclear weapons, and a whole range of classified weaponry that us citizens can't even dream of conceptualizing.
  - CharleFKane 3y ago
    "Some overweight Trump fan in the middle of Arkansas or Montana with an AR-15 has no chance against a single 5th gen Fighter, let alone an entire military with nuclear weapons, and a whole range of classified weaponry that us citizens can't even dream of conceptualizing. " Yeah! That's why the US military had such overwhelming victories in Vietnam and Afghanistan, against primative peoples who couldn't even conceptualize our advanced weaponry!
    - NickC25 3y ago
      We "lost" in Afghanistan because we spent too much time and money trying to drag the middle east into the modern world....and to also enrich military contractors whose boards were also made up of active politicians all the way up to folks who worked in the Oval Office. Hell, we didn't even have a plan going in there - Bush II had Osama Bin Laden dead-to-rights and ignored the intelligence briefs because he wanted to go kill Saddam. There was no objective besides spend time and waste money.
  - brodouevencode 3y ago
    There are several problems with this very bad argument. All modern wars are largely fought with small arms. This is primarily due to the fact that most battlegrounds are now urban areas. For example the reason the Israel-Palestine conflict has gone on so long is because Israel (having armament that could wipe out all of Palestines territories) does not want the spectacle of killing millions of innocents. The second any 1st world country uses heavy armament against it's own people, it's done. Especially if they're nuclear. The world will turn their back on them, and some agitator (like China or Russia) will see this as an easy opportunity to invade. This also assumes that the military hasn't couped - most service people are ardent 2A supporters. Even your local police department will likely not abide. You may think it's a trope but that purpose of the 2A was exactly as stated, stemming back as far as English Bill of Rights with self-preservation and natural rights as being fundamental.

brodouevencode 3y ago

It's black, so it's super scary </sarcasm>