8 ms·

> military-style weaponry Please stop. All semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines are functionally identical. The suspect had a rifle, shotgun and h

by fr0sty 14y ago

> military-style weaponry Please stop. All semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines are functionally identical. The suspect had a rifle, shotgun and handgud. that is 'loaded up'? Since when does 'requires federal background check' == 'nearly unregulated'?

Retric 14y ago
Shorter barrels are useful for hitting multiple targets rapidly at short ranges and less useful at long ones. Which has a lot to do with the design of military style weapons vs. a rifle used for hunting vs. target practice. If your attacking a target you want longer range accuracy and a large clip, if your defending yourself you want a hand gun. Which is a major reason why the police don't go around with swat style weapons.
- CWuestefeld 14y ago
  if your defending yourself you want a hand gun Disagree, at least depending on the situation. If you're defending yourself in your home, the most appropriate weapon is likely a short-barreled shotgun. The short barrel is advantageous for being able to quickly maneuver around corners, etc. And the shot requires less (but not zero) accuracy in aiming, and if you use the right size shot, is less dangerous to bystanders because of minimal risk of over-penetration. While we're on the topic, the gun control people are irrational in trying to ban rifles with pistol-style grips. Such a grip gives no advantage to the bad guys: in Aurora, he was equally able to fire the AR-15 (which had such grips) and the shotgun (which probably didn't). However, pistol grips are useful to a home defender. It would allow the defender to hold the weapon covering the bad guy with one hand, while using the other hand to dial 911. Without the pistol grip, the defender couldn't do that.
  - protomyth 14y ago
    Have to agree with CWuestefeld, for home defense you want a shotgun with a short barrel. You want to know how to shoot it and you want some safety and maintenance training. Also, do not choose ammo that is going to go through your walls.
    - Retric 14y ago
      Don't forget a lot of gun owners are shot with their own weapons. At a minimum you want a shoulder strap for larger weapons, and the ability to keep a hand free while aiming. Longer barrels also allow people to more easily grab them which is vary dangerous, and make it more obvious where they are in the home. As to penetrating issues, you can use shotgun ammo in handguns, but with a short enough barrel the difference becomes minimal as long as you have a reasonable clip size. PS: Statistically gun owners are less safe. I expect that with reasonable precautions you can cross the threshold into overall safety. But, clearly you need to approach things from the perspective that owning a gun is a larger risk by default and then deal with the new risks.
      - protomyth 14y ago
        Do you have the stats on "Don't forget a lot of gun owners are shot with their own weapons". I don't think I agree with the shoulder strap part, and I have never seen or heard of shotgun ammo in a hand gun.
        Retric 14y ago
        Kellermann states that as an emergency room doctor, he noted that the number of gunowners injured by their own gun or that of a family member seemed to greatly outnumber the number of intruders shot by the gun of a homeowner, and therefore he determined to study whether or not this was in fact true. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Kellermann http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Kellermann (I could quote from this, but it's IMO worth a read.) When the team looked at shootings in which victims had a chance to defend themselves, their odds of getting shot were even higher. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17922-carrying-a-gun-increases-risk-of-getting-shot-and-killed.html http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17922-carrying-a-gun-i... EX: "owner that was armed with a shotgun got shot with his own gun" http://texasfred.net/archives/2671 http://texasfred.net/archives/2671 PS: As to why you have not heard of this. The final appropriation language included the following statement: “[N]one of the funds made available for injury control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control”. These words appear in every CDC grant announcement to this day. [5]
CWuestefeld 14y ago
All semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines are functionally identical. I take your point. However, the cartridges fired by those guns may differ significantly in their effect, and the media persists in calling the killer's AR-15 a "high-powered assault rifle". This is demonstrably false. If anything, it's a "low-powered assault rifle". The AR-15's 5.56mm NATO ammunition [1] is designed to be light and portable, and to injure rather than kill. Compare that to, say, the AK-47 and it's 7.62x39 ammunition [2]. The energy of the AR-15 ammo is about 1300J, while that of the AK's is 1500J or more. The media is causing a certain degree of the fear here. I see three possible reasons: A. They've got a specific agenda B. They expect that sensationalism will get them better ratings C. They're lazy. "High-powered assault rifle" is a hackneyed phrase that just springs to mind, and they don't care enough about accuracy to check it. (of course, the reason it's hackneyed is itself the media's overuse) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.56x45mm_NATO https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.56x45mm_NATO [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7.62x39mm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7.62x39mm
- Zimahl 14y ago
  The AR-15's 5.56mm NATO ammunition [1] is designed to be light and portable, and to injure rather than kill. Compare that to, say, the AK-47 and it's 7.62x39 ammunition [2]. The energy of the AR-15 ammo is about 1300J, while that of the AK's is 1500J or more. 7.62x39 is not a NATO round only because it's Russian in origin. It's generally the same is the 5.56 (basically a .223) in that it's a non-expanding bullet typically due to the FMJ (full metal jacket). The light and portable part is mostly due to history - the arms race of more shots equaling more kills, and mobile infantries. Compare that with say the .30-06 or 7.62x54 which are big rounds shot from big, heavy rifles (M1 Garand and Mosin-Nagant, respectively), a holdover from trench warfare. You can purchase non-NATO 5.56/.223 ammo for hunting, and are typically required to use it when hunting game. The opposite of warfare, it's considered more humane to kill an animal than to injure it.
  - CWuestefeld 14y ago
    7.62x39 ... It's generally the same is the 5.56 (basically a .223) in that it's a non-expanding bullet typically due to the FMJ The fact that they're typically jacketed is where the similarity starts and ends. They are loaded differently, spin at different rates, and so on. But most obviously, 7.62x39 is almost twice the diameter of 5.56. 7.62x39 is probably much more comparable to the .308 Winchester [1] typically used for hunting larger game. According to wikipedia, "the .308 Winchester has become the most popular short-action, big-game hunting cartridge worldwide". Now, circling back to my original point about the AR-15 (or, really, the 5.56mm cartridge it shoots) being low-power, wikipedia lists the energy of the energy of the .308 bullet at 3600J-3900K, nearly triple the power of the 5.56mm. So I stand by my claim that the AR-15 is a low-power rifle. You can purchase non-NATO 5.56/.223 ammo for hunting, and are typically required to use it when hunting game. This is absolutely false. 5.56mm ammunition is too small for hunting deer, bear, etc. You've got to be a very good shot to take down large animals with something bearing so little energy. That's why hunters tend to use rounds in the .30cal range -- like the .308 I mentioned, and also very commonly the 7.62x39 from the AK, but when hunting it's probably being shot out of an SKS [2]. Wikipedia verifies that "In the early 1990s, the Chinese SKS rapidly became the "poor man's deer rifle" in some Southern areas of the United States". So there are a variety of larger cartridges used for hunting larger game, generally in the .30cal neighborhood or more, because the 5.56mm/.223 cartridge just doesn't carry enough energy to take down the big animals. (looks like someone changed the wikipedia link on me! The new link for 7.62x39 is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7.62%C3%9739mm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7.62%C3%9739mm ) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.308_Winchester https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.308_Winchester [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sks

by fr0sty 14y ago

Retric 14y ago

Shorter barrels are useful for hitting multiple targets rapidly at short ranges and less useful at long ones. Which has a lot to do with the design of military style weapons vs. a rifle used for hunting vs. target practice. If your attacking a target you want longer range accuracy and a large clip, if your defending yourself you want a hand gun. Which is a major reason why the police don't go around with swat style weapons.

CWuestefeld 14y ago
if your defending yourself you want a hand gun Disagree, at least depending on the situation. If you're defending yourself in your home, the most appropriate weapon is likely a short-barreled shotgun. The short barrel is advantageous for being able to quickly maneuver around corners, etc. And the shot requires less (but not zero) accuracy in aiming, and if you use the right size shot, is less dangerous to bystanders because of minimal risk of over-penetration. While we're on the topic, the gun control people are irrational in trying to ban rifles with pistol-style grips. Such a grip gives no advantage to the bad guys: in Aurora, he was equally able to fire the AR-15 (which had such grips) and the shotgun (which probably didn't). However, pistol grips are useful to a home defender. It would allow the defender to hold the weapon covering the bad guy with one hand, while using the other hand to dial 911. Without the pistol grip, the defender couldn't do that.
- protomyth 14y ago
  Have to agree with CWuestefeld, for home defense you want a shotgun with a short barrel. You want to know how to shoot it and you want some safety and maintenance training. Also, do not choose ammo that is going to go through your walls.
  - Retric 14y ago
    Don't forget a lot of gun owners are shot with their own weapons. At a minimum you want a shoulder strap for larger weapons, and the ability to keep a hand free while aiming. Longer barrels also allow people to more easily grab them which is vary dangerous, and make it more obvious where they are in the home. As to penetrating issues, you can use shotgun ammo in handguns, but with a short enough barrel the difference becomes minimal as long as you have a reasonable clip size. PS: Statistically gun owners are less safe. I expect that with reasonable precautions you can cross the threshold into overall safety. But, clearly you need to approach things from the perspective that owning a gun is a larger risk by default and then deal with the new risks.
    - protomyth 14y ago
      Do you have the stats on "Don't forget a lot of gun owners are shot with their own weapons". I don't think I agree with the shoulder strap part, and I have never seen or heard of shotgun ammo in a hand gun.
      - Retric 14y ago
        Kellermann states that as an emergency room doctor, he noted that the number of gunowners injured by their own gun or that of a family member seemed to greatly outnumber the number of intruders shot by the gun of a homeowner, and therefore he determined to study whether or not this was in fact true. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Kellermann http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Kellermann (I could quote from this, but it's IMO worth a read.) When the team looked at shootings in which victims had a chance to defend themselves, their odds of getting shot were even higher. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17922-carrying-a-gun-increases-risk-of-getting-shot-and-killed.html http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17922-carrying-a-gun-i... EX: "owner that was armed with a shotgun got shot with his own gun" http://texasfred.net/archives/2671 http://texasfred.net/archives/2671 PS: As to why you have not heard of this. The final appropriation language included the following statement: “[N]one of the funds made available for injury control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control”. These words appear in every CDC grant announcement to this day. [5]

CWuestefeld 14y ago

All semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines are functionally identical. I take your point. However, the cartridges fired by those guns may differ significantly in their effect, and the media persists in calling the killer's AR-15 a "high-powered assault rifle". This is demonstrably false. If anything, it's a "low-powered assault rifle". The AR-15's 5.56mm NATO ammunition [1] is designed to be light and portable, and to injure rather than kill. Compare that to, say, the AK-47 and it's 7.62x39 ammunition [2]. The energy of the AR-15 ammo is about 1300J, while that of the AK's is 1500J or more. The media is causing a certain degree of the fear here. I see three possible reasons: A. They've got a specific agenda B. They expect that sensationalism will get them better ratings C. They're lazy. "High-powered assault rifle" is a hackneyed phrase that just springs to mind, and they don't care enough about accuracy to check it. (of course, the reason it's hackneyed is itself the media's overuse) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.56x45mm_NATO https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.56x45mm_NATO [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7.62x39mm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7.62x39mm

Zimahl 14y ago
The AR-15's 5.56mm NATO ammunition [1] is designed to be light and portable, and to injure rather than kill. Compare that to, say, the AK-47 and it's 7.62x39 ammunition [2]. The energy of the AR-15 ammo is about 1300J, while that of the AK's is 1500J or more. 7.62x39 is not a NATO round only because it's Russian in origin. It's generally the same is the 5.56 (basically a .223) in that it's a non-expanding bullet typically due to the FMJ (full metal jacket). The light and portable part is mostly due to history - the arms race of more shots equaling more kills, and mobile infantries. Compare that with say the .30-06 or 7.62x54 which are big rounds shot from big, heavy rifles (M1 Garand and Mosin-Nagant, respectively), a holdover from trench warfare. You can purchase non-NATO 5.56/.223 ammo for hunting, and are typically required to use it when hunting game. The opposite of warfare, it's considered more humane to kill an animal than to injure it.
- CWuestefeld 14y ago
  7.62x39 ... It's generally the same is the 5.56 (basically a .223) in that it's a non-expanding bullet typically due to the FMJ The fact that they're typically jacketed is where the similarity starts and ends. They are loaded differently, spin at different rates, and so on. But most obviously, 7.62x39 is almost twice the diameter of 5.56. 7.62x39 is probably much more comparable to the .308 Winchester [1] typically used for hunting larger game. According to wikipedia, "the .308 Winchester has become the most popular short-action, big-game hunting cartridge worldwide". Now, circling back to my original point about the AR-15 (or, really, the 5.56mm cartridge it shoots) being low-power, wikipedia lists the energy of the energy of the .308 bullet at 3600J-3900K, nearly triple the power of the 5.56mm. So I stand by my claim that the AR-15 is a low-power rifle. You can purchase non-NATO 5.56/.223 ammo for hunting, and are typically required to use it when hunting game. This is absolutely false. 5.56mm ammunition is too small for hunting deer, bear, etc. You've got to be a very good shot to take down large animals with something bearing so little energy. That's why hunters tend to use rounds in the .30cal range -- like the .308 I mentioned, and also very commonly the 7.62x39 from the AK, but when hunting it's probably being shot out of an SKS [2]. Wikipedia verifies that "In the early 1990s, the Chinese SKS rapidly became the "poor man's deer rifle" in some Southern areas of the United States". So there are a variety of larger cartridges used for hunting larger game, generally in the .30cal neighborhood or more, because the 5.56mm/.223 cartridge just doesn't carry enough energy to take down the big animals. (looks like someone changed the wikipedia link on me! The new link for 7.62x39 is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7.62%C3%9739mm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7.62%C3%9739mm ) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.308_Winchester https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.308_Winchester [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sks