5 ms·

Yea, the pros of sem-automatic rifle regulation has to be weighed against the extent of tragedies they enable. Do the pros of another firearm really out-weigh t

by rooshdi 14y ago

Yea, the pros of sem-automatic rifle regulation has to be weighed against the extent of tragedies they enable. Do the pros of another firearm really out-weigh the pain they enable?

nitrogen 14y ago
We won't get anywhere if the debates continue to rely on shocking stories, sweeping positive firearm events under the rug, and emotionally laden rhetoric instead of conducting a rational analysis.
bmelton 14y ago
There are a LOT of semi-automatic rifles that aren't AR15s. There are semi-automatic shotguns, and semi-automatic pistols as well. Speaking objectively, most firearms bought today are semi-automatic. A semi-automatic weapon is inherently no more or less dangerous than any other gun in the hands of someone who knows how to use it. Just for clarity, and I don't mean to assume that you don't know, but as most people I've spoken with have it entirely wrong, a semi-automatic firearm means that when you pull the trigger, a bullet is fired. There is no 'burst' or 'spray' mode, and there's no tangible difference between an AR15 and, say, a Browning BAR (http://www.chuckhawks.com/browning_BAR.jpg http://www.chuckhawks.com/browning_BAR.jpg), and "assault weapons bans", in my opinion, penalize a gun for looking like military weapons, when in reality they function nothing like military weapons (as they don't have burst, spray or fully automatic fire modes). If they're famous for causing havoc recently, it almost certainly speaks more to their popularity than anything else. If the most popular car in the America were the Ford Taurus, it would likely be involved in more accidents than other cars, based on sheer math. The AR15 is the most popular rifle sold in America today. The reasons for its popularity are because of its modular design, not its lethality. With an AR15, I can replace the upper assembly without need of a gunsmith. This means I can have one "gun" for both long and short range shooting. I can 'bolt on' attachments like a scope, night lights, laser sights, bipods, etc., without having to pay somebody else to do it for me. It's popular today for the same reasons Linux is popular with nerds -- because you can tinker with it. As for its lethality, it fires a small caliber, low-weight round (.223). In its generally short-barreled configuration (though again, that is moduler) it is considered a 'varmint' gun, used to kill raccoons, coyotes, wolves and the like from a ranch, or what have you. If people were choosing their killing weapons based on lethality, they would have chosen an AR10 (.308 round) or something like a Saiga 12, which is a magazine-fed shotgun.
- suresk 14y ago
  I agree that it is disconcerting to see guns like an AR-15 being targeted merely because they look scary or military-like, but they do have a number of attributes that make them ideal for mass-shootings, which tend to occur at short-to-medium ranges. They are smaller and lighter than many of the other guns you mentioned, they have minimal recoil, and while .223/5.56 rounds are small, they are still quite lethal at the ranges involved in mass shootings. The lighter rounds also mean that you can carry far more of them and it is easier to use extended magazines with them. Compared to a handgun: Better range, more capacity, higher velocity. Compared to a shotgun: Better range, more capacity. Compared to an AR10/M14: More capacity, less recoil. Also, compared to a lot of other guns, ARs in general have less general utility - they are poor for home/personal defense and you generally don't use them for hunting (other than various pests, usually). I will grant you that they are enjoyable guns to own and shoot, though.
  - bmelton 14y ago
    I don't disagree in the slightest, if you consider the AR as it is traditionally packaged and sold. The AR though, like the Linux nerd-reference I made earlier, is more of a platform than a gun itself. I have seen ARs in 50 cal beowulf configurations, .300 whisper, etc. So, they can be used very effectively for hunting. A friend of mine has one that he uses for 'plinking' cans and targets, and by swapping the upper to .300, is able to effectively deer hunt with it. As for home defense, that's very subjective. To me, the best weapon for home defense is the one that I can shoot the most easily. The AR is so loved because it IS easy to use. The first time I actually fired one was when I was volunteering at a disabled veterans charity range event. There were many veterans who had sustained injuries that prevented them from being able to handle regular rifles. Many of their guns were configured with forward grips in a variety of angles (depending on their ability to handle it), and found it to be an all around useful for utility. Another aspect is that standard capacity magazines (20-30, depending on manufacturer) make them great for self defense in untrained hands. That they are "scary looking" doesn't hurt their ability to deter would-be attackers, but compared to the AR10, the .223 round does have substantially less 'stopping' power (I'll be happy to dispute the meaning of that in another venue, because while I agree that physics make it such that no bullet has stopping power, the ability to impair the target is a different issue altogether), and anecdotally, people I know that have used the AR in self defense or military situations generally attest that you double tap targets before they're considered neutralized. No such generality exists for .308 or 7.62NATO rounds. Lastly, if my wife were the subject of a home invasion, the last thing in the world that I would want to happen to her is to run out of bullets and for the bad guys to know that. Joe Biden recently advised that in the event of a home invasion, you should own a shotgun and fire two warning blasts -- my contention in response to that is that 2 shots effectively empties most shotguns, and disarming yourself before an attacker has even moved seems silly. Add to that that in many areas discharging a firearm as such is a crime, and that will likely damage somebody else's property in urban environments. As for the utility of it for home defense, that depends on many factors. I live out in the woods. It's a suburb, but I'm in a hilly area geographically, so I could fire a gun level in three directions and not have to worry about hitting anything other than ground. If I were in a denser city, I would almost certainly prefer a shotgun -- ideally something like a 12-round, magazine fed Saiga. But as for the argument of ARs not having utility, I'd say that's only true if you never take it apart. Once you swap uppers, it becomes, effectively, a set of lincoln logs for you to do with whatever you like (and are allowed to do).

by rooshdi 14y ago

Yea, the pros of sem-automatic rifle regulation has to be weighed against the extent of tragedies they enable. Do the pros of another firearm really out-weigh the pain they enable?

nitrogen 14y ago

We won't get anywhere if the debates continue to rely on shocking stories, sweeping positive firearm events under the rug, and emotionally laden rhetoric instead of conducting a rational analysis.

bmelton 14y ago

There are a LOT of semi-automatic rifles that aren't AR15s. There are semi-automatic shotguns, and semi-automatic pistols as well. Speaking objectively, most firearms bought today are semi-automatic. A semi-automatic weapon is inherently no more or less dangerous than any other gun in the hands of someone who knows how to use it. Just for clarity, and I don't mean to assume that you don't know, but as most people I've spoken with have it entirely wrong, a semi-automatic firearm means that when you pull the trigger, a bullet is fired. There is no 'burst' or 'spray' mode, and there's no tangible difference between an AR15 and, say, a Browning BAR (http://www.chuckhawks.com/browning_BAR.jpg http://www.chuckhawks.com/browning_BAR.jpg), and "assault weapons bans", in my opinion, penalize a gun for looking like military weapons, when in reality they function nothing like military weapons (as they don't have burst, spray or fully automatic fire modes). If they're famous for causing havoc recently, it almost certainly speaks more to their popularity than anything else. If the most popular car in the America were the Ford Taurus, it would likely be involved in more accidents than other cars, based on sheer math. The AR15 is the most popular rifle sold in America today. The reasons for its popularity are because of its modular design, not its lethality. With an AR15, I can replace the upper assembly without need of a gunsmith. This means I can have one "gun" for both long and short range shooting. I can 'bolt on' attachments like a scope, night lights, laser sights, bipods, etc., without having to pay somebody else to do it for me. It's popular today for the same reasons Linux is popular with nerds -- because you can tinker with it. As for its lethality, it fires a small caliber, low-weight round (.223). In its generally short-barreled configuration (though again, that is moduler) it is considered a 'varmint' gun, used to kill raccoons, coyotes, wolves and the like from a ranch, or what have you. If people were choosing their killing weapons based on lethality, they would have chosen an AR10 (.308 round) or something like a Saiga 12, which is a magazine-fed shotgun.

suresk 14y ago
I agree that it is disconcerting to see guns like an AR-15 being targeted merely because they look scary or military-like, but they do have a number of attributes that make them ideal for mass-shootings, which tend to occur at short-to-medium ranges. They are smaller and lighter than many of the other guns you mentioned, they have minimal recoil, and while .223/5.56 rounds are small, they are still quite lethal at the ranges involved in mass shootings. The lighter rounds also mean that you can carry far more of them and it is easier to use extended magazines with them. Compared to a handgun: Better range, more capacity, higher velocity. Compared to a shotgun: Better range, more capacity. Compared to an AR10/M14: More capacity, less recoil. Also, compared to a lot of other guns, ARs in general have less general utility - they are poor for home/personal defense and you generally don't use them for hunting (other than various pests, usually). I will grant you that they are enjoyable guns to own and shoot, though.
- bmelton 14y ago
  I don't disagree in the slightest, if you consider the AR as it is traditionally packaged and sold. The AR though, like the Linux nerd-reference I made earlier, is more of a platform than a gun itself. I have seen ARs in 50 cal beowulf configurations, .300 whisper, etc. So, they can be used very effectively for hunting. A friend of mine has one that he uses for 'plinking' cans and targets, and by swapping the upper to .300, is able to effectively deer hunt with it. As for home defense, that's very subjective. To me, the best weapon for home defense is the one that I can shoot the most easily. The AR is so loved because it IS easy to use. The first time I actually fired one was when I was volunteering at a disabled veterans charity range event. There were many veterans who had sustained injuries that prevented them from being able to handle regular rifles. Many of their guns were configured with forward grips in a variety of angles (depending on their ability to handle it), and found it to be an all around useful for utility. Another aspect is that standard capacity magazines (20-30, depending on manufacturer) make them great for self defense in untrained hands. That they are "scary looking" doesn't hurt their ability to deter would-be attackers, but compared to the AR10, the .223 round does have substantially less 'stopping' power (I'll be happy to dispute the meaning of that in another venue, because while I agree that physics make it such that no bullet has stopping power, the ability to impair the target is a different issue altogether), and anecdotally, people I know that have used the AR in self defense or military situations generally attest that you double tap targets before they're considered neutralized. No such generality exists for .308 or 7.62NATO rounds. Lastly, if my wife were the subject of a home invasion, the last thing in the world that I would want to happen to her is to run out of bullets and for the bad guys to know that. Joe Biden recently advised that in the event of a home invasion, you should own a shotgun and fire two warning blasts -- my contention in response to that is that 2 shots effectively empties most shotguns, and disarming yourself before an attacker has even moved seems silly. Add to that that in many areas discharging a firearm as such is a crime, and that will likely damage somebody else's property in urban environments. As for the utility of it for home defense, that depends on many factors. I live out in the woods. It's a suburb, but I'm in a hilly area geographically, so I could fire a gun level in three directions and not have to worry about hitting anything other than ground. If I were in a denser city, I would almost certainly prefer a shotgun -- ideally something like a 12-round, magazine fed Saiga. But as for the argument of ARs not having utility, I'd say that's only true if you never take it apart. Once you swap uppers, it becomes, effectively, a set of lincoln logs for you to do with whatever you like (and are allowed to do).