On my local Facebook pages people come on offering their services to come onto your private property and kill coyotes.
Coyotes may or may not be a problem and I have no problem protecting your family or livestock from coyotes.
The problem I have is these people offering their services just want to kill something and brag about it when they do. I’ve seen photos of stacks of dead coyotes with the shooter posing with their gun.
Killing for fun disgusts me.
If you have have to kill an animal out of necessity you should not revel in it.
Same thing with carp. We live in the middle of a beautiful marsh, many days you can see people standing along the marsh with bows shooting carp in less then a foot of water and then they just leave the dead animals on the side of the road.
I’ve asked them why and they always say it’s because carp are an invasive species. BS, they just enjoy killing.
My family are ranchers and they can be a problem. If you get a colony, it can really really mess up your pasture and hay land. Animals hurt themselves, and the haybines and other machinery chew up headers on their mounds. I’ve spent more than one Saturday under the bailer straightening the pickup yet again because the dogs turned our hayfield into a moonscape. Definitely a problem.
However an AR-15 is a completely ridiculous suggestion by anyone as a solution to that. It makes no practical sense for a dozen reasons. My dad is a gun enthusiast and has a very fancy high end squirrel gun that he sometimes uses on them. This gun cost more than my first car and looks like something that would happen if John Wick showed up in Toy Story. From a standing position with a rest, my dad can hit a prairie dog at over 200 yards with it. Part of that is also that he reloads all his own ammo in an elaborate “lab” set up in his basement for the purpose. Commercial ammo is not consistent enough for hits like that. All that said, at the end of the day, it’s a bolt-action .22 in fancy clothes. That’s all you need. He also scares off coyotes with it, dispatches wounded wildlife, and other things. My dad thinks ARs are cool and would probably own one for fun at the range if they were legal here, but he’d never think of using it on the ranch. It’s a ridiculous machine for the job. Like driving your lifted dually long bed bro-dozer to get groceries and everyone laughs at you as you use a step ladder to get your produce into the bed and take up four parking spaces in the process. You think you’re cool, but you look like an idiot and everyone knows it but you.
Anyone who suggests an AR-15 is a practical ranching tool has either never set foot on a ranch or is being extremely disingenuous.
Yes, those are the capabilities that people want more regulated or ban. This literally includes all center-fire removable magazines fed rifles. The “battle rifles” that were designed before the 70s to shoot 7.62 mm like the FAL, CETME, M-14, AK-47 (different type of 7.62mm) etc aren’t any less capable than the rifles firing the intermediate rounds that replaced them. In the area of range and muzzle energy they are better. They are a little slower in firing multiple rounds and weigh more, but in a mass shooting situation, that really will not be a factor. Nor would rifles and carbines shooting pistol caliber rounds, which are significantly less powerful and accurate, have much different results. They are all have the same dangerous capabilities some deem too dangerous for ownership/unrestricted ownership.
Again - people will say, “There is only one use for these types of rifle.” That is objectively false.
When people counter that there are other uses for them, the goal posts gets moved that it, “Isn’t really used for that, it is over kill, you should be using something different, etc etc.”
And again, it is ok to acknowledge there are other uses, but one believe that use doesn’t offset the harm caused when they are abused.
When it comes to firearm development and use, it is often a chicken and egg thing. It is usually the users that come up with new sports and the like. Like after WWII surplus 1911s were customized and used for one handed bullseye shooting. Old 1903 Springfield and surplus M1 Garands were used for service rifle matches. The emergence of 3-Gun and the PCC in USPSA was because of the popularity of the AR platform increased. People don’t want to own something, they want to use it for something - hence sports get made up.
For hunting, it is the same thing. An original condition 1903 Springfield in worn shape but with original parts is worth much more to collectors than one that was “sporterized” for hunting in perfect condition. People did the same with Japanese Arisaka’s and German K-98 Mausers. They took what was plentiful and affordable and adopted it for hunting. The same thing has been done with ARs, outfitting them with the accessories that make them better for hunting.
I agree that a rifle that excels at only multiple shots isn’t a very good hunting rifle. But even a standard low end AR is capable of 2-3MOA accuracy. That is average for many hunting rifles, especially older ones. Good ARs can get less than 1 MOA accuracy. They can eek out even more with someone willing to work up hand loads that run the best in that particular gun.
And again, when someone shoots an animal twice, it is to put it down faster. Unless you get an CNS shot, an animal will usually bolt even from a fatal lung shot. While I am sure you can find examples of someone shooting animals multiple times for no discernible reason, most hunters shoot as many times as needed to get the job done. And this happens not just with Semi-Autos, but with bolt actions, lever actions, and pump actions.
You’re right some states banned using .223 for deer. Kansas was one of them, but lifted the ban because modern expanding hunting ammo works so much better than the old ammo. Places like Texas, whose deer are generally much smaller than a Kansas Mule Deer, or even a Kansas white tail, has always had it legal, and I know people who keep a freezer full from .223 harvested deer in Texas.
It is not too big and destructive for pelt animals such as coyotes. Again, the expanding ammo keeps the bullet inside, and you end up with one .22 cal hole in the pelt. For pest eradication, you aren’t worried about pelts. For meat you are talking like squirrel and rabbit, which people are not using .223 on.
Even if all of the .223 was magically gone, there are dozens of similar .22 cal centerfire rifle cartridges that people will use because in general .30cal is too powerful, and .22lr is too weak.
And again, this part is focusing on the cartridge, which can be fired out of other platforms - single shot break actions, bolt actions with 5 round non-removable magazines, etc. It really isn’t the reason people want ARs banned.
Looking at the wiki article, the AR-15 platform has 54 rimfire and centerfire rounds it can use, not including non-standardized wildcat rounds. (even more if you use the larger AR-10 platform). The reason people want ARs to be banned or restricted has less to do with the ammo, and more do with its capabilities. I don’t think focusing on the cartridge specifically makes any sort of case as to why one deems these rifles “too dangerous to not be regulated/banned”.
I’m arguing it is a use. I am not saying there isn’t other things that can’t be used, and in fact many different types of riles and types of cartridges are used. Again, see above: “Only one reason.” > “Show there are several reason people use them.” > Goalpost moved: That that isn’t a “real” reason.
And while you do have a good level of knowledge, by far most people spouting off on twitter and elsewhere have none. They are making horrible points for their arguments, saying things simply that are not true.
Of course before modern centerfire cartridges were invented, they used something else.
Look man, I grew up reading Outdoor Life and Field and Stream. When I go home I flip through my dad’s magazines. I’ve read about Prairie Dog shooting. My dad went on one prairie dog shoot in Western Kansas once. In these shoots they are at over 200 yards away, sometimes much much further. Western Kansas and other areas in the Great Plains are large expanses of land. You sit back far enough so they don’t see you, and the crack of the gun fire is quiet enough that the whole colony isn’t alerted with every shot. They use centerfire rifles, with different cartridges. My dad took his bolt action .22-250 which shoots the same sized bullet of a .223, but at a much faster speed, making it shoot flatter.
So no, at that distance rim fire isn’t ideal for that situation. .17HMR would have a decent chance at 200 yards, once you adjust for the 8-10in drop, but it also tends to be very windy on the prairie and the super light rounds get blown off course.
But hey - let’s just say .17 HMR was ideal - they make ARs in .17HMR. Hence my point arguing whether .223 is ideal for this or that is moot. The point isn’t banning/restricting .223 or 5.56mm, the point is banning/restricting the rifles with capabilities of the AR platform.
OK fair, but there are a lot of people who assume this is true.
True for some people.
Sometimes they do. There are ARs set up for specific sports. The Service Match rifle has a Heavy barrel and lead inserts in the forearm and buttstock. PPC and 3-Gun are usually lightened with accessories that allow one to make adjustments to suit their specific body and how they hold the rifle. ARs marketed for hunting usually have longer barrels, often fluted to reduce their weight while keeping them accurate, and lightened forearm grips. ARs in other calibers besides .223 are often bought with a specific application in mind. Like the .450 Bushmaster was made for the AR platform for larger game.
Depending what all you take off the market, yes people will use the next best thing available.
Yeah, I concede that is a solution looking for a problem in that ad. But I don’t think an inaccurate sub machine gun has the same utility of a centerifire semi-auto rifle.
Oh I am not disputing that. Nearly all centerfire cartridges are more powerful than than a rimfire .22. But go the other end of the spectrum, nearly all centerfire rifle cartridges are more powerful than the .223.
Bison are awesome. We need more bison. But the way the world works, they aren’t domesticateable like cattle and we won’t be raising them as such anytime soon. Though they do have the hybrid Beefalo some people are seeing if they can make a viable farm livestock.
But intermediate size ammunition like the .223 is designed to do something antithetical to hunting, humane killing of animals or any legitimate civilian use for firearms, tumble inside a person causing massive internal damage. It’s made to effectively kill people in a combat setting.
There are no legitimate civilian uses for an assault rifle. Period. You conceded marketing to rural buyers is not the same as having utility for them. Nobody buys them for anything other than looking cool/larping. You certainly didn’t cough up any reasonable alternative explanation for doing so.
My parents’ neighbours raise bison. The key is keeping them very very happy, because fences are really just decorative suggestions for them. If you want to keep them, you have to give them no particular reason to leave.