That’s why we need to ban all high-capacity hammers like sledgehammers. But that would be unpossible because there are just so many technical details that banning sledgehammers would end up leaving a lot of sledgehammers on the market while also banning useful hammers that aren’t really sledgehammers, such as long-handled meat tenderizers.
7 Likes
Yeah. Why shouldn’t US make all center-fire semi-automatic rifles w. removable magazines illegal for civilians to own?
5 Likes
I don’t understand your question. Your hyperbole about shooting through 10 coyotes was hyperbole. The .223 round is not that powerful it will punch through 10 coyotes.
Shooting the same brand of .223 through an AR or bolt action rifle with the same barrel length and twist rate will have the same ballistics performance. The difference in performance between the two is the AR has more ammo and faster follow up shots.
I never said no one would be able to control pest with out ARs. I was giving a list of what people do use them for when asked to elaborate. Clearly if they couldn’t use them, they would use the next best thing available.
Need is subjective. One can make do with a hand turned drill for most tasks, but a battery powered Dewalt will make the work even faster. Even if there is a better tool for a specific task, one tool might be selected because if its versatility.
At any rate - I’m not here to justify or convince anyone what someone “needs” anything for. I am explaining what people actually do use them for or have a “need” of them. You’re free to disagree.
How is it if you ban only AR-15 style rifles, and AK style rifles, but not rifles that shoot the same caliber of bullet (or other, more powerful calibers) from a semiautomatic platform, with a removable magazine, you have actually done anything? What ever “loop hole” rifle will just become the next rifle of choice.
For the most part, countries that ban ARs have done so banning the whole classification of center fire, removable magazine fed, semi-auto rifles. So my point doesn’t preclude the US passing similar laws. In fact my point is, if you want actual gun control laws that match other countries, it needs to be based on FUNCTIONALITY and CAPABILITY - not looks or specific features.
(Ironically IIRC, Australia’s highest form of firearms license that allows Semi-automatic, magazine fed rifles are for people in pest control occupations.)
Australian pest control:
4 Likes
It penetrates through multiple linear coyotes. Point being, it’s overpowered for the simple purpose of shooting coyotes at relatively close range. If it’s necessary to shoot coyotes at long range, that’s a great situation for advanced firearms training - which you and other firearms apologists resist as being too restrictive. But if that’s really what’s called for, then just freakin’ take the training in order to properly use the tool you say you need.
Which are useless because as @teknocholer pointed out, all the animals in the area a long gone at that point.
I brought up need, in saying no one needs an AR-15 for anything other than killing a large group of people. It’s a military weapon. You challenged that assertion, then hedged with “use” instead of need, and now you’re claiming that’s subjective. The goalposts have been officially moved. I’m moving them back. No one needs an AR-15 for non-military purposes. Feel free to cite examples of need, not use, if you want to refute that statement.
Yes. Because as several people in this and other threads have pointed out, the problem isn’t just availability of military-grade weapons, it’s also American gun culture. And that gun culture centers on the AR-15. Beau of the Fifth Column makes a compelling argument that the real thing people should be keeping an eye on is the M5 platform, because as soon as it becomes widely available to the US public, it will supplant the AR-15 among the gunnerati in their tacticool gear.
6 Likes
You said it would go through, and I quote, “10 coyotes”. It will, in fact, only go through six and a half coyotes. This makes everything else you say on the subject invalid forever. /s
9 Likes
How did “centerfire” slip in there? Would you exempt semiauto rifles in .22 Magnum or .22LR? That’s a loophole you could shoot a .44 magnum through.
3 Likes
Not typically, no. Lots of people who hunt coyotes sell the pelts so they don’t want to damage them. While I could see FMJ zipping through one and hitting a second, hunters usually use expanding bullets so all of the energy stays in the animal and only one hole in the pelt. The .22-250 is another popular round for them and they are loaded up even hotter. It definitely is not overkill for coyotes.
it is often necessary to shoot coyotes at multiple hundreds of yards away. They are smart with a good sense of smell and will often run away if the smell man. It doesn’t take specialized training, just practice at the range to shoot and hit targets at distances you are hunting at.
Again, this is all just basic info on coyotes. It can be with a bolt action rifle or an AR.
A follow up shot is to hit an animal a second time to decrease how far it runs so you don’t lose the animal. Even with a good lung shot, they can bolt 100 yards away and drop in brush or tall grass and be hard to find. A poor shot means it can go even farther. It isn’t to hit a second animal.
Ok, I specifically said above “There are many uses for an AR-15.” I won’t try to convince you of a need, I am just telling anyone who wants to read it, that is what people use them for.
What is the actual danger of the AR? It’s capabilities or what it represents? If it is what it represents, then banning the AR will just mean the next best thing will be the new totem and it will have the same capabilities.
Banning, restricting, or adding licensing requirements for the type of weapon the AR is, will mean any similarly functioning firearm will have the same restrictions. Otherwise you are banning Chargers, when Cameros, Corvettes, and Mustangs still exist.
Yep, the new M5 uses the new .277 Fury/6.8mm round that is going to give it the capabilities closer to the .308 of the AR-10 platform, but with more manageable recoil. It will be a long while before the M5/Sig Spear (civilian version) supplants the AR-15 because of patents etc, only one company will make it, they are going to focus on military orders. And while people who have to have the latest and greatest thing and have ~$10-15k lying around might pick it up, the average person won’t. But maybe in 25 years, who knows.
But yes, I have watched all of his videos on the subject, and would encourage everyone to check them out. I agree with pretty much all of it. (Like the one where he calls the .223 a varmint round. :/)
No, if the number was 6 1/2, then 10 would just be an exaggeration, not hyperbolic.
It is one to one and a half coyotes.
Because rimfire ammo, specifically .22 lr, .22 mag, and .17hmr are not nearly as powerful or lethal as any center-fire rifle cartridge. it would be like comparing an electric scooter to a sport bike.
The used to make some larger rimfire ammo in the late 1800s, but rim fire just is not as reliable as primed ammunition. That is why it is relegated to only very small rounds that can’t fit a primer.
So if you are worried about a loop hole in the future, then include language that would include rimfire at a certain joules limit.
If you think rimfire should be included in a semi-auto ban, then add it to the list, I guess. But they don’t have the same capabilities as ARs do.
I think you’re missing the point here. You clearly know enough technical detail to be able to come up with a meaningful definition, but instead of doing that you’re nitpicking other people for not doing so to your satisfaction.
You keep saying you’re not concern trølling, but it’s increasingly hard to see it as anything else. “Until you can write and implement the perfect law, then I’m going to stand over here and tell you you’re doing it wrong and should stop even trying.”
Go on, then: stump up. How would you define things so that this weapon is kept out of the hands of the people who use it on a daily basis to murder people in the only country on earth where this happens?
9 Likes
And ultimately that’s what bugs me the most; that folks who have firearms hobbies are happy to benefit from their freedom to plink or hunt or target shoot to their hearts content; to nitpick attempts to change laws to protect people from the harms of firearm proliferation, but ultimately do nothing themselves to improve the situation. They sit back and enjoy their sport and expect everyone else to do the heavy lifting.
What’s responsible about that?
10 Likes
I infer from your response that your answer is yes, you would exempt rimfires from any ban. Then do you feel that a shooter entering a schoolroom or church service with an AR-15 chambered for .22 Magnum is no big deal, because a few more of the wounded may live?
Here’s some mass shootings where .22 rifles were used.
I’m sure you know this, but a quick google shows that a .22 Magnum bullet fired from a rifle has around the same muzzle energy as a 9mm bullet from a handgun.
No.
No
It’s a Semi-automatic. Firearms. BAN. No need for qualifiers. The term “center-fire” wasn’t in the discussion until you slipped it in.
6 Likes
Well, yeah. You fuckers keep shooting them with high-powered rifles and they lived here first.
10 Likes
I guess if we have to. It’s a shame there’s no possibility of an accommodation.
But - it’s impossible as you attest.
5 Likes
I “need” to kill off all the animals in my state?
Some of them might get away if I have to reload?
Hunting is the “sport” where one side has an overwhelming advantage and the other side is supposed to have no chance, right?
7 Likes
Real Men wrassle their prey.
8 Likes
Buy meat, or have a day out where an animal dies painfully, screaming its last in the dirt.
At least nobody takes selfies with the kids they shot.
5 Likes
Dude - i am not trying to nitpick or be argumentative. I am not even advocating, I am trying to inform.
Follow the thread of the discussion:
What do people need an AR for?
Reply there are several uses for ARs, and then outline sports, hunting, and pest control.
Get replies about how those aren’t really uses and some hyperbole about how things work.
Assure people, that is what some people are using them for, and correcting either hyperbole or just misinformed statements.
What I haven’t done is insist that one agrees on those uses being enough of a reason for people to have them. If one still thinks they are too powerful for civilian hands - fine. But that doesn’t take away the fact that people have found uses for them.
Except I didn’t say that. I am telling you - counter to my personal opinion - what you need to do to actually limit what one considers “assault rifles”. If you believe that the AR-15 and other assault rifles should not be in civilian hands, then call or write your congressperson and say “I want a ban on semi-automatic centerfire rifles with removable magazines.” Anything less than that and you are banning cosmetics that will still allow someone to own an "assault rifle’ in function if not form and have the same capabilities to perform a mass shooting.
If I showed you a picture of what was 100% LEAGAL to buy new during the AWB of 1994, you would go, “Oh, no that is an AR-15. I want those banned.” Do you want to make the same do-nothing law from back then, or do you want to actually ban “assault rifles”?
California probably has the best current laws to limit them, but even they have a few rifles that sneak in by being featureless enough to allow it to operate as a semi-automatic rifle with a removable magazine.
The Ruger 10/22 is one of the most prolific rifles in existence. It is often the first or second rifle that people learn on. People use souped up fancy ones for all kind of competition shooting, or box stock ones for plinking fun or hunting small game. The .22lr is an extremely anemic round, suitable more for rabbits and squirrels than people.
But absolutely it can kill people. And there used to be a plethora of small .22 pocket pistols, which can defiantly kill people, especially at close range. And you will see they are used in homicides in the US (Though I am not sure where they rank in use here.) Literally any and every firearm is capable of being lethal.
But why exempt them? Because in the grand scale of things, they are not “assault rifles”, which is what we want to ban, right? IMO, trying to make something that broad would be even less likely to succeed. I mean even in the UK, the .22 is the only exemption to semi-auto rifles ban.
But sure, if you think that any and all “semi-automatic rifles with removable magazines” should be the line, then that is what you should advocate for.
If you think it should include rifles such as the M1 Garand or a CA compliant “bullet button”, then you will want to ban “all semi-automatic rifles”.
With a huge asterisk there. But yes, on paper the most powerful .22mag out of a rifle is only 31 joules less than the weakest 9mm out of a pistol. But the 9mm is 214 joules more with the most powerful 9mm round listed. And you would have drastically different results, because the 9mm rounds that use hollowpoints are going to inflict significantly greater wounds. Even a FMJ 9mm is significantly larger. So even with an example of similar muzzle energy, they really aren’t in the same weight class.
I am curious what accommodation you suggest that would still “ban assault rifles”.
Look - frankly - because I think people should be allowed to own these weapons, I would WANT an anemic ban that either bans cosmetics, certain features, or specific rifle types. That means I can still get other, similar rifles with the same or near the same capabilities. I should be Br’er Rabbiting “Oh no, not reinstate the 1994 AWB ban, anything but that”.
But I am being frank and honest with what is needed to be done to reach the stated goals.
The two other suggestions I have if that isn’t an attainable goal:
-
Go ahead and raise the age limit for semi-automatic rifles to 21. That might give someone like the Uvalde shooter a few years to mature, or maybe people around him to realize something isn’t right and get him reviewed for mental fitness.
-
Create a licensing scheme with tiers similar to what they have in other countries. It would cut down on casual owners, and provide a review process for those seeking licenses. It would be great if it was like your drivers license where you could just scan it and see your license is in order and allow you to complete what ever transaction you were doing. (This could be used too have check system for private gun sales as well.)
1 Like
6 Likes
but that is clearly the only context where the answer would be relevant to the question
4 Likes
It’s unpossible to have an assault weapons ban.
Except we had one. And it lowered mass shootings.
I can live with it not being perfect from the start. The regulatory process will adjust as things proceed. No law envisions every possible situation. That’s why there are regulations promulgated and guidance issued. Which get revised every few years.
Assault weapons aren’t unique in that regard.
Edit:
Case in point. Existing law got revised through the regulatory process to make people safer. There were certainly people back then who were arguing that this couldn’t be done because definitions. Yet - even Trump could do it. So it can’t be that difficult.
10 Likes
