Exactly. Get every time I describe it as a “weapon of war” the gun fetishists have a meltdown because technically it was merely designed as a weapon of war rather than carried into combat by US forces like its M-1 predecessor.
Babies want their ba-ba. And are going to keep crying.
They’re not men. They’re boys.
Hey! Boys are perfectly fine human beings, when they haven’t been twisted into hate-filled monsters.
Nor do they in other countries. This is what a self respecting hunter would use in Europe. That military stuff would be considered cringy.
Usually the answer you get by those defending the AR 15 for hunting is that you need it against boar. Well, we have boar in Europe, too, and they’re being hunted with the above repeating rifles.
In reality they just want to cosplay the military while hunting with their semi-auto gun that looks like a fully auto gun and their camouflage. This is what hunters look like here, where they see themselves as stewards of the land.
It’s especially funny that they think they’re manly when they hunt with military weapons. The brothers of an (Aussie) friend of mine hunt boar with armoured dogs and knives. Think of that what you will, but they are definitely willing to take real risks over looking like cool operators.
Growing up, a neighbor did bow hunting. That took skill.
That feels like a particularly horrible death for an animal if you don’t do it just right, though. Having seen a hare with an arrow through it, clearly mortally wounded but still very alive, which was then caught and put down.
One member of my extended family hunts wild boar with a freaking bow.
Clearly there’s been a collective wussification of American hunters if so many are afraid to face off against nature without military hardware nowadays.
Ditto any gunshot wound that isn’t a kill shot. Not to mention various trapping devices.
The bow hunter I met who hunts boar described to me in detail how he goes through great lengths to get extremely close to the animal before loosing an arrow, for that reason. He stores his hunting clothes in plastic bags with native plant material from the area he plans to hunt in, and alters the rythm of his footsteps to sound more like a deer and less like a human. Maybe folks who aren’t brave and patient enough to get within 15-20’ of the animal that they intend to kill just shouldn’t be allowed to hunt in the first place.
More importantly, the Rupert Murdoch of the time, Hearst, was on the side of gun control. Today’s robber barons want armed mobs.
This is still the case for those for whom a gun is still a ranch tool. An AR-15 is useless for shooting at coyotes, groundhogs, and other things that need scaring off or occasionally dispatching to protect livestock. A bolt action hunting rifle is, of course, the best tool for the job. AR-15s and pistols are only good for killing people. Shotguns are okay for ducks but mostly also only for people.
Most countries ban all guns that are only good for killing people (except with special licenses for sport target shooting), and it’s an easy, reasonable line to draw.
Ah, but the USA was never a democracy. it’S a ConStUtioNaL rEpubLic
My uncle farmed all his life in Manitoba. His arsenal consisted of a single-shot .22 calibre bolt-action rifle and a single-shot 16 gauge shotgun. Somehow he got by.
So we don’t have to ask permission to change the definition.
If the gun-wankers want specifics, ban the ownership of weapons based on the Colt AR-15 (AKA Armalite-15) design/platform by civilians
I know it seems like a bridge too far right now, but in 1996 Australia banned semi-auto long guns, full stop. Shotguns, .22 cal rifles, everything semi-auto went. Semi-auto handguns remained, but handguns were already very tightly controlled. Even lever-action shotguns aren’t allowed to reload too quickly.
Something for the pro-guns crowd to think about, when they say “you can’t specifically define an assault rifle.” The reply in Aus was “Fair enough - we’ll just ban everything semi-auto and faster.”
The whole line of argument that starts with “there is no such thing as an assault rifle!” is a cloud of bullshit that event the people using it know is bullshit. They know that their other arguments are even more obfuscatory, and so they go with the rules lawyering.
Same! We have a pair of .22 squirrel guns with good scopes for the critters, and a 30 aught 6 hunting rifle for the big stuff. Mostly for the noise. Kicks like a damn mule.
No, actually not difficult at all.
I just wanted to point out that everybody gets sidetracked with discussions about ‘technicalities’ and that goes for both sides.
People working towards a regulation focus to much on “assault rifles” and by that they get distracted by terms that are more marketing and theoretical than facts. (That’s what I wanted to show, lots of rifles that are technically similar would not be considered “as dangerous” just because they are not marketed like that)
The majority of gun crimes (from street, gang, private to mass shootings) is comitted with small arms. So focusing on the whole “assault rifle” thing is not helping at all. It’s a fight about some “symbol of evil” and not towards a real solution.
Eradicate all semi auto rifles or “assault rifles” today and next to nothing will change, what you real want is either total prohibition of civilian gun ownership or at least control and regulation for ALL guns, like background checks, mandatory training, every gun gets registered as well as every sale/transaction, strict laws for storage and eradicating personal carry.
The obsession with a certain “gun type” hinders the change actually needed. Sometimes I get the impression that this is even a trick of the gun lobby to scape goat assault rifles while keeping everything else like it is.
It may sound cynical but I realy mean it: Does anybody think it makes a difference to the victim if shot by a semi auto pistol or a revolver? Does it change a bit if a shooter needs to reload 5 times instead of 3 because some arbitrary mag size limit? When swapping a mag takes about 2seconds?
I despise the “assault rifle” discussion because it’s is showing naivety and technical ignorance that causes to totally miss the point of meaningful gun regulation.
I’m a gun owner myself in a country with strict gun laws and I support strong regulations. That’s why I find it frustrating when symbolic politics take over.
But I think you missed my point. I don’t deny semi auto rifles being used.
Just so we are on the same page:
The US had HUNDREDS of mass shootings and over all those handgungs are about 3 times more prominently used as all types of rifles (semi auto, “assault”, lever action, bolt loaded) combined.
My point is, that focusing on one type of rifle (that obviously isn’t even the one that’s used the most) is a total distraction from the actual problem.
And that sadly the advocates for gun regulations (that I support!) are showing naivety and technical ignorance in this line of argument.
Regulate ALL guns and don’t think banning ARs will solve any problem! And I say that as a gun owner myself!
Which ones killed the most people?