Actually I would say an overwhelming majority of people that buy in the AR-15 legally buy it for target shooting or hunting. Which would be the same reason they buy most other firearms.
Its not a very practical self-defense weapon. At close range the shotgun is much more effective, and the handgun easier to use. There is a reason law enforcement opts for the MP5 or a shotgun in breaching scenarios.
I started with the AR-15 talk, but really I wanted to generalize and include any assault rifle.
I doubt your claim of actual use of assault rifle owners is provable either way. I'd guess there are also a lot of people with an assault rifle in the closet because they feel safer for having it, and the guy at the gun store just wanted the sale and didn't bother educating the customer on the practicalities of it.
What I DO know, though, is if a guy gets fired from his car dealership where he worked 30 years and is seeing red about it, he can drive down the block to WalMart and return with an assault rifle and blow away his former co-workers. Or he goes home and retrieves it from his closet. Hyperbole, perhaps, but there is a lot of "emotional gun use" in the US.
Last edited by BloodFetish; 07-21-2012 at 12:26 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to BloodFetish For This Useful Post:
I played around with one about 5 years ago, and I think it only had the 6 round clip like you said. I think high-powered rifles are restricted to 6 or 7 round clips too. I think there might have even been a problem with the Ruger style 60 roudn clips for .22 caliber rifles that came out a few years ago. Not sure though. I do believe they are legal now though, as a couple friends have them.
Even with 6 round magazines, it takes about 5 seconds to reload. It wouldn't make much of a difference. The AR-15 isn't automatic anyways, so its not like the guy can empty out a complete magazine in 5 seconds, pop in a fresh one, and keep firing.
The AR-15 fires the .223 round, which isn't much different from the .40 calibre round than his Glocks fired. The .40 round is hollow point, so it would do much more damage if it actually hit someone. The .223 would just go through people. Might explain all the people shot, but only 12 deaths considering how many bullets he obviously fired. Killshots are actually harder to make contrary to popular opinion.
The .223 is quite a small round, but high velocity. The .40 is a round nearly twice the diameter, but not near the velocity. The two are nothing alike
If you banned guns or made it extremely tough to get them legally, it would simple become a very big black market and people would still get access to them.
Sure. But it is less likely a med student dropout has access to the black market. If you sell them at stores they are infinitely more accessible to the average citizen than trying to get them on the black market. Everyone can go down to Bass Pro Shops. Very few people have the connections and knowledge to find black market weapons dealers.
Last edited by Flames Draft Watcher; 07-21-2012 at 12:29 PM.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Flames Draft Watcher For This Useful Post:
Actually I would say an overwhelming majority of people that buy in the AR-15 legally buy it for target shooting or hunting. Which would be the same reason they buy most other firearms.
Its not a very practical self-defense weapon. At close range the shotgun is much more effective, and the handgun easier to use. There is a reason law enforcement opts for the MP5 or a shotgun in breaching scenarios.
Not legally. The only legal "purpose" of a civilian owning a AR-15 type weapon in Canada is for target shooting, one could make the argument for protection but I don't want to get into that quagmire.
The benefit to the shotgun if memory serves me correct is that there is less chance of a round sprawling but that is just me talking out of my ass on that part.
What's the benefit to having them be available in any other scenario?
Maintenance, security (I mean keeping the firearm secure, not my person/property), and the ancillary hobbies, skills and trades that coincide with firearm ownership such as wood working, machining and a general craftsmanship.
For myself, there is a large historical component to my interest in firearms.
Quote:
So what are the benefits to having a semi-auto?
I think semi-auto has become a loaded term, as it conjures up images of borderline machine guns.
Semi-automatic only means a self-reloading gun. The 'automatic' in the name refers to the automatic reloading of a round into the firing chamber. This is basically the firearm equivalent of an automatic transmission. It's an evolution of the mechanics. Most firearms are semi-automatic. The 'semi' part of the equation means it takes one trigger pull per round.
Manual transmissions have their place and do their specific job well, but, for the majority of the cars on the market, the automatic is king. This is simply technological advancement.
Below in the spoilers are examples of two 12 gauge shotguns, both semi-automatic. One is a scarier looking 'man-killer', the other a more homely looking shotgun that your grandad might have in the attic.
Spoiler!
These guns are equally deadly, depending on the ammunition in the chamber.
This whole conversation makes me feel dirty, but as this thread has drifted entirely to become a firearm thread, I felt the need to clarify some things. I think firearms have their place in society, but I'm not going to start using this as a platform on which to defend private gun ownership. The whole thing makes me squirm.
Here is the least sensationalistic (enthusiastic, sure) video I've found comparing a semi-auto shotgun and a pump-action shotgun, and showing them in use (which I think is the most important).
Last edited by Flash Walken; 07-21-2012 at 12:58 PM.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Flash Walken For This Useful Post:
Just read the latest on CBC: police detonated a device and have found 30 other booby traps that need to be disarmed. They've also found out that he bought 6000 rounds of ammunition on the internet and purchased the guns over a couple months. It all seems so surreal.
Chicago has some of the strictest gun control in north America. They also have one of the highest murder and firearm violence rates in north America. bans do nothing except punish those of us law abiding citizens. Murderers and gang bangers will still be out with their "lethal bullets", its been proven. And you are right its not that simple, although I had to chuckle at the lethal type bullets. All are
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
They might now have the highest rate, but that is probably because the Supreme Court struck down their gun control laws in 2010. Of course before then, they had one of the lowest rates of any city in the USA, as demonstrated by these stats http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6018a1.htm
Facts are fun, gun control works to reduce gun violence.
This whole conversation makes me feel dirty, but as this thread has drifted entirely to become a firearm thread, I felt the need to clarify some things. I think firearms have their place in society, but I'm not going to start using this as a platform on which to defend private gun ownership. The whole thing makes me squirm.
Yeah, I'm going to stop posting in here on the subject that is at best parallel to the main topic. Just wanted to say thanks to you and Azure for a rational conversation without you guys coming across as self-righteous NRA types.
If no assault rifles or handguns I'm willing to bet the ###### may have killed a couple and injured a few more and then got the crap kicked out of him to the point he would probably be dead...think about that you f***ng gun advocate idiots.
In other words. It probably wouldn't have happened and nobody would be dead or injured.
A typical irrational, over-emotional rant from you....
Restricting guns or banning them outright is not going to stop an attack like this from happening....
I don't know the carry laws in Colorado, but if one or two guys in that theater had been packing, perhaps the body count would be much lower. This reminds me of the Jared Loughner shooting in Arizona. People are so quick to forget or ignore the fact that ordinary arm carrying citizens returned fire on Loughner, perhaps saving additional lives.
This is why mass shootings happen in gun free or gun controlled zones like colleges, malls, schools etc. ....because the bad guys have easy pickings..and they know it.
I haven't read the whole thread, but I know there's a gun debate going in here.
I just wanted to chip in and say there are several academic articles that suggest a nation's actions influence the way its citizens act. In other words, what the United States do overseas influences the general mentality, and therefore actions, of its citizens.
Now, I'm not saying this is the sole reason massacres like Columbine and this issue happen. However, it's just another possible explanation for why events like this happen. The United States throughout history have been one of the most violent nations in the world and that those violent actions overseas have permeated the general American culture.
If we look at the Canadian culture, for example, we don't see a fraction of the amount of violent crimes that the U.S. has. I know, there are numerous factors that go into a massacre like this one, but I thought I'd just throw that out there.
What a great post Monster......
I think you're bang on. America is steeped in a culture of violence.
Noticed that Cineplex had security guards visible when letting people into the theatre to see TDKR last night. An interesting gesture, if ultimately an empty one.
I don't know the carry laws in Colorado, but if one or two guys in that theater had been packing, perhaps the body count would be much lower. This reminds me of the Jared Loughner shooting in Arizona. People are so quick to forget or ignore the fact that ordinary arm carrying citizens returned fire on Loughner, perhaps saving additional lives.
This is why mass shootings happen in gun free or gun controlled zones like colleges, malls, schools etc. ....because the bad guys have easy pickings..and they know it.
Try to place your focus on the bad guys..
Except that isn't what happened at all - the shooter was subdued by people who tackled him as he was reloading, more bullets in a confusing situation, particularly when the people who are shooting them have varying levels of actual accuracy is not a good idea.
Mass shootings happen in common areas because there are lots of people there thus allowing for mass shootings to occur.
You aren't advocating for people to carry guns in schools are you?
Alright I'm seriously freaking out right now. There are some creepy similarities between the main character on the movie Rampage and the shooter in Aurora (both sort of similar events and armour too):
If he was squinting it would be the same person. Has anyone else seen this movie?
They are both white and have dark hair? I'm not seeing it dude.
Damnit. I think you'd have to see the movie. That's the best screenshot I could get, but if you watch the movie, the main character is the first person you think about when you see this Aurora shooter's face. Creepy similarities.
Except that isn't what happened at all - the shooter was subdued by people who tackled him as he was reloading, more bullets in a confusing situation, particularly when the people who are shooting them have varying levels of actual accuracy is not a good idea.
Mass shootings happen in common areas because there are lots of people there thus allowing for mass shootings to occur.
You aren't advocating for people to carry guns in schools are you?
This incident could have resulted in a mass shooting...instead everyone survived and the two thugs were wounded and arrested....and if the thugs died from the shots ......oh well.
Btw, hell yeah I think there should be a gun in every school. In colleges where students are old enough to carry why not? Under these conditions I think a Virginia-Tech like incident would be alot harder to pull off. Also, statistics show that conceal-carry citizens are the best behaved.
The police can not and will not protect you. They just show up in the aftermath to clean up and figure out who to charge.
The Following User Says Thank You to mikey_the_redneck For This Useful Post:
Just read the latest on CBC: police detonated a device and have found 30 other booby traps that need to be disarmed. They've also found out that he bought 6000 rounds of ammunition on the internet and purchased the guns over a couple months. It all seems so surreal.
In my opinion, this stuff that's actually related to the incident is what this thread should be about. Can you gun nuts and anti-gun people talk in a different thread please?
__________________
But living an honest life - for that you need the truth. That's the other thing I learned that day, that the truth, however shocking or uncomfortable, leads to liberation and dignity. -Ricky Gervais
