Ongoing US Mass Shooting Thread

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by GoinAllTheWay

Define "High Powered" I see this thrown around a lot and do often wonder what the standard is.

I think your issue is more with rate of fire than how powerful the shot is.

The AR-15 is a semi-automatic assault rifle that is a civilian version of the military's M-16. According to CNN, it's capable of carrying up to 100 rounds. It shoots one bullet at a time that "may go through two people" at once. And it's legal in the United States.

After the Aurora Police Department revealed that this was one of the guns Holmes used, outrage ensued online, mostly because the gun would have been a lot harder to purchase under the Federal Assault Weapons Ban that expired in 2004. Congress has not voted to replace the bill, which was enacted in 1994 but had a "sunset provision" that let it expire.

http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/07/21/...ained-legally/

[2Stonedbirds]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Seems like a BS reason to me.


I also wonder, but really don't know, do silencers affect the performance of a weapon?

It's not bs.

New Zealand actually recommends firearm owners to use a suppressor as it cuts down on noise pollution and saves people's ears.

Some firearms will use "colder" loaded ammunition as to aid in the use of a suppressor. In some firearms the use of a suppressor and cold ammo actually turns some semi autos into straight pull bolt actions essentially. The ammo used doesn't create enough pressure to automatically cycle the action.

So it depends on the firearm and the ammo used. Of course "colder" ammo will not produce the same velocities as hot ammo, so the bullet travels slower and not as far.

[2Stonedbirds]

Originally Posted by DuffMan

The AR-15 is a semi-automatic assault rifle that is a civilian version of the military's M-16. According to CNN, it's capable of carrying up to 100 rounds. It shoots one bullet at a time that "may go through two people" at once. And it's legal in the United States.

After the Aurora Police Department revealed that this was one of the guns Holmes used, outrage ensued online, mostly because the gun would have been a lot harder to purchase under the Federal Assault Weapons Ban that expired in 2004. Congress has not voted to replace the bill, which was enacted in 1994 but had a "sunset provision" that let it expire.

http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/07/21/...ained-legally/

It's fine to copy and paste, doesn't mean you know jack squat about AR variants. An fmj may pass through one or more people, sp's or the like wont. The "high powered weapon" as you like to call it uses an intermediate cartridge, I can guarentee you ol grandpas Lee enfield with 150gr fmjs is gonna pass through a hell of a lot more. But it's made from wood and blued steel so our delicate sensibilities are not offended right?

Under 400 of the US firearm homicides in 2013 were committed with rifles. ALL rifles, from the dreaded baby killing ARs to grandpas ol rem700. So why not go after handguns if you want to make a dent in firearm homicide in the US? I know it goes against the MSNBC narrative, so take your time to adjust your propaganda rhetoric.

You also mentioned mag limits and how the people on the crap end of a mass shooting appreciate mag limits. What you fail to realize is that criminals who plan a mass shooting, and in their area are limited by mag limits, take the 5 seconds required to remove that pesky rivet and get their standard cap mag. Do you think the asshat who murdered those RCMP members in Moncton gave a crap about staying on the good side of the law and leaving that rivet in? No he didn't so explain to me again how mag cap limits do anything other than restrict the law abiding and keep those with nefarious intent from turning their neutered mags into standard cap mags.

[driveway]

Banning assault rifles is a waste of gun-control advocates time and energy. They are not a serious safety problem, nor are they significantly different from a bog-standard hunting rifle.

The problem is handguns, most specifically illegal handguns and the only effective route to control of illegal handguns lies through a repeal of the 2nd amendment.

Any other efforts are a waste of energy. A Missouri compromise if you will, while the obvious goal is abolition.

[CaptainCrunch]

Just to throw a couple of things in here.

With the AR15, there's this misnomer that its a super assault rifle, and its really not, while it has a good muzzle velocity which I think is about 2800 feet per second (I compare that to the FN that I fired in the military which was about 2350 feet per second) because the AR-15 uses a smaller less dynamic round it has less stopping power then the standard assault rifle like the AK-47.

However here's the rub.

The AR-15 is probably a better weapon in an enclosed urban space because its light weight, it has good springs to eat recoil so you can be more accurate, its more of a point and click weapon then heavier assault rifles. On top of that even in the semi auto it tends to be more accurate as you put more rounds down field faster. With a heavier weapon with a heavier round, as you start firing recoil will make you punch holes in the sky, you need to be physically stronger to use them.

Personally to me, I question the need for any semi automatic weapon in the hands of a civilian. I don't buy the whole home defense thing as having a fire arm emboldens a lot of people to go towards trouble instead of I don't know, moving away from trouble. It creates the whole culture of "Rambo's got this".

If you want to have effective gun control, then you limit the Civilian availability to front load muskets and flint based pistols.

I get what you're saying about the magazine mods, but the simpler solution is to only allow weapons with 0 magazine capacities where you have to manually load a single bullet.

Oh and in my mind, at that point if you're caught with a prohibited weapon we blow up your house.

There's a responsibility to fire arms ownership, but there are too many idiots out there to really trust anyone at this point, a gun does kill people, its a machine its designed to punch big bloody fatal holes in things, regardless of the idiot that's using it, that's what its designed for. Anyone that thinks that guns are merely designed as a recreational tool to shoot paper targets is fooling themselves.

Guns should not be in the home to me, they shouldn't be in the hands of mentally deranged people, they certainly shouldn't be in the hands of career criminals or anyone with a criminal record, they shouldn't be in the hands of some 18 year old gangbanger with a over valued sense of worth.

I used to be on the side of gun owners, that they need them to defend their homes, but to me that's absolute trash, because we see accidental shootings, or drunken shootings, or kids finding guns and shooting.

Guns in the hands of the untrained are going to do what they're designed to do, put a bullet downrange with no ability to call it back.

I grew up in a house with a dad who had a pistol for home defense, in Canada, it was a small .22 semi auto pistol with a 6 round clip in it, and I've got to tell you, when I came home from basic on leave, I took that pistol away from my dad, drove it to the police station and asked them to get rid of it. First of all, there was no need, second of all, while my day is a fairly rational, calm guy, I don't know how his untrained self is going to react in a chaotic situation without all of the information, with a emboldening weapon in his hand.

Flintlocks and muskets

[DuffMan]

Why do people want AR's? what is their selling point?

[2Stonedbirds]

Originally Posted by DuffMan

Why do people want AR's? what is their selling point?

Because I can?

Our society is one of wants, not needs.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Personally to me, I question the need for any semi automatic weapon in the hands of a civilian.

Scary as ####.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

Because I can?

Our society is one of wants, not needs.

His question was one of want, not one of need.


At this point I really struggle to get upset when Americans shoot each other, they almost have it coming.

[Igottago]

Originally Posted by DuffMan

Why do people want AR's? what is their selling point?

Compensation.

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by DuffMan

Why do people want AR's? what is their selling point?

Captaincrunch summed it up pretty good.

1. It's a light weapon and it really is a point and shoot. It's not a traditional assault rifle that will spray all over the damn map, but it's relatively easy to control. Very easy to modify too, and they look awesome.
2. "Protection". People think they can protect their homes with it in case of invasion, and they look awesome.
3. They look bloody sweet. I've handled a few of them and I gotta tell you, you feel like ####ing Rambo holding them. I also had two glocks and you do feel awesome. I almost understand to a point where mass shooters get their rush from. Holding those things makes you feel like Hulk. Did I mention they look awesome?

I go back to my point earlier in this thread that the only argument for gun nuts is that they like guns ( hunting rifle or shotgun notwithstanding). There is no rational argument for having an AR-15, and UZI or high capacity hand guns in a civilian population, especially one like the USA.

[GoinAllTheWay]

Originally Posted by DuffMan

The AR-15 is a semi-automatic assault rifle that is a civilian version of the military's M-16. According to CNN, it's capable of carrying up to 100 rounds. It shoots one bullet at a time that "may go through two people" at once. And it's legal in the United States.

It's also legal in Canada.

And very unlikely to pass through 2 people. The bullet is so small and is actually intended to tumble upon striking a target, not penetrate.

Your average hunting rifle is significantly more powerful than an AR15. I can't think of any other common commercially available centerfire cartridge that is smaller than the AR15.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

Captaincrunch summed it up pretty good.

1. It's a light weapon and it really is a point and shoot. It's not a traditional assault rifle that will spray all over the damn map, but it's relatively easy to control. Very easy to modify too, and they look awesome.
2. "Protection". People think they can protect their homes with it in case of invasion, and they look awesome.
3. They look bloody sweet. I've handled a few of them and I gotta tell you, you feel like ####ing Rambo holding them. I also had two glocks and you do feel awesome. I almost understand to a point where mass shooters get their rush from. Holding those things makes you feel like Hulk. Did I mention they look awesome?

I go back to my point earlier in this thread that the only argument for gun nuts is that they like guns ( hunting rifle or shotgun notwithstanding). There is no rational argument for having an AR-15, and UZI or high capacity hand guns in a civilian population, especially one like the USA.

I've never personally handled the AR-15, however I went through the transitional training when the forces started adopting the C series of weapons.

On the plus side, I was way more accurate with the C-7, it had better siting, it didn't beat the crap out of your shoulder when you shot it,, it was way lighter then the 12 pound fully loaded FN-C1, I could basically carry it all day, and it had the cool chest sling for quick deployment.

What I didn't like about it, maintaining and cleaning the FN was a breeze, if I remember right there were really 5 parts to it that you pulled out to clean, and all of those parts were big enough that you didn't worry about losing it in the mud, when I saw the C-7 I didn't like the cleaning cycle.

The FN was indestructible, you could literally beat the hell out of it and drag it through the mud and you were confident that you could fire it, I never felt that way when I was training with the C-7.

The FN had a nato 7.62 round and had massive stopping power if someone was hiding behind a vehicle or a barricade there was a good chance that you could shoot through it.

With the FN if you were a disciplined shooter, that thing was like a medium distance sniper rifle even with the old iron sights. and again, you could reach out and touch someone from a long ways away.

But the C-7 you could get the weapon in a firing position faster, and it was almost made for in close fighting and shooting semi auto was great.

Oh, the thing that I liked the most about the FN, the barrell matched the depression in the grenade simulators at the time. So in a exercise, where you were using a blank, you would take off your BFA, cram the grenade simulator on the end of the barrel, ignite the fuse and fire and put that little piece of explosives about 100 yards down field (probably closer to 50 if done right, but it was like having a grenade launcher.

But if you got caught doing it, big trouble.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by GoinAllTheWay

It's also legal in Canada.

And very unlikely to pass through 2 people. The bullet is so small and is actually intended to tumble upon striking a target, not penetrate.

Your average hunting rifle is significantly more powerful than an AR15. I can't think of any other common commercially available centerfire cartridge that is smaller than the AR15.

Yeah, I have my doubts of it going through multiple people, that round will tumble if it hits a bee.

[GoinAllTheWay]

Originally Posted by Igottago

Compensation.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I've never personally handled the AR-15, however I went through the transitional training when the forces started adopting the C series of weapons.

On the plus side, I was way more accurate with the C-7, it had better siting, it didn't beat the crap out of your shoulder when you shot it,, it was way lighter then the 12 pound fully loaded FN-C1, I could basically carry it all day, and it had the cool chest sling for quick deployment.

What I didn't like about it, maintaining and cleaning the FN was a breeze, if I remember right there were really 5 parts to it that you pulled out to clean, and all of those parts were big enough that you didn't worry about losing it in the mud, when I saw the C-7 I didn't like the cleaning cycle.

The FN was indestructible, you could literally beat the hell out of it and drag it through the mud and you were confident that you could fire it, I never felt that way when I was training with the C-7.

The FN had a nato 7.62 round and had massive stopping power if someone was hiding behind a vehicle or a barricade there was a good chance that you could shoot through it.

With the FN if you were a disciplined shooter, that thing was like a medium distance sniper rifle even with the old iron sights. and again, you could reach out and touch someone from a long ways away.

But the C-7 you could get the weapon in a firing position faster, and it was almost made for in close fighting and shooting semi auto was great.

Oh, the thing that I liked the most about the FN, the barrell matched the depression in the grenade simulators at the time. So in a exercise, where you were using a blank, you would take off your BFA, cram the grenade simulator on the end of the barrel, ignite the fuse and fire and put that little piece of explosives about 100 yards down field (probably closer to 50 if done right, but it was like having a grenade launcher.

But if you got caught doing it, big trouble.

I too went through on the FN then transitioned to the C7. I actually found the C7 easier to maintain in the field. I found that the FN had lots of "tracks" inside that guided the breech bolt carrier. These could get clogged up with sand, oh the sand!! I rememebr just pouring breakfree down the barrel and then when you let the first round go it would blow back on you, once only once did you leave you eye open.

My recollection of the C7 is that it didn't have those issues. In short CC I disagree, the C7 was easier to keep clean in the field.

FN really gave you the ability to reach out and touch somebody, but a full combat load of ammo (haha, like we ever had that) was heavy. C7 a full combat load wasn't.


But CC the real bad assery was a C-6 with a SF kit. Oh yeah baby!

[CaptainCrunch]

Yeah, maybe I have a romatic recollection of the FN, but outside of the weight of it and the combat load (yeah I get the ha ha) and the fact that after a day of firing you looked like you'd been punch in the shoulder by Mike Tyson a thousand times, I loved that rifle, probably because it was my first

[2Stonedbirds]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

His question was one of want, not one of need.


At this point I really struggle to get upset when Americans shoot each other, they almost have it coming.

Well for us here in Canada, since it's restricted it's a range only rifle. If they were non restricted I'd WANT one for varmint control. It would be my go to coyote rifle. And then Id WANT a AR10 for hunting. As it stands right now my m1a and a bolt 308 handle my hunting requirements.

The AR platform is the most common, most popular sporting rifle in the us. The only reason it isn't here is because it's deemed to dangerous for normal folks to discharge anywhere where it's safe to discharge NR firearms. There used to be a day when the AR was NR and was used safely and responsibly by owners, no different from any other rifle.

[2Stonedbirds]

The FN is one handsome rifle with a rich Canadian history and it's a shame they have been deemed prohibited by the powers that be. Many, many of these rifles are in the hands of Canadians and their classification means they are a paper weight.

[GoinAllTheWay]

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

The AR platform is the most common, most popular sporting rifle in the us. The only reason it isn't here is because it's deemed to dangerous for normal folks to discharge anywhere where it's safe to discharge NR firearms.

Which is amusing when you consider they have no issue with an SKS on public land.