The NRA Claims the AR-15 Is Useful for Hunting and Home Defense. Not Exactly.

[Tab]

By Justin Peters, Posted Wednesday, Jan. 2, 2013, at 7:26 PM ET



...many people have reacted by suggesting that the federal government should ban the AR-15 and other so-called assault weapons. Gun advocates have responded with exasperation, saying that, despite appearances, AR-15-style rifles are no more dangerous than any other gun. In a piece today on humanevents.com titled “The AR-15: The Gun Liberals Love to Hate,” NRA president David Keene blasted those critics who “neither understand the nature of the firearms they would ban, their popularity or legitimate uses.” Keene noted there are several valid, non-murderous uses for rifles like the AR-15—among them recreational target shooting, hunting, and home defense—and argued that law-abiding firearms owners shouldn’t be penalized because of homicidal loners who use semi-automatics like the AR-15 for criminal purposes.
...
The AR-15 was designed in 1957 at the behest of the U.S. Army, which asked Armalite to come up with a “high-velocity, full and semi auto fire, 20 shot magazine, 6lbs loaded, able to penetrate both sides of a standard Army helmet at 500 meters rifle,” according to ar15.com. When it entered Army service in the 1960s, it was renamed the M16, in accordance with the Army Nomenclature System. “AR-15” came to refer to the rifle’s semi-automatic civilian equivalent... People like the rifle because it is modular and thus customizable (one article calls the AR-15 “perhaps the most flexible firearm ever developed; in seconds, a carbine can be switched over to a long-range rifle by swapping upper receivers”), because it is easy to shoot, and because carrying it around makes you look like a badass.

But the AR-15 is not ideal for the hunting and home-defense uses that the NRA’s Keene cited today. Though it can be used for hunting, the AR-15 isn’t really a hunting rifle. Its standard .223 caliber ammunition doesn’t offer much stopping power for anything other than small game. Hunters themselves find the rifle controversial, with some arguing AR-15-style rifles empower sloppy, “spray and pray” hunters to waste ammunition. (The official Bushmaster XM15 manual lists the maximum effective rate of fire at 45 rounds per minute.) As one hunter put it in the comments section of an article on americanhunter.org, “I served in the military and the M16A2/M4 was the weapon I used for 20 years. It is first and foremost designed as an assault weapon platform, no matter what the spin. A hunter does not need a semi-automatic rifle to hunt, if he does he sucks, and should go play video games. I see more men running around the bush all cammo'd up with assault vests and face paint with tricked out AR's. These are not hunters but wannabe weekend warriors.”

In terms of repelling a home invasion—which is what most people mean when they talk about home defense—an AR-15-style rifle is probably less useful than a handgun. The AR-15 is a long gun, and can be tough to maneuver in tight quarters. When you shoot it, it’ll overpenetrate—sending bullets through the walls of your house and possibly into the walls of your neighbor’s house—unless you purchase the sort of ammunition that fragments on impact. (This is true for other guns, as well, but, again, the thing with the AR-15 is that it lets you fire more rounds faster.)
...
As the NRA’s David Keene notes, a lot of people do use modern sporting rifles for target shooting and in marksmanship competitions. But the guns also appeal to another demographic that doesn’t get nearly as much press—paranoid survivalists who worry about having to fend off thieves and trespassers in the event of disaster. Online shooting message boards are rife with references to potential “SHTF scenarios,” where SHTF stands for “shit hits the fan”—governmental collapse, societal breakdown... An article on ar15.com titled “The Ideal Rifle” notes that “the threats from crime, terrorism, natural disaster, and weapons of mass destruction are real. If something were to happen today, you would need to have made a decision about the rifle you would select and be prepared for such an event... The AR-15 series of rifles comes out ahead when compared to everything else.” Depending on where you live, it’s perfectly legal to stockpile weapons to use in the event of Armageddon. But that’s a far different argument than the ones firearms advocates have been using since the Newtown shootings.
...
In his piece at Human Events, Keene ridiculed the notion that AR-15-style rifles ought to be banned just because “a half dozen [AR-15s] out of more than three million have been misused after illegally falling into the hands of crazed killers.” But the AR-15 is very good at one thing: engaging the enemy at a rapid rate of fire. When someone like Adam Lanza uses it to take out 26 people in a matter of minutes, he’s committing a crime, but he isn’t misusing the rifle. That’s exactly what it was engineered to do.

More: http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2013/01/02/gun_control_ar_15_rifle_the_nra_claims_the_ar_15_rifle_is_for_hunting_and.html

[spanone]

1. 'the NRA claims.....'

[Hayabusa]

2. So, it's really just for...

recreational shooting and collectors, then... Take that as you will regarding your own stances on the gun.

[aikoaiko]

3. The usefulness of AR designs is arguable...

...but I have several friends who hunt with ARs for the small deer and medium sized feral hogs in south Georgia.

My relatives who farm use AR10s (.308 ammo) to reduce large feral pig herds on their farm land. Hogzilla country. Hogs love peanuts.

AR 10s and AR 15s are as useful for hunting as most other semi-auto rifles in the same caliber except ARs are probably lighter and more ergonomic. The only difference in many of those guns is the magazine size that is typically issued.

Regarding home defense no firearm is perfect for all situations, but if I ever had to fire a gun at someone to stop them from gravely hurting me I hope I have an AR15 in my hands. Rifle rounds are better than pistol rounds at stopping someone. A shotgun with slugs might be the only preferable choice in my opinion.

[Remmah2]

8. The .223 round is available in a variety of bullet weights and velocities.

In fact Speer, Hornady, Winchester, Sierra and Nosler all make soft nose bullets quite suitable for deer hunting (you just have to read the reloading manuals.)

[sarisataka]

20. I like .223

for varmints. I use a Ruger bolt action instead of an AR platform and can buy a lot of ammo with the money I save. Not that I would not like an AR for nostalgia, but way too expensive.

[Remmah2]

23. I'm fond of the peep sights and recoil reduction.

I don't blaze thru ammo like some people. I try to keep them in the 10X.

Is your Ruger the gray heavy barrel version? Slick 2 stage trigger.

[sarisataka]

29. Anyone with a finger can empty a mag

but keeping all hits in the black at 500m with stock sights is very gratifying.

Is your Ruger the gray heavy barrel version? Slick 2 stage trigger.

I wish. It is an M-77 Mark II with a 4-10 variable. I found using it on prairie dogs at 300-600m kept my skills sharp. These days I like to take an hour or two to relax and go through 50 rounds.

[Robb]

35. Talk about whistling past the ducking graveyard.

Would your weapon take down a six year old kid? Or would you prefer a different one?

[sarisataka]

42. It would do so

were I a sociopath. I am not, so be a person six or sixty they need have no fear of my shooting them. I find paper makes a sufficient target or on occasion critters which are overpopulating due to their natural predators being removed from an area.

[Remmah2]

62. Nice slam dunk.

[JoeyT]

4. It's useful for hunting and home defense,

but not nearly as useful as a whole bunch of other guns for either one. It just plain isn't practical for home defense. You want stopping power for home defense even more than you do for hunting, if you get right down to it.

Still, it isn't really about the gun, it's about the number of bullets the gun can fire. Get rid of the high cap magazines and the ability to swap magazines quickly and AR-15s won't be nearly as much of a problem.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

5. That rifle in the picture is not a .223 or 5.55mm... it's just a scary looking .22lr

If you're going to rally against AR15 assault weapons, you should probably use a picture of a real assault weapon instead of a dressed up .22 rimfire. That rifle is no different than a common Ruger 10/22 in terms of caliber, capacity, or rate of fire.


To address your last point, police reports indicate the Newtown shooting event lasted approximately nine to ten minutes. That's about 3 people per minute. Pretty much any revolver, handgun, or other repeating firearm from the last century is capable of such firepower. Why point the Newtown shootings as prrof of extraordinary leathality when it is in fact very typical lethality? What confuses me is the desire to expend great deals of political capital to ban a weapon (military style rifles) that comprises literally a fraction (probably about 1%-2% based on FBI stats) of our national gun homicides. (?)

[Remmah2]

16. I spotted that on the magazine too.

Hack journalism.

[Tab]

19. Coupla points

1) I just included whatever picture came with the article, so it's whatever they picked.

2) You're saying the event was 9 to 10 minutes, which comes out to 3 people per minute. Two problems here - first many victims were shot MULTIPLE times. So, let's say it's 3 shots each - now you're up to 9 rounds per minute. And then the fact that the shooter had to transit between rooms - so to accomodate travel time, you have to up the per-minute firing pace (I don't know how long it took to transit rooms, or how much delay there was between rooms), plus the definition of "event" undoubtedly spans from first shot to the final shot (when shooter offed himself). We don't know how much time transpired between the last shot in one room and first in another, and the final victim shot to the actual suicide.

So, no matter how you slice it, the actual time where shots were fired (within the full event) is much smaller and that amount of damage (read: victims) was escalated pure and simply by the advanced firepower. I also suspect if he had a handgun and was trying to take out classrooms of first graders with multiple shots to each it would have been much, much harder and taken much longer (thus allowing for other factors to intervene).

[Remmah2]

6. So why then is it the rifle of choice for embassy defense?

Why then is it such a popular patrol rifle with police departments?

Why is it the standard field rifle for the FBI and DEA?

[nadinbrzezinski]

9. Read the last sentence

Your answer is there

But the AR-15 is very good at one thing: engaging the enemy at a rapid rate of fire. When someone like Adam Lanza uses it to take out 26 people in a matter of minutes, he’s committing a crime, but he isn’t misusing the rifle. That’s exactly what it was engineered to do.

[Remmah2]

14. The journalist is a blowhard being paid to write as he is told.

The opinion of an unskilled novice. (Full automatic blow hard gas bag.)

[nadinbrzezinski]

17. Really...

That is why they are used.

Embassies in military versions by Marines.

The FBI uses them for that reason too.

You don't like the reason, besides the point.

But hey, they are cuddly and no different than is just a nice talking point.

[Remmah2]

21. Are there minimum qualifications required to be a journalist?

Does the First Amendment require journalist to be truthful?

[nadinbrzezinski]

22. So where exactly did he lie

As to the design parameters f the AR-15 in the contract

[Remmah2]

24. The intent and direction of the article is a sly lie.

Agenda.

[nadinbrzezinski]

25. So the AR-15 was not commisioned to

Engage the enemy in an efficient manner in the 1950s?

Got it.

[rbixby]

33. So you're saying that the gun wasn't designed to do what was in the contract?

I'm not quite sure you grasp the meaning of it.

[Robb]

36. Perhaps we're tired of kids getting killed.

Is that an agenda? Then I've got one, too.

You know how annoying ex-smokers can be about cigarettes? How it's made all the worse because they're fucking annoying AND right?

I'm that guy, only with firearms.

Tick tock. We're tired of kids getting killed. No hobby or paranoid fantasy is worth that.

[ThoughtCriminal]

47. A home does not have the security issues that an Embassy faces

Unless you expect that your home is going to be stormed by a couple of hundred armed rioters.

But yes, I guess there is a demographic that fully expects this to happen.

[jody]

7. Nonetheless CRS says there's no evidence the AWB reduced murder number.

Gun-Related Statistics
Crime and mortality statistics are often used in the gun control debate. According to a recent
study, however, none of the existing sources of statistics provide either comprehensive, timely, or
accurate data with which to assess definitively whether there is a causal connection between
firearms and violence.23 For example, existing data do not show whether the number of people
shot and killed with semiautomatic assault weapons declined during the 10-year period (1994-
2004) that those firearms were banned from further proliferation in the United States. Presented
below are data on the following topics: (1) the number of guns in the United States, (2) firearms-related homicides, (3) non-lethal firearms-related victimizations, (4) gun-related mortality rates,
(5) use of firearms for personal defense, and (6) recreational use of firearms. In some cases, the
data presented are more than a decade old but remain the most recent available.

See page 7 of http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL32842.pdf

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

10. As far as hunting with AR rifles... Not much different than other rifles.

AR15s and AR10s come in every caliber that traditional and semiautomatic hunting rifles come in (with perhaps the exception of .30-06). Mine is .308 which is an EXCELLENT hunting caliber. It's also more comfortable and ergonomic to shoot from a variety of positions than would a winchester, remington or browning semiauto hunting rifle. And the smaller AR15s come in a number of good hunting calibers including 6.8mm, 6.5mm, and .300blk variants (all good medium game calibers that compare to a .30-30 in performance).

[Marinedem]

11. Research is for suckas!

List of AR-15 calibers:

Metric

5.45x39mm
5.56×45mm NATO
6mm TCU
6x47mm
6mm PPC
6mm Whisper
6mm WOA
6mm Hagar
6mm BR Remington
6×45mm
6.5mm Whisper
6.5mm Grendel
6.5mm PPC
6.5 WSSM
6.5 WOA
6.8 mm Remington SPC
7mm Whisper
7mm TCU
7.62×39mm



Imperial

.17 Remington
.17-223
.17 HMR
.17 HM2
.204 Ruger
.20 Tactical
.20 Practical
.20 VarTarg
.221 Fireball
.22 LR
.22 WMR
.222 Remington
.222 Remington Magnum
.223 Remington Ackley Improved
223 WSSM
.243 Winchester
243 WSSM
.25 Winchester Super Short Magnum
.25x45mm
.30 Remington
.300 Whisper
.30 Herrett Rimless Tactical
300 AAC Blackout (7.62×35mm)
.30 RAR
300 OSSM
.30 Carbine
.308 Winchester
.338 Whisper
.338 Lapua Magnum
.35 Gremlin
.358 WSSM
.450 Bushmaster
.458 SOCOM
.50 Beowulf
.50 BMG






[IMG][/IMG]

[IMG][/IMG]

[IMG][/IMG]

[IMG][/IMG]

[IMG][/IMG]

[IMG][/IMG]

[Arctic Dave]

18. If I had to guess that last one is a .308.

Plus all that is pretty small game considering that most of them aren't much longer then the weapon.

[Robb]

37. Do you have any posing with dead kids?

[Marinedem]

49. Typical.

I forgive you for dancing in the blood of dead babies though. It's what your types do.

Emotionally based attacks in the face of objective truth. The tactics of a dying argument.

I've seen a lot of classless shit in the last few weeks. Yours takes the cake.

[Robb]

51. Bringing up all the dead kids makes you real uncomfortable.

Little wonder.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

60. I agree, and particularly agree with your statement

I've seen a lot of classless shit in the last few weeks. Yours takes the cake.

A jury voted 3-3:

"The words in the post speak for themselves. The poster is falsely implying that the DUer with whom he disagrees favors killing children or posing with them after doing so.

JURY RESULTS A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Fri Jan 4, 2013, 12:26 AM, and voted 3-3 to LEAVE IT ALONE.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Robb is spot on
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: I read it as the poster pointing out that the type of rifle being discussed can be (and has been) used to kill people, even children - not that he's implying the DUer who posted the photos favors such killing. And the photos are disgusting, by the way.
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: I'm on the fence on this one, but decided to leave it as I don't find the reason givin for the alert to be valid. I don't see how the post is implying that the person being responded to favors killing children and posing with their bodies. Though it is not conductive to intelligent discussion, it was clearly a sarcastic comment intended to remind people that the weapon being discussed has been used to murder a large number of children.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT and said: Disgusting implication.
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT and said: this is a shitty thing to say

[Robb]

61. Well, better luck next time.

But here's the good news: if it bothers you that your hobby has a tendency to kill little kids from time to time, you're ever so slightly less the inhuman monster we all fear you to be.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

64. What you say is untrue.

I do not have a "hobby has a tendency to kill little kids from time to time."

Not that it is any of your business, but my hobby is flying a Cessna. It's true that there have been some airplane crashes from time to time, but I feel no responsibility for that. None of my flying has every hurt anyone, whether they be kids or adults.

Something that I remember that is important to the Democratic Party and American middle-class is the Congressional losses in 1994. In 1993, after an unhappy businessman went into a San Francisco law office and shot up the place, Diane Feinstein pushed for the AWB. In his autobiography, Bill Clinton attributed the 1994 Democratic Party losses in part to the passage of the AWB. This ended a 50-year control over the House of Representatives and a period where the American middle-class had a fair shake in the economy.

When Diane Feinstein pushed for the first AWB, she didn't do it "for the children." She did it for the rich and the super-rich who saw the assault on the SF law firm as a potential for additional assaults against super-rich enclaves. The first AWB did not prevent or lessen the Columbine High School shootings.

Some do not perceive her current actions as having any effect upon future elections. Apparently in their view, all she and others have to say is that "It's for the children." I agree that such actions won't have any effect -- but only if those Democrats who own firearms and the Independents who own firearms agree with that thinking. In contrast, as can be seen from even the posts on this board, there are Democrats who are not going to allow panic-thinking and false charges (such as the false implication that gun-owning Democrats are child-killer enablers) to convince them to go along with another AWB.

If you want to spend time implying that gun-owning Democrats are child-killer enablers, that's up to you. But since some statistics indicate that 40% of Democratic households own firearms, I fail to see what you are going to accomplish other than creating further animosity on this board.

[Robb]

66. I'm delighted in your new interest in board unity, to say nothing of promotion of Democrats.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

70. Actually, I've pointed out many times that vitrolic attacks on Democrats who own firearms

is detrimental to the future election of Democratic Party leaders.

The Republican Party should have fallen under its own weight, like the Whig Party, years ago.

Like most sensible people, I support Democratic Party leaders who remain true to traditional Democratic principles. I always have. This is not, as you say, a "new interest."

[Berserker]

53. Does that

turn you on? What a horrible thing to say.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

58. You're going to rely upon facts? That's just going to slow things down.

[Hoyt]

12. Simple ban semi-autos, including handguns.

The gun industry will all but shut down.

[nadinbrzezinski]

15. A L-III licensing

Will do it actually, you really don't need to ban them. The licensing is so strict....

[madinmaryland]

13. The cowards of the NRA strike again. nt

[Agnosticsherbet]

26. If you are hunting human beings and defending your home in Syria?

The NRA is peopled by idiots and scoundrels.

[Egalitarian Thug]

27. The problem you're going to have with any of these arguments is the general lack of knowledge

regarding firearms in general among the anti-gun people (and a lot of ignorance among the pro-gun crowd as well).

First, you assume the AR - 15 chambered for .223 but don't specify that. You can get them for .223 Remington/5.56x45mm, .45 ACP, 5.7x28mm, 6.5 mm Grendel, .338 Lapua, 6.8 mm Remington SPC, .50 Beowulf and .50 BMG and more. So which one are you talking about? This info from Wikipedia(took me 5 seconds to find it).

You cite, or rather the idiot that wrote this cites, ar15.com as his source, but he never bothers to learn even the most basic facts regarding this weapon and so becomes easy pickings for the pro-gun nuts.

The AR-15 isn't the problem, the .223 ammo isn't the problem, and the magazine capacity isn't the problem. The problem is a culture of violence in an environment of easy access to guns.

[liberal N proud]

28. I guess if you are a bad shot, it improves your chances.

The NRA must be where republicans learned how to make black become white and up down.

[sir pball]

76. I'm a pretty good shot and it improves my chances

I can shoot about 3/4" at 100 yards in "normal" conditions, on a calm warm day I've gone as low as ~0.4". My eeeeebil black rifle (actually the barrel is stainless steel, and far too long and heavy to shoot offhand, but I digress) shoots better than that; I've seen it do a third of an inch in skilled hands. It's probably the most accurate rifle I own, and definitely the first one I bought that could shoot that well. I hunt whitetails with it, never taken more than one shot at one, and never have more than 5 rounds in it anyway. It's functionally identical to " target="_blank">this, as a matter of fact...if not a better hunting rifle since it's more accurate.

[Bucky]

30. Imagine the kind of home invasion in which a spray and pray shooter would be useful.

Look, if 50 or 60 ninjas were coming after me and my pet goldfish, charging in like a plattoon of World War One Tommy boys sloshing over No Man's Land, and I had a secure perch behind the parapets to fire at them, I'd goddamn want to have me an AR-15, maybe modified to full auto so I could go down fighting like Alamo. Yee-fucking-haw.

But back here on planet Earth, I live in an apartment and every one of those 6mm cartridges it fires off and doesn't land in a home intruder will punch through the sheetrock into my neighbors' home. And even if I take out the 2 or 3 burglars, max, in the process I'd probably do more damage to the property than I'd lose by just letting the punks rip off my stereo.

[Xipe Totec]

31. Amen, brother. I don't go anywhere without my mutated anthrax....

...for duck hunting.

- N.R.A. MAN

http://www.imsdb.com/transcripts/Futurama-A-Head-In-The-Polls.html

[derby378]

32. This guy's already made one critical mistake...

The AR-15 was originally chambered to use 5.56x45mm ammunition, which is very close to the .223, but not quite. You can fire .223 rounds using a 5.56 receiver without any problems, but firing 5.56 rounds using a .223 receiver can cause malfunctions.

Besides, how many different rounds have M4-pattern rifles been chambered in? I've lost count. If I had to get an M4, I'd prefer a Barrett REC7 chambered in 6.8SPC for increased muzzle velocity, range, and stopping power.

[Robb]

39. What's best for shooting a six year old?

[derby378]

43. Really? A "do you still beat your wife" question? Come on.

I know we disagree on the issue, but if you're going to snark like that, have the decency to put it in the right place.

[Robb]

44. It's like baseball stats, only really fucking creepy.

How many more kids have to die for your ghoulish hobby?

[derby378]

45. Nice use of loaded words there

I study George Lakoff, too. In fact, I've used some of his concepts in framing my own arguments against a new gun ban.

[Robb]

52. I keep my words loaded. One in the pipe, too.

Safety third.

[Remmah2]

82. How many people have died as a result of the drug war?

Last edited Sat Jan 5, 2013, 01:48 PM - Edit history (1)

My firearms have harmed no one, nor has my trap shooting, nor has my target shooting.

[Robb]

84. Your firearms have harmed no one YET.

I'm quite certain Nancy Lanza said the same thing about her arsenal.

Everyone's so smug in the knowledge their guns will never, ever hurt anyone. Their guns are special.

They're not.

[beevul]

86. With 300 million plus firearms in the private hands...

With 300 million plus firearms in the private hands of 80 plus million people, and firearms deaths and injuries in the sub hundred thousand range...

Logic dictates that the great majority of them will not be harming anyone.

[Robb]

87. Translation: current gun deaths are acceptable to you.

Got it.

[StretchMaK]

89. Are you calling for a ban on booze?

More people die from drunk drivers then they do from guns every year. Should we ban cars and booze also?

[Robb]

94. Oopsie.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=299066&sub=trans

[Remmah2]

92. Intent of the Second Amendment.

http://www.tucsonnewsnow.com/story/20399062/the-very-politically-incorrect-truth-about-the-second-amendment?autoStart=true&topVideoCatNo=default&clipId=8091875#.UObVQ6rjNkg.facebook

[beevul]

97. I'd ask you to kindly keep your words out of my mouth, thanks.

The translation, quite clearly, was to put a finer point on the truth of the matter.


Feel free to explain that how you derermine whats "acceptable" to me, and what isn't.

[Remmah2]

91. A man with a hammer has harmed no one yet.

Shall we ban hammers?

[Robb]

93. What's the best hammer to kill 20 kids with?

What a fucking joke.

No one's buying it any more.

[Berserker]

55. Why do you ask?

Are you a sick fucker thinking about it?

[Remmah2]

65. Shouldn't this post be in hunting and outdoors?

[underpants]

34. I read that today and it backs up what my RW family members say about hunting witn an AR-15

[Jenoch]

38. The areticle posted by the OP

is certainly full of personal opinions.

I don't often read material from Slate. I went to their website and discovered all of the content is the personal opinion of the writers, it's all op-ed.

[slackmaster]

40. Nonsense written with noble intentions is still nonsense. The AR-15 platform...

...became popular because of its superior ergonomics and the availability of parts and accessories to make it configurable for many purposes including hunting, defense, and precision target shooting.

The author is willfully ignorant, and is appealing to the emotions and the ignorance of his audience. It's a pathetic crock of misinformation and unsupported generalities.

[Remmah2]

67. Hammers were originally designed to pound nails, now they murder more people than rifles.

FBI statistics:
http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_08.html

[slackmaster]

71. I'm sure that's a subject close to your heart, "Remmah" 2

[Remmah2]

72. Yup

I'd rather be a remmah than a lian....

[Hugabear]

74. Pure NRA bullshit.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2129264

I like how some of you are programmed to repeat whatever the NRA puts out.

[Remmah2]

80. Where in the article is the NRA ever mentioned?

Those are FBI statistics, part of the Department of Justice.

[Hugabear]

81. The NRA and gun enthusiasts are cherry-picking FBI data. Read the link that I provided.

The notion that "hammers are deadlier than rifles" is very disingenuous, and relies heavily on cherry-picked data.

[Remmah2]

83. Hammers do not require a background check.

You can also buy them via the internet and be 16 years old and buy one. You can carry them in your car, in public and across state lines. Not knowing when a hidden criminal will hit you with one they are quite the refined piece of caveman technology.

[Erose999]

77. If only someone at that school had a hammer. We need a John Henry in every classroom, armed with a

12lb. maul on a 4ft. switch handle, and a 32 oz. Estwing framing hammer, as a sidearm.

I am Gallagher, and I approve this message.

Paid for by the National Hammer Association.

[former-republican]

41. This is false

In terms of repelling a home invasion—which is what most people mean when they talk about home defense—an AR-15-style rifle is probably less useful than a handgun. The AR-15 is a long gun, and can be tough to maneuver in tight quarters. When you shoot it, it’ll over penetrate—sending bullets through the walls of your house and possibly into the walls of your neighbor’s house—unless you purchase the sort of ammunition that fragments on impact. (This is true for other guns, as well, but, again, the thing with the AR-15 is that it lets you fire more rounds faster.)




The .223 will not over penetrate at close distances like other rifle or pistol rounds.

It becomes most effective at longer ranges not up close.
Up close in a home defensive situation chances are it will fragment even using FMJ ( which you wouldn't want to use for home defense anyways)through a 2 x 4 or even a couple of pieces of sheet rock.

[ManiacJoe]

46. You just had to insert facts into this thread, didn't you...

[former-republican]

48. I figured why not

[neverforget]

54. It seemed to kill 26 people at close range pretty easily in Sandy Hook

and 12 in Aurora regardless of the technical aspects. Not to mention the 2 people killed at Clackamas Town Center.

The more rounds that you can fire from a magazine or drum is what matters.

[former-republican]

57. I didn't state it wouldn't kill at close range

I am correcting the article
of the ballistics of a .223 or 5.56 x 45 mm rifle cartridge.
If you are going to print articles and pretend to give an expert opinion , then learn a little on what you are writing about.

[neverforget]

59. Arguing technical details is fine. But the end result is that these are weapons

that kill either people or game. That's what this is about. Not about the difference between a .223 or 5.56. They both kill.

I'm not about confiscating guns but I am about stopping the sale of magazines over 10 rounds.

[rrneck]

50. It's a semiautomatic rifle like any other.

The bullets go in the bottom and out the front. Parsing the lethality of one semi auto over another is an exercise in futility.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

63. If someone can't hit a deer in one or two single shots...

....I suggest they take up golfing instead.

[jp76]

73. Tired argument

You CAN kill a deer in one or two shots, but I personally don't know a single hunter that goes to the field without plenty of reloads. Maybe you miss, or you don't get a clean shot and have to put the animal down, but you plan for the worse and take extra ammunition. That goes for any gun. The nice thing about a magazine is you keep all the ammunition in exactly the same place, and if you do have to take a follow-up shot, you don't have to reload to do it. It's like a tacklebox for bullets. Even some low-capacity bolt-action rifles have magazines.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

78. You know what? It's a sport. You win some, you lose some.

We're not living in the frontier days where you have to live off the land and the animals you shoot.

Just about anywhere in this country, you'll find at least one grocery story within a half hour where one lives.

So if you don't bag the deer within one or two shots, the deer won and you lost. Go home and get dinner out of the fridge. Play again another day.

[jp76]

79. Not just a miss

I totally agree with you if you just miss the animal, but a deer can run for miles if you hit it anywhere except a vital organ. At that point, it isn't a matter of winning or losing, it's about ending the animal's suffering as quickly as you safely can.

[Harmony Blue]

68. Anyone that believes the AR-15

is good for "home defense" has a few screws loose.

Shotgun, or even a revolver are both superior options. As for hunting, that is subjective if you feel you need it, but most hunters that I know living in Florida do not use the AR-15 or its variants.

In summary, the AR-15 is an urban/combat warfare type of a weapon with very limited uses in hunting. Anyone that tells you otherwise is being intellectually lazy and dishonest.

[workinclasszero]

69. The NRA are lying nazi bastards

I was raised in the country. Hunted all the time into my twenties.

Used double barreled and pump shotguns mostly.

I am also a military vet who trained on and used the M16 assault rifle which the AR15, Bushmaster and other readily available civilian bought weapons are based on.

Assault weapons were specifically designed by and for the military for the express purpose of killing as many people as possible in as short amount of time possible, period.

I could use a fucken nuclear bomb for hunting and home defense as well, eh? But its massive overkill! Just like having these weapons of mass killing in the hands of any knuckle dragging disciple of Rush Limpballs who has a limp prick and an axe to grind with humanity is massive overkill!

The sick bastards of this world will be drawn to these weapons to murder as many innocents as possible before they off themselves. Sandy Hook will not be the last time these weapons of mass murder will be used, count on that.

[Taverner]

75. "For that time a Mastedon chooses to demolish your home..."

[NickB79]

85. In a house, a 5.56mm generally safer than a 9mm handgun

If you're worried about bullets overpenetrating and hitting your neighbor's house, use an AR-15 and ditch the handguns. The small, high-velocity bullets will fragment and present much less risk than a stray 9mm or .45 slug.

That, or use a 12-gauge with birdshot. Very little danger of overpenetration, but no one will survive a blast from that to the chest.

[MrScorpio]

88. Yep!

[rppper]

90. Great line from the OP....

"A hunter does not need a semi-automatic rifle to hunt, if he does he sucks, and should go play video games."

When I tell my gun but friends that you don't need a 30 round clip to hunt and that a .306 brings down a 400-500lbs wild hog with greater efficiency than a .22, and they start to argue with me...the above statement (almost word for word) is what I tell them....

I'll put my 12 gauge against any other firearm in terms of usefulness for home defense or hunting....does a great job shooting skeets too....

[Remmah2]

95. A .357 can be used for deer hunting, (handgun or carbine.)

The energy from a .357 Magnum 158 gr JSP or JHP is 1074 Ft-lbs at a velocity of 1750 ft/sec
The energy from a .223 55 gr JSP is 1330 Ft-lbs at a velocity of 3300 ft/sec

The .357 Magnum is regularly used by hunters for taking deer, the .223 having greater potential energy and a farther range is also quite capable of taking deer.

Source: Sierra Reloading manual edition "V".

Slate's article is incorrect with respect to that claim.

[samsingh]

96. its a slaughter, not a hunt with this type of weapon

the nra is only lobbying to sell more guns and increase profits for the gun manufacturers (and possibly the morgue)