AR-15s and other assault rifles should be illegal. Obviously.

[YouDig]

Everything about them is designed specifically to kill people. Multiple people. I've shot one. Yeah it was fun. And after, my first reaction was, no way should this thing be legal. It's designed with killing humans in mind, and designed very well exactly for that purpose. From the ammo, the huge magazine, the way it handles, everything. You can just unload, you don't even have to be good at shooting guns. It's a military weapon, and a good one, but being legal for anyone to just buy is crazy.

This is one thing that Bernie and Hillary agree about (one of many). But Trump thinks there should be more of them. If only everyone else had an assault rifle.

We live in a crazy country.

[msongs]

1. while we are sad and mourning some gun owners are enjoying all this - I have two of this crowd in

my extended family and I know what they are doing, fawning over their weapons and getting off on how many people can be killed and how amazing those kinds of guns are. I know this because I have seen them do this after other incidents

[hunter]

127. A lot of this down thread too.

Gun fetishists are disgusting.

[beevul]

2. No.

Everything about them is designed specifically to kill people.

While that may be true for their actual military issue counterpart, it can not be truthfully said about the civilian version, any more than any other regular old rifle.

It's a military weapon, and a good one, but being legal for anyone to just buy is crazy.

No. Its a civilian lookalike which does not function militarily - that line is clearly and cleanly drawn at fully automatic/burst fire, and has been for over 50 years.

Facts matter.

[YouDig]

8. Yes.

It's a military weapon. Period. All the design decisions that went into it are still there. The only thing they changed is that you can't just hold down the trigger and spray. But you know what? You can still unload it pretty damn fast. And in control. And this is me, I not some sharpshooter. You just tap the trigger over and over. And over. For example, what happened in Orlando. And in Sandy Hook. And so many more times.

I don't care where the NRA has drawn a line. We need a new line, and AR-15s are way, way, over the line. The whole rest of the world has figured this out. Why does it happen here in the US so much more than anywhere else? Everybody knows the answer.

[PoliticAverse]

28. What about the AR-15 is "way over the line" compared to any other gun...

with semi-automatic fire and a detachable magazine?

[Eko]

32. Other than

it was made for the military?

[PoliticAverse]

40. What is it about "made for the military" that makes it "over the top" compared to any other

semi-automatic rifle with a detachable magazine?

[Eko]

46. I dont know.

But somehow I think there might be a difference between guns made for civilians and guns made with the intent of selling them to the US Military. What do you think? Any difference in how they would be designed?

[ManiacJoe]

101. No difference what so ever.

The only difference is that the actual manufacturing for military is done by the low bidder.

[Eko]

103. So a springfield M1A 7.62 garand

is the exact same as a 5.56 AR15?

[Straw Man]

109. M1A or Garand?

So a springfield M1A 7.62 garand

is the exact same as a 5.56 AR15?

A Garand does not have a detachable magazine. Its fixed 8-round magazine is loaded with stripper clips, a process which requires a little more dexterity than swapping out detachable magazines. The caliber is .30-06, which is quite a bit more powerful than the AR-15's 5.56 (aka .223).

An M1A takes detachable magazines, which are available in capacities up to 30, although 20-round magazines are more common. The standard caliber is 7.62 (aka .308) -- also much more powerful than 5.56/.223. So the only significant difference between the M1A and the AR15 is that the M1A uses a more powerful cartridge and doesn't have a pistol grip.

Both were "made for the miltary." The Garand was standard issue for the US Army in WWII and Korea. The M1A is the civilian semi-auto version of the full-auto M14 that was the transitional US Army rifle between the Garand and the M16. Part of the impetus for adopting the lower-powered 5.56/.223 of the M-16 was that the 7.62 of the M14 was so hard to control in full-auto. The AR15 is essentially an M16 whose raison d'etre -- controllable full-auto fire -- has been removed. What's left is a semi-auto rifle that shoots an intermediate cartridge: less powerful than a Garand, an M1A, or any deer rifle. But they are light, ergonomic, accurate, and infinitely customizable.

[ManiacJoe]

112. Why would you think that?

An M1A (military = M-14) and an AR-15 (military = M-16 or M-4) are two different types of rifles for two different purposes.
Pick the right tool for the job.
The military likes the M-14 for the same reasons the civilians like the M1A.
The military likes the M-16 and M-4 for the same reasons the civilians like the AR-15.

[aikoaiko]

123. Almost all new firearms designs were made for the military

AR15s, detachable magazine battle rifles, pump-action shotguns, level action rifles, bolt-action rifles with internal magazines, and revolvers were all developed to increase the functional use of firearms for military purposes.

[YouDig]

34. I don't know specifically where the line is.

Why is the AR-15 over it? For me, two reasons. First, it is the weapon of choice for mass shooters. Over and over, AR-15. And I've shot one, so I have personally experienced it, and based on that, I get why the mass shooters pick it.

I don't know where the line should be, but if it's all semi-automatic guns with detachable magazines, that's fine with me. I would guess that there's somewhere else it can be drawn, since of all semi-automatic guns with detachable magazines, the AR-15 pops up over and over as what mass shooters use.

Other countries have fixed this problem. We should do what they do.

[PoliticAverse]

75. Well that's the issue then. If you want to ban all semi-automatic guns with detachable magazines...

that's a much more extensive ban than just banning a few AR-15 variants (like the "Assault Weapon Ban" did).

[YouDig]

81. That's an issue, sure. And, yeah, I'm in favor of much more extensive gun control

than what he have or have ever had. And much more extensive than anything that congress ever talks about.

I don't know all the technical details. I do know that wherever the line is drawn, the AR-15 needs to be well on the other side. And I also know that the whole rest of the world has figured it out, so it's not as hard as the NRA would have us think.

[Lord Magus]

92. Pretty sure the reason mass shooters keep using it is that it's the most popular rifle in America.

Everywhere that sells guns, almost without exception, sells AR-15s. There are plenty of other guns that are every bit as lethal but mass shooters don't use those because they're less common. Mass shooters are rarely long-term planners, they're lunatics who use a weapon that's easy to get.

[Adrahil]

93. It's no different functionally from any other semi-auto rifle with a detachable magazine.

The AR-15 is popular because it is a very modular, well-established design. It is reliable, and most importantly it is out of patent, meaning anyone can build and sell one. And everyone does, so competition has driven the price down. However, a shooter could get the same effect, more or less, from any other semi-auto rifle with a detachable magazine.

[lancer78]

105. Actually

From 2009 to December 2015, the US was listed as number 11 among countries with deaths from mass shootings per million people.

France, Switzerland, Belgium, and Finland had more mass shooting deaths per capita during this period than the US.

[Eko]

13. Its amazing how many people

act like they actually know the history of the AR15 when they dont and claim it is not a military gun.
"The AR-15 was first built in 1959 by ArmaLite as a small arms rifle for the United States armed forces."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15

[Duckhunter935]

16. And it is not the same AR-15

That has been sold to civilians since the 60s

[Eko]

19. Yes there have been changes.

None of them huge. It is basically the same rifle with some improvements now.

[Duckhunter935]

21. The big one is

It dies not fire full auto

[Eko]

24. The original AR15

that was built for for the US armed forces was not also.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15

[PoliticAverse]

22. Not being able to fire fully automatic is a big difference. n/t

[Eko]

27. Nope

The original one was not fully automatic either.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15

[PoliticAverse]

36. Yes it was. Please read that article carefully. Note the following line...

In 1963, Colt started selling the semi-automatic version of the rifle for civilians designated as the Colt SP1.

[Eko]

38. Somehow you missed this part.

"The AR-15 was first built in 1959 by ArmaLite as a small arms rifle for the United States armed forces."

[PoliticAverse]

51. Yes, that was the fully-automatic machine gun version. Armalite sold the design to Colt and...

after some modifications it became the M16. Colt then sold a semi-automatic version of it as the AR-15.

In the Wiki article:

In 1963, Colt started selling the semi-automatic version of the M16 rifle as the Colt AR-15 for civilian use and the term has been used to refer to semiautomatic-only versions of the rifle since then.

So in Summary the original AR-15 became the M16 and then Colt made a semi-automatic version that they then
called the AR-15.

[Eko]

57. No, the ar15 was not fully automatic.

"As a result, the Army was forced to reconsider a 1957 request by General Willard G. Wyman, commander of the U.S. Continental Army Command (CONARC) to develop a .223 caliber (5.56 mm) select-fire rifle weighing 6 lb (2.7 kg) when loaded with a 20-round magazine.[21] The 5.56mm round had to penetrate a standard U.S. helmet at 500 yards (460 meters) and retain a velocity in excess of the speed of sound, while matching or exceeding the wounding ability of the .30 Carbine cartridge.[40]

This request ultimately resulted in the development of a scaled-down version of the Armalite AR-10, called AR-15 rifle.[8][9][41] However, despite overwhelming evidence that the AR-15 could bring more firepower to bear than the M14, the Army opposed the adoption of the new rifle.[8][35] In January 1963, Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara concluded that the AR-15 was the superior weapon system and ordered a halt to M14 production.[8][35] At the time, the AR-15 was the only rifle available that could fulfill the requirement of a universal infantry weapon for issue to all services."

After modifications (most notably, the charging handle was re-located from under the carrying handle like AR-10 to the rear of the receiver),[9] the new redesigned rifle was subsequently adopted as the M16 Rifle and went into production in March 1964.[8][1] &quot The M16) was much lighter compared to the M14 it replaced, ultimately allowing Soldiers to carry more ammunition. The air-cooled, gas-operated, magazine-fed assault rifle was made of steel, aluminum alloy and composite plastics, truly cutting-edge for the time. Designed with full and semi-automatic capabilities, the weapon initially did not respond well to wet and dirty conditions, sometimes even jamming in combat. After a few minor modifications, the weapon gained in popularity among troops on the battlefield."[35][42][43]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M16_rifle

[Duckhunter935]

59. Where does it state it was semi-automatic?

[Duckhunter935]

62. You would be incorrect sir

The AR-10 is a 7.62×51mm NATO battle rifle developed by Eugene Stoner in the late 1950s at ArmaLite, then a division of the Fairchild Aircraft Corporation. When first introduced in 1956, the AR-10 used an innovative straight-line barrel/stock design with phenolic composite and forged alloy parts resulting in a small arm significantly easier to control in automatic fire and over 1 lb (0.45 kg) lighter than other infantry rifles of the day.[1] Over its production life, the original AR-10 was built in relatively small numbers, with fewer than 9,900 rifles assembled.

In 1957, the basic AR-10 design was rescaled and substantially modified by ArmaLite to accommodate the .223 Remington cartridge, and given the designation AR-15.[2] ArmaLite licensed the AR-10 and AR-15 designs to Colt Firearms.[3] The AR-15 eventually became the M16 rifle.[4][5][6]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-10

[Eko]

66. You know what?

I might be wrong. Ive actually researched this a bit before and I haven't found anyplace that states that the original AR15 was fully automatic. I did find this http://www.nodakspud.com/RetroAR15.pdf just now that does state so. So,,,,, I could be wrong. It happens.

[Duckhunter935]

68. We all are wrong at times

I know I am not perfect. I purchased one of the nodakspud stripped lower receivers, very nice but a six month wait. Made an M-16A1 clone like I had in the army. Turned out to be a very nice weapon.

[Eko]

74. I did say "might"

Just kidding, all that aside this is pretty much a military gun minus the full auto. It meets the spec's they called for on all except for the select fire.
Love that pee wee scene.

[Kang Colby]

76. It's ok.

But the original AR-15 was select fire as others have pointed out.

[jmg257]

67. "Select fire" = full or semi, in this case by a lever...safe semi full.

[Igel]

77. "Select fire" is the key.

It means it's both automatic and semi-automatic. With some sort of toggle.

It's the way most describe assault rifles. You choose, because it's built for both. The more impressive of the two wins when we describe them: a select-fire rifle is considered automatic. "Semi-automatic rifles" are limited and by not saying they can be automatic we implicate that they are only semi-automatic.

The original AK-15 was select-fire or, put another way, had fully automatic capabilities.

[Eko]

80. I agree.

[PoliticAverse]

86. Confusion is what happens when you reuse model numbers.

Armalite developed the AR-15 to be the new military rifle (with 'select fire').
They got into trouble and sold the design to Colt.
Colt made some changes for the final military version which was called the M16.
Colt then decided to market a civilian semi-auto version of the design which they
called the AR-15 again.

[Takket]

42. yeah if it was full auto that guy could have cut down 70 people instead of 50

Sweeted Jeebus I cannot even believe the asinine semantics people argue to defend these weapons.

Ok Ar-15 lovers, YOU WIN! It is not a military weapon! that's why this guy bought this gun, pledged his life to a military organizaion, and used it to kill 50 people and injure 50 people more. But it isn't a military weapon! this must be so fucking satisfying for you to know and point out to people. You are right, we are wrong, someone rent a backhow for the mass grave we need to bury this PILE OF PEOPLE

[PoliticAverse]

72. That's not the issue. The issue is that if you just ban AR-15s and their variants because you think

that there is something magically unique about them you won't accomplish anything significant because
there are many other types of guns that also fire semi-automatic and have detachable magazines.

You end up with effectively virtually identical weapons with a different name.

[Eko]

85. There actually is something

magically unique about the AR15, besides the propensity of killers using them of course, its the idea that most people get when they purchase one, it is the closest you can get to getting a rifle the military uses minus the select fire (cough cough, I was wrong.) That means a lot to people, why? What makes this the gun of choice for people that want to kill a lot of people?

[PoliticAverse]

91. There's some truth to that. People that want to "play soldier" want the closest thing they can get

to what the military is using which is the AR-15.

Also popularity breeds popularity. Why are some people famous? Because they're famous.
Why is Kim Kardashian famous? Because she's everywhere. Why is she everywhere? Because she's famous.

What really made the AR-15 take off in popularity was the assault weapons ban.
If you ban something everyone will want one.

If you banned AR-15's and their variants today unless you also banned all other semi-automatic rifles with
detachable magazines some other gun would take its place.

[Eko]

95. Probably.

But you gotta start somewhere right?

[Quackers]

108. Just my opinion, but

I think the appeal to a lot of shooters is the look. The AR-15 design has been described as intimidating, a beast, and sexy to some. The aesthetics has alway been appealing to those who want one and disturbing to those who want them banned.

Check this one out. If people seen someone carrying this while coming into a public place, they would be terrified. But, it's just a paintball gun.



Now this one below is the real deal. It is made be Kel Tec and shoots the same bullet used in today's horrible massacre.

[G_j]

124. Inventor of AR-15 Interviewed on HBO's Real Sports with Bryant Gumbel

http://www.mrctv.org/videos/inventor-ar-15-interviewed-hbos-real-sports-bryant-gumbel

Inventor of AR-15 Interviewed on HBO's Real Sports with Bryant Gumbel

Geoffrey | May 31, 2016 1:42pm ET


Crossposted on NewsBusters:

The following is a portion of AR-15 inventor Jim Sullivan’s interview, with HBO's David Scott, as it was aired on the May 24 edition of Real Sports with Bryant Gumbel (Miller has accused the program of deceptively editing his interview):

DAVID SCOTT: Keane says the difference is clear, that military assault rifles are fully automatic, able to fire at speeds like this with a single pull of the trigger. While the AR-15 is semi-automatic, thus only able to fire at speeds like this. But the designer of the gun says the AR-15 is every bit as deadly as its military counterpart.

SCOTT TO JIM SULLIVAN: The lethality of the AR-15.
JIM SULLIVAN: Right.
SCOTT: Is that reduced in the civilian semi-automatic mode?
SULLIVAN: No.
SCOTT: It’s not?
SULLIVAN: It’s the same.
SCOTT: The same?
SULLIVAN: In fact the gun is functioning exactly the way the military model is in semi-automatic.

SCOTT: And even the U.S. Army’s field manual advises soldiers to fire in semi-automatic mode during combat, because of its greater accuracy.

[Just reading posts]

3. What do you do about the 10 million plus of them already in civilian hands?

Ban their manufacture?

Ban their sale?

Confiscate them?

[YouDig]

12. One option is a buyback like in Australia.

This isn't an impossible problem. It's actually much easier to solve than something like global warming. Because we know it can be done and how, because the whole rest of the world has solved it.

[Duckhunter935]

17. A mandatory buyback is confiscation

Just say it please.

[YouDig]

29. I don't care what word you use. I care about stopping people from being killed.

[Duckhunter935]

33. You would do much better

Confiscating handguns

[YouDig]

37. Yeah handguns are bad too. The UK banned them, and there's barely any shootings there at all.

[ManiacJoe]

102. True. The attacks are mostly stabbings there.

[linuxman]

94. aaaaaaaaaand there it is.

This is the exact reason gun control will never again advance in this country.

Extremist positions and draconian nonsense poisoned the well long ago.

[Calista241]

23. At $1000 per rifle, you're talking about over $10B

and that's just assuming your 10m number is accurate. I suspect the number of magazine fed, semi auto rifles out there is much, much, much higher. That will never get passed, never get funded, and never get implemented.

A minimum $10B line item, to buy back rifles that kill, on average, less than 500 people per year is pure lunacy.

[YouDig]

30. OK. $10B to save 500 lives a year. Over 10 years that's 5000 lives saved at a cost of

$2M per life. Easily worth it. No brainer. And lives will keep being saved for every year after that.

[Calista241]

55. That's just the cost of the buyback itself.

To enforce / implement the buyback, your talking about orders of magnitude more money. At least 10x ($100b) and probably more than that.

What are you going to do with people that don't comply? You're going to have to send out a team of people to confiscate that rifle at gunpoint. What do you do with the people that don't voluntarily turn them in after you go and confiscate their rifle (and that's assuming they turn it over peacefully at that point)? Are you going to incarcerate them? That's even more money.

All it takes is a couple militia crazies to start shooting at the cops coming to take away their god given right to own firearms for this whole program to go to shit. And if you don't think it'll happen, you're just as out of touch as they are. Drones and tanks and stuff will look bad on TV, especially when they have families and tv cameras pointed at them.

[YouDig]

60. Now you're just making up numbers. Bottom line, the whole rest of the world

has figured out this problem. It's not a big secret. Control the guns, you control the shootings. How did the rest of the world do it if it's so impossible? The NRA can never answer that question.

[linuxman]

96. The rest of the world never had a fraction of the guns we do.

Not even close.

That's like saying "Look at all the groceries he got for $20 in Alabama" When you live in San Francisco. It doesn't work like that.

It's easy to put in place gun control when 5% of your country owns them. We currently have about 300 million, maybe far, far more.

[Angel Martin]

111. it's not only the US stock of guns

the price of an AK in europe is only 300 euros on the black market. Cheap because millions of guns came out of the Balkans after the war was over.

And, Russia is switching to a new military rifle. So that means tens of millions more AK's coming onto the market in the future.

The US southern border is a sieve for drugs and illegal immigrants. Could be for guns as well.

[Straw Man]

110. Not 500 lives.

The latest FBI figure is around 400 killed by all types of rifles. "Assault weapons" is a subset of that. And saying that these lives would be saved is making a huge assumption that some other form of weapon wouldn't be used when the "assault weapon" wasn't available.

$2M per life. Easily worth it. No brainer.

If you think our government -- or any government -- would spend $2 million on the possibility of saving one life, then you don't understand government.

[jmg257]

70. How much would they be worth with a ban? Figure kthe value would go

WAY down.

[Amishman]

114. at $1000 per rifle, you will get very few turned in

People have a lot of money in these things, and I really doubt they will turn them in at anything less than a large profit. If its not worth their while, they will hide them somewhere and hope for a day when their side can have the law changed back.

You would probably need a magazine buyback as well. Maybe buy back ammunition too?

[scscholar]

18. Those people have proven they're too paranoid...

to be allowed to own one of those things. By definition, if you want one of those things, you have proven shouldn't be allowed to.

[linuxman]

97. With sound logic like that, you'll get legislation in no time!

"Anyone who say's they're too scared to fly another bomber mission over Germany is clearly sane, and therefore fit for duty!"

I liked it better in the catch 22.

Apparently comedy has become gun controller ideology. LOL, the future of gun ownership is assured.

And they wonder why nobody takes them seriously...

[Major Nikon]

120. When one is digging oneself into a hole, the first instinct should be to stop digging

[Recursion]

4. No, it's not obvious. Actually it's a stupid idea

If we ban the AR-15 it's sold the next day as the BS-16.

This actually happened with the TEC-9 so this isn't just me making shit up.

If we want to ban semi-autos that accept detachable magazines, that might be a decent idea. Banning a brand name is beyond idiotic.

[YouDig]

11. Obviously, I'm not saying ban a specific brand name. I said in the OP

AR-15s and other assault rifles.

There's a line, and the AR-15 is way over it. Maybe the TEC-9 is too, I'm not familiar with that one. I'm sure there's other guns that are AR-15-like and should also be banned. The whole class should be banned, or heavily restricted at least.

Have you shot an AR-15? Tell me why guns like that should be legal. No "because they are cool" or "second amendment", tell my honestly why our society is better off because anyone without a felony record can just go out and buy one.

[Recursion]

14. "The whole class" is semi-automatics with detachable magazines, or about 90% of guns sold today

Have you shot an AR-15?

Yes, and I carried an M-16 for 7 years in the military.

Tell me why guns like that should be legal.

Because guns with the same firing capabilities but different stylings would still be legal so I don't see the point. I'd be down with banning all semi-automatics that accept detachable magazines (or failing that making their purchase more expensive and more of a pain in the ass). Focusing on modern-looking ones is just stupid.

tell my honestly why our society is better off because anyone without a felony record can just go out and buy one.

It's much worse, but I'm not going to charge that hill and take the political hit that inevitably follows just so the next mass shooter will have to use a rifle with a wood finish and a differently shaped grip.

Get the semi-autos or don't (and that has to include handguns, which are what worry me anyways); screwing around with a subset of them is a waste of time.

[YouDig]

26. OK, that sounds good to me.

I have not been in the army or carried an M-16. I've been shooting a small number of times, basically like fun outings, but it's totally obvious to me that an AR-15 is much more lethal than anything else I've shot. I can see why mass murderers pick them. And you say they are the same as 90% of guns sold today, but somehow the mass murderers keep picking the AR-15, so there's gotta something else there, it's not just coincidence that of all the guns being sold, it keeps being this one.

So I'll let you figure out where the line should be drawn. But the AR-15 is way over it. Can you buy one in any other reasonably stable and lawful country? I doubt it.

Because the thing is, the whole world has figured this one out. It's not some big mystery. This as a unique US problem.

[Recursion]

35. No, the majority of mass shootings are with handguns

And you say they are the same as 90% of guns sold today, but somehow the mass murderers keep picking the AR-15

Not really. Handguns are much more popular with mass shooters and whatever the other kind of shooter is called.

[think]

39. A Glock with a 30 round clip is still a hand gun is it not?

[Recursion]

41. Exactly. And in a lot of ways they're worse

(The "record holder" before this jackass was Cho, who used handguns at VA Tech.) They're more concealable, faster to aim and fire, etc.

Not to mention the fact that the proliferation of cheap handguns are what make the order-of-magnitude more common non-mass shootings possible.

[think]

48. The Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1993 included a ban on magazines capable of holding more than ten

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-capacity_magazine_ban

The AWB may not have been perfect but it did to some extent prohibit large capacity magazines including those that fit a Glock...

[Recursion]

52. Sort of. It banned their import and manufacture. Which is a good thing

That's pretty much the only part of the law I think did any good, though I'd rather see it extend to banning resale of existing ones.

Unfortunately the clearest result of the '94 ban was that sale of military-styled rifles skyrocketed (though it was the AK-lookalikes that were popular at the time rather than the M-16-lookalikes).

[think]

54. I remember. There were obvious ways to modify those weapons from what I recall....

[PoliticAverse]

79. The unintended consequence of the "Assault Weapon Ban" is it made those type of guns really popular.

If you want to make something popular, ban it.

Something people in this country should have learned from Prohibition and the war against drugs.

[Recursion]

87. We passed two important gun control laws in the 1990s: Brady and the AWB

To me, at least, the results are pretty clear: Brady was the right way and the AWB was the wrong way. Focus on the buyer and seller, not the gun itself.

[YouDig]

47. Handguns are very dangerous too. The UK banned them, and they have hardly any shootings.

But of the really high-victim-count shootings, the AR-15 is the weapon of choice. Sandy Hook was an AR-15 and this latest one, and a number of others.

Here's the bigger problem I have. This gun problem is one that has been solved by everyone except for us. It really has. And yeah I know there's a lot of violence in Sudan, I'm not talking about that, I mean in countries that are like us, like the UK or Australia, both of which tightened up on guns after a big shooting, and both of which have far fewer shootings than here.

We start getting into nomenclature or whatever, the big picture is, we're not even close, this is one area where our policies are very drastically off, and it's very obvious. Yeah, handguns, assault rifles, the whole thing. We're failing completely.

[Recursion]

49. No, it hasn't

This gun problem is one that has been solved by everyone except for us. It really has.

No, Mexico and Brazil are much worse off, as are Russia. I think we're more like Brazil or Mexico or Russia than the UK or Australia. Certainly demographically we are more like Brazil (young, large, post-colonial).

[YouDig]

58. Mexico? Come on. They are ravaged with drug wars. The government barely has control.

Russia? You're not seriously comparing us to Russia. Russia is a dictatorship where they assassinate journalists and is overrun by crime.

Mexico, Russia, Brazil, these are not first-world nations. The US, UK, and Australia are first-world nations. The fact that we resemble Mexico, Russia, and Brazil when it comes to guns is exactly the problem. We could resemble the UK and Australia, like we do in most aspects of society. Like Obama says, this is a choice. We choose to let the NRA run the gun laws, and so we end up being like Mexico/Russia/Brazil when it comes to guns.

When it comes to healthcare, does anyone say, "well, gee, it's better here than in Brazil". When it comes to human rights, do people say "we're not as bad as Russia, so no problem." With poverty do people say "Mexico has a lot more poverty, what's there to complain about".

It all strikes me as crazy. Especially on a Democratic message board. Some of it maybe I chalk up to Bernie-Hillary stuff, but Bernie and Hillary agree about AR-15s.

[Recursion]

65. Why wouldn't I compare us to Russia?

We spent most of the 2nd half of the 20th century comparing ourselves to each other.

Anyways, this (or any) fight isn't what I was trying to pick so I'll leave this alone. We're between most of Latin America and Canada in violence and a lot of other social indicators.

Now: let's work on ways to make semi-automatics at least more difficult to purchase in the US (I'm working on an OP on that right now).

[Duckhunter935]

20. I have fired them many times.

Very accurate, lightweight, easy to maintain, and the best part is it is s modular weapon. Change the upper and you have a different caliber rifle. Parts and accessories are readily available from many manufacturers. One final thing, I know you and others will attack me but it really is not an assault rifle as it does not fire fill auto or burst.

[Dem2]

53. Semantics

Auto fire is kind of stupid and burst fire may be somewhat useful.

But you're picking nits, we know these style of weapon was designed to be very easy to hold and fire with foregrips, butt-stocks, pistol grip etc. Anybody who denies this is essentially lying through their teeth to protect mass murderers. No sane person needs this style weapon to hunt, and they aren't really suited for such.

[Duckhunter935]

56. No, we should never put ergonomic

safety features on weapons

[Dem2]

69. So you're defending making mass-murder easier

Got it. Not going to deal with gun-nuts here, I have other places to go where at least the gun-nuts don't deny their wingnut type of thinking.

Bye.

[Duckhunter935]

71. I am for making firearms safer for the 99%

that do not murder. Funny there is quite a lot on here that want to sue the manufacturers to make safer weapons and you are against that, who could have figured.

[Marengo]

115. The AR-10 is an excellent hunting platform...

And I was imagine semantics are important to you in discussions of reproductive rights.

[Dem2]

116. Off-topic and strawman

Yes, if you switch to a .308 with a longer 20" barrel, you'll actually be able to use the rifle for hunting. AR-15 being able to hold larger (by almost 2x) more available and less expensive magazines and nobody cares that it has a shorter barrel is clearly the choice for mowing down humans at close range in tight quarters, however.

Not going to address the strawman.

[Marengo]

117. Interesting, semantics become a strawman when you've been proven incorrect.

[Dem2]

118. Nice try

I claim victory as I've proven my point. AR-15 and similar are designed for filling humans with lead, and not much else.

[Marengo]

119. Um, no, you didn't as the AR-10 is a member of the AR family and to use your word,

"Similar". It's an excellent hunting platfom as you acknowledged.

[Dem2]

121. OK

Go have fun making exceptions for guns that are easy to buy and use to slaughter people by the dozens, as has been proven out in many recent cases. If I wanted to hear right-wing talking points, I'd go to Free Republic.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/06/12/the-gun-used-in-the-orlando-shooting-is-becoming-mass-shooters-weapon-of-choice/



Have a nice life. Bye.

[Marengo]

122. You may wish to reconsider your argument against "semantics"...

It's a proven loser.

[aikoaiko]

125. ARs may be popular with mass-casualty shooters, in part, because ARs are popular with everyone.

The are popular among collectors, recreational shooters, competitive shooters, self-defense advocates, and even hunters (although in some states they need to use a smaller magazine and not shoot larger animals with the 5.56 round).

[Dem2]

126. Surely the versions best suited to "man-slaughter" should be looked at

There are restrictions on carrying a knife beyond a specific length where I grew up, fireworks are illegal in many states, there are hundreds of similar regulations on other devices that can be misused or deliberately used to harm others, I think it's rather obvious that those who do not offer solutions willingly may indeed be forced to do so at gunpoint. Yes, I like the way that sounds.

[Elmergantry]

5. Its not designed to kill people.

Its designed to efficiently hurl a slug of metal at high velocity.

Where that slug is aimed at is entirely elective.

[Dem2]

44. lol

[Recursion]

89. If we're going to get really macabre, the M-16 (on which the AR-15 is based) was designed to wound

It was lower caliber so that it would wound rather than kill: wounding somebody takes out him and the guy carrying him back to the aid station; killing somebody just takes out him.

A disturbing calculus, but a real one...

[scscholar]

6. It's a 22 caliber which is just too high power for civilians to own

It should have never been made legal.

[Elmergantry]

7. LOL! NT

[HooptieWagon]

10. .

[Dem2]

45. lol

[linuxman]

98. This is a joke, right?

Like performance art or something, surely.

You can't possibly be serious.

[GulfCoast66]

106. Well

There goes deer season.

Please tell me this is sarcasm.

Because my 30-06 makes that 223 look like a poser.

[HassleCat]

9. Quite the opposite

If we took the well regulated militia thing seriously, every sane, responsible citizen would be issued an AR-15 or M-16, a uniform, some ammunition, and a pan to mobilize if needed. Instead, we just allow anybody to buy any weapon they want and watch Fox News for ideas on who to shoot.

[ileus]

15. What if you buy a counter assault rifle?

[Darb]

31. The Bloody Hands Club will never abide.

This is their toys we are talking about here.

[Skittles]

61. their fear and paranoia trumps all

gun humpers are the biggest cowards on the planet

[Darb]

64. Agreed.

Whining toddlers.

[linuxman]

99. Such high levels of discourse.

Surely everyone will take you seriously now.

"Gun controllers: Losing ground in the culture war one dick joke/insult at a time"

[Dem2]

43. I agree

Watch out for the drooling gun-nuts who see them as penis-extensions.

[Takket]

50. even on DU you get nothing but apologists

Which doesn't give me much hope that the rest of the population cares or wants anything to change. Best to just forget about these events on move on. nothing will ever change. Newton showed us that.

[Skittles]

63. gun humpers have won

they won't be satisfied until everyone is armed and paranoid

[SwankyXomb]

73. Or shot dead

[Kang Colby]

82. I'm sure I would be considered a "gun humper".

I enjoy and respect firearms. I'm also an NRA member. But I do not want *everyone* to be armed, nor do I think people should walk around paranoid.

[Cursive]

107. Why are you a member of the NRA?

I'm asking honestly and not trying to judge you.

[Recursion]

113. Back when I did competitive target shooting I was

Because it comes with a ton of benefits like cheaper access to ranges, insurance at ranges, etc. And your normal dues (if the NRA is actually following the law, which I've never heard allegations to the contrary of) don't go to their lobbying.

[Angel Martin]

78. one of the reasons elected Democrats have such credibility problems

on the gun issue, is they promise not to take anyone's guns, but the message from the far left is just the opposite

[aikoaiko]

83. ARs and other semi-auto rifles with detachable magazines aren't going anywhere.

There are an incredibly popular rifle among collectors, competitive shooters, and recreational shooters.

You would probably get more mileage out of trying to limit magazines greater than some arbitrary number like 10 or 15, but there are so many of them out there.

I was rummaging through some boxes in storage and found a box of 50 of them I forgot I had. There are so many out there.

[YouDig]

88. You are a Bernie Sanders supporter right?

Since when is "they aren't going anywhere" an argument that Bernie Sanders supporters care about. I can tell you plenty of other things that "aren't going anywhere." Hedge funds, oil companies, big pharma, lobbyists, fracking, and so on.

I agree with you, as long as the GOP has a house majority, or at least 41 senators, AR-15s aren't going anywhere. That's the whole problem with the GOP. Bernie and Hillary both want to ban assault weapons, but they won't be able to because of the GOP. Just like they won't be able to get universal healthcare even though both of them want it. Or any other issue.

[aikoaiko]

90. I hope Bernie would "evolve" on the futility of AWBs if he were elected.

I would be happy to explain to him that they don't do what he thinks they do (automatic fire).

[kpola12]

84. The second amendment was not written for self defense.

When the military and the police no longer have these weapons Americans will give them up.

[Albertoo]

100. Making AR-15s illegal wouldn't change a thing

AR-15s or AK47s are illegal in Europe.

Radical Muslims had no problem finding enough to attack in Brussels and Paris.

Motivated radicals will always find weapons. So it would make more sense to tackle the radicalization. Notably taking place at some churches and many mosques in the US.

[ncjustice80]

128. You got to slow roll it.

Start with banning any weapon with a detachable clip

Give it a while, then add semi-automatics to the list.

Then ban any weapon over a certain calibre or internal clip size.

Lastly ban any round that is self contained (so all shotgun shells and centerfire bullets).

Leaving people with only blackpowder muzzle loaders 2a satisfied!