My Case Against Assault Weapons (cross post from the other group)

[Duckhunter935]

(My original post of this thread was on the DU General Discussion and I was surprised by the venomous reaction of pro gun enthusiasts on what is supposed to be a Democratic site. I felt like I was fighting 20 to 1 odds, but I did my best. Well guess they let anyone post there. I have made some minor updates based on the "feedback" I received there. For one thing the weapon I described was probably an M-16 with a AR-15 stamp on it. That is the military version of the AR-15 which has automatic capabilities. I will put the changes in parenthesis.)

One of my responsibilities when I was Air Force Aircraft Maintenance Officer in the Strategic Air Command (SAC) was be ready to deploy to a forward operating base in the event of a nuclear war to turn around B-52 bombers when they returned from their bombing missions over the USSR. To be ready to perform that duty, my men and I had to stay proficient on our personal weapons. Officers were assigned a 0.38 caliper pistol called the Colt Combat Masterpiece, but I manage to also get certified on the AR-15 (the semiautomatic version of the M16 assault rifle).

I originally thought that an AR-15 would make a good deer rifle, it is short, light and relative accurate over long distances. I changed my mind when I saw a demonstration of the weapon's firepower one day. The target on this occasion was a 55 gallon steel drum filled with water which was use to demonstrate the stopping power the AR-15. When the drum was hit from fifty yards, the bullet made a small hole at the entry point, but on exit it made a hole in the back of the steel drum much bigger than the size of my fist. The original ammunition of the AR-15 had a 5.56mm (0.223 caliber -slightly larger than a 22) bullet propelled by a massive amount of gun powder. It makes a small hole on entry, but the projectile is unstable so it tumbles when it enters flesh and is designed to make a massive exit wound.

Thus I determined that the AR-15 was totally useless as a hunting rifle because it would destroy much of the meat of a targeted animal. It was designed for one thing, killing people. With magazines capable of storing 60 and even 100 rounds, the AR-15 is capable of killing people as quickly the shooter can pull the trigger and making sure when a person is hit just about anywhere on his body, he will go down and he will not get back up. Can you imagine the damage this weapon did to the little children killed in the Sandy Hook massacre?

I shudder every time I am reminded that military assault weapons such as the AR-15 can be bought by just about anyone in our country and can thus easily fall in the hands of a homicidal maniacs or home grown terrorists whose objectives are to kill the maximum number of people before they are themselves shot.

Whenever there efforts to ban assault weapons, there is always talk about 2nd Amendments rights. However, there are few defenders of the 2nd Amendment who would defend the right of ordinary Americans to own fully functional M1A tanks, or bazookas, or anti-aircraft rockets. And no sane person would defend the right a civilian to possess a tactical nuclear weapon.

So nearly everyone concedes that even 2nd Amendments rights have their limits. The only thing that is at issue here is where do you draw the line between which weapons are allowed and which not allowed.

In my humble opinion that line should be drawn to ban assault weapons from our streets. They are not practical for hunting and offer no more protection than a standard hand gun, rifle or shotgun. Some would argue that assault weapons allow relatively unskilled shooters to defend their homes and/or lives more effectively because of their multiple shot capability. Well, first of all I don't want unskilled people handling any kind of firearms and if someone wants a ideal defensive weapon they need to buy a shotgun. It is difficult to miss with shotgun at relatively close range.

(Now some owners of assault weapons say they can and are used for hunting, and based on their descriptions of their activities I don't doubt that this is true. Apparently modifications to modern AR-15 do allow for this capability. However, what they won't mention is that there are many other rifles which are manufactured for specifically for hunting which are as good as or usually better than the assault weapons they are using. In addition, most of these rifles are equipped only with five round clips (larger clips are illegal for hunting in many states). Assault rifles which an be use with readily available magazines which hold as many as 100 rounds) could be banned without affecting the ability to hunt.)

(In addition, if it proves politically impossible to band assault weapons, we should at least ban high capacity magazine with magazines and clips limited to only 10 or 11 rounds - the number of rounds carried by many handguns. Proposed laws call for a period or maybe 6 months where the government would buy back all high capacity magazines from gun owners. After that period of time it would be a crime punishable by several years in jail to possess such magazines.)

So assault weapons with high capacity magazines have only one practical purpose, killing multiple people in a very short period of time. Why in the world would we want just about anyone in the general public to have access to such powerful weapons. If you want to discuss your 2nd Amendment rights, we can also make that discussion about your right own an 68 ton M1A tank equipped a 120mm tank gun, a 50 caliber machine gun and two and second 7.62 mm machine guns. You see the 2nd Amendment isn't about providing access to any and all weapons, it's about where we draw the line.

If you find the time, please check out my blog.

I guess somebody could not handle the negative responses to his "story". When presented with facts on how a bullet would tumble do to the barrel twist and not the rifle or the fact that an AR will not have the energy to make the big hole in the back of a drum full of water.


Hiding underwater can stop bullets from hitting you.

partly confirmed

All supersonic bullets (up to .50-caliber) disintegrated in less than 3 feet (90 cm) of water, but slower velocity bullets, like pistol rounds, need up to 8 feet (2.4 metres) of water to slow to non-lethal speeds. Shotgun slugs require even more depth (the exact depth couldn’t be determined because their one test broke the rig). However, as most water-bound shots are fired from an angle, less actual depth is needed to create the necessary separation.

http://mythbustersresults.com/episode34

He had to run and hide to the safe haven as he could not take criticism and questioning of his "story"

[Shamash]

1. Well, if he is surprised about "venomous reactions" at a Democratic site

Then he better not offer any opinions on Hiliary or Bernie...

[Nuclear Unicorn]

2. If the poster truly believed what he wrote he'd be working to disarm the police, not the populace.

If his description is accurate (it's not as the AR is, from what I've read the most popular hunting rifle) then we have to wonder why the police feel the need to kill as many citizens as quickly as possible. Since the police obviously possess this capacity with no underlying threat what are their intentions?

It would be foolish to disarm the citizenry if the police were intent is being, "capable of killing people as quickly the shooter can pull the trigger and making sure when a person is hit just about anywhere on his body, he will go down and he will not get back up."

[gejohnston]

3. wow

One of my responsibilities when I was Air Force Aircraft Maintenance Officer in the Strategic Air Command (SAC) was be ready to deploy to a forward operating base in the event of a nuclear war to turn around B-52 bombers when they returned from their bombing missions over the USSR.

Actually, his job was to supervise the maintainers and hope he didn't piss off the chief.

To be ready to perform that duty, my men and I had to stay proficient on our personal weapons. Officers were assigned a 0.38 caliper pistol called the Colt Combat Masterpiece, but I manage to also get certified on the AR-15 (the semiautomatic version of the M16 assault rifle).

Actually, it was a Smith & Wesson Combat Masterpiece. The Air Force called it, IIRC, M-38, the same thing the security police carried. As a maintenance officer, why would he qualify on a rifle, including a rifle they didn't have?

I originally thought that an AR-15 would make a good deer rifle, it is short, light and relative accurate over long distances. I changed my mind when I saw a demonstration of the weapon's firepower one day. The target on this occasion was a 55 gallon steel drum filled with water which was use to demonstrate the stopping power the AR-15.

It is used in the South, at least in Florida anyway. At least the .223 round.

When the drum was hit from fifty yards, the bullet made a small hole at the entry point, but on exit it made a hole in the back of the steel drum much bigger than the size of my fist.

No it didn't.

The original ammunition of the AR-15 had a 5.56mm (0.223 caliber -slightly larger than a 22) bullet propelled by a massive amount of gun powder. It makes a small hole on entry, but the projectile is unstable so it tumbles when it enters flesh and is designed to make a massive exit wound.

design flaw rifling twist. Had it been fired from a different rifle with that round, the key holing wouldn't have happened.

Thus I determined that the AR-15 was totally useless as a hunting rifle because it would destroy much of the meat of a targeted animal.

Which is why the .223 version is illegal for hunting pronghorn, mule deer, and elk in Wyoming. Oh wait, it is because it lacks the power. That is why you use the .308 version.

It was designed for one thing, killing people. With magazines capable of storing 60 and even 100 rounds, the AR-15 is capable of killing people as quickly the shooter can pull the trigger and making sure when a person is hit just about anywhere on his body, he will go down and he will not get back up. Can you imagine the damage this weapon did to the little children killed in the Sandy Hook massacre?

or it jams.

[Duckhunter935]

4. So many tells

I wonder if he will drop by to explain those inconsistent statements. I doubt it as he had to retreat to the safe haven. Though I expect to get at erred on as my special follower seems to be back.

[collinsrent]

33. i thought the same way

but then again im an idiot. im more than likely wrong, i await the op to correct me. i am and idiot after all.

[benEzra]

5. Is this for real, or a Poe? Here's some fact-checking...

Last edited Mon Jun 29, 2015, 12:38 AM - Edit history (2)

"The original ammunition of the AR-15 had a 5.56mm (0.223 caliber -slightly larger than a 22) bullet"

Ummm, it's the same diameter as other .22's. The diameter of a ".223 Remington" bullet is 0.224 inch, the same as a typical .22 rimfire. It's called ".223 Remington" to distinguish it from the civilian small-game-hunting cartridge it was developed from (.222 Remington), which was in turn so named to distinguish it from other .22-caliber centerfires like .22 Hornet and because ".222" sounded cool.

"propelled by a massive amount of gun powder"

If you think .223 Remington is super powerful, you have never seen a deer rifle. In terms of powder, I'm seeing about 27 grains of powder behind hot .223 loads, 58 grains of powder behind hot .30-06 loads (deer), and up to 80 grains of powder for .300 Winchester Magnum (deer at longer range, elk, moose).

.223 Remington is the *least* powerful of all common centerfire rifle cartridges. There are a few that are less powerful (e.g. .22 Hornet), but they aren't common anymore.

"the AR-15 was totally useless as a hunting rifle because it would destroy much of the meat of a targeted animal"

This is what initially made me think this was a Poe. Due to its small powder capacity and tiny bullet, .223 isn't typically considered powerful enough to humanely hunt deer. An expert hunter can hunt deer with a centerfire .22, but a humane kill will require excellent shot placement and fairly close range. It certainly won't destroy as much meat as even a low-end deer caliber like .243 Winchester, never mind something like .270 Winchester or .30-06.

Here are ballistic charts for .223 Remington, a .270 deer rifle, a .30-06 deer rifle, and a .300 Winchester Magnum elk rifle. Look at the energy table and get back to me.

http://guide.sportsmansguide.com/ballistic-chart/remington_charts/223rembal.htm
http://guide.sportsmansguide.com/ballistic-chart/remington_charts/270winbal.htm
http://guide.sportsmansguide.com/ballistic-chart/remington_charts/3006sbal.htm
http://guide.sportsmansguide.com/ballistic-chart/remington_charts/300wmbal.htm

And you were in the military, yet never saw a 7.62x51mm cartridge?

"It makes a small hole on entry, but the projectile is unstable so it tumbles when it enters flesh and is designed to make a massive exit wound."

Ummm, *all* pointed nonexpanding bullets tumble in flesh, unless they break apart first. They are spin-stabilized in air, but the spin is insufficient to stabilize them in a denser medium. And it's a .22. Do you have any idea how the exit wound produced by a .30-06 deer rifle with an expanding bullet would compare to the exit wound from a little .223?

"With magazines capable of storing 60 and even 100 rounds"

Dude, standard capacity for STANAG magazines are 20 and 30. Hand-waving about 100-round jam-o-matic boat-anchor range toy magazines when you're trying to outlaw half a billion lawfully owned 11-to-30-rounders is simply trolling.

"and making sure when a person is hit just about anywhere on his body, he will go down and he will not get back up"

Oh, for Pete's sake, it's a fricking centerfire .22. Yes, getting shot with one would be awful, but less awful than other rifle rounds. Scroll back up to the ballistics charts.

"I shudder every time I am reminded that military assault weapons such as the AR-15 can be bought by just about anyone in our country and can thus easily fall in the hands of a homicidal maniacs or home grown terrorists whose objectives are to kill the maximum number of people before they are themselves shot."

And yet they are consistently the least misused of all civilian weapons. Perhaps you should spend less time shuddering and more time Googling. I'll suggest the FBI Uniform Crime Reports, Table 20, Murder by State and Type of Weapon as a very enlightening place to start. Here's a summary:

Murder, by State and Type of Weapon, 2013 (FBI)
[font face="courier new"] Total murders...................... 12,253
Handguns............................ 5,782 (47.2%)
Firearms (type unknown)............. 2,079 (17.0%)
Clubs, rope, fire, etc.............. 1,622 (13.2%)
Knives and other cutting weapons.... 1,490 (12.2%)
Hands, fists, feet.................... 687 (5.6%)
Shotguns.............................. 308 (2.5%)
Rifles................................ 285 (2.3%) [/font]

The trend in rifle homicide, 2005-2013 (from FBI Uniform Crime Reports 2005-2013, Table 20, collated):

[font face="courier new"] 2005: 442
2006: 436
2007: 450
2008: 375
2009: 348
2010: 358
2011: 323
2012: 302
2013: 285 [/font]

And FWIW, military assault rifles are select-fire; it's the ability to fire in cyclic mode that distinguishes them from ordinary civilian guns. The AR-15 is an ordinary civilian rifle, and AFAIK no non-automatic AR-15 is issued by any military on this planet in the infantry role.

"Whenever there efforts to ban assault weapons, there is always talk about 2nd Amendments rights. However, there are few defenders of the 2nd Amendment who would defend the right of ordinary Americans to own fully functional M1A tanks, or bazookas, or anti-aircraft rockets. And no sane person would defend the right a civilian to possess a tactical nuclear weapon."

If you can't tell the difference between a tank cannon (or a tac-nuke!) and a non-automatic .22 caliber civilian rifle, I suggest you go study the issue a little more before pontificating about what civilians can and can't own.

"So nearly everyone concedes that even 2nd Amendments rights have their limits. The only thing that is at issue here is where do you draw the line between which weapons are allowed and which not allowed."

Exactly. That line is drawn at .51 caliber, automatic fire, and explosives. .22 caliber non-automatics, like AR-15's, are right in the middle of the civilian spectrum. I'd suggest Googling "National Firearms Act" and "Gun Control Act of 1968" to help you understand where that line is drawn.

"They are not practical for hunting and offer no more protection than a standard hand gun, rifle or shotgun."

As to hunting, they are practical for small game hunting, like groundhogs and coyotes. If you change the caliber to something bigger (like 6.8mm) or step up to an AR-10 in .243 or 7mm-08, they are great for deer.

For defense of home, long gun is better than a handgun, as long as you are talking about sheltering in place in a safe room rather than moving through the house to retrieve kids or something (long guns aren't very portable). The two dominant civilian long guns serving in that role in U.S. homes are the .729-caliber repeating shotgun and the AR-15, both in the millions.

"if someone wants a ideal defensive weapon they need to buy a shotgun. It is difficult to miss with shotgun at relatively close range."

I take it that you've never shot an IPSC/USPSA course with a shotgun then. At in-home distances, shotguns have very little spread and have to be aimed just like AR-15's and any other long gun, and you can miss just as easily. The downside of shotguns is brutal recoil (a 12-gauge is fricking .73 caliber, an AR is .22), and effective shotgun loads will penetrate more walls than a good civilian .223 hollowpoint. An AR is also more easily fitted with a light (a vital safety feature for a HD gun), and is more amenable to optics.

"Now some owners of assault weapons say they can and are used for hunting, and based on their descriptions of their activities I don't doubt that this is true. Apparently modifications to modern AR-15 do allow for this capability.

Huh? Modern-looking rifles in larger calibers are widely used for deer hunting, e.g. the Remington R-25 in .243, 7mm-08, and .308. The AR is widely used for small-game hunting, like prairie dogs and groundhogs, and to a lesser extent small hogs.

What you don't seem to understand, however (are you outside the United States?) is that most American gun owners don't hunt. The AR-15 is by far the dominant target rifle in the United States, and also has quite a following in Europe in that role; yes, AR's are popular in continental Europe. Only about 1 in 5 U.S. gun owners hunts, and most also own nonhunting guns for defensive purposes or target shooting.

The AR is the top selling sporting rifle in the United States. Your error is in conflating the broader shooting sports with hunting.

"However, what they won't mention is that there are many other rifles which are manufactured for specifically for hunting which are as good as or usually better than the assault weapons they are using. In addition, most of these rifles are equipped only with five round clips (larger clips are illegal for hunting in many states). Assault rifles which an be use with readily available magazines which hold as many as 100 rounds) could be banned without affecting the ability to hunt.)"

See above; the AR-15 is primarily a target rifle and all-around carbine, suitable for hunting but not powerful enough for deer, and most of us don't hunt anyway.

&quot In addition, if it proves politically impossible to band assault weapons, we should at least ban high capacity magazine with magazines and clips limited to only 10 or 11 rounds - the number of rounds carried by many handguns. Proposed laws call for a period or maybe 6 months where the government would buy back all high capacity magazines from gun owners. After that period of time it would be a crime punishable by several years in jail to possess such magazines.)"

Typical full-sized handguns have "clips" (sic) that hold 13 to 18 rounds, and you want to outlaw those too.

BTW, you're talking about telling 50+ million citizens of voting age that they need to hand over half a billion magazines or you're going to throw them in prison with murderers and rapists. Given that merely raising prices on pistol magazines in 1994 cost the House and Senate and unseated the sitting Speaker of the House for the first time since the Civil War, how do you think threatening 40 or 50 million households with imprisonment is going to fly? Even if you successfully trolled Congress into passing such a law, law enforcement would not implement it (see Colorado, Connecticut, New York).

Your proposal is absolutely disconnected from reality.

"So assault weapons with high capacity magazines have only one practical purpose, killing multiple people in a very short period of time."

That statement can only be made out of either ignorance, mendacity, or sheer cognitive dissonance. You're talking about the most popular civilian rifles in the United States, yet rifles as a class are the least misused of all weapons.

I own an AR-15 myself, and it serves as a small-caliber target rifle (both for USPSA style competition and recreational shooting) and in the defensive standby role; I own no shotguns and have no interest in them. It is very, very well suited for both purposes, due to the small caliber, light recoil, and (in the HD role) good reserve capacity.

"Why in the world would we want just about anyone in the general public to have access to such powerful weapons."

"Such powerful weapons"? Quick, name five popular centerfire rifle calibers less powerful than a .223 Remington AR-15. I'll bet you can't. I can only think of one, 5.45x39mm. All others I can think of are either rare and obsolete (.218 Bee, .22 Hornet, .17 Remington, .222 Remington) or more powerful than an AR-15.

"If you want to discuss your 2nd Amendment rights, we can also make that discussion about your right own an 68 ton M1A tank equipped a 120mm tank gun, a 50 caliber machine gun and two and second 7.62 mm machine guns. You see the 2nd Amendment isn't about providing access to any and all weapons, it's about where we draw the line."

The line is drawn at .51 caliber (with exceptions for over-.50 shotguns and some sporting rifles), not .22 caliber. The AR-15 is a non-automatic civilian .22, not a fricking M1 tank.

And BTW, the "M1A" isn't a tank; it's a .308/7.62x51mm caliber civilian rifle. You're thinking of the M1, M1A1, or M1A2. You said you were in the military? What nation, and if the USA, what was your MOS and station?

"If you find the time, please check out my blog."

Sure, just as soon as you correct the factual errors in this piece. I can cite sources for every single point above, and will be glad to provide them.

And BTW, I'll keep my AR and magazines, thanks.

(I'm very interested to see whether the thread in the other group corrects any of these bloopers, since making a laughingstock of the gun control lobby doesn't exactly further their cause.)

[Duckhunter935]

6. Thanks Ben

Great post with lots of effort put into it.

I doubt any factual errors will be corrected over there. I expect a bunch of back slapping and the occasional insult or sexual reference if it gets any traffic at all in bansalot. That group has very little traffic except about two regular posters. I know the host will not correct any factual errors.

[edgineered]

14. A bunch of back slapping in bansalot, you say? Let's take a look - - -

A quick analysis of the posts not pinned:

At least 48% had a reply.
Only 58% had 1 reply or less.

[friendly_iconoclast]

7. That has to be one of best fiskings I have ever seen. All I can say is:

I doubt that poster will be heard any further about guns outside the Gun Control Busy Box
other group...

[oneshooter]

8. Gee, I guess all of those 35ton tracked vehicles with turrets that I work on.

Are illegal, I will be sure to tell the owners that they need to turn in all of their tanks and armored vehicles.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

9. The only correction so far was to the error of...

...allowing your to post there: http://www.democraticunderground.com/12629182#post4
Pun intended -> that was a cheap shot on his part but is what I expected.

[Duckhunter935]

12. more of the abuse

that he has done as a host. No SOP violation of that group but he is above SOP violations and just blocks those he does not want to be able to post anything even if it is within the scope of the SOP

Jurors, be aware this host has blocked a DU member for a self deleted post that was a mistake and removed within minutes.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12629021
That was a hell of an SOP violation!

Look at the post that he blocked the last DU member that posted this OP.

I won't interrupt this thread with discussion here...
as I respect the rules of this group, but if you'd like to defend your post on its merits, there's a thread in the RKBA discussion forum. I own and shoot a Rock River AR competitively and recreationally, and responded at length here, if you're interested.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12629182#post3

So what was his SOP violation that merited a block from the wonderful host over there? It gets its name castle bansalot for a reason, and here it is....
Number Blocked members
1 hack89
2 Eleanors38
3 Crepuscular
4 Bay Boy
5 ManiacJoe
6 bossy22
7 Straw Man
8 oneshooter
9 Duckhunter935
10 friendly_iconoclast
11 rrneck
12 customerserviceguy
13 ProgressiveProfessor
14 sarisataka
15 appal_jack
16 Travis_0004
17 geckosfeet
18 Hangingon
19 NYC_SKP
20 Jenoch
21 spin
22 shedevil69taz
23 SoutherDem
24 Lurks Often
25 ileus
26 Recursion
27 SQUEE
28 S_B_Jackson
29 HALO141
30 Valakut
31 arst1
32 Nuclear Unicorn
33 TupperHappy
34 pipoman
35 yeoman6987
36 Laelth
37 VScott
38 GGJohn
39 Shamash
40 clffrdjk
41 WDIM
42 pocoloco
43 NaturalHigh
44 discntnt_irny_srcsm
45 dumbcat
46 GayPleb
47 beevul
48 benEzra

And Mr. Monk, before you alert on me for using the term "castle bansalot" and say it is derogatory and an insult to your group.

As pointed out here http://www.democraticunderground.com/12597208 and it was suggested that flamin lib and I be considered as new hosts. I'm willing to take on the responsibility for awhile, and Skinner said that'd be ok with him http://www.democraticunderground.com/12597250 if that's ok with a consensus of regular GCRA Group members.

So, what say you all? If you've been here awhile you know where I stand on gun control, and I'll try to be fair, while at the same time maintaining the reputation as "castle bansalot" for keeping the gun nuts out. They have their own forums to wax poetic about their tools of death, they have no business polluting this one as well.

Any objections? Suggestions? Do you approve of my nomination for Group Host?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12627553

[benEzra]

15. Interesting that they not only have to be protected from seeing a dissenting position...

they have to be protected from simply knowing that the dissenting position exists, lest they be led astray by such pesky things as verifiable facts.

It's probably for the best. Fraudulent claims like that beginning in the late '80s, and trolling Congress and the President into passing the original "assault weapon" bait-and-switch in 1994, are what destroyed the gun control lobby in the '90s and '00s. Maybe the Special Military Firearms Expert should just keep up the good work.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

20. In addition to my sig line, I like this

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Winston Churchill

[benEzra]

21. Yep. I thought this post over there was ironic in that vein...

Last edited Mon Jun 29, 2015, 02:03 PM - Edit history (1)

"Another well worn tactic is to run down the rabbit hole of minutea about guns getting into the tiny details of ballistics, terminology and definitions until the whole issue being discussed is lost. "

Ironic when the whole issue being discussed in that thread is a technical examination of why AR-15's are supposedly too powerful for civilian use.

The OP makes technical claims about .223 being more powerful than "conventional" rifles, which based on readily available and incontrovertible sources, is exactly backwards. Yet for them to open their minds enough to even question that claim, and take 30 seconds to test it against objective facts they can easily access themselves (is a .223 really more powerful than a deer rifle?), is like asking a hardcore creationist to read a paragraph on radiometric dating or consider the implications of a feathered coelurosaur.

They can't even go so far as to say "I don't like people owning AR-15's, but claiming they are super powerful is a stupid argument to use", because to question that claim would be to allow other pesky questions in. Like "are they really that rarely misused?", or "how are they really that different from a Mini-14?", or the ultimate badthink, "does going after .223 rifles actually make sense from a violence prevention standpoint?"

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

36. re: "The OP makes technical claims..."

I find that discussing technical issues with folks that have little or no technical/scientific training to be fraught with statements that either don't make sense or lead to conclusions that trace to faulty assumptions.

Not long after I started posting here we discussed the science of Physics. Although I don't recall the relation to firearms, I do remember it taking place. In general, many people don't technically understand terms like power and energy.

It's very important to continue correcting misinformation since the control side will always take advantage of any lack of understanding to propagate their goals.

Keep up the good work.

[friendly_iconoclast]

23. There's an M.C. Escher lithograph that I think illustrates the mindset:

Purposeless, monotonous activity by participants with limited views...

[ileus]

11. You made 'em haz a sadon....

[pablo_marmol]

13. Outstanding! Bookmarking this takedown. NT

[benEzra]

16. I'm hoping that the original poster will have enough curiosity

to actually check those facts. If he's for real, he can easily verify the energy figures, load data, and FBI homicide stats for himself, if he is open minded enough to look.

[pablo_marmol]

17. +1 NT

[Starboard Tack]

18. I think you got it with the Poe comment

This place attracts them from all quarters. His story is so full of holes, pun intended.

[ileus]

10. They can keep their assault rifles.....I'll keep my counter assault rifles.

[Starboard Tack]

19. Speak of the devil

[ileus]

24. did I miss something???

[Starboard Tack]

25. I doubt it

Keep up the good work!

[scscholar]

26. As you said, it's much too powerful!

And, it's amusing how the military is so dishonest that when they first got these rifles, they complained about lack of power. Just because they're much less powerful than other military weapons doesn't mean that they're still not too powerful. That is the hateful Republican logic. They are too powerful even though they're much less powerful.

[benEzra]

30. Is this a joke?

Name 3 common centerfire rifle calibers less powerful than .223 Remington. I can only think of one, 5.45x39mm; aside from that one, .223 Remington is the least powerful of all actual rifle calibers.

Do you honestly want to ban all rifles, or is this a joke?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

32. I took this as a case of sarcasm and hyperbole that went wrong

If not then I'm

[scscholar]

34. What logical person...

wouldn't want a rifle ban? They kill so many people. So many.

[Shamash]

35. It's hard to tell if you are being sarcastic or merely uninformed

In the United States, rifles are the least likely firearm to be used in a murder (FBI Uniform Crime Report). By a factor of about 20. So, if your statement was serious and is one of the things that shapes your views on the subject, please consider that your view is based on a flawed assumption.

[scscholar]

27. As you said, they're much too powerful

And, it's amusing how the military is so dishonest that when they first got these rifles, they complained about lack of power. Just because they're much less powerful than other military weapons doesn't mean that they're still not too powerful. That is the hateful Republican logic. They are too powerful even though they're much less powerful.

[friendly_iconoclast]

28. Huh?

[sarisataka]

29. I think the next line will be

San Dimas high football rules!!!

[Nuclear Unicorn]

31. Apparently gun control is the fringe minority --

You were fighting 20:1 odds.

It's a well recognized tactic with gunners. Any message that doesn't glorify guns starts a feeding frenzy.

Another well worn tactic is to run down the rabbit hole of minutea about guns getting into the tiny details of ballistics, terminology and definitions until the whole issue being discussed is lost.

There's always the insult. You're too ignorant about guns to have a place in the discussion, you lie, you cite biased sources and hate guns.

Then of course there are the oft repeated "second amendment! freedumb! and liburty!"

Oh, man, where to even start with this?

You were fighting 20:1 odds.

20:1 odds, even in GD? So much for the much-vaunted claim that a majority of Americans want more gun control.

It's a well recognized tactic with gunners. Any message that doesn't glorify guns starts a feeding frenzy.

So, if someone popped into DU and claimed "Gays have no right to marriage equality" the ensuing "feeding frenzy" would be proof of a lack of legitimacy of any counter argument? How does that happen?

That's not a rebuttal, that's nothing but a complaint that the peasants have the temerity to demand their rights.

Another well worn tactic is to run down the rabbit hole of minutea about guns getting into the tiny details of ballistics, terminology and definitions until the whole issue being discussed is lost.

The entire OP was about the tiny details of ballistics, terminology and definitions. Granted, the OP was also disputed but the fact that one group knows more about a subject is generally considered a boon in circles where facts are used for decision making.

I'm not sure how ignorance of a topic became a virtue when discussing potential policies about that subject.

There's always the insult. You're too ignorant about guns to have a place in the discussion, you lie, you cite biased sources and hate guns.

I, for one, would like to applaud the respondent for actually being able to refrain from applying the usual catalog of boilerplate epithets they keep on hand.

Every journey begins with its first step.

Then of course there are the oft repeated "second amendment! freedumb! and liburty!"

If the 2A, sitting there amid the Constitution but can be abrogated simply because the poster does not like it then how does the poster imagine they get to scribble some words on a piece paper entitled "gun control" and expect us to abide by them?

"Obedience for thee but not for me" seems to be the refrain. I reject that. So now what?

And I'm not sure why I should trust someone when they apparently consider freedom and liberty to be contemptuous burdens. What other contemptuous burdens associated with freedom and liberty should we also deride? Voting rights? Marriage equality? Racial equality?