Banning AR-15's Doesn't Make Sense To Me

[Survivalist]

Let’s see if we can have a civil, logical discussion on banning high-powered weapons such as AR-15’s.

I do NOT support banning these weapons and here’s why. We’re always going to have these high-powered guns in existence, so we have 1 of 2 scenarios to pick from:

1.) We agree to have guns decentralized between (a) the gov't, (b) criminals and (c) law abiding citizens OR

2.) We agree to centralize gun ownership into the hands of only (a) the gov’t and (b) criminals

Not sure if people remember, but 10 years ago certain powerful individuals within the US Gov’t pushed to go to war with a country that never attacked or posed a threat to the United States. This resulted in the slaughter of close to a million human individuals (figures vary, but it's definitely over 500,000). The motivation for this war was likely tied to money and strategic gain. The point is, our Gov’t has proven itself very capable of doing some very bad things against our best interests.

With that given, why take “law abiding citizens” out of the equation above (wouldn't they be the least threatening group)?

I see many folks on the left rightfully criticizing the Gov't for killing middle easterners at will and for going rogue and bailing out the big banks, ect, but at the same time see no issues with handing over their more powerful weapons to that EXACT same entity.

Thoughts?
.





.

An AR-15 isn't any different than any other deer rifle i.e. 30.06, 270. 308...etc...except for the cosmetics. In other words, it looks scary.

What? So, by no different you must mean that the shooters in Sandy Hook and Aurora could have pulled off the same thing with a deer rifle?

I'm in full support of our 2nd Amendment rights, but that statement makes no sense.

The VA Tech shooter was able to use two handguns that weren't much different than the handguns our Army used 100 years ago, and killed more people. With enough magazines, even if they hold only 7 rounds, a well practiced shooter can do about the same damage in any similar mass shooting senario.



But again, more people are murdered in Chicago with simple guns and knives just in one year than all the famous mass shootings over the last 30 years.

Any bright ideas on stopping the 508 murders they had in Chicago they had just last year?

 

[Missourian]

Let’s see if we can have a civil, logical discussion on banning high-powered weapons such as AR-15’s.

I do NOT support banning these weapons and here’s why. We’re always going to have these high-powered guns in existence, so we have 1 of 2 scenarios to pick from:

1.) We agree to have guns decentralized between (a) the gov't, (b) criminals and (c) law abiding citizens OR

2.) We agree to centralize gun ownership into the hands of only (a) the gov’t and (b) criminals

Not sure if people remember, but 10 years ago certain powerful individuals within the US Gov’t pushed to go to war with a country that never attacked or posed a threat to the United States. This resulted in the slaughter of close to a million human individuals (figures vary, but it's definitely over 500,000). The motivation for this war was likely tied to money and strategic gain. The point is, our Gov’t has proven itself very capable of doing some very bad things against our best interests.

With that given, why take “law abiding citizens” out of the equation above (wouldn't they be the least threatening group)?

I see many folks on the left rightfully criticizing the Gov't for killing middle easterners at will and for going rogue and bailing out the big banks, ect, but at the same time see no issues with handing over their more powerful weapons to that EXACT same entity.

Thoughts?
.





.

An AR-15 isn't any different than any other deer rifle i.e. 30.06, 270. 308...etc...except for the cosmetics. In other words, it looks scary.

What? So, by no different you must mean that the shooters in Sandy Hook and Aurora could have pulled off the same thing with a deer rifle?

I'm in full support of our 2nd Amendment rights, but that statement makes no sense.

Yes.

Here is a 30 round magazine for a 30-06.

Magazine, .30-06, 30 Round Gun Parts | 700450 | Numrich Gun Parts

 

[R.C. Christian]

How many times do you have to be told that an AR15 that shoots a .223 round is functionally no different than any other semiautomatic rifle that shoots a .223 round.

So tell me what's the difference between this .223 Ar 15

and this .223 semiauto?

I'll give you a hint:

THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE.

From the standpoint of functionality there is little. I own both of those rifles. The gas systems are different and the mini is made from steel while the AR is made of aluminum. Both have the same ability but if push came to shove I'd grab the AR due to the plethora of stuff available for them. The magazines are also unreliable unless you buy straight from Ruger. I know this has nothing to do with the point you're trying to make but I just offer it as an anecdote.

I also on an M1A1 or an M-14 as you call them. That weapon is a killer, and very, very good at it.

I have a mini 14 and a mini 30 I must say I am very pleased with both.

I can't find a reliable magazine to save my life. The quality of the weapon is superb, but I prefer the AR. My AR's are my go to weapons.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

I've shot an AR-15, an M-16, and M-14, and several deer rifles. I'm not an expert, but there were notable differences in the performance of these weapons. While I am sure some handy conversions can turn a deer rifle into a semi-automatic weapon with increased killing capabilities, I can't go along that the differences are merely cosmetic.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Let’s see if we can have a civil, logical discussion on banning high-powered weapons such as AR-15’s.

I do NOT support banning these weapons and here’s why. We’re always going to have these high-powered guns in existence, so we have 1 of 2 scenarios to pick from:

1.) We agree to have guns decentralized between (a) the gov't, (b) criminals and (c) law abiding citizens OR

2.) We agree to centralize gun ownership into the hands of only (a) the gov’t and (b) criminals

Not sure if people remember, but 10 years ago certain powerful individuals within the US Gov’t pushed to go to war with a country that never attacked or posed a threat to the United States. This resulted in the slaughter of close to a million human individuals (figures vary, but it's definitely over 500,000). The motivation for this war was likely tied to money and strategic gain. The point is, our Gov’t has proven itself very capable of doing some very bad things against our best interests.

With that given, why take “law abiding citizens” out of the equation above (wouldn't they be the least threatening group)?

I see many folks on the left rightfully criticizing the Gov't for killing middle easterners at will and for going rogue and bailing out the big banks, ect, but at the same time see no issues with handing over their more powerful weapons to that EXACT same entity.

Thoughts?
.





.

An AR-15 isn't any different than any other deer rifle i.e. 30.06, 270. 308...etc...except for the cosmetics. In other words, it looks scary.

What? So, by no different you must mean that the shooters in Sandy Hook and Aurora could have pulled off the same thing with a deer rifle?

I'm in full support of our 2nd Amendment rights, but that statement makes no sense.

Yes pretty much, both weapons are semi-automatic and function the same. A deer rifle would have done greater damage assuming the caliber was larger than a .223.

FTR an AR-15 wasn't used in Sandy Hook. But don't let the facts hinder you.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

An AR-15 isn't any different than any other deer rifle i.e. 30.06, 270. 308...etc...except for the cosmetics. In other words, it looks scary.

What? So, by no different you must mean that the shooters in Sandy Hook and Aurora could have pulled off the same thing with a deer rifle?

I'm in full support of our 2nd Amendment rights, but that statement makes no sense.

Yes.

Here is a 30 round magazine for a 30-06.

Magazine, .30-06, 30 Round Gun Parts | 700450 | Numrich Gun Parts

At a decent price too!

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I've shot an AR-15, an M-16, and M-14, and several deer rifles. I'm not an expert, but there were notable differences in the performance of these weapons. While I am sure some handy conversions can turn a deer rifle into a semi-automatic weapon with increased killing capabilities, I can't go along that the differences are merely cosmetic.

Most deer rifles are semi-auto (with the exception of bolt-action, lever action, single shot etc... ), so you can't turn them into what they already are and you can't turn a bolt action, single shot, lever action into a semi-auto. Perhaps you should educate yourself on rifles before you spout silliness.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I've shot an AR-15, an M-16, and M-14, and several deer rifles. I'm not an expert, but there were notable differences in the performance of these weapons. While I am sure some handy conversions can turn a deer rifle into a semi-automatic weapon with increased killing capabilities, I can't go along that the differences are merely cosmetic.

Just about any rifle can be used to hunt deer.
Product: Model M&P10 .308 WIN/ 7.62x51 CAMO

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

An AR-15 isn't any different than any other deer rifle i.e. 30.06, 270. 308...etc...except for the cosmetics. In other words, it looks scary.

What? So, by no different you must mean that the shooters in Sandy Hook and Aurora could have pulled off the same thing with a deer rifle?

I'm in full support of our 2nd Amendment rights, but that statement makes no sense.

Yes pretty much, both weapons are semi-automatic and function the same. A deer rifle would have done greater damage assuming the caliber was larger than a .223.

FTR an AR-15 wasn't used in Sandy Hook. But don't let the facts hinder you.

A variant of the AR-15 was used.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

I've shot an AR-15, an M-16, and M-14, and several deer rifles. I'm not an expert, but there were notable differences in the performance of these weapons. While I am sure some handy conversions can turn a deer rifle into a semi-automatic weapon with increased killing capabilities, I can't go along that the differences are merely cosmetic.

Most deer rifles are semi-auto (with the exception of bolt-action, lever action, single shot etc... ), so you can't turn them into what they already are and you can't turn a bolt action, single shot, lever action into a semi-auto. Perhaps you should educate yourself on rifles before you spout silliness.

I already made it perfectly clear I was not claiming to be an expert. My primary beef is the idea that the difference between an AR-15 and an average deer rifle is merely cosmetic. If that were the case, then the military could simply used modified deer rifles in combat and be equally effective. I don't agree, as silly as that might make me.

FTR, this is not a challenge of 2nd Amendment rights, so I hope you are not assuming it as such.

 

[R.C. Christian]

It's more than cosmetic. You don't hunt deer with short barrels and 5.56 NATO. That's a bad way to kill a deer.

 

[Uncensored2008]

It's more than cosmetic. You don't hunt deer with short barrels and 5.56 NATO. That's a bad way to kill a deer.

The Winchester 1894 30-30 is about the most popular deer rifle of all time.

Has about the same barrel length as an AR-15.

 

[R.C. Christian]

It's more than cosmetic. You don't hunt deer with short barrels and 5.56 NATO. That's a bad way to kill a deer.

The Winchester 1894 30-30 is about the most popular deer rifle of all time.

Has about the same barrel length as an AR-15.

With me it's about range, accuracy and power. I'm not a hunter but I'm pretty sure my M1A1 would take care of a deer better than a lower caliber weapon with a shorter barrel. But then again, I'm not a hunter so I'll leave it to your judgement.

 

[Intense]

Well I kinda am for banning assault weapons.

But since you guys think it's a right..lets go with that a bit. Let's say it's a right.

You can't buy and sell your rights, you are sorta married to them. You are also sort of responsible for what you do with them.

What might be cool is if the same thing happened with guns. Say you buy a gun..you are married to it for life. What ever happens with that gun..is on the owner. The owner is completely liable for the actions of the gun..as long as it exists.

Wonder how many gun owners would go for that.

I don't think it's fair to say that a gun owner should be responsible for when a gun gets stolen, you know?

And I say this very respectfully, but statistically speaking, we do not have a very large problem with homicides involving high-powered rifles.

According to statistics there are generally less than 350 people killed each year by rifles (that's everything, not just the so called 'assault rifles'). Against a US population of 315,000,000 it's not a very huge number (0.0001%).

However, on the other hand our Gov't kills tens of thousands of people every year with high-powered rifles, many of them being children and innocent civilians. Again, why are we safer with giving our guns to them?


.

I do.

Your gun.

Your problem.

Gun manufacturers should be liable as well.

If you folks do not want some responsible laws..at the very least, be responsible.

Apply that circle logic to everything you purchase and you will start to see the fairness of the concept fall apart. Of course, if tyrannical control is the objective, fairness is not in the equation any way, so I guess from that perspective, it's all good, for the controlling authority. I guess it would be good, too, for those, that just take possession of anything without regard for private property, too.

 

[Missourian]

It's more than cosmetic. You don't hunt deer with short barrels and 5.56 NATO. That's a bad way to kill a deer.

Do you hunt deer?

Explain why you feel a short barrel .223/5.56 is a "bad way to kill deer".

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I've shot an AR-15, an M-16, and M-14, and several deer rifles. I'm not an expert, but there were notable differences in the performance of these weapons. While I am sure some handy conversions can turn a deer rifle into a semi-automatic weapon with increased killing capabilities, I can't go along that the differences are merely cosmetic.

Most deer rifles are semi-auto (with the exception of bolt-action, lever action, single shot etc... ), so you can't turn them into what they already are and you can't turn a bolt action, single shot, lever action into a semi-auto. Perhaps you should educate yourself on rifles before you spout silliness.

I already made it perfectly clear I was not claiming to be an expert. My primary beef is the idea that the difference between an AR-15 and an average deer rifle is merely cosmetic. If that were the case, then the military could simply used modified deer rifles in combat and be equally effective. I don't agree, as silly as that might make me.

FTR, this is not a challenge of 2nd Amendment rights, so I hope you are not assuming it as such.

Yes but you claimed that you were sure deer rifles can be turned into semi-automatic rifles. Face you , you know nothing about rifles. And trust me, no one has mistaken you for an expert.

Why modify deer rifles when rifles are already manufactured to their standards? Doing so would be silly.

I try not to assume anything.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

What? So, by no different you must mean that the shooters in Sandy Hook and Aurora could have pulled off the same thing with a deer rifle?

I'm in full support of our 2nd Amendment rights, but that statement makes no sense.

Yes pretty much, both weapons are semi-automatic and function the same. A deer rifle would have done greater damage assuming the caliber was larger than a .223.

FTR an AR-15 wasn't used in Sandy Hook. But don't let the facts hinder you.

A variant of the AR-15 was used.

No it wasn't and there is no evidence that suggests it was.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

It's more than cosmetic. You don't hunt deer with short barrels and 5.56 NATO. That's a bad way to kill a deer.

The Winchester 1894 30-30 is about the most popular deer rifle of all time.

Has about the same barrel length as an AR-15.

With me it's about range, accuracy and power. I'm not a hunter but I'm pretty sure my M1A1 would take care of a deer better than a lower caliber weapon with a shorter barrel. But then again, I'm not a hunter so I'll leave it to your judgement.

It's not always depending on caliber of rifle but placement of round for a quick kill. A .22 Hornet can bring down a deer if the shot is placed perfectly.

 

[Missourian]

It's more than cosmetic. You don't hunt deer with short barrels and 5.56 NATO. That's a bad way to kill a deer.

The Winchester 1894 30-30 is about the most popular deer rifle of all time.

Has about the same barrel length as an AR-15.

With me it's about range, accuracy and power. I'm not a hunter but I'm pretty sure my M1A1 would take care of a deer better than a lower caliber weapon with a shorter barrel. But then again, I'm not a hunter so I'll leave it to your judgement.

That's cool, but you shouldn't put information out there that you are unsure of as a statement of fact.

My grandad was a depression era farmer with six mouths to feed at home.

There would never have been enough food without supplementing with game.

I mean hunting wasn't a sport...it was serious business.

There wasn't enough money to buy different guns for different application like I do today.

There was a rifle, and a shotgun (a Damascus steel shotgun at that...look it up).

The rifle was a Winchester model 1894, 20 inch barrel lever action repeater chambered in 32-40.

It reliably put meat on the table for 30 years...well over 100 deer.

The 32-40 is smaller than the .223.

There was only money for one rifle...and hunting game could be the difference between eating well and going hungry.

Grandad needed a rifle that would take squirrel, rabbit and other small game by head shots without ruining the meat, and also reliably take deer and other medium game.

I still have that old Winchester, and I wouldn't hesitate to take it into the field to hunt with...if it didn't hold such sentimental value.

32-40, .223 and .270 cartridges respectively.

Image courtesy of Wikipedia 32-40 page.

 

[Missourian]

I've shot an AR-15, an M-16, and M-14, and several deer rifles. I'm not an expert, but there were notable differences in the performance of these weapons. While I am sure some handy conversions can turn a deer rifle into a semi-automatic weapon with increased killing capabilities, I can't go along that the differences are merely cosmetic.

Most deer rifles are semi-auto (with the exception of bolt-action, lever action, single shot etc... ), so you can't turn them into what they already are and you can't turn a bolt action, single shot, lever action into a semi-auto. Perhaps you should educate yourself on rifles before you spout silliness.

I already made it perfectly clear I was not claiming to be an expert. My primary beef is the idea that the difference between an AR-15 and an average deer rifle is merely cosmetic. If that were the case, then the military could simply used modified deer rifles in combat and be equally effective. I don't agree, as silly as that might make me.

FTR, this is not a challenge of 2nd Amendment rights, so I hope you are not assuming it as such.

You've got that wrong way 'round.

The deer rifles of today are the military rifles of yesterday.

Both 30-.06 and .270 caliber cartridges are derivatives of the military 30-.03.

The 30-.06 was the primary military cartridge for 50 years, and still used today.

The .308 is also a military cartridge, the 7.62x51mm.

Only the 30/30 Winchester, of the most popular deer cartridges, lacks a military pedigree.

But the gun that is primarily used by 30/30 hunters IS a military design...the repeating rifle.

As is the 30-.06...the M1903 Springfield.

And now the older M16 becomes the design platform of today's hunting rifles.

The Remington R25 is already available in 243 Win., 7mm-08 Remington and 308 Win.