Comparing the AR with other Legal Firearms

[Bell Huey]

There you go, being dishonest again. I said the body count record goes to the AR and it's the weapon of choice for planned mass shootings at schools and churches. Address that instead of being dishonest.

Damn dude, you have to keep redefining and qualifying what you originally said.

 

[Blues Man]

gunnutters are undereducated. this one is a Trump voter for sure

Wrong again fat ass

I haven't voted for anyone in the corrupt duopoly in 30 years

 

[BoostedHayabusa]

Should be easy for you to prove. Just post when, in the modern error, a semi automatic sports rifle like the Colt AR 15 or any of the knock offs has been standard military issue as a primary assault rifle.

1…2…3…Go….

VG is that you?

 

[Vrenn]

Should be easy for you to prove. Just post when, in the modern error, a semi automatic sports rifle like the Colt AR 15 or any of the knock offs has been standard military issue as a primary assault rifle.

1…2…3…Go….

Sure, the M-16 is an AR. In fact, it's designator at Colt is AR-15 before it's stamped as an M-16. Tag, your dishonest ass is it.

 

[BoostedHayabusa]

But to get off 50 rounds, killing 40 and wouldn't over 200 really can't be done with a handgun. Time for you to be honest.

Bell Huey can't be honest.

 

[Vrenn]

Ruger Mini 14 Ranch has the same muzzle velocity.

So what. And the 22 Magnum dose as well but it's a poor choice for trying for the new body count record.

 

[Bell Huey]

No, that's what YOU intend to do. The AR is a family of weapons. It's a specific design no matter what company makes it or calls it.

The Colt AR 15 is a different design than the M 16. From the bolt carrier to the lower.

 

[BoostedHayabusa]

Sure, the M-16 is an AR. In fact, it's designator at Colt is AR-15 before it's stamped as an M-16. Tag, your dishonest ass is it.

Bell Huey got owned again.

 

[Vrenn]

Really? A 9 millimeter with an extended magazine using defense rounds would do the same thing.

Not even close. You would have to shoot most more than once to kill them and that just defeated the purpose of using a 9mm Handgun versus an AR.

 

[Vrenn]

The Colt AR 15 is a different design than the M 16. From the bolt carrier to the lower.

3 parts and only 3 parts difference.

 

[Bell Huey]

So what. And the 22 Magnum dose as well but it's a poor choice for trying for the new body count record.

not only does the Ruger Mini have the same muzzle velocity it shoots the same round and has a 30 round magazine.

The reason it is not an assault rifle is simply because it does not have the external, visual features installed.

 

[Vrenn]

It doesn't matter. Tell me what semiautomatic rifle with a detachable magazine or what handgun could not have killed the same number of people in almost all mass shootings.

The only one that could not have been done with handguns is the Vegas shooting

All of them not designed with the features that the AR and M-16 has. Why don't you tell me which ones you believe can attain a higher body count that can be legally purchased in almost every state (we can leave out CA and NY on this one).

 

[Vrenn]

not only does the Ruger Mini have the same muzzle velocity it shoots the same round and has a 30 round magazine.

The reason it is not an assault rifle is simply because it does not have the external, visual features installed.

Ah, the same tired response. The Mini-14 reloads much slower and in order to change out the mag, you have to cease your visual from the target. When you are talking about bring 120 rounds in X number of mags, the AR is king of the Hill for legal wapons.

Now, stop being dishonest and discuss the whole issue.

 

[Vrenn]

Damn dude, you have to keep redefining and qualifying what you originally said.

More dishonesty from you. I say exactly the same thing because I stick with the truth. Not the dishonest "Truth" you are peddling.

 

[Bell Huey]

Sure, the M-16 is an AR. In fact, it's designator at Colt is AR-15 before it's stamped as an M-16. Tag, your dishonest ass is it.

Let get some history straight. Armalite Rifle was working on the AR 15 rifle. Colt bought it, changed it to Colt c601, which later became the M 16. They shelved the name AR 15 and later applied it to the Colt AR 15 SPORTER (SP1) because they owned the rights.
The link below contains an embedded link to the original BATF certification letter:

Original ATF AR-15 Classification Refutes Claim that Rifle ‘Not Meant’ for Civilians

[T]he magazine, unsurprisingly to anyone familiar with its anti-gun bent, attempted to bolster a claim that “these rifles were meant for the military, not civilians.”

www.ammoland.com

Pay attention to words lik “changed the weapon in basic design to make it not a machine gun”. Keep in mind that is how they classify the M 16.

I’ll also give you the redesign in details if you like.

 

[Bell Huey]

Ah, the same tired response. The Mini-14 reloads much slower and in order to change out the mag, you have to cease your visual from the target. When you are talking about bring 120 rounds in X number of mags, the AR is king of the Hill for legal wapons.

Now, stop being dishonest and discuss the whole issue.

Bullshit. I just exposed your ignorance for all to see.

 

[Bell Huey]

More dishonesty from you. I say exactly the same thing because I stick with the truth. Not the dishonest "Truth" you are peddling.

You think you are being honest because you are ignorant of the subject matter.

 

[Vrenn]

Let get some history straight. Armalite Rifle was working on the AR 15 rifle. Colt bought it, changed it to Colt c601, which later became the M 16. They shelved the name AR 15 and later applied it to the Colt AR 15 SPORTER (SP1) because they owned the rights.
The link below contains an embedded link to the original BATF certification letter:

Original ATF AR-15 Classification Refutes Claim that Rifle ‘Not Meant’ for Civilians

[T]he magazine, unsurprisingly to anyone familiar with its anti-gun bent, attempted to bolster a claim that “these rifles were meant for the military, not civilians.”

www.ammoland.com

Pay attention to words lik “changed the weapon in basic design to make it not a machine gun”. Keep in mind that is how they classify the M 16.

I’ll also give you the redesign in details if you like.

Your article, while containing facts, doesn't address the problems we are having today. If a shooter could get their hands on a M-16, they would choose that. But since that's not easily done, they go with the older brother and do the same job. The AR owns the Mass Shooting Ultimate Body Count for a reason. It was designed to kill people, lots of people fast. In today's Military, there is no full auto selector on the standard M-16. And the 3 shott selection is rarely used. Therefore, even in a war condition, the M-16 and the AR-15 will show no difference.

 

[Winston]

Ban one and people will use another.

It ain't rocket science

Yes, ban the AR-15 and people will use another gun. That is exactly WHY we need to ban them. And yes, it is not rocket science, the damage inflicted by the AR-15 is absolutely devastating. I have mentioned the word more than once in this thread, "cavitation".

What I Saw Treating the Victims From Parkland Should Change the Debate on Guns

They weren’t the first mass-shooting victims the Florida radiologist saw—but their wounds were radically different.

www.theatlantic.com

Routine handgun injuries leave entry and exit wounds and linear tracks through the victim’s body that are roughly the size of the bullet. If the bullet does not directly hit something crucial like the heart or the aorta, and the victim does not bleed to death before being transported to our care at the trauma center, chances are that we can save him. The bullets fired by an AR-15 are different: They travel at a higher velocity and are far more lethal than routine bullets fired from a handgun. The damage they cause is a function of the energy they impart as they pass through the body. A typical AR-15 bullet leaves the barrel traveling almost three times faster than—and imparting more than three times the energy of—a typical 9mm bullet from a handgun.

This thread is at almost 500 posts. I jumped in early. The debate, or the "question" is really very simple. Does the AR-15, and its assault rifle variants, provide any unique, UNIQUE meaning can't be replicated by another gun, advantage in any area--self-defense, hunting, target shooting, that outweighs the DAMAGE caused by AR-15 used in mass shootings?

This ain't about stopping mass shootings. This ain't about stopping gun crimes. This is about improving the odds of survival of a victim of a mass shooting, PERIOD.

I was looking at a CT scan of one of the mass-shooting victims from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, who had been brought to the trauma center during my call shift. The organ looked like an overripe melon smashed by a sledgehammer, and was bleeding extensively. How could a gunshot wound have caused this much damage?

The reaction in the emergency room was the same. One of the trauma surgeons opened a young victim in the operating room, and found only shreds of the organ that had been hit by a bullet from an AR-15, a semiautomatic rifle that delivers a devastatingly lethal, high-velocity bullet to the victim. Nothing was left to repair—and utterly, devastatingly, nothing could be done to fix the problem. The injury was fatal.

Not a single poster has even attempted to make the argument. No one has listed a single unique advantage of the AR-15. Instead, all we get is worthless blathering about the second amendment as if it some magic amendment that precludes the banning of a single type of weapon, it is not, and Scalia in Heller said as much. All we get is the slippery slope argument, oh, they ban the AR-15 it will just be a beginning. No, that was not the case in the previous ban, nor will it be this time. Or my personal favorite, a ban would be ineffective because there are so many AR's already in the hands of gun owners. So what?

Here is the deal, if we ban the AR-15, ban assault rifles just like we did before, with the same definition of an assault rifle that we had before. Then, just like in the past, if just one mass shooter has to purchase a Glock, instead of an AR, to use in his murderous spree, more people will survive his shooting spree than would survive if he used an AR. Columbine resulted in 13 deaths, not counting the shooters themselves. But an additional 21 people were shot and injured. That is a better than 60% survival rate. In the Stoneman Douglas shooting there were 17 killed and 17 injured, a 50% survival rate, and 12 of the deaths occurred inside the building. And that was ONE person, not two. Although few people know, two of those survivors committed suicide within 13 months, which brings us to a 45% survival rate.

But there is one UNIQUE advantage of the AR-15 and other assault rifles. They are, by far, the most profitable gun sold in America. You gun nuts all screaming and hollering against an assault weapons ban are little more than useful idiots for the gun lobby. They play all of you for fools, hell, they are the ones that teach you how to make these illogical arguments, how to avoid the real "question" that I have put forth. And while at least ten percent of the deaths in mass shootings are directly attributable to that gun lobby, you guys are enabling them.

 

[Bell Huey]

Your article, while containing facts, doesn't address the problems we are having today. If a shooter could get their hands on a M-16, they would choose that. But since that's not easily done, they go with the older brother and do the same job. The AR owns the Mass Shooting Ultimate Body Count for a reason. It was designed to kill people, lots of people fast. In today's Military, there is no full auto selector on the standard M-16. And the 3 shott selection is rarely used. Therefore, even in a war condition, the M-16 and the AR-15 will show no difference.

No, the history clearly shows the Colt Ar 15 or it’s knock offs and was not designed for battle.
Listen to what you just posted. And if they can’t get an AR 15, you think they they’re gonna stop?