Stephen Crowder, Top 5 AR-15 myths...banning them is a Trojan Horse...

[rightwinger]

Crowder nails it....

He demonstrates the rate of fire with a .357 lever action rifle.....he shows a semi auto shotgun....

The anti gunners want them too....

Looks like our problem is rate of fire......not trying to ban individual guns

How about we limit rate of fire to 120 rounds per minute?
More than enough for hunting deer or squirrels

Easier to distinguish which guns are allowed

What's wrong with one round per trigger pull?

Or do you want to have people pull the trigger multiple times for one shot?

If you can pull the trigger over 120 times in a minute, you are shooting at too high a rate

We saw the rates of fire of “one round per trigger pull”
In Las Vegas.......too fucking fast

Crowder nails it....

He demonstrates the rate of fire with a .357 lever action rifle.....he shows a semi auto shotgun....

The anti gunners want them too....

Looks like our problem is rate of fire......not trying to ban individual guns

How about we limit rate of fire to 120 rounds per minute?
More than enough for hunting deer or squirrels

Easier to distinguish which guns are allowed

What's wrong with one round per trigger pull?

Or do you want to have people pull the trigger multiple times for one shot?

If you can pull the trigger over 120 times in a minute, you are shooting at too high a rate

We saw the rates of fire of “one round per trigger pull”
In Las Vegas.......too fucking fast

The fact is most people do not shoot that fast because it's not only innaccurate but wasteful and does nothing to improve skill

Good point

So they should have no problem with guns with lower firing rates
They don’t need high rate semi autos

 

[rightwinger]

SO I could have a semiautomatic rifle that fires a larger more powerful round like the 6.8 as this rifle does

and that just fine because it doesn't look like an M16

Very often that is the case.

In a similar discussion on another board, I posted a pics of my M1A and a pic of an AR. People were far more concerned with the AR.

The anti gunners know, though. That is why they are now calling for banning all semi automatic rifles...as we heard at the CNN hate rally this week......and also why they are using the term "weapons of war," Since they know they can get to the rest of our rifles if they can only get the AR-15 banned ...since the all operate with the same action....

Again with the " They're coming to get all our guns!!!!!!! " craziness. Grow up dummy.

Then tell me what is the reason for banning one particular semiautomatic rifle when all other semiautomatic rifles of the same caliber perform exactly the same as the banned rifle.

The only reason to start with one particular rifle is to expand the ban to all other semiautomatic rifles

Yes. Answered honestly, this question reveals it. If you ban the AR-15, Are the kids safer in school? If you can't honestly answer yes, then banning the AR-15 Is just a measure designed to make some feel warm and fuzzy because they got one over on the gun owners.

Ask the kids at Parkland

Or the security guards who did not want to go up against an AR 15

 

[Hossfly]

Crowder nails it....

He demonstrates the rate of fire with a .357 lever action rifle.....he shows a semi auto shotgun....

The anti gunners want them too....

Looks like our problem is rate of fire......not trying to ban individual guns

How about we limit rate of fire to 120 rounds per minute?
More than enough for hunting deer or squirrels

Easier to distinguish which guns are allowed

What's wrong with one round per trigger pull?

Or do you want to have people pull the trigger multiple times for one shot?

If you can pull the trigger over 120 times in a minute, you are shooting at too high a rate

We saw the rates of fire of “one round per trigger pull”
In Las Vegas.......too fucking fast

Crowder nails it....

He demonstrates the rate of fire with a .357 lever action rifle.....he shows a semi auto shotgun....

The anti gunners want them too....

Looks like our problem is rate of fire......not trying to ban individual guns

How about we limit rate of fire to 120 rounds per minute?
More than enough for hunting deer or squirrels

Easier to distinguish which guns are allowed

What's wrong with one round per trigger pull?

Or do you want to have people pull the trigger multiple times for one shot?

If you can pull the trigger over 120 times in a minute, you are shooting at too high a rate

We saw the rates of fire of “one round per trigger pull”
In Las Vegas.......too fucking fast

The fact is most people do not shoot that fast because it's not only innaccurate but wasteful and does nothing to improve skill

Good point

So they should have no problem with guns with lower firing rates
They don’t need high rate semi autos

There is no higher or lower rate of semi-automatic fire. Rate of fire is dependent on how slow or how fast the trigger is pulled for each and every round. You can pull the trigger to fire a hundred rounds a minute or one round every 4 hours.

 

[BULLDOG]

Did the military pick that design for strictly cosmetic reasons?

The military model is a different gun.

I don't know how many times you have to be told that. What does it matter that a civilian .223 semiautomatic rifle has a plastic stock instead of a wood stock? No civilian rifle performs like a military rifle.

Now why don't you tell me what makes this gun

any different from this gun

Other than how they look. Both are civilian semiautomatic rifles chambered for .223. Both have comparable accuracy. Both fire the same one round per trigger pull.

There is absolutely no functional difference between the 2 rifles.

If you knew anything about the subject you would know this

You should ask the military that question. They are the ones that chose it to be a combat assault weapon in 1963, and designated it as the M16.

AR 15 Rifle - A Brief History & Historical Time Line

I'm asking you.

A gun that capable of automatic fire is NOT the same as a gun that is not capable of automatic fire

That is about as simply as I can explain it to you.

If you cannot understand that don't bother me anymore because I don't argue with the mentally retarded

Yes, that is a difference, but automatic fire is not the only reason that design was chosen as the military's goto weapon. They could have had AF with any number of other guns. Yes the design has been slightly modified to bypass the AF, but all the other qualities that convinced the military that that particular design would be the best tool for killing as many people as possible in as short of time as possible are still present.

But what gun isn’t built to kill ? Every gun on the planet from the hand gone from the days of yore to the most technologically advanced wsmall arm in production today is built for killing. The first repeating firearm was likely a martial weapon. Muskets were martial weapons. The news and charvelle (spelled wrong) were the AK47 and M16 of the age and the bayonet was what made them fearsome. In this country as long as we have had a military, civilians wanted them to. That said, had Cruze never had that rifle he could have done his deed with a bolt gun. Or a musket with a bayonet.

All true. it's not a matter of the gun's intention. It's a matter of the gun's capability. Even if we don't stop all mass shootings, we can reduce the number of people killed in each event. Don't you think that is worthwhile?

 

[BULLDOG]

Yes, it is a small difference, but contrary to most gun nuts claims, it is a difference. That small difference on top of so many other small differences is why the military chose that particular gun design as their favorite killing tool. Minor modification to disable multi-fire doesn't negate all the other things that makes that gun such an effective killing machine. Other than for killing people, a honest hunter, or gun user of any other kind will tell you that 30 round capability is absurd.

I have yet to see a link that shows there is a difference in time between trigger pulls. My comment was based on the "If it is true..." precursor. And saying that 0.01 seconds is enough difference is silly.

OK. set that one characteristic aside for a while. We can come back to it later if you want to. It wasn't the only deciding factor in the military's choice to use that design anyway. Why do you think that gun was picked? Auto fire was a given, no matter which design was chosen, so what other things made that particular gun the obvious choice to kill as many people as possible in as short a time as possible.? Doesn't the current AR15 have those same things?

There are a number of reasons for the military picking the M16. The caliber was one factor. The ammo is much lighter, so the infantry soldier can carry more rounds. Also, the gun was much lighter than previous US military arms. The M14, that it replaced, weighs 9.3 lbs empty. The M16 weighs only 6.37 lbs empty. The smaller caliber made the lighter rifle work well.

The full auto capability was a critical part of the rifle being chosen. It would not even have been tested had it not been capable of that.

The .223/5.56mm cartridge was the result of a search by the US Continental Army Command to replace the 7.62x51mm cartridge.

The criteria were as follows:

• 22 Caliber
• Bullet exceeding supersonic speed at 500 yards [4] [5]
• Rifle weight 6 lbs
• Magazine capacity of 20 rounds
• Select fire for both semi-automatic and fully automatic use
• Penetration of US Steel helmet one side, at 500 yards
• Penetration of .135" steel plate at 500 yards
• Accuracy and ballistics equal to M2 Ball ammunition
• Wounding ability equal to the M1 Carbine.

So all the things listed were given, and a necessary requirement for which ever gun was chosen. Obviously there is something about that particular design that makes it a better human killing tool than all the other candidates. I don't think they flipped a coin to decide. Doesn't that prove the gun nut claim that all other guns of that caliber are just the same is bullshit? I trust the military's judgment that they chose the best gun for combat.

So if the criteria are listed, and the rifle fits all of them, they take the gun into field trials. These involve extensive testing of the weapons in many conditions. The selection is up to a committee. I am sure politics (and probably some well placed money) have a part in the selection.

Perhaps if you would stop calling shooters "gun nuts" they would be more conducive to a dialogue. I have owned 3 semi-auto rifles in .223 in my life. One was an AR. Other than the looks, I'd say there wasn't much difference in them. With the exception of the Ruger Mini-14. That rifle was simply not accurate enough for what I wanted. Even in a gun vise, the rifle couldn't do better than 5" groups at 100 yards.

You'll have to find someone specific who says the guns are different. I see all the .223 semi autos as much the same. Some companies build a higher quality gun. But the AR has no magic killing capabilities.

Bottom line, the military chose that gun as the most effective combat weapon over all the others.

I don't call shooters gun nuts. There is a big difference. I have guns, and have enjoyed them since I was a kid trying to be still and quiet while I watched my dad shoot squirrels. A gun nut generally spouts nothing but NRA propaganda, and equates reasonable gun safety with being enslaved. Gun Nuts aren't conductive to discussion any more than RWNJs. I learned that long ago, and it was only reinforced when I was called unpatriotic, communist, etc, because I didn't support Bush's lies. No that's not an attack on Bush, it's just an example of how long people on the right, including gun nuts have been ----well----nuts.

I never said it was magic. I've already supplied credible links to show guns are different. You are entitled to your opinion, but facts is facts. The military chose that design for their goto killing tool. I'll take their judgement over some some Ted Nugent like gun nut. I appreciate your less than "hair on fire" discussion.

 

[Hossfly]

I have yet to see a link that shows there is a difference in time between trigger pulls. My comment was based on the "If it is true..." precursor. And saying that 0.01 seconds is enough difference is silly.

OK. set that one characteristic aside for a while. We can come back to it later if you want to. It wasn't the only deciding factor in the military's choice to use that design anyway. Why do you think that gun was picked? Auto fire was a given, no matter which design was chosen, so what other things made that particular gun the obvious choice to kill as many people as possible in as short a time as possible.? Doesn't the current AR15 have those same things?

There are a number of reasons for the military picking the M16. The caliber was one factor. The ammo is much lighter, so the infantry soldier can carry more rounds. Also, the gun was much lighter than previous US military arms. The M14, that it replaced, weighs 9.3 lbs empty. The M16 weighs only 6.37 lbs empty. The smaller caliber made the lighter rifle work well.

The full auto capability was a critical part of the rifle being chosen. It would not even have been tested had it not been capable of that.

The .223/5.56mm cartridge was the result of a search by the US Continental Army Command to replace the 7.62x51mm cartridge.

The criteria were as follows:

• 22 Caliber
• Bullet exceeding supersonic speed at 500 yards [4] [5]
• Rifle weight 6 lbs
• Magazine capacity of 20 rounds
• Select fire for both semi-automatic and fully automatic use
• Penetration of US Steel helmet one side, at 500 yards
• Penetration of .135" steel plate at 500 yards
• Accuracy and ballistics equal to M2 Ball ammunition
• Wounding ability equal to the M1 Carbine.

So all the things listed were given, and a necessary requirement for which ever gun was chosen. Obviously there is something about that particular design that makes it a better human killing tool than all the other candidates. I don't think they flipped a coin to decide. Doesn't that prove the gun nut claim that all other guns of that caliber are just the same is bullshit? I trust the military's judgment that they chose the best gun for combat.

So if the criteria are listed, and the rifle fits all of them, they take the gun into field trials. These involve extensive testing of the weapons in many conditions. The selection is up to a committee. I am sure politics (and probably some well placed money) have a part in the selection.

Perhaps if you would stop calling shooters "gun nuts" they would be more conducive to a dialogue. I have owned 3 semi-auto rifles in .223 in my life. One was an AR. Other than the looks, I'd say there wasn't much difference in them. With the exception of the Ruger Mini-14. That rifle was simply not accurate enough for what I wanted. Even in a gun vise, the rifle couldn't do better than 5" groups at 100 yards.

You'll have to find someone specific who says the guns are different. I see all the .223 semi autos as much the same. Some companies build a higher quality gun. But the AR has no magic killing capabilities.

Bottom line, the military chose that gun as the most effective combat weapon over all the others.

I don't call shooters gun nuts. There is a big difference. I have guns, and have enjoyed them since I was a kid trying to be still and quiet while I watched my dad shoot squirrels. A gun nut generally spouts nothing but NRA propaganda, and equates reasonable gun safety with being enslaved. Gun Nuts aren't conductive to discussion any more than RWNJs. I learned that long ago, and it was only reinforced when I was called unpatriotic, communist, etc, because I didn't support Bush's lies. No that's not an attack on Bush, it's just an example of how long people on the right, including gun nuts have been ----well----nuts.

I never said it was magic. I've already supplied credible links to show guns are different. You are entitled to your opinion, but facts is facts. The military chose that design for their goto killing tool. I'll take their judgement over some some Ted Nugent like gun nut. I appreciate your less than "hair on fire" discussion.

Exactly what is the NRA propaganda? Have you ever read the NRAs Mission Statement? Read it and point out the propaganda.

 

[BULLDOG]

OK. set that one characteristic aside for a while. We can come back to it later if you want to. It wasn't the only deciding factor in the military's choice to use that design anyway. Why do you think that gun was picked? Auto fire was a given, no matter which design was chosen, so what other things made that particular gun the obvious choice to kill as many people as possible in as short a time as possible.? Doesn't the current AR15 have those same things?

There are a number of reasons for the military picking the M16. The caliber was one factor. The ammo is much lighter, so the infantry soldier can carry more rounds. Also, the gun was much lighter than previous US military arms. The M14, that it replaced, weighs 9.3 lbs empty. The M16 weighs only 6.37 lbs empty. The smaller caliber made the lighter rifle work well.

The full auto capability was a critical part of the rifle being chosen. It would not even have been tested had it not been capable of that.

The .223/5.56mm cartridge was the result of a search by the US Continental Army Command to replace the 7.62x51mm cartridge.

The criteria were as follows:

• 22 Caliber
• Bullet exceeding supersonic speed at 500 yards [4] [5]
• Rifle weight 6 lbs
• Magazine capacity of 20 rounds
• Select fire for both semi-automatic and fully automatic use
• Penetration of US Steel helmet one side, at 500 yards
• Penetration of .135" steel plate at 500 yards
• Accuracy and ballistics equal to M2 Ball ammunition
• Wounding ability equal to the M1 Carbine.

So all the things listed were given, and a necessary requirement for which ever gun was chosen. Obviously there is something about that particular design that makes it a better human killing tool than all the other candidates. I don't think they flipped a coin to decide. Doesn't that prove the gun nut claim that all other guns of that caliber are just the same is bullshit? I trust the military's judgment that they chose the best gun for combat.

So if the criteria are listed, and the rifle fits all of them, they take the gun into field trials. These involve extensive testing of the weapons in many conditions. The selection is up to a committee. I am sure politics (and probably some well placed money) have a part in the selection.

Perhaps if you would stop calling shooters "gun nuts" they would be more conducive to a dialogue. I have owned 3 semi-auto rifles in .223 in my life. One was an AR. Other than the looks, I'd say there wasn't much difference in them. With the exception of the Ruger Mini-14. That rifle was simply not accurate enough for what I wanted. Even in a gun vise, the rifle couldn't do better than 5" groups at 100 yards.

You'll have to find someone specific who says the guns are different. I see all the .223 semi autos as much the same. Some companies build a higher quality gun. But the AR has no magic killing capabilities.

Bottom line, the military chose that gun as the most effective combat weapon over all the others.

I don't call shooters gun nuts. There is a big difference. I have guns, and have enjoyed them since I was a kid trying to be still and quiet while I watched my dad shoot squirrels. A gun nut generally spouts nothing but NRA propaganda, and equates reasonable gun safety with being enslaved. Gun Nuts aren't conductive to discussion any more than RWNJs. I learned that long ago, and it was only reinforced when I was called unpatriotic, communist, etc, because I didn't support Bush's lies. No that's not an attack on Bush, it's just an example of how long people on the right, including gun nuts have been ----well----nuts.

I never said it was magic. I've already supplied credible links to show guns are different. You are entitled to your opinion, but facts is facts. The military chose that design for their goto killing tool. I'll take their judgement over some some Ted Nugent like gun nut. I appreciate your less than "hair on fire" discussion.

Exactly what is the NRA propaganda? Have you ever read the NRAs Mission Statement? Read it and point out the propaganda.

Yes, Public statements aren't always accurate. The NRA was once a great organization. I was a member for years until they changed to a representative of gun manufacturers, and whose only goal is the sale of more guns no matter how much they have to lie, or how many more children die.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Crowder nails it....

He demonstrates the rate of fire with a .357 lever action rifle.....he shows a semi auto shotgun....
.
The anti gunners want them too....

Charles Whitman didn't have an AR-15. He used an M-1 carbine. People give the AR-15 too much credit.

So why did the US military pick the fully auto version of the AR to be their goto combat weapon? The AR and the M16 are identical other than the full auto capability. ARs weren't even built until the M16 patent ran out.

Two reasons,

The recoil of the .30-06 round caused soldiers to tense up prior to firing, so they needed a far less powerful round. Secondly they wanted a "civilized" round that would pass through cleanly. This was due to the horror of WWII

Yes, .22 caliber was a requirement. All possible choices met that requirement.

Actually they went to a .308 initially.

 

[BULLDOG]

Crowder nails it....

He demonstrates the rate of fire with a .357 lever action rifle.....he shows a semi auto shotgun....
.
The anti gunners want them too....

Charles Whitman didn't have an AR-15. He used an M-1 carbine. People give the AR-15 too much credit.

So why did the US military pick the fully auto version of the AR to be their goto combat weapon? The AR and the M16 are identical other than the full auto capability. ARs weren't even built until the M16 patent ran out.

Two reasons,

The recoil of the .30-06 round caused soldiers to tense up prior to firing, so they needed a far less powerful round. Secondly they wanted a "civilized" round that would pass through cleanly. This was due to the horror of WWII

Yes, .22 caliber was a requirement. All possible choices met that requirement.

Actually they went to a .308 initially.

Interesting, but not relevant.

 

[WinterBorn]

Come on gun nut. You know one trigger pull one fire isn't the only relevant issue. Some guns are capable of shorter time between trigger pulls than others. A real gun nut would know that.

Really?

You say these things as if you know but you are probably the most ignorant person here when it comes to firearms.

How many different semiautomatic rifles have you shot?

I have shot dozens of different semiautomatic rifles of varying caliber and ALL of them are limited to one round per trigger pull and the few milliseconds that might exist in the cycle times of the firing mechanism are irrelevant because a person can only pull the trigger so fast.

There may be some exceptional people who can pull a trigger 4 times per second but the upper end of the speed of a manual trigger pull is 3 times per second and most people would be hard pressed to keep that up for any length of time.

And you are stuck on this rate of fire issue even though 2 minutes of research will tell you that the rate of fire of every single semiautomatic firearm in existence today is one round per trigger pull.

And as I have tried to tell you the differences between semiautomatic rifles of the same caliber are irrelevant because they all fire the exact same round at the exact same rate with comparable accuracy but you seem to think that the AR can magically fire faster but you cannot prove it can you?

See? You still spout about one trigger pull and one bullet as if that somehow proved your point. Good little gun nut, aren't you?

I hate to tell you thos but that is a FACT and not something pulled out of thin air as what you post seems to be.

So tell me how much faster can an AR fire than any other .223 caliber semiauto on the market?

You tell me that the AR can fire faster than any other semiauto rifle of the same caliber so prove it

I asked for a link to back up that claim. Have yet to see one.

Here is a quick link to show there is a difference in practical rate of fire between guns, and all semi-autos are not essentially unlimited in rate of fire, or only limited in how fast your finger is.. I'm sure I could find a more detailed link if I cared to take the time, but this one is enough to prove my claim.


http://www.guncite.com/assausup.txt
PRACTICAL RATE
OF FIRE: With weapons such as the military 5.56mm m16A1
rifle and the 7.62mm AKM rifle the maximum rates
of fire for a well trained shooter are as follows:

M16A1 AKM

semiautomatic: 45/65 s.p.m. 40 s.p.m.
automatic: 100/150 s.p.m. 100 s.p.m.

Your claim was that semi auto rifles of the same caliber have different rates of fire. I'm reading your link on my phone, so I must have missed that comparison.

 

[BULLDOG]

Really?

You say these things as if you know but you are probably the most ignorant person here when it comes to firearms.

How many different semiautomatic rifles have you shot?

I have shot dozens of different semiautomatic rifles of varying caliber and ALL of them are limited to one round per trigger pull and the few milliseconds that might exist in the cycle times of the firing mechanism are irrelevant because a person can only pull the trigger so fast.

There may be some exceptional people who can pull a trigger 4 times per second but the upper end of the speed of a manual trigger pull is 3 times per second and most people would be hard pressed to keep that up for any length of time.

And you are stuck on this rate of fire issue even though 2 minutes of research will tell you that the rate of fire of every single semiautomatic firearm in existence today is one round per trigger pull.

And as I have tried to tell you the differences between semiautomatic rifles of the same caliber are irrelevant because they all fire the exact same round at the exact same rate with comparable accuracy but you seem to think that the AR can magically fire faster but you cannot prove it can you?

See? You still spout about one trigger pull and one bullet as if that somehow proved your point. Good little gun nut, aren't you?

I hate to tell you thos but that is a FACT and not something pulled out of thin air as what you post seems to be.

So tell me how much faster can an AR fire than any other .223 caliber semiauto on the market?

You tell me that the AR can fire faster than any other semiauto rifle of the same caliber so prove it

I asked for a link to back up that claim. Have yet to see one.

Here is a quick link to show there is a difference in practical rate of fire between guns, and all semi-autos are not essentially unlimited in rate of fire, or only limited in how fast your finger is.. I'm sure I could find a more detailed link if I cared to take the time, but this one is enough to prove my claim.


http://www.guncite.com/assausup.txt
PRACTICAL RATE
OF FIRE: With weapons such as the military 5.56mm m16A1
rifle and the 7.62mm AKM rifle the maximum rates
of fire for a well trained shooter are as follows:

M16A1 AKM

semiautomatic: 45/65 s.p.m. 40 s.p.m.
automatic: 100/150 s.p.m. 100 s.p.m.

Your claim was that semi auto rifles of the same caliber have different rates of fire. I'm reading your link on my phone, so I must have missed that comparison.

Ok. Two weapons with identical caliber
M4 / M4A1 5.56mm Carbine - Specifications
M4A1 Carbine
Weight (Without Magazine) 6.36 pounds
Length (Buttstock Closed) 29.75 inches
Length (Buttstock Open) 33 inches
Muzzle Velocity 2970 feet per second
Rate of Fire (Cyclic) 700-970 rounds per minute
Maximum Effective Range (Point Target) 500 meters
Maximum Effective Range (Area Targets) 600 meters
Maximum Range 3600 meters

M16 5.56mm Rifle Specifications
Specifications
M16
Manufacturers Armalite, Colt Manufacturing
Length 39.625 inches
Weight (without magazine and sling) 6.35 pounds
Weight (with loaded 30 round magazine and sling) 7.76 pounds
Bore Diameter 5.56mm (.233 inches)
Rifling Right-hand twist, 6 grooves, 1 turn in 12 inches
Maximum Range 2,653 meters
Maximum Effective Range 460 meters
Muzzle Velocity 3,250 feet per second
Rate of Fire (Cyclic) 800 rounds per minute
Rate of Fire (Sustained) 12-15 rounds per minute
Rate of Fire (Semiautomatic) 45-65 rounds per minute
Rate of Fire (Automatic) 150-200 rounds per minute

 

[hadit]

Very often that is the case.

In a similar discussion on another board, I posted a pics of my M1A and a pic of an AR. People were far more concerned with the AR.

The anti gunners know, though. That is why they are now calling for banning all semi automatic rifles...as we heard at the CNN hate rally this week......and also why they are using the term "weapons of war," Since they know they can get to the rest of our rifles if they can only get the AR-15 banned ...since the all operate with the same action....

Again with the " They're coming to get all our guns!!!!!!! " craziness. Grow up dummy.

Then tell me what is the reason for banning one particular semiautomatic rifle when all other semiautomatic rifles of the same caliber perform exactly the same as the banned rifle.

The only reason to start with one particular rifle is to expand the ban to all other semiautomatic rifles

Yes. Answered honestly, this question reveals it. If you ban the AR-15, Are the kids safer in school? If you can't honestly answer yes, then banning the AR-15 Is just a measure designed to make some feel warm and fuzzy because they got one over on the gun owners.

Ask the kids at Parkland

Or the security guards who did not want to go up against an AR 15

Now you're just projecting. You have no way of knowing what that guard knew was in the building or what he didn't want to face.

 

[Crixus]

The military model is a different gun.

I don't know how many times you have to be told that. What does it matter that a civilian .223 semiautomatic rifle has a plastic stock instead of a wood stock? No civilian rifle performs like a military rifle.

Now why don't you tell me what makes this gun

any different from this gun

Other than how they look. Both are civilian semiautomatic rifles chambered for .223. Both have comparable accuracy. Both fire the same one round per trigger pull.

There is absolutely no functional difference between the 2 rifles.

If you knew anything about the subject you would know this

You should ask the military that question. They are the ones that chose it to be a combat assault weapon in 1963, and designated it as the M16.

AR 15 Rifle - A Brief History & Historical Time Line

I'm asking you.

A gun that capable of automatic fire is NOT the same as a gun that is not capable of automatic fire

That is about as simply as I can explain it to you.

If you cannot understand that don't bother me anymore because I don't argue with the mentally retarded

Yes, that is a difference, but automatic fire is not the only reason that design was chosen as the military's goto weapon. They could have had AF with any number of other guns. Yes the design has been slightly modified to bypass the AF, but all the other qualities that convinced the military that that particular design would be the best tool for killing as many people as possible in as short of time as possible are still present.

But what gun isn’t built to kill ? Every gun on the planet from the hand gone from the days of yore to the most technologically advanced wsmall arm in production today is built for killing. The first repeating firearm was likely a martial weapon. Muskets were martial weapons. The news and charvelle (spelled wrong) were the AK47 and M16 of the age and the bayonet was what made them fearsome. In this country as long as we have had a military, civilians wanted them to. That said, had Cruze never had that rifle he could have done his deed with a bolt gun. Or a musket with a bayonet.

All true. it's not a matter of the gun's intention. It's a matter of the gun's capability. Even if we don't stop all mass shootings, we can reduce the number of people killed in each event. Don't you think that is worthwhile?

Not a matter of the guns capibility at all. A dude shot a president with a bolt gun, pretty crappy one to. A slew of gun regulations came after that, why was it a President was shot again? Then you had Bobby Kennedy. He also got shot after all the new gun laws, then Regan. Columbine happened and it happened like 7 years after Clinton made it law. All the rules and regulations you want had been inplace yet the shooting happened. Not a guns capability at all.

 

[rightwinger]

The anti gunners know, though. That is why they are now calling for banning all semi automatic rifles...as we heard at the CNN hate rally this week......and also why they are using the term "weapons of war," Since they know they can get to the rest of our rifles if they can only get the AR-15 banned ...since the all operate with the same action....

Again with the " They're coming to get all our guns!!!!!!! " craziness. Grow up dummy.

Then tell me what is the reason for banning one particular semiautomatic rifle when all other semiautomatic rifles of the same caliber perform exactly the same as the banned rifle.

The only reason to start with one particular rifle is to expand the ban to all other semiautomatic rifles

Yes. Answered honestly, this question reveals it. If you ban the AR-15, Are the kids safer in school? If you can't honestly answer yes, then banning the AR-15 Is just a measure designed to make some feel warm and fuzzy because they got one over on the gun owners.

Ask the kids at Parkland

Or the security guards who did not want to go up against an AR 15

Now you're just projecting. You have no way of knowing what that guard knew was in the building or what he didn't want to face.

Exactly
The guards had no idea how many shooters were there and where they were.......but were expected to charge in armed only with a sidearm

And now our President expects a teacher to do it

 

[BULLDOG]

You should ask the military that question. They are the ones that chose it to be a combat assault weapon in 1963, and designated it as the M16.

AR 15 Rifle - A Brief History & Historical Time Line

I'm asking you.

A gun that capable of automatic fire is NOT the same as a gun that is not capable of automatic fire

That is about as simply as I can explain it to you.

If you cannot understand that don't bother me anymore because I don't argue with the mentally retarded

Yes, that is a difference, but automatic fire is not the only reason that design was chosen as the military's goto weapon. They could have had AF with any number of other guns. Yes the design has been slightly modified to bypass the AF, but all the other qualities that convinced the military that that particular design would be the best tool for killing as many people as possible in as short of time as possible are still present.

But what gun isn’t built to kill ? Every gun on the planet from the hand gone from the days of yore to the most technologically advanced wsmall arm in production today is built for killing. The first repeating firearm was likely a martial weapon. Muskets were martial weapons. The news and charvelle (spelled wrong) were the AK47 and M16 of the age and the bayonet was what made them fearsome. In this country as long as we have had a military, civilians wanted them to. That said, had Cruze never had that rifle he could have done his deed with a bolt gun. Or a musket with a bayonet.

All true. it's not a matter of the gun's intention. It's a matter of the gun's capability. Even if we don't stop all mass shootings, we can reduce the number of people killed in each event. Don't you think that is worthwhile?

Not a matter of the guns capibility at all. A dude shot a president with a bolt gun, pretty crappy one to. A slew of gun regulations came after that, why was it a President was shot again? Then you had Bobby Kennedy. He also got shot after all the new gun laws, then Regan. Columbine happened and it happened like 7 years after Clinton made it law. All the rules and regulations you want had been inplace yet the shooting happened. Not a guns capability at all.

That's one of the goofiest things I ever heard. We wear seat belts, but people still die in car wrecks. Does that mean seat belts aren't a good idea?

 

[jon_berzerk]

I'm asking you.

A gun that capable of automatic fire is NOT the same as a gun that is not capable of automatic fire

That is about as simply as I can explain it to you.

If you cannot understand that don't bother me anymore because I don't argue with the mentally retarded

Yes, that is a difference, but automatic fire is not the only reason that design was chosen as the military's goto weapon. They could have had AF with any number of other guns. Yes the design has been slightly modified to bypass the AF, but all the other qualities that convinced the military that that particular design would be the best tool for killing as many people as possible in as short of time as possible are still present.

But what gun isn’t built to kill ? Every gun on the planet from the hand gone from the days of yore to the most technologically advanced wsmall arm in production today is built for killing. The first repeating firearm was likely a martial weapon. Muskets were martial weapons. The news and charvelle (spelled wrong) were the AK47 and M16 of the age and the bayonet was what made them fearsome. In this country as long as we have had a military, civilians wanted them to. That said, had Cruze never had that rifle he could have done his deed with a bolt gun. Or a musket with a bayonet.

All true. it's not a matter of the gun's intention. It's a matter of the gun's capability. Even if we don't stop all mass shootings, we can reduce the number of people killed in each event. Don't you think that is worthwhile?

Not a matter of the guns capibility at all. A dude shot a president with a bolt gun, pretty crappy one to. A slew of gun regulations came after that, why was it a President was shot again? Then you had Bobby Kennedy. He also got shot after all the new gun laws, then Regan. Columbine happened and it happened like 7 years after Clinton made it law. All the rules and regulations you want had been inplace yet the shooting happened. Not a guns capability at all.

That's one of the goofiest things I ever heard. We wear seat belts, but people still die in car wrecks. Does that mean seat belts aren't a good idea?

people still die in car wrecks yet no call to ban them

 

[Crixus]

I'm asking you.

A gun that capable of automatic fire is NOT the same as a gun that is not capable of automatic fire

That is about as simply as I can explain it to you.

If you cannot understand that don't bother me anymore because I don't argue with the mentally retarded

Yes, that is a difference, but automatic fire is not the only reason that design was chosen as the military's goto weapon. They could have had AF with any number of other guns. Yes the design has been slightly modified to bypass the AF, but all the other qualities that convinced the military that that particular design would be the best tool for killing as many people as possible in as short of time as possible are still present.

But what gun isn’t built to kill ? Every gun on the planet from the hand gone from the days of yore to the most technologically advanced wsmall arm in production today is built for killing. The first repeating firearm was likely a martial weapon. Muskets were martial weapons. The news and charvelle (spelled wrong) were the AK47 and M16 of the age and the bayonet was what made them fearsome. In this country as long as we have had a military, civilians wanted them to. That said, had Cruze never had that rifle he could have done his deed with a bolt gun. Or a musket with a bayonet.

All true. it's not a matter of the gun's intention. It's a matter of the gun's capability. Even if we don't stop all mass shootings, we can reduce the number of people killed in each event. Don't you think that is worthwhile?

Not a matter of the guns capibility at all. A dude shot a president with a bolt gun, pretty crappy one to. A slew of gun regulations came after that, why was it a President was shot again? Then you had Bobby Kennedy. He also got shot after all the new gun laws, then Regan. Columbine happened and it happened like 7 years after Clinton made it law. All the rules and regulations you want had been inplace yet the shooting happened. Not a guns capability at all.

That's one of the goofiest things I ever heard. We wear seat belts, but people still die in car wrecks. Does that mean seat belts aren't a good idea?

Seat belt laws add stupid and misguided. Last night a man was killed in a car wreck up the road. He hit a tree and was killed . He had a seat belt on. The law was feel good legislation nothing more. You hit anothe car, airbag or not, seat belt or not you stand a great chance of getting dead. That’s all. Far as it being goofy, you have a position that was in effective for seven years that contained every thing you advocate and yet none of it worked. Diddnt even slow down street crime. I’ll challange you to be honest and take a look at this wiki list of mass shootings. See if you can find a commonality among shooters BESIDES guns.


List of school shootings in the United States - Wikipedia

• 2018, February 14 - Marjory Stoneman Douglas High school shootings - (17 deaths)
• 2017, November 14 - Rancho Tehama Reserve shootings - (6 deaths)
• 2015, October 1 - Umpqua Community College shooting - (10 deaths)
• 2014, October 24 - Marysville Pilchuck High School shooting - (5 deaths)
• 2013, June 7 - 2013 Santa Monica shooting - (6 deaths)
• 2013, January 15 - (3 deaths) [10]
• 2012, December 14 - Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings - (28 deaths)
• 2012, April 2 - Oikos University shooting - (7 deaths)
• 2012, February 27 - Chardon High School shooting - (3 deaths)
• 2010, February 12 - University of Alabama in Huntsville shooting - (3 deaths)
• 2008, February 14 - Northern Illinois University shooting - (6 deaths)
• 2007, April 6 - Virginia Tech massacre - (33 deaths)
• 2006, October 2 - West Nickel Mines School shooting - (6 deaths)
• 2005, March 21 - Red Lake shootings - (10 deaths)
• 2002, January 16 - Appalachian School of Law shooting - (3 deaths)
• 1999, April 20 - Columbine High School massacre - (15 deaths)
• 1998, May 21 - Thurston High School shooting - (4 deaths)
• 1998, March 24 - Mitchell Johnson and Andrew Golden - (5 deaths)
• 1997, December 1 - Heath High School shooting - (3 deaths)
• 1996, August 15 - San Diego State University shooting - (3 deaths)
• 1996, February 2 - Frontier Middle School shooting - (3 deaths)
• 1992, May 1 - Lindhurst High School shooting - (3 deaths)
• 1991, November 1 - University of Iowa shooting - (6 deaths)
• 1989, January 17 - Stockton schoolyard shooting - (6 deaths)[11]
• 1976, July 12 - California State University, Fullerton massacre - (7 deaths)
• 1974, December 30 - Olean High School shooting - (3 deaths)
• 1970, May 4 - Kent State shootings - (4 deaths)
• 1966, November 12 - Mesa, Arizona - (5 deaths) [12]
• 1966, August 1 - University of Texas tower shooting - (17 deaths)
• 1940, May 6 - Pasadena - (5 deaths) [4][13][14][7]
• 1898, December 13 - Charleston - (6 deaths) [8]
• 1893, March 26 - Plain Dealing high school - (4 deaths) [9]
• 1868, December 22 - (3 deaths) [15][16]
• 1764, July 26 - Enoch Brown - (10 deaths)

 

[BULLDOG]

Yes, that is a difference, but automatic fire is not the only reason that design was chosen as the military's goto weapon. They could have had AF with any number of other guns. Yes the design has been slightly modified to bypass the AF, but all the other qualities that convinced the military that that particular design would be the best tool for killing as many people as possible in as short of time as possible are still present.

But what gun isn’t built to kill ? Every gun on the planet from the hand gone from the days of yore to the most technologically advanced wsmall arm in production today is built for killing. The first repeating firearm was likely a martial weapon. Muskets were martial weapons. The news and charvelle (spelled wrong) were the AK47 and M16 of the age and the bayonet was what made them fearsome. In this country as long as we have had a military, civilians wanted them to. That said, had Cruze never had that rifle he could have done his deed with a bolt gun. Or a musket with a bayonet.

All true. it's not a matter of the gun's intention. It's a matter of the gun's capability. Even if we don't stop all mass shootings, we can reduce the number of people killed in each event. Don't you think that is worthwhile?

Not a matter of the guns capibility at all. A dude shot a president with a bolt gun, pretty crappy one to. A slew of gun regulations came after that, why was it a President was shot again? Then you had Bobby Kennedy. He also got shot after all the new gun laws, then Regan. Columbine happened and it happened like 7 years after Clinton made it law. All the rules and regulations you want had been inplace yet the shooting happened. Not a guns capability at all.

That's one of the goofiest things I ever heard. We wear seat belts, but people still die in car wrecks. Does that mean seat belts aren't a good idea?

people still die in car wrecks yet no call to ban them

A car is not designed and built for only one purpose. To kill.

 

[Crixus]

But what gun isn’t built to kill ? Every gun on the planet from the hand gone from the days of yore to the most technologically advanced wsmall arm in production today is built for killing. The first repeating firearm was likely a martial weapon. Muskets were martial weapons. The news and charvelle (spelled wrong) were the AK47 and M16 of the age and the bayonet was what made them fearsome. In this country as long as we have had a military, civilians wanted them to. That said, had Cruze never had that rifle he could have done his deed with a bolt gun. Or a musket with a bayonet.

All true. it's not a matter of the gun's intention. It's a matter of the gun's capability. Even if we don't stop all mass shootings, we can reduce the number of people killed in each event. Don't you think that is worthwhile?

Not a matter of the guns capibility at all. A dude shot a president with a bolt gun, pretty crappy one to. A slew of gun regulations came after that, why was it a President was shot again? Then you had Bobby Kennedy. He also got shot after all the new gun laws, then Regan. Columbine happened and it happened like 7 years after Clinton made it law. All the rules and regulations you want had been inplace yet the shooting happened. Not a guns capability at all.

That's one of the goofiest things I ever heard. We wear seat belts, but people still die in car wrecks. Does that mean seat belts aren't a good idea?

people still die in car wrecks yet no call to ban them

A car is not designed and built for only one purpose. To kill.

Not even a valid response. The comparisons is pointlessly to. Thing about a car is, it does what I want it to. And cars are perfect weapons. Just ask these guys. And aside from some being religious nuts, the ones who did The ramming attacks also have one big thing in common. Do alittle digging and you will see it. Hint, it reallocate is t an issue till the 80’s or so. When mass killings really took off.


Vehicle-ramming attack - Wikipedia

 

[BULLDOG]

Yes, that is a difference, but automatic fire is not the only reason that design was chosen as the military's goto weapon. They could have had AF with any number of other guns. Yes the design has been slightly modified to bypass the AF, but all the other qualities that convinced the military that that particular design would be the best tool for killing as many people as possible in as short of time as possible are still present.

But what gun isn’t built to kill ? Every gun on the planet from the hand gone from the days of yore to the most technologically advanced wsmall arm in production today is built for killing. The first repeating firearm was likely a martial weapon. Muskets were martial weapons. The news and charvelle (spelled wrong) were the AK47 and M16 of the age and the bayonet was what made them fearsome. In this country as long as we have had a military, civilians wanted them to. That said, had Cruze never had that rifle he could have done his deed with a bolt gun. Or a musket with a bayonet.

All true. it's not a matter of the gun's intention. It's a matter of the gun's capability. Even if we don't stop all mass shootings, we can reduce the number of people killed in each event. Don't you think that is worthwhile?

Not a matter of the guns capibility at all. A dude shot a president with a bolt gun, pretty crappy one to. A slew of gun regulations came after that, why was it a President was shot again? Then you had Bobby Kennedy. He also got shot after all the new gun laws, then Regan. Columbine happened and it happened like 7 years after Clinton made it law. All the rules and regulations you want had been inplace yet the shooting happened. Not a guns capability at all.

That's one of the goofiest things I ever heard. We wear seat belts, but people still die in car wrecks. Does that mean seat belts aren't a good idea?

Seat belt laws add stupid and misguided. Last night a man was killed in a car wreck up the road. He hit a tree and was killed . He had a seat belt on. The law was feel good legislation nothing more. You hit anothe car, airbag or not, seat belt or not you stand a great chance of getting dead. That’s all. Far as it being goofy, you have a position that was in effective for seven years that contained every thing you advocate and yet none of it worked. Diddnt even slow down street crime. I’ll challange you to be honest and take a look at this wiki list of mass shootings. See if you can find a commonality among shooters BESIDES guns.


List of school shootings in the United States - Wikipedia

• 2018, February 14 - Marjory Stoneman Douglas High school shootings - (17 deaths)
• 2017, November 14 - Rancho Tehama Reserve shootings - (6 deaths)
• 2015, October 1 - Umpqua Community College shooting - (10 deaths)
• 2014, October 24 - Marysville Pilchuck High School shooting - (5 deaths)
• 2013, June 7 - 2013 Santa Monica shooting - (6 deaths)
• 2013, January 15 - (3 deaths) [10]
• 2012, December 14 - Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings - (28 deaths)
• 2012, April 2 - Oikos University shooting - (7 deaths)
• 2012, February 27 - Chardon High School shooting - (3 deaths)
• 2010, February 12 - University of Alabama in Huntsville shooting - (3 deaths)
• 2008, February 14 - Northern Illinois University shooting - (6 deaths)
• 2007, April 6 - Virginia Tech massacre - (33 deaths)
• 2006, October 2 - West Nickel Mines School shooting - (6 deaths)
• 2005, March 21 - Red Lake shootings - (10 deaths)
• 2002, January 16 - Appalachian School of Law shooting - (3 deaths)
• 1999, April 20 - Columbine High School massacre - (15 deaths)
• 1998, May 21 - Thurston High School shooting - (4 deaths)
• 1998, March 24 - Mitchell Johnson and Andrew Golden - (5 deaths)
• 1997, December 1 - Heath High School shooting - (3 deaths)
• 1996, August 15 - San Diego State University shooting - (3 deaths)
• 1996, February 2 - Frontier Middle School shooting - (3 deaths)
• 1992, May 1 - Lindhurst High School shooting - (3 deaths)
• 1991, November 1 - University of Iowa shooting - (6 deaths)
• 1989, January 17 - Stockton schoolyard shooting - (6 deaths)[11]
• 1976, July 12 - California State University, Fullerton massacre - (7 deaths)
• 1974, December 30 - Olean High School shooting - (3 deaths)
• 1970, May 4 - Kent State shootings - (4 deaths)
• 1966, November 12 - Mesa, Arizona - (5 deaths) [12]
• 1966, August 1 - University of Texas tower shooting - (17 deaths)
• 1940, May 6 - Pasadena - (5 deaths) [4][13][14][7]
• 1898, December 13 - Charleston - (6 deaths) [8]
• 1893, March 26 - Plain Dealing high school - (4 deaths) [9]
• 1868, December 22 - (3 deaths) [15][16]
• 1764, July 26 - Enoch Brown - (10 deaths)

Got it. You think seat belts are bad. You'r some kind of genius, aren't you?