Teenager Reportedly Used AR-15 to Kill Five in New Mexico

[gator996]

Originally Posted by wargunfan

This^^^^ If folks could just understand that an AR15 or any other rifle with a pistol grip or telescoping stock or accessory rail is no more dangerous than a hunting rifle. They should be outraged that politicians are pandering to their misplaced fears.

So why are those modifications done?

[CalSFGator]

Originally Posted by wargunfan

Right there you lose your credibility. No government "allows" a citizen to have a firearm. I know what you're trying to say but it's really about passing ineffective laws which do nothing to protect children. So we wonder about the real agenda.
We'll stop calling out the liberals when they stop trying to tamper with the right to keep and bear arms. And by the way, the very idea that a government "allows" a citizen to have a firearm is a liberal lie that we totally reject.

Of course they "allow" them, at the behest of the people broadly. You do understand that the constitution could be amended to take away your poorly read 2nd Amendment, right?

[tec68]

Originally Posted by wargunfan

500 people killed in auto accidents this weekend. Dead is dead.

Ohhh nooooo!!!!!! We need to ban all automobiles!!!!! It's the only way to keep us safe.

[cocodrilo]

Guns don't kill people, people do. That's why we need to get rid of people. Oh, wait, that's what we're doing.

[ATLitigator]

Originally Posted by wargunfan

500 people killed in auto accidents this weekend. Dead is dead.

wow and Ill bet most of those were caused by people who didnt undergo a full background check before getting that license....

and some of the perpetrators were probably under 18 and fully licensed by the state...

lets ban all vehicle capable of going fast and killing someone!

[CalSFGator]

Nuclear weapons don't kill people, people with nuclear weapons do.

[mdgator05]

Originally Posted by ATLitigator

wow and Ill bet most of those were caused by people who didnt undergo a full background check before getting that license....

and some of the perpetrators were probably under 18 and fully licensed by the state...

lets ban all vehicle capable of going fast and killing someone!

The people driving legally did undergo a state sponsored test of proficiency and registered their vehicle with the state, including in most states, some measure of environmental impact and the ability to operate that vehicle safely. They did have to prove that their license had not been suspended or revoked due to driving issues.

Those not driving legally were likely charged with whatever crime they committed in that act.

[Minister_of_Information]

Originally Posted by CalSFGator

Nuclear weapons don't kill people, people with nuclear weapons do.

Cute if hysterical straw man. Did you know you're a member of the militia under federal law?

[CalSFGator]

Originally Posted by Minister_of_Information

Cute if hysterical straw man. Did you know you're a member of the militia under federal law?

I did, which is why I need my nukes. I have seen red dawn thousands of times, and I am ready, but am tired of being hamstrung by the gov't.

Plus, my argument is as valid as the reactions above to "take the cars away".

All these laws fundamentally are cost-benefit determinations for the people. I would love to drive 120MPH on the freeway, but that will cost extra lives, so I just do it illegally. I don't really think we need AR-15s (the primary purpose of which is for men to feel more manly in a world as their lovemaking abilities decline), so I would be fine with getting rid of them if we thought it made us collectively more safe.

[Minister_of_Information]

Originally Posted by CalSFGator

I did, which is why I need my nukes. I have seen red dawn thousands of times, and I am ready, but am tired of being hamstrung by the gov't.

Plus, my argument is as valid as the reactions above to "take the cars away".

All these laws fundamentally are cost-benefit determinations for the people. I would love to drive 120MPH on the freeway, but that will cost extra lives, so I just do it illegally. I don't really think we need AR-15s (the primary purpose of which is for men to feel more manly in a world as their lovemaking abilities decline), so I would be fine with getting rid of them if we thought it made us collectively more safe.

Do I need to quote Franklin?

And BTW:

WOLVERINES!

[tec68]

Originally Posted by wargunfan

This^^^^ If folks could just understand that an AR15 or any other rifle with a pistol grip or telescoping stock or accessory rail is no more dangerous than a hunting rifle. They should be outraged that politicians are pandering to their misplaced fears.

But people do not understand this.

Some need to take the time and learn a little about the things they are trying so hard to argue against.

The AR15 is not an Assault Rifle.

Assault Rifle is a term that among other characteristics must support burst or fully-automatic fire.. The AR15 is a generic term for a sporting rifle designed to look and function like an M16 or M4 except that it is semiautomatic only.

The AR15 shoots the .223 Remington which is a sporting round. The .223 round is actually LESS powerful of a round than most deer hunters use.

[gator996]

Originally Posted by tec68

But people do not understand this.

Some need to take the time and learn a little about the things they are trying so hard to argue against.

The AR15 is not an Assault Rifle.

Assault Rifle is a term that among other characteristics must support burst or fully-automatic fire.. The AR15 is a generic term for a sporting rifle designed to look and function like an M16 or M4 except that it is semiautomatic only.

The AR15 shoots the .223 Remington which is a sporting round. The .223 round is actually LESS powerful of a round than most deer hunters use.

So why do they do the "mods"?

[CalSFGator]

Originally Posted by Minister_of_Information

Do I need to quote Franklin?

And BTW:

WOLVERINES!

Please do, I assume about freedom over security? I generally agree, which is why I believe in very little actually being illegal in this country, certainly not drugs, or prostitution, or "smut" (whatever that is), or immigration, or any of the things that aren't actually designed to hurt others. Now, a semi automatic weapon capable of riddling humans with hundreds of bullets in seconds - eh.

[Minister_of_Information]

Originally Posted by CalSFGator

Please do, I assume about freedom over security? I generally agree, which is why I believe in very little actually being illegal in this country, certainly not drugs, or prostitution, or "smut" (whatever that is), or immigration, or any of the things that aren't actually designed to hurt others. Now, a semi automatic weapon capable of riddling humans with hundreds of bullets in seconds - eh.

When you say seconds, you mean minutes or hours right? The sustainable rate of fire for an AR15 is 12-18 rounds per minute. More than that and you will destroy the weapon within 200 rounds or so.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Originally Posted by mdgator05

How do you keep guns out of the hands of people who are yet to have committed a crime?

Why would we try?

[Lawdog88]

Originally Posted by gator996

So why do they do the "mods"?

To make them more lethal, of course.

[gator996]

Originally Posted by Lawdog88

To make them more lethal, of course.

But the claim was the "mods" didn't make them more dangerous....

I'm confused.



Gun advocate logic is like Chinese arithmetic....causes headaches.

[helix139]

Originally Posted by gator996

So why are those modifications done?

Ergonomics mainly. A telescoping stock allows for a light weight stock that can easily be adjusted to fit more than 1 person or shooting situation (you may want a longer stock when shooting prone or a shorter stock when shooting from a standing position) and promotes a good consistent cheek weld for looking through sights and/or optics with maximum control of the gun.

Vertical forward grips are actually not all that effective if you grip it like a handle to try to prevent recoil. The barrel will still climb and it will do so on a horizontal axis toward the shooter's off hand and not just vertical. Actually, the best way to control the gun is to use the vertical foregrip simply as a point to consistently index your hand on the forward rail or hand guard. You then align the thumb of the off hand with the bore to allow you to have the best control of the muzzle of the gun.

You'll notice that both of these "modifications" (the foregrip is more of an accessory than a modification as it is easily removeable) are more about being able to control the weapon and put rounds where they are aimed. They have very little (if anything) to do with being able to dish out multiple rounds in a hurry.

To continue, forward rails are simply there to attach accessories, such as the aforementioned grips, or useful things like flashlights so that the operator of the weapon is free to keep their hands in a shooting position while operating a light to identify their target in a dark environment. Positive target identification is also a good thing, wouldn't you agree? And FWIW, a person using a flashlight who doesn't know how to use it will do a great job of giving their position away. They are defensive tools, not offensive. Lasers can also be attached, but again, they are defensive tools. Like a flashlight, a laser in the hands of someone who does not know what they are doing will give them away. They are intended for precision in close range encounters, but a rail is also not necessary to mount a laser. They can be attached directly to a rail or another part of the gun.

Pistol grips aren't really a mod, but a standard feature on a variety of long guns nowadays. It's an ergonomic thing promoting control of the weapon. It's not going to assist in firing off a high number of rounds.

So again, is precisely controlling a weapon and being able to positively identify a target before engaging a good thing or something we don't want in a gun?

[CalSFGator]

Originally Posted by Minister_of_Information

When you say seconds, you mean minutes or hours right? The sustainable rate of fire for an AR15 is 12-18 rounds per minute. More than that and you will destroy the weapon within 200 rounds or so.

Maybe for you. I haven't fired one in years, but with a beta mag, I could easily get a hundred or more shots off in a couple minutes.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Originally Posted by gator996

I dunno...you have any numbers besides guessing?

There are some studies that suggest somewhere around 2,000,000 times a gun is used in self defense

There are approximately two million defensive gun uses (DGU's) per year by law abiding citizens. That was one of the findings in a national survey conducted by Gary Kleck, a Florida State University criminologist in 1993. Prior to Dr. Kleck's survey, thirteen other surveys indicated a range of between 800,000 to 2.5 million DGU's annually. However these surveys each had their flaws which prompted Dr. Kleck to conduct his own study specifically tailored to estimate the number of DGU's annually.

Subsequent to Kleck's study, the Department of Justice sponsored a survey in 1994 titled, Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms (text, PDF). Using a smaller sample size than Kleck's, this survey estimated 1.5 million DGU's annually.

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html