MyWar

DarDys
Actually it wouldn’t.

I would like to create a video with the personal experience of some of the MSM talking heads as they did the following:

Fire a single shot rifle -- one trigger pull, one shot.

Fire a benign looking semi .22, like a Ruger. One trigger pull, one shot, then make them hold the trigger in for a full minute with no other shots being fired because the gun won’t -- release the trigger and pull it again, another shot -- explain that this is legal for hunting in all 50 states and make sure they understand the term as demonstrated -- semiautomatic -- one shot per trigger pull and holding the trigger down does absolutely nothing.

Then go to a double action revolver and repeat showing that this gun, which is legal to hunt with in every state is also semiautomatic, just in a different way.

Change to a single trigger side by side and show that it too is a semiautomatic, but limited to two shots and is legal for hunting in every state.

Do the same with an O/U, further explaining the different sports, including the Olympics, that use this type of semiautomatic weapon.

Move to a semiautomatic shotgun and get the same results, then explain that it is used in every state and is primarily the favorite for waterfowl, maybe tossing in how many waterfowl, under federal regulation are taken with this weapon.

Step up to a semiautomatic rifle, with a wood stock, that isn’t scary looking, like a Remington or Browning. Let them know this is legal in 48 states as a hunting arm.

Then get the scariest looking AR platform available, and show that it is exactly the same as all the others they just fired/saw fired — one trigger pull, one shot, no matter how long the trigger is help back.

Finally, drag out a full auto and empty the magazine with one trigger pull and hold. Then play the Sesame Street game of "one of these things is not like the others."

Explain that this is the difference between an actual weapon of war, full auto capability, and all those which are not. Explain that the general public has not been able to buy or possess a full auto since before mid-century. The only way to get one is with a class firearms license and there have been exactly zero killings, mass or singly, by those holding that license.

Then ask the "have you quit kicking your dog question" -- now that you know the difference, are you going to continue to lie or intentionally mislead your viewers/listeners/readers, because that is exactly what you are doing if you continue with your narrative after the demonstration you just took part in.

Ok, clearly you know a lot about firearms.

So maybe you can tell us why these mass shooters always choose AR-15s or similar type firearms when they want to take out a room full of people.


Since you asked, I’ll try to expound.

I’m guessing mass shooters aren’t very smart and they choose an AR platform (which, full disclosure, I do not own nor intend to) because they are constantly being told how deadly they are (which comparatively they aren’t) and how efficient they are (again, comparatively they aren’t) by those who don’t know or are pushing a narrative and refuse to recognize simple facts.


What is the difference between an AR-15 and say a Ruger .22? Or any of the firearms you mentioned? It just simple cosmetic difference? Surely there must be something functionally different between them, no?

Most of it is simple cosmetics. There are some functional differences — some use the recoil to eject the spent cartridge; some use the gas generated by the burnt powder to eject the spend cartridge; and some use both — but the result is the same — the spent cartridge is ejected, a new round is fed into the chamber, and once the trigger is released (and not before, which is what happens with a full auto), the sear engages the trigger and the gun is ready to fire when the trigger is pulled again — firing another single round.

The examples of the double action revolver, the side by side shotgun, and the O/U shotgun are different in that for the revolver the spent cartridges remain in the cylinder and are not ejected and for the two shotguns mentioned the spent cartridges remain basically in the barrel (technically the chamber portion). But the results for all of them is the same — one trigger pull, one shot — hold the trigger down until the gun rusts in your hands does nothing — release the trigger and another single shot can be fired. It matters not AR platform or any other semiautomatic.

Specifically, there must be something functionally different between an AR-15 and a Ruger .22, that makes an AR-15 style semiautomatic rifle a more efficient choice if you want to kill as many people as possible, as quickly as possible?

There is not — see above. The only difference is caliber. While a .22 is diminutive, it will kill (a Ruger .22 Mark II was the choice of crime families for taking care of “business”).

These days, an AR platform is available in a wide array of calibers, with the most popular being 5.56 NATO, which is essentially a .223, the same diameter as a .22 with regard to bullet, but in a center fire configuration rather than rim fire for a .22. It also has more energy due to increased powder capacity, resulting in more velocity — remember 8th grade physics — mass X velocity 2 = kinetic energy — so pushing fundamentally the same bullet weight at a higher velocity results in more energy.

But the 5.56 is far from the powerful caliber the MSM touts it to be — either out of ignorance or willfulness. The 5.56 was developed during the Vietnam war. There were several reasons:

1) could be used in a “plastic” lightweight rifle (keeping in mind who was drafted into Nam vs. WWII)

2) it had little recoil because of the small lightweight bullet (same comment — a great deal of draftees never shot a rifle before Nam, where a great number did for WWII)

3) in full auto, it could be effectively used to create cover fire, meaning keeping the enemies’ heads down, while maneuvering troops into better positions

4) in full auto, it was an effective defoliant in the jungle

5) and, most importantly, it was designed to wound more than kill because dead soldiers could be left until after a firefight was over, but it took 3-5 soldiers to retrieve a wound soldier from the battlefield, thereby reducing the number of effective combatants that were faced.

The key was “wound” by having a lightweight bullet bouncing around in the target vs. massive destruction of organs by a heavier bullet driven at the same or near to the same velocity (thus is the mass portion of the equation). BTW, before Nam, most US military rifles fired a far bigger .30 caliber bullet, which was designed to kill, but had punishing recoil, thereby making accurate shots difficult for those who never handled a rifle before (and even those who did — I’m an admitted recoil sissy, so I tend to stick to smaller calibers that will accomplish what I’m intending).

But mass shooters, like the MSM, probably aren’t up on that history or don’t care about it because it doesn’t fit a narrative. Further, most states which do permit semiautomatic rifles for big game, outlaw the 5.56 because of its lack of power on larger animals and the ability to make a quick, efficient kill. That ought to strike home with how inefficient they are at actual killing.

If one really wanted to cause the greatest amount of death in an enclosed space, they would use a far more powerful semiautomatic shotgun with a large size shot like BB where instead of one 55 grain (7,000 grains in a pound) projectile from a 5.56, each shot would carry upwards of 100 similar size projectiles with each shot. This would ensure the most carnage on the intended target and wound others with the projectiles that missed. It would also hit more targets — that’s why mass shooters fire far more shots than hit anything. Fire 1/10th that amount with a 12 gauge at close indoor range and the counts would be far higher. Be glad mass shooters don’t know that.

Or are all semiautos just “same”?

So, definition-wise, yes all semiautomatic weapons — one shot per trigger pull — are the same. Some are more deadly than others, with the 5.56 AR not being anywhere near the deadliest or most efficient and effective. But they look scarier.

Put it this way, equating a VW Beetle with a Mack truck. Both have doors, an engine, and wheels and can be deadly if hit by one, but the Mack is far deadlier if struck by one than the VW. The 5.56 is far closer to the Beetle than the Mack when it comes to firepower and killing ability.

pensfan1

DarDys
Actually it wouldn’t.

I would like to create a video with the personal experience of some of the MSM talking heads as they did the following:

Fire a single shot rifle -- one trigger pull, one shot.

Fire a benign looking semi .22, like a Ruger. One trigger pull, one shot, then make them hold the trigger in for a full minute with no other shots being fired because the gun won’t -- release the trigger and pull it again, another shot -- explain that this is legal for hunting in all 50 states and make sure they understand the term as demonstrated -- semiautomatic -- one shot per trigger pull and holding the trigger down does absolutely nothing.

Then go to a double action revolver and repeat showing that this gun, which is legal to hunt with in every state is also semiautomatic, just in a different way.

Change to a single trigger side by side and show that it too is a semiautomatic, but limited to two shots and is legal for hunting in every state.

Do the same with an O/U, further explaining the different sports, including the Olympics, that use this type of semiautomatic weapon.

Move to a semiautomatic shotgun and get the same results, then explain that it is used in every state and is primarily the favorite for waterfowl, maybe tossing in how many waterfowl, under federal regulation are taken with this weapon.

Step up to a semiautomatic rifle, with a wood stock, that isn’t scary looking, like a Remington or Browning. Let them know this is legal in 48 states as a hunting arm.

Then get the scariest looking AR platform available, and show that it is exactly the same as all the others they just fired/saw fired — one trigger pull, one shot, no matter how long the trigger is help back.

Finally, drag out a full auto and empty the magazine with one trigger pull and hold. Then play the Sesame Street game of "one of these things is not like the others."

Explain that this is the difference between an actual weapon of war, full auto capability, and all those which are not. Explain that the general public has not been able to buy or possess a full auto since before mid-century. The only way to get one is with a class firearms license and there have been exactly zero killings, mass or singly, by those holding that license.

Then ask the "have you quit kicking your dog question" -- now that you know the difference, are you going to continue to lie or intentionally mislead your viewers/listeners/readers, because that is exactly what you are doing if you continue with your narrative after the demonstration you just took part in.

Thank you for that dissertation on firearms. I personally could give chitt. Although I was hoping for a spread sheet and maybe a bar graph or two. The NRA would be proud. As just asked, what is it that draws these mass murders to the AR-15 platform? Maybe answer that then we can move on from this "kicking the dog" line of discussion. I know there are so much more dangerous things going on in society today. Drag Queen story hour, Bud Lite/Dylan Mulvaney, anything LGBT. I'd like to hear an answer, though

Read the response below instead of trying to deflect and you might learn something.

But then again, you probably don’t want to because when a solid argument is made that disputes what you have swallowed hook, line, and sinker, you don’t give a “chit” and resort to nonsense talking points that have even less validity than what was being discussed, but since you have no logical counter argument, that is where you must go.

No one mentioned the NRA (not a member, never have been), drags queens, or anything else. Just the facts that semiautomatic weapons are not weapons of war by definition or function.

Facts are the AR platform is the weapon of choice for many many mass murders. I'll ask again, why?

DarDys

JerryS

DarDys
Actually it wouldn’t.

I would like to create a video with the personal experience of some of the MSM talking heads as they did the following:

Fire a single shot rifle -- one trigger pull, one shot.

Fire a benign looking semi .22, like a Ruger. One trigger pull, one shot, then make them hold the trigger in for a full minute with no other shots being fired because the gun won’t -- release the trigger and pull it again, another shot -- explain that this is legal for hunting in all 50 states and make sure they understand the term as demonstrated -- semiautomatic -- one shot per trigger pull and holding the trigger down does absolutely nothing.

Then go to a double action revolver and repeat showing that this gun, which is legal to hunt with in every state is also semiautomatic, just in a different way.

Change to a single trigger side by side and show that it too is a semiautomatic, but limited to two shots and is legal for hunting in every state.

Do the same with an O/U, further explaining the different sports, including the Olympics, that use this type of semiautomatic weapon.

Move to a semiautomatic shotgun and get the same results, then explain that it is used in every state and is primarily the favorite for waterfowl, maybe tossing in how many waterfowl, under federal regulation are taken with this weapon.

Step up to a semiautomatic rifle, with a wood stock, that isn’t scary looking, like a Remington or Browning. Let them know this is legal in 48 states as a hunting arm.

Then get the scariest looking AR platform available, and show that it is exactly the same as all the others they just fired/saw fired — one trigger pull, one shot, no matter how long the trigger is help back.

Finally, drag out a full auto and empty the magazine with one trigger pull and hold. Then play the Sesame Street game of "one of these things is not like the others."

Explain that this is the difference between an actual weapon of war, full auto capability, and all those which are not. Explain that the general public has not been able to buy or possess a full auto since before mid-century. The only way to get one is with a class firearms license and there have been exactly zero killings, mass or singly, by those holding that license.

Then ask the "have you quit kicking your dog question" -- now that you know the difference, are you going to continue to lie or intentionally mislead your viewers/listeners/readers, because that is exactly what you are doing if you continue with your narrative after the demonstration you just took part in.

Thanks for proving my point.  All the other guns you listed do not have the mass killing efficiency of an AR platform.  The only thing they have in common is they are semi-auto. 
 
Most do not have they shell capacity, and if they do, the don't have the same firepower of the 5.56.  All handguns are much more difficult to shoot accurately than an AR platform.  All the guns you listed were designed for hunting or self-defense.  The AR platform was designed to inflict maximum damage.

Here, again, you are wrong. You can buy 10, 20, 30 round magazines for any semiautomatic rifle. So, non argument. You can buy a 10 round tube for any semiautomatic shotgun. So, non argument again.

Please read the response to MyWar and you will see that I didn’t make your argument because you don’t have one based on facts — just talking points (the reason they are called talking points is that they are just that — a bullet point on a piece of paper without and supporting substance).

So remain ignorant and afraid instead of listening to a counterpoint.

You already invalidated your own argument.  Even if the mentally ill person knew to purchase larger magazines for other semi-auto rifles and shotguns, as you stated, they could not shoot them accurately or as quickly, due to the punishing recoil of the larger calibers.

There are soooo many guns in the USA now that if the government tried to ban some of those there could be a civil war. Sad but true. Even Trump wanted too get common sense gun laws in place. I don't own a A-R though.
 
 I have shot some before but didn't care for them. The people I know get a high (rush) from it, not me.
 

 For defending my home I would go with a 5 round semi auto 12 gauge, I'd probably not be the best with a handgun in that situation. 
 
 Time to spool a couple new reels for Crappie. Heading out around 7:00. Wish me luck!!
 
crappy 

fishin coyote

pensfan1
Facts are the AR platform is the weapon of choice for many many mass murders. I'll ask again, why?

They're scary looking???.... IDK maybe it's a perceived notion such as Dardy's was implying or  just the look they see on/in all the movies, games and such.  
 
I do think it is a valid question though

I feel it is a valid ask, I appreciate the answer. Look I don't even know why this issue has come up. There will be another mass shooting tomorrow, and the next day, and next day and..

We a little off topic here but got me thinking. Whatever happened to the release of Audrey Hales manifesto? Was wondering if she was one of those right wing conservative gun toting MAGA supporters.
Jest wondering, dats all.

pensfan1
Facts are the AR platform is the weapon of choice for many many mass murders. I'll ask again, why?

Excellent question. Since I’m neither a mass shooter nor own an AR platform, I can only speculate, so here are some educated guesses.

They are mentally ill

They aren’t too smart

They are not firearm savvy or knowledgeable

They are easily influenced by what they see or read, particularly on the internet

They are constantly being told that an AR is the weapon of choice for mass shooting by the either ignorant or intentionally misleading MSM

Or, most likely, all of the above.

JerryS

snagr
Why don’t folks on here ever bring up gun control or mass shootings when they happen every weekend in the major US cities with the most stringent gun control laws in the country?

Gun violence in inner cities plagued with poverty/drugs is a different argument

And why is that Jerry?

Wow I go fishing and I miss all the drama

Care to cite a reliable source that “most” pro gun people are in favor of owning full auto, rocket launchers, tanks… as you state, and spare the opinion of MSM talking heads because what their personal feelings are isn’t a reliable source.

BTW, one can own full auto, rocket launchers, and, yes, tanks in the US. But one must possess a class 5 (3? I can’t keep them straight) firearms license and in the history of that class of license exactly zero people have been shot by those possessing said license. So, there is some common sense gun law — can’t pass the rigors of that background check — no class license.

But to extend those rigors to a commonly used gun like an AR is not common sense.

I bought a suppressor last year and had to qualify for a lesser class license which only required a form 4473 (required for all new gun purchases and ALL handgun purchases with a penalty of up to 15 years for falsifying anything on it) and digital finger prints.

When buying a new gun, it typically takes about 2-5 minutes to clear the 4473 check if there are no issues. The digital fingerprints go through the FBI database and, like a Google search, particularly if your fingerprints are not on file (meaning you have never been arrested, let along convicted) takes a fraction of a second. Yet it took 9 months and 20 days for the ATF using digital forms (the old paper ones took longer) to issue my tax stamp in order for the store to turn over the suppressor to me (which must be bought prior to applying because each application and tax stamp are keyed to the SN on the suppressor).

Further, because the tax stamp is SN specific, I am the only one that can use it. I cannot lend it, even to my wife, or sell it to anyone. In fact, unless I set up a trust, upon my death, the federal government gets the suppressor and destroys it.

So getting a higher class license is even more rigorous, including no warrant inspection permission at any time for any reason to inventory that you still possess the firearm or tank in question.

Since more people are killed by drunk drivers than in mass shootings, would it not be sensible to do a background check for DUI before selling anyone alcohol? If they pass that, a breathalyzer before serving anyone another drink? Background on motor vehicle accidents, citations before selling someone a vehicle?

A drink is harmless unless someone goes beyond where it is legal. Vehicles are harmless unless someone goes beyond where it is legal. And ARs are harmless unless someone goes beyond where it is legal.

bigfoot
We a little off topic here but got me thinking. Whatever happened to the release of Audrey Hales manifesto? Was wondering if she was one of those right wing conservative gun toting MAGA supporters.
Jest wondering, dats all.

It's unimportant, it doesn't fit the narrative.
Now get back on topic. AR-15's are the problem
 
BH

JerryS

snagr

JerryS

snagr
Why don’t folks on here ever bring up gun control or mass shootings when they happen every weekend in the major US cities with the most stringent gun control laws in the country?

Gun violence in inner cities plagued with poverty/drugs is a different argument

And why is that Jerry?

As I said, it is a different argument which I'm not going to here.  The discussion here is about the AR15, and whether it should be available to the public.  Most arguments presented by the pro-gun side could support the public owning full-auto rifles, rocket launchers, tanks, etc..  Hopefully you are not in favor of this.  Regulating the sales and possession of the AR platform is just moving the bar in a common-sense direction. 

Why is it a different argument? It’s the real life application of the most stringent gun and ammunition restrictions in the country. Surely we could make correlations between certain populations in some areas being restricted from owning the most common types of firearms used in mass shootings and how further restrictions of other types of firearms might work in the real world, no?

Didn’t Biden have two years of a Dem congress to get something done about AR’s? Juss askin.

JerryS

DarDys
Care to cite a reliable source that “most” pro gun people are in favor of owning full auto, rocket launchers, tanks… as you state, and spare the opinion of MSM talking heads because what their personal feelings are isn’t a reliable source.

BTW, one can own full auto, rocket launchers, and, yes, tanks in the US. But one must possess a class 5 (3? I can’t keep them straight) firearms license and in the history of that class of license exactly zero people have been shot by those possessing said license. So, there is some common sense gun law — can’t pass the rigors of that background check — no class license.

But to extend those rigors to a commonly used gun like an AR is not common sense.

I bought a suppressor last year and had to qualify for a lesser class license which only required a form 4473 (required for all new gun purchases and ALL handgun purchases with a penalty of up to 15 years for falsifying anything on it) and digital finger prints.

When buying a new gun, it typically takes about 2-5 minutes to clear the 4473 check if there are no issues. The digital fingerprints go through the FBI database and, like a Google search, particularly if your fingerprints are not on file (meaning you have never been arrested, let along convicted) takes a fraction of a second. Yet it took 9 months and 20 days for the ATF using digital forms (the old paper ones took longer) to issue my tax stamp in order for the store to turn over the suppressor to me (which must be bought prior to applying because each application and tax stamp are keyed to the SN on the suppressor).

Further, because the tax stamp is SN specific, I am the only one that can use it. I cannot lend it, even to my wife, or sell it to anyone. In fact, unless I set up a trust, upon my death, the federal government gets the suppressor and destroys it.

So getting a higher class license is even more rigorous, including no warrant inspection permission at any time for any reason to inventory that you still possess the firearm or tank in question.

Since more people are killed by drunk drivers than in mass shootings, would it not be sensible to do a background check for DUI before selling anyone alcohol? If they pass that, a breathalyzer before serving anyone another drink? Background on motor vehicle accidents, citations before selling someone a vehicle?

A drink is harmless unless someone goes beyond where it is legal. Vehicles are harmless unless someone goes beyond where it is legal. And ARs are harmless unless someone goes beyond where it is legal.

 
You are good at trying to make your point using strawman arguments.  I never stated: “most” pro gun people are in favor of owning full auto...  I stated most pro-gun arguments could support owning such weapons.  Arguments like:

• A drink is harmless unless someone goes beyond where it is legal. Vehicles are harmless unless someone goes beyond where it is legal. And ARs are harmless unless someone goes beyond where it is legal.

• Guns don't kill people, people kill people
• Any 2nd amendment reference

Might as well make fentanyl legal.  Someone could have an open bag of fentanyl sitting on the street and it would not jump up and kill someone.
 
If you knew as much about guns as you claim, you would know that military studies show the semi-auto rifle (one trigger pull, one bullet), with a high-capacity magazine, is better for killing than a full-auto rifle since the semi is inherently more accurate and uses ammo more efficiently.  Although you probably do know this but it doesn't fit your narrative.

As usual, when you speak about which you know not and rely on talking points dig up without support, you are wrong.

Semi-auto, in the hands of the trained, tend to be more accurately shot as opposed to full auto, which has a totally different purpose than accuracy.

The straw man (person???) argument you attempting to use is that the military, at one time, during Nam, had either full auto or semiautomatic single fire on the M-16, which is an actual weapon of war. The non shooters who were drafted into the military could not shoot the single fire mode very well, so they tended to follow the illogical axiom of “accuracy through volume” by using the full auto mode.

The problem was, it was even less accurate, particularly after the barrel heated, and it depleted ammunition faster than it could be resupplied.

So the military went to the gun manufacturer and requested another option, the three shot burst. This gave the physiological comfort to the non shooters turned soldiers of multiple shots with one trigger pull (these are also illegal for the non class holding general public) and conserved ammunition at the same time.

The MSM had taken the rationale of why this was done, as stated above, and twisted it into the talking point you are regurgitating with being either as unknowing or willfully and intentionally misleading as they are.

I will give that a single shot, fired in a calm and deliberate manner is far more accurate, but that’s not what these mass shooters are doing. They are slamming the trigger as quick as they can (listen to the shots from the Texas mall in the parking lot), which shows any real lack of knowledge, training, or practice beyond knowing how to load the thing and maybe some shots fired to test it.

Even with boot camp military training, most are not accurate enough in a single shot mode to do the harm they could. Imagine if someone who was a good shot, instead of these whack jobs were doing the shooting.

To put that in perspective, studies show that police officers, who qualify yearly, so they have a deeper understanding of firearms and their use than do these “bought it a week ago” nuts, in a street firefight, miss 80% of the time.