A recent study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences reveals that across all political and social groups in the United States, there is a strong preference against living near AR-15 rifle owners and neighbors who store guns outside of locked safes. This surprising consensus suggests that when it comes to immediate living environments, Americans’ views on gun control may be less divided than the polarized national debate suggests.
The research was conducted against a backdrop of increasing gun violence and polarization on gun policy in the United States. The United States has over 350 million civilian firearms and gun-related incidents, including accidents and mass shootings, have become a leading cause of death in the country. Despite political divides, the new study aimed to explore whether there’s common ground among Americans in their immediate living environments, focusing on neighborhood preferences related to gun ownership and storage.
the gun ownership attribute had three levels: no gun ownership, owning a pistol, and owning an AR-15,
This study design is bad, and they should feel bad. If they’re going to claim that people are afraid of AR-15s, they should compare it apples-to-apples with other rifles, or just ask about rifles generally, like they did with pistols.
Furthermore, any study asking opinion questions for what should be data-driven decisions are misleading at best and harmful at worst. If your concern is safety in communities, you should study actual safety, not feelings. It appears they want to make people feel safe, while not necessarily increasing safety.
Given that hunting is a very common pastime in the US, and that hunting rifles are statistically the firearms least likely to be used in a homicide, I think you’d find that information to be a pretty useless outlier, on the level of asking about bow or fencing foil ownership.
That’s right, we should be making decisions on what makes people actually safe instead of what feels safe. So all the gun owners who say they need a gun because it makes them feel safe should be ignored because multiple studies have shown that owning a gun actually makes you less safe.
Obligatory “no study is done properly since I, the Internet rando, saith it so”
Yes, people want to feel safe. Emotional health is an important part of quality of life.
And this isn’t a data-driven decision. This is a study on how people feel about an issue. Nobody is making a decision based on this, outside of politicians understanding the best way to speak in public when campaigning. Why are you so upset that someone studies how people feel? Yes, the study could have been more in-depth and asked about different types of rifles, but then someone would complain that they didn’t include X gun or Y rifle, or they would complain that they lumped all rifles together, or complain about the lumping of “assault rifles,” or complain that shotguns aren’t included.
It’s like turning right on red. It has been proven to be safer by tons of data-driven studies. But people fucking hate it when you are used to being able to turn and go about your drive when there is no traffic around.
TSA joins the conversation
The TSA can go die in a fire.
A major reason many people buy an AR is because they think they are bad asses and want a bad ass weapon. I would rather have a level headed AR owning neighbor than a wanna-be bad ass neighbor owning ANY kind of weapon.
I own an AR because it’s kinda easy to work on without Royally Fucking it Up.
People feelings and perceptions are absolutely useful things to record and build data sets around. We do it all the time. The question isn’t asking “are people safer?” The question is “do people feel safer?“ Which is an important and distinct question they are trying to answer.
For instance: Every poll about the economy is “how do you feel about the economy?” not “what are the numbers for your personal financial situation?” Because peoples moods, rather than economic reality, are a better predictor of their voting behavior. Also, that info on its own is useful for understanding other questions.
TL;DR: you’re disputing how they measured it because you have decided what the question should be, instead of recognizing what the question is. Both are valid to ask but this study is explicitly about perceptions and feelings, not hard numbers on safety and firearms. But they aren’t measuring safety, they are measuring perception. And that’s a useful exercise.
Fair enough for a general survey question. However, the point about how policy decisions shouldn’t be based on opinion/anecdote is still valid (at least in the case of gun control).
Well, I disagree that how people feel should not be considered when writing laws. But I’m also not sure why the existence of the study means people say it should be used as the sole basis for deciding policies around firearms. That’s not really what this is about.
How people feel is important to know because it will influence how a change needs to be presented.
In this example: A lot of oeople feel safer owning guns, science show they’re wrong and it actually decreases their safety, in order to be able to change things in a way that people will accept it that perception needs to be changed.
Great point
I could understand the argument for factoring people’s feelings into policy in some cases, but let’s take this study as an example.
Handguns are responsible for far more harm than AR-15s, but this study shows people “fear” AR-15s more. A policy that is based on these findings and not empirical data may attempt to reduce gun violence by addressing AR-15 ownership. Thereby not having a major effect on reducing actual gun violence.
A policy focusing on reducing handgun ownership would be much more effective at reducing gun violence, despite people not fearing them as much.
Where is this policy discussion happening? This post is just the study. It should absolutely inform policy, but y’all are acting like it is proposing specific policy.
This surprising consensus suggests that when it comes to immediate living environments, Americans’ views on gun control may be less divided than the polarized national debate suggests.
This was their takeaway. Not gun control policy advocacy.
I think you’re confusing me with other commentors. I haven’t suggested this research in particular is being actively used to support policy decisions. Nor have I suggested this research is advocating for policy.
In my initial comment I simply said policy in general (at least with gun control) shouldn’t be based on people’s feelings/anecdotes.
I think this study asked a very interesting question, and I find the results to be very interesting. I don’t really have any issues with this research by itself.
I know what your initial comment was, what I’m saying is that framing is not relevant to the post/survey. Either way, we are just going in circles here. Have a good rest of your week.
I have to agree. I know my neighbors have a few different assault rifles and it does not bother me at all. When shit goes down I know we got each other backs
What “shit” would have to go down to where you would need to have each others backs? You know your opponents are the ones that don’t even want to own guns… you don’t have to be terrified of us.
Why are you assuming to know who their opponents are? I’m pretty socialist leaning (union steward like, convince my friends to read the Communist Manifeso like) I own a handful of guns. I know my “opponents” are likely armed.
The Socialist Rifle Association is assuming their opponents will be armed.We saw it during the BLM protests: the police are very willing to injure and kill unarmed protesters, but play very nicely when armed protesters are around. That convinced me.
The study isn’t about community safety or gun stats, they said the goal was to explore opinions. Opinions are therefore the data, the facts, of this domain. Are you seriously suggesting that researchers interested in opinions eschew opinions and use (barely relevant) stats instead? Because people don’t necessarily form opinions on facts. Which is why opinions are their own thing, and evidence is another thing. Two separate domains.
“80% of Americans think there should be more affordable housing in theory. 10% of Americans are willing to live near affordable housing.”
This kind of stuff is worth committing to data.
I have an AR-15. It’s usually in it’s case. (I don’t have children.) I know plenty of people that have AR-15s, and a few weirdos that prefer AKs (but they’re finally seeing the light now that cheap Russian ammo isn’t cheap at all any more). It’s just such a non-issue for me. My biggest issue is that I would prefer that the people I’m around are safe, as in, have good muzzle awareness, excellent trigger discipline, etc. But the gun itself? I’m fine with AR-15s.
If they have something like an L85A1, anything by KelTec, or an AK, I know that they have deeply suspect judgement, and can not be trusted in any matters of taste.
anything by keltec
You say that, but let’s be honest: keltec is a mullet company. They make an array of monotonous pocket pistols, and freaky shit. Nothing in between. You know anybody who has a fun keltec is down for a good time.
I feel like KelTec’s motto should be, “All The Cocaine In The US Comes Through Florida”.
A gun company by Florida Man, for Florida Man.
Was always fun to me as a Russian that, if you’re not in a military, you’ll have easier time to get your hands on an AK in America rather than Russia itself :D
But that’s for the better - gun ownership is cancer, in my opinion.
Good news then! In Russia, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, and the rights of the criminally accused are also banned!
Do guns help Americans get their freedoms? Is this country a beacon of hope? Isn’t the US slowly following Russia’s guidebooks on slowly stripping freedoms away?
For as long as you are scattered and divided, no gun is gonna help you change the game of politics. If you are united, you can overthrow your government without a single bullet.
Most of European countries, for example, have much stricter gun control. And if there’s a place of democracy, Europe is the destination to watch.
Do guns help Americans get their freedoms?
They sure as fuck did, yeah! :D Just like they’re helping Ukranians keep their country right now. They’re certainly helping the rebels in Myanmar.
Is this country a beacon of hope?
It depends on who you ask. At the moment, people still tend to choose the US over pretty much any other country when they’re trying to emigrate and they have a real choice. So for people outside the US? Probably. For people inside the US? I think that we can, and should, do better.
Isn’t the US slowly following Russia’s guidebooks on slowly stripping freedoms away?
Unfortunately, yes. And the people need to resist that.
If you are united, you can overthrow your government without a single bullet.
That’s a nice theory but it rests on two presuppositions. First, it assumes that the US would ever be united and speak with one voice. Given how many people here identify with their oppressors rather than their fellow oppressed, that seems extremely unlikely. (Look at the number of people willing to vote for Trump three times now.) Second, it rests on the idea that governance requires the consent of the governed, and, well, I’m pretty sure that’s not the case.
On the other hand, armed groups of civilians that are acting peacefully tend to get the kid glove treatment from cops. Cops tend to want to have the advantage of numbers and the ability to use force before they instigate conflict; when they don’t have it, they suddenly remember how to de-escalate. So far, that’s mostly been used by the right, but the left is finally starting to pick up on that shit, which terrifies the chuds. Why do you think that you’ve seen armed groups of civilians protecting drag queens at story time, or protecting people trying to hand out food to the homeless?
And if there’s a place of democracy, Europe is the destination to watch.
I note that the far-right is making significant inroads into European politics.
That’s a fair answer, I appreciate the depth you went into.
I think US is the center of immigration due to high economic potential first and foremost. Building careers in the richest country in the world sounds like an attractive option. Especially for young people who consider burdens like healthcare and home ownership to be less significant. Barely so for democracy outside of proclaimed “land of the free”. But I may be wrong.
If US will not speak with one voice, no amount of arms is gonna help. And I’d much rather live in a country where people don’t have access to guns than in a country where left and right are pointing muzzles at each other (not to mention American left and right are just different sorts of right to the outside world, but that’s a story for another day).
On far-right in Europe - true on your side.
I think you’re right about the perceptions of economic freedoms, yeah. Which is kinda wild, given that most countries in the EU fare much better overall in cost-of-living versus salaries. So it’s like playing roulette; they’re betting that they can win big, instead of being just another chump that loses money to the house.
And, TBH, I think that if the US had the same kind of criminal justice reform and social safety networks that you see in most of the EU (and I’m not including Great Britain in this; they really suck in a lot of ways, which is intentional on the part of UK conservatives), I think that you’d see a lot less violent crime in general, and a definitely lower murder rate.
And I’d much rather live in a country where people don’t have access to guns than in a country where left and right are pointing muzzles at each other
I don’t know where you live. But you gotta understand a couple of things about the US. First, the US is big. All of Europe–including Russia–is 3.9M square miles. The continental US (not including Hawai’i and Alaska) is 3.1M square miles. All of Europe has a population of 745M people, and all of the US has a population of about 335M. So the US is a very large country, and statistically it’s very sparsely populated. I live in a semi-rural area; if shit happens, it’s going to take emergency services–cops, fire department, ambulance, whatever–a minimum of 20 minutes to show up. But in the US, the cops have no legal obligation to protect you in any way; there is no criminal or civil liability if any police officer or agency refuses to do their job. On top of that, cops are far, far more likely than not to be on the political right.
So what does this mean?
You need to be able and willing to protect yourself, and take care of yourself, because the government here can’t, and won’t. Especially if you aren’t white and christian.
You can say, “I don’t want to live in a society that’s armed”, but that’s a very privileged stance to take, given that most of the people in the US have to be ready to fend for themselves, and hope that the veneer of civility doesn’t fail.
I’m from, well, Russia :D With half the population over almost double the area, and quite some threats, too.
And yeah, we have guns banned here.
Not that we don’t have issue with police/other emergency services arriving to remote areas in time, nor are we a thriving peaceful nice democracy, but I certainly don’t expect less gun control to improve the situation here - and I don’t think it’s optimal for the US, either.
Individually, you may benefit from holding a gun. But collectively, there will be plenty of people putting those guns to a bad use, or just overreact in self-defense.
Funny, in modern countries we just think you’re all fucking cowards no matter what
I’m a leftist Canadian trade unionist who owns guns. Please explain what part of this makes me a coward.
Why?
People who have guns -
-
Hunters ✅
-
Soldiers ✅
-
Farmers ✅
-
Cowards who are protecting themselves from -
-
Other cowards
I had a guy pull a knife on me in the walmart parking lot, apr 2020. He decided to leave instead of stab me, and would you like to know why? Because in your summation “I’m a coward” who decided that instead of being stabbed I would reach for my firearm. Call me a coward all you want but I got my groceries and he probably found some more courageous victim, I’ll call that a wash.
There are also gun collectors and target shooters. Nothing wrong with either hobby. There are even Olympic target shooting events.
-
I just came here to say I don’t understand this because while these guns are by and large used in mass shootings, handgunss cause far more death.
Handguns are less accurate, and are used far less for hunting or other sport (at least compared to rifles), partially due to their sheer inaccuracy. They are way more likely to be used in a murder, and people are way less likely to take the time to lock them up properly because they want them “at hand.”
I’m way more likely to be shot by some dumbfuck with a handgun than be caught up in a mass shooting.
Unpopular opinion: ban handguns
Mass shootings use handguns more often than rifles
I think it’s the fear of what a full-auto AR-15 can do to a crowd compared to a handgun.
Are fully automatic AR-15s even available to the general public like that? I thought the ones civilians could buy were semiautomatic?
In Canada? Not legally. In America: no new automatic guns can legally be made for sale. The existing stock of legal automatics requires a special process to transfer from one owner to another, and they are expensive.
They can be converted and if someone is ready to go and shoot people in a crowd I don’t think they’re too worried about the conversion being illegal.
Right, but fear isn’t based in rationality. Even after 9/11, we went balls to the wall against “terrorism” but like… the reality was that a US citizen getting killed by a terrorist on US land was less likely than being struck by lightning. So we had a War on Terrorism over something less likely than a lightning strike.
I’m literally pointing out that handguns cause way, way, way, way more deaths, in general than rifles.
I understand the fear of a mass shooter, but… it’s just not as likely, and we’ve had a precipitous drop in mass shootings in the last year.
Not saying it’s rational, just pointing out my interpretation.
I feel like the licensing in Australia is in generally pretty good (sometimes it’s bonkers reactionary in terms of what gets banned).
Rifles you can get levers and bolt action. They fire plenty fast enough for whatever you want to do with them recreationally.
Handguns are licenceable but it’s strict as fuck. Expensive club membership, regular training/competing events (community + keeping skills and culture good), 6 month probationary period with only supervised shooting, another 6 months before you can buy your own, have to have a rock solid safe bolted to the floor inspected initially and randomly (every few years realistically). Seems completely reasonable, handguns exist to put holes in paper and kill humans, plus they’re highly concealable and much harder to use.
Popular opinion: just ban guns
I think it’s more that multiple very well-known mass shootings happened with the killers using them- the Pulse nightclub, Uvalde, Stoneman Douglas and Sandy Hook schools and the Las Vegas shooter at the music festival.
But I am guessing that is more about their popularity than their utility.
I mean, agreed, I understand where the fear comes from, and why. It makes public spaces unnerving… but so do handguns, in my opinion. Just because you can’t kill as many as quickly doesn’t mean you can’t still cause carnage and death and harming innocent bystanders.
I’m just way more statistically likely to be shot by a handgun, and so I personally view it with that information in mind. Like, I don’t flip people off for driving like assholes on the road anymore like I did in my youth. Not really worth the likelihood of road rage and some crazed asshole packing heat. Post-COVID it’s gotten way worse.
I don’t disagree. I always feel uncomfortable when I see someone walking around with a handgun in a holster because I have no idea who they are and if they can be trusted with that gun. And if we found a way to stop so many people from living in fear all the time, I wouldn’t see it or be especially worried about it when I did. Unfortunately, with the American media telling everyone they’re about to be murdered any time they go anywhere…
Even if they can be trusted with a gun, even if they pull it out to save the day in a crisis…
There’s still projectiles flying that could hit people and things other than the intended target. That’s the part that it always comes back to for me. Bullets aren’t target-seeking. Even the best shooter can miss in a stressful situation (especially with a handgun), it doesn’t mean they’re a bad person. It just means adding a gun to any situation complicates the situation violently. Adding multiple guns multiplies the violence.
Canadians have a lot of guns, for hunting and for fun. Most of them are long, though, because handguns are heavily regulated and a bit of a hassle so pretty much just a firing range thing. We don’t have a lot of gun deaths compared to the USA, and it’s not just culture. It’s the handguns.
… gun-related incidents, including accidents and mass shootings, have become a leading cause of death in the country.
What? Not even close.
It says “a leading cause”, not “the leading cause”. Depending on how long your list of leading causes is, anything could qualify.
I skimmed the source they linked, and it lists guns as the leading cause of death for ages 1-19. I did not see an overall list.
I would agree that a more carefully phrased sentence would have been better and less misleading.
Link to source: https://publichealth.jhu.edu/sites/default/files/2022-05/2020-gun-deaths-in-the-us-4-28-2022-b.pdf
It says “a leading cause”, not “the leading cause”. Depending on how long your list of leading causes is, anything could qualify.
English is not my native language but this sounds like it should not be a thing. Sounds like it was made for con artists…
Basically yes. It’s at best a way to hedge their language and avoid being technically wrong, but in practice it can certainly be used in quite misleading ways.
I would say that in my opinion “a leading cause” would need to at least be in the top half, but it could possibly be anything but last since it’s “leading” last place…
Underlying Cause of Death, 2018-2022, Single Race Results (Persons aged 1-19)
#1 - Firearmhttps://wonder.cdc.gov/controller/datarequest/D158;jsessionid=E9C7B23A4CABE7AA0CDEFB26390B
Link does not work
PS: Are you including suicides? If so, than maybe it is possible in the 1-19 age group you selected but incredibly misleading and still untrue in general population.
Iirc that dataset does include suicides and accidental discharges.
Hey we’re here to move the goalposts, where do you want them?
On the whole population where they belong instead of a carefully selected subset.
Yeah, fuck those kids. They went out and bought those weapons! They can kill themselves if they want!
I agree, we need to be able to threaten everyone we don’t like with execution!
steal something? DEATH SENTENCE. vandalize something? DEATH SENTENCE. made me mad? YUP THAT’S A DOUBLE DEATH SENTENCE.
an armed society is a polite society, because I can just shoot you!
/s. if anyone wasn’t able to tell
Hell yeah! That’s why I keep a vial of anthrax on me at all times. Never know when you might need it.
You forgot to mention, pull into my driveway on accident, DEATH SENTENCE, served immediately. I need all citizens of the US to be Judge, Jury, and Executioner to feel safe.
Oh no, kids are dying. Quickly tell everyone nothing ever happened in Tiananmen Square because spreading misinformation will help apparently.
Surely only people who want kids dead would point out misinformation. /s
You are a sad nihilist and you have a strange way of arguing your point. Comparing a random person quoting a stat from the internet on a social media post to the CCP covering up Tiananmen is so interesting. It takes what-about-ism to a whole other level. It wasn’t even misinformation, it was just a hastily googled fact from some random person on Lemmy.
Hard to believe you wouldn’t go with the usual, “What about cars? What about being fat?” As if any of that would be relevant to the shocking stats for gun violence deaths of children and young adults.
deleted by creator
The aversion to AR-15 owners was stronger than the aversion to owners of other types of firearms (pistols). When given a choice, the probability that a respondent would prefer to live near someone who owned an AR-15 plummeted by over 20 percentage points, indicating a strong societal preference against this type of gun ownership.
Which, as usual, goes a long way towards illustrating how effective propaganda and manipulation of people’s opinions can be. Not just on this specific topic either, but in this case I guess that’s what we’re talking about. Despite its scientific dressings, what this study is exploring isn’t actually any mechanical factor, it is measuring people’s perceptions which are not guaranteed to be reflected by reality. (And again, this is true of many other topics as well…)
The AR-15 platform does the same damn thing and shoots the same damn bullet in the same damn way as numerous other firearms, and yet just he name itself has a bad rap from being incessantly repeated in the news and social media.
Here’s this old chestnut. It’s still true.
Why’s the one on top “scarier?”
Tl;dr: Own, store, and handle your gun responsibly. Don’t be a paranoid loon. Don’t believe in whatever boogeyman Fox News is pushing this week.
Well, the top one is much easier to convert to fully automatic for starters.
Also, the branding that a loud portion of AR-15 owners have given themselves doesn’t help (trust me I used to be friends with one of them).
The study only had 3 categories: no firearms, pistol(s), or an AR-15, so you’re literally just ranting at bad survey design.
Okay, so? Does that make it less bullshit somehow?
Because you’re railing against the perception of AR15s vs other rifles when that literally wasn’t part of the study in any capacity. People responding to this just chose the biggest gun on the list, that’s all there is to it.
Then why do people buy the top one over the bottom one?
The short answer is that AR-15s are just better rifles. They’re more accurate, they’re more reliable, they’re easier to clean and maintain, they’re easier to repair, they have much better ergonomics, none of the parts are proprietary, and consequently there’s an enormous aftermarket for parts, accessories, and customization. They also have a modular design that, with the exception of the barrel nut and castle nut which have torque specifications, can be almost completely disassembled with a single roll punch and an allen wrench or two. That means if something breaks or wears out you don’t have to send it back to the manufacturer or pay out the nose for a gunsmith, you can just order the part and fix it yourself with basically just a pointy stick and a YouTube video. It also means you can start out with a really cheap rifle and upgrade it component by component until you have a high-end rifle if you want to.
That Mini-14 on the bottom is a fine rifle, and they’re actually pretty popular, but the AR platform outclasses it on most crucial metrics. If you could only have one or the other, for most people it’d be the AR without question. A lot of people have spilled a lot of ink speculating about this reason or that reason as to why so many people want ARs, and usually manage to miss the fact that they’re just fantastic rifles. Even with the amount of cringey fetishizing of the military that happens on the conservative side of the gun community, nobody would want one if they sucked.
I can’t answer for “people,” only for me. But I’m pretty sure you can’t just slap an upper receiver for a different caliber on a Mini 14. The AR platform is inherently customizable and modular.
That doesn’t make it shoot bullets any harder, though.
What’s the practical purpose of changing calibers if it doesn’t make a difference?
Changing calibers absolutely does make a difference. If it didn’t, we wouldn’t have so many. My comment about not shooting bullets harder has the implicit clarification that this is if it’s chambered in the same caliber as another gun.
In their default factory configurations, the vast majority of AR-15’s as well as the Mini 14 (the other gun pictured there) fire the same cartridge in the same caliber with approximately the same amount of energy, to no appreciable difference whatsoever from the point of view of whatever was shot with them. That is .223 Remington.
If you convert your gun to a different caliber, obviously the comparison no longer applies unless you compare it to other guns of the same caliber. But the Armalite platform is very modular, so making that conversion is super easy. This allows you to, just as an example, buy a bog standard model chambered in .223 and leave it that way for self defense or whatever, but then get an inexpensive .22LR upper to fire cheap .22LR ammo for target practice or plinking without having to spend the entire GDP of a third world country on ammunition, and/or keep a larger caliber receiver on hand in .300 Blackout or .450 Bushmaster or similar for hunting.
This saves you from having to buy and secure three separate guns for three separate tasks, especially considering you’re unlikely to be needing all three at the same time. (I don’t know about you, but I only have two hands.)
I think most gun owners tend to own quite a few guns. I also have seen where people tend to buy multiple AR-15 rifles in order to build something different every time for no discernable reason other than they like to build them and show them off. The issue is that the AR-15 platform attracts certain kinds of people who really don’t have an interest in shooting as a sport. If it wasn’t available I would guess that many of those people wouldn’t buy some other rifle in its place.
Your image is confusing. How does a the rifle with no magazine have the same capacity to rapid fire as the one above it? The Ar-15 appears to have more bullets immediately available, which would mean it would fire them faster.
How is having a pistol grip that improves comfort and hip firing not make the weapon easier and more comfortable to use?
How is being less visible at night not make a black gun more dangerous than one with a bright wooden sheen?
Do both guns have the same exact default trigger pull, or is the ar-15’s lighter and easier to fire?
These guns are different enough in actual use to make one more dangerous than the other. They both can kill you dead, but one literally is designed specifically to be deadiler in several ways. It’s one of the reasons mass murders keep using it specifically to mas murder people.
Why is it surprising that it’s considered deadiler?
Your image is confusing. How does a the rifle with no magazine have the same capacity to rapid fire as the one above it? The Ar-15 appears to have more bullets immediately available, which would mean it would fire them faster.
The magazine isn’t in the second picture but it has one. Looks like a Ruger 5816 to me, so if you want to see what it looks like with the magazine in it, check out their webpage. Funny enough, it looks like a 10 round mag in the AR, and the 5816 comes with a 20.
How is having a pistol grip that improves comfort and hip firing not make the weapon easier and more comfortable to use?
You’re talking about personal preferences here. I tend to find them both pretty comfortable, but you really want to keep the stock at your shoulder.
How is being less visible at night not make a black gun more dangerous than one with a bright wooden sheen?
One of them is black metal, the other one is wood. Either could be painted if you wanted to I suppose, but if we’re talking about night-time scenarios, using a light would make either relatively visible.
Do both guns have the same exact default trigger pull, or is the ar-15’s lighter and easier to fire?
You could probably answer these questions in less time than it took you to write them out by looking them up. The 5816 has a pull of 13.50" the base model ruger AR (8500) is 10.25" - 13.50".
These guns are different enough in actual use to make one more dangerous than the other. They both can kill you dead, but one literally is designed specifically to be deadiler in several ways. It’s one of the reasons mass murders keep using it specifically to mas murder people.
Clearly this is bullshit.
The inage implies these guns have the same capabilities and fire rate, but one has a magazine and the other doesnt.
Given a circumstance where someone is shooting at you with either the top gun with a magazine and the bottom gun with no magazine, which would you prefer they have?
Yea, I see your point - no magazine at all has a capacity of 1.
These guns are different enough in actual use to make one more dangerous than the other. They both can kill you dead, but one literally is designed specifically to be deadiler in several ways. It’s one of the reasons mass murders keep using it specifically to mas murder people.
Others have already explained how they’re both equally lethal, but to your point about mass murderers using the one over the other: The top rifle can be had for ~$400 & looks like the one all the soldiers and video game guys use. The bottom is closer to $1000 and does not look as cool (to the young adult male demographic that commits most mass shootings, at least). I would argue those two factors account more for their difference in mass shooting use than anything else.
How is being less visible at night not make a black gun more dangerous than one with a bright wooden sheen?
You’re right. We should regulate black paint just in case someone decides to turn their legitimate wooden rifle into a war machine.
So you ignored everything i asked about except the color?
Okay.
In aggregate, these changes make the weapon more dangerous to others, so it’s considered more dangerous to others. Seems pretty simple to me.
Someone already shit on you about everything else, seemed redundant to pile on.
In aggregate, these changes make the weapon
more dangerous to otherslook scary.Fixed.
So it’s your firm connection that the top gun with a 10 round magazine is equally dangerous as the bottom gun with a 1 round chamber?
Okay then.
You’ve already had it explained to you that the mini14 takes magazines. Being overly pedantic doesn’t help your case.
Why don’t you compare chamber to chamber? The top gun also only has a one round chamber.
Why don’t you compare magazine to magazine? They each only store one round (in the chamber) without a magazine. Standard hunting magazines for both in most states which allow hunting with them, is 5 rounds. You can also get 10, 20, 30, or higher capacity for either.
The point is that they’re both highly customizable and acquirable, and their basic functions and performance are identical, but only one is publicly stigmatized. Either do both or neither.
I don’t get the point about firing from the hip, no one who is trying to hit a target is firing from the hip unless they’re a trick shooter or firing a shotgun and even then, very rare. And you can also have a pistol grip on a mini-14. And even if it was an issue, holding a pistol grip from the hip is less natural and more awkward than holding a standard hunting rifle grip at that angle.
#BlackGunsMatter
How is having a pistol grip that improves comfort and hip firing not make the weapon easier and more comfortable to use?
In all of the PCSL, 2-gun, etc. matches I’ve been to, I’ve never seen anyone shooting from the hip.
A ‘traditional’ stock offers certain benefits that an AR-15 stock doesn’t; you can sometimes get different comb heights (or an adjustable comb height) in order to make it easier to get a good sight picture. Since an AR-15 has a buffer tube in the stock, you can’t really do much to move it up or down, and your charging handle limits your ability to have a stock with a comb that goes very far forward or up. Neither is “right”, but is going to be at least partially preference and purpose of the firearm.
But fundamentally, a gun that is difficult and uncomfortable to shoot is a bad design, regardless of how the stock is designed.
How is being less visible at night not make a black gun more dangerous than one with a bright wooden sheen?
So, it turns out that black isn’t actually less visible at night. Nor are bright colors more visible at night. If you wear solid black at night in the woods, you’re going to be more visible than if you were wearing camouflage. No joke. It has to do with the way that you perceive color.
Do both guns have the same exact default trigger pull, or is the ar-15’s lighter and easier to fire?
They’re both roughly the same out of the box. Both should be in the 5-6 pound range. An AR-15 trigger assembly can be replaced fairly easily by anyone that wants to spend the money ($200-500, depending); I replaced mine with a flat-faced 2.5# trigger since I use it for competitions. Ruger uses a lot of MIM parts, so you’d need to start by replacing the guts with something made from tool steel, and then go to a gunsmith to get the detailing done to safely reduce trigger pull weight. (Done incorrectly, you can end up with things like a gun that is no longer drop safe.)
These guns are different enough in actual use to make one more dangerous than the other. They both can kill you dead, but one literally is designed specifically to be deadiler in several ways. [emphasis added] It’s one of the reasons mass murders keep using it specifically to mas murder people.
Exactly how do you mean this? Both have the same rate of fire. Both use the same cartridge. They have the same overall length. You can change the furniture on the Mini-14 to black plastic if you want. It’s literally the same bullet, at the same speed, and producing the same number of foot-pounds of force. How, exactly, is one deadlier than the other?
How, exactly, is one deadlier than the other?
It’s not. You’re never going to get a non-disingenuous question to this answer. You can easily get a 30 round magazine for the Mini 14, too, so the notion that the Armalite platform is somehow inherently has more “rapid fire capacity” is nonsense, too.
FWIW you can get aftermarket stocks to go on an Armalite buffer tube with adjustable combs. I’ve seen them. Like, in catalogs. I’ve never actually seen anyone install one in real life, but at least they exist. You can even get a lower for a monte carlo style “sporting” stock for an Armalite upper receiver, if you really want to.
You’re ultimately correct in that it’s just cosmetics.
FWIW you can get aftermarket stocks to go on an Armalite buffer tube with adjustable combs
Sure, the Magpul PRS, for instance. But you can run into issues with LOP and the cheek riser interfering with the charging handle. It’s not really an ideal solution. Mostly you just need to get used to a different cheek weld than you might otherwise have. (Specifically, you use something closer to a chin weld on an AR.) That type of stock is more often used by people that are trying to make an accuracy-focused rifle, with a 20-22" heavy barrel, etc.
Or run a slickside upper.
I suppose this illustrates another point, though, in that the Armalite platform is so popular because it’s so easily customizable. And it’s easily customizable because there are a ton of parts available because it’s popular, so it’s popular because there are a ton of parts available, and there are a ton of parts available because… etc.
These are all differences without distinction, both of these rifles are capable of the same amount of harm.
Magazine capacity is the same, the Ruger just doesn’t have it’s magazine in the picture. Higher cap mags can be found for either rifle.
Pistol grip and color might make a difference in a video game, but no so much in reality.
Trigger pull difference is negligible, and could be lighter on either of the two rifles. There is no such thing as default trigger pull…
The hip fire point really got me. Hip firing a gun makes it far less deadly. You have to actually aim to hit targets. Real life isn’t like video games.
This picture is often used to draw out all the points you’ve made, to demonstrate that many people are unfamiliar with many firearms. The Mini-14 in this picture is one available configuration of the rifle. The most basic, simple, low capacity version. However, the Mini-14 is fully capable of using 20 and 30 round magazines, a pistol grip, suppressor, bayonet, and even a folding stock (which the AR-15 can’t do).
A better version of this picture uses two models of the Mini-14, illustrating how one is legal in California and the other isn’t, even though they’re functionally the same rifle. A firearm simply being black does not make it more dangerous. A pistol grip does not make it more dangerous or easier to hip fire for that matter. Any gun is easily hip fired, and I would suggest a non pistol grip rifle or shot gun is more ergonomic to fire from the hip as far as pulling the trigger is concerned.
The real argument should be whether semi auto rifles are more dangerous or not, not if specific semi auto rifles are more dangerous.
I asked the question because i honestly dont know the difference, but right off the bat youre saying the image is designed to show one gun in a “action ready” and the other in a “not ready” state. Leaving out the magazine for the second gun is especially misleading when trying to elict a “they are totally the same” reaction.
It’s no wonder that people will think one is deadlier than the other shown these exact guns in these conditions, because one literally is from the magazine capacity alone.
Sorry for not being more clear in my response. There is a magazine in the second one. It is a 5 round magazine (The standard option for this particular model). However, for example, here are the readily available options for the mini 14: https://themagshack.com/product-category/rifle-magazines/ruger-mini-14-magazines/
As I said this picture points out that many people don’t know the difference (as you acknowledged you yourself don’t know the difference). My point is semi auto rifles as a category of firearm are more deadly. It doesn’t matter what semi auto. The mini-14 vs AR-15 argument is used to illustrate the general ignorance many people have about various firearms. The mini-14 is very much as dangerous as an AR-15, but it doesn’t get the same attention because it’s a gun that can easily look innocuous. The photo used in this post is intentionally disingenuous to highlight this point.
For example, here are the “tactical” models of the Mini-14: https://ruger.com/products/mini14TacticalRifle/models.html
Ruger literally highlights the following benefits to the tactical models: Their short barrels and overall short length make them favorites in any application where maneuverability and ease of handling are priorities.
Many people argue one way or the other while fully acknowledging their own ignorance, and it makes it difficult to find a solution to an issue. As an owner of more than one semi auto rifle, it is frustrating when this particular argument comes up because of how ridiculous it can be. The AR-15 looks scarier, and is therefore deadlier to many people. There are numerous other semi autos that are just as deadly, but don’t get demonized because they don’t look scary. The AK and SKS are a similar example, though less hyperbolic. The argument to be made is to get rid of semi autos, not demonize particular ones.
Agreed, that image is misleading.
Partly because the AR-15 is lighter than the Mini 14, is easier to reload, and is generally designed to meet the modern needs of armies killin’ humans better. Then there’s the incessant marketing, the huge number of manufacturers at multiple price points (the Mini 14 being a Ruger exclusive), the aftermarket of optics and tacticool accessories, and the general cultural impact. How many Mini 14s have actually been involved in mass shootings and gun-nerd intimidation exercises? It’s almost like the least stable assholes are interested in a “badass” gun.
But okay, fine. There’s a not-insignificant amount of truth to the graphic. By all means, the gun nerds should put it everywhere and inform the previously ignorant public. I don’t think the result will be to convince people the AR-15 is actually useful, just that the Mini-14 is equally unnecessary as a civilian tool or hunting rifle, and they shouldn’t assume a wooden-stock rifle is inherently less dangerous than a plastic one.
And, for the record, I am tediously, annoyingly aware of current second-amendment jurisprudence and the lack of sufficient political will to change the constitution, and while I don’t think the former is well considered, the situation is what it is. It just sucks. It leaves America unique among stable democracies in having gun violence anywhere near the top of the list of causes of death.
By all means, the gun nerds should put it everywhere and inform the previously ignorant public.
The problem is how rude so many of them are about it.
Instead of “there is no such thing as an ‘assault rifle’ and here’s how that myth got started,” it’s “define assault rifle.” It’s this weird assumption that everyone knows as much about guns as they do and it really doesn’t help them. I get that it can be a knee-jerk reaction to people who have issues with guns (as is assuming anyone who has issues with guns wants a blanket ban on them), but it really does not help.
I don’t disagree but it’s frustrating to somebody who cares and is knowledgeable about a topic to have people militantly try to outlaw and poorly regulate it while not having critical knowledge and understanding on the topic. There’s a reason gun people tend to be very irritated by a lot of the anti-gun crowd.
Which is exactly the reason why patience is needed.
Again, I agree, but have you ever tried to patiently educate every poorly informed opinion on the internet?
I agree, it is difficult, but that’s what makes it so important if it’s something that you feel passionately about.
If someone is going to make claims about ARs that are dubious wouldn’t asking for a definition of ARs be the best way to make sure they’re talking about the same thing instead of misunderstanding? I’ve never seen someone ask for the definition of AR from someone who wasn’t talking about ARs. Seems like a completely reasonable question and I have no idead why one would think otherwise.
Telling someone, “define assault rifle,” which is what I see, is not the same as something like, “do you know that there is no such thing as an assault rifle?”
I don’t see how that changes the validity of the question. If we’re not talking about the same thing, the conversation is only going to end badly. What’s explicitly wrong with asking for a definition? Because I’m not understanding you at all.
You are conflating asking and demanding. The problem is the demanding. It’s about the way it is communicated that is the problem.
Okay that makes sense. To me, especially over text, the phrase “Define X” reads as a pretty standard question in a back and forth, the same way English speakers omit the pronoun ‘you’ when using imperatives. I feel like unless they were cursing at you, interpreting that as a rude demand makes a lot of assumptions.
Yeah, the level of gatekeeping is extraordinary. “Not only must you respect my political position, but your lack of nuanced technical information means you have literally no room to be part of the conversation!” I see similar attitudes about military matters, where not having served is viewed as a reason to completely dismiss concerns, rather than a valuable outside perspective to be considered.
I grew up in the gun culture, and we actually have a few guns locked up in a safe in my father-in law’s garage, but I haven’t been motivated at all to go get them in the last 5+ years, because WTF do I really need them for? I might grab the single-shot 12-gauge someday because casual skeet shooting is legitimately fun, but while I still have a sort of lingering “suburban white guy” interest, I just fell out of love with actually having guns over the years, and my fellow gun owners were a not insignificant part of that.
“Assault Rifle” is a bit of a boogeyman term, true, but part of the reason gun folks hate it so much is that while they don’t personally intend to use their own toys that way (anytime soon), their favorite guns absolutely DO amount to semi-automatic versions of common military weapons. You know, the rifles one might need when assaulting an enemy position:
- lightweight
- compact compared to earlier weapons serving a similar use case
- accurate
- high rate of fire. One little factoid the gun folks don’t like to have mentioned is that even the most common military rifles stopped being fully automatic years ago because it’s wasteful, and most are semi-automatic and three-round burst (correction: The US Army retrofit its burst to have fully auto again, though the USMC did not). “They’re not machine guns” is another way to weaponize pedantry. Semi-auto sends plenty of lead downrange.
- arbitrary magazine size limited only by material science and added weight
- quick and easy reloading of the rifle with pre-loaded magazines.
- easily adapted with aftermarket parts that enhance only anti-personnel activities (lasers, flashlights, bump stocks, bayonets, etc.).
- chambered in a mid-size round: high-velocity, small bullet. Designed specifically to do well taking down animals human sized and smaller, but lightweight enough to carry a shitload of them without being over-encumbered.
It’s not hard at all to come up with an objective technical definition that has nothing to do with “scary looking or not”. Find some numbers for the various criteria and make bright lines, such that weapons that are still legal will be more poorly suited to mass murder than the current crop of black rifles. There will absolutely be people pushing at the margins, but you can’t let perfect be the enemy of good. But no… people like the feeling of power they get by having weapons that are virtually identical to the stuff that “warriors” have, so they’re going to cling to them like their lives depend on it, even though statistically they very much do not.
Not to go off on a tangent, but it’s “assault weapon” that’s the boogeyman term, meant to confuse the uninformed with assault rifles. Assault rifles are select fire, full auto and burst fire capable rifles. Assault weapons are semi-automatic rifles that have the same or similar cosmetics as assault rifles.
The trick is a person latches onto the adjective, not the noun, and a rifle is a kind of weapon, so it makes it seem like assault rifles fit under assault weapons, when I’m fact it’s the opposite.
It’s a distinction without much of a difference, though. Apart from auto and burst fire, a modern AR-15 does everything an M4A1 does. The Marines’ M4 and M16A4 models don’t even go past burst.
If semi-auto rifles are going to be legal at all, they should have a small integral magazine that’s non-trivial to modify. The sheer efficiency of these rifles makes them really good for assaulting humans, because that’s what they were designed for.
The brass took away the giggle switch from the crayon eaters to save on their ammo bill. There’s a reason “marining” is a verb, after all.
But every gun is designed to kill people, all the way back to the musket. And your suggestion of an integral magazine doesn’t do much, even if you could somehow round up all the ARs with detachable mags and “fix” them. The M1 Garand and it’s stripper clips are a historic example, and the modern ejection port mag loaders the neutered California ARs have to use make it trivial to reload.
You want to tackle this issue? Safe storage laws, building a culture around free, government-provided training and safety, and harsher punishments for NDs are a place to start. That’s not even getting into the quagmire that is our terrible healthcare system, and law enforcement that on average can’t do their jobs and act on tips that would stop many of the recent big mass shootings.
Thank you for correcting me politely! This is the sort of thing that needs to be done more! I did mean to write ‘assault weapon,’ my apologies.
You’re good! In many ways that’s exactly what the marketing people on the anti-gun side wanted to happen. They knew that psychologically the two terms would become synonymous with each other. Unfortunately the attitude problem you highlighted in the loud minority of gun owners only helped that advertising campaign.
In 1986 someone used the bottom to basically single-handedly kill 2 FBI agents and wound 4 others in an active gunfight. In most other countries, both weapons are heavily regulated if not prohibited for civilian ownership.
Assault weapon bans are both a product of ignorant perception and the lack of political will to ban all self-loading firearms or subgroups thereof.
active gunfight
I’ve always wondered this. What’s the fixation with adding “active” all the time? Is a “passive” gunfight an overweight Floridian on an oxygen tank, draped across a mobility scooter waiting for the targets to come to him?
I put that there to emphasize that it was a fairly even two-way exchange, “active,” as opposed to something like him setting an ambush where the FBI got little or no shots off. Probably didn’t serve that purpose but I tried.
I’m assuming the magazine size. Which is generally why magazine size is the common way to enforce which rifles are considered problematic for home ownership.
There’s nothing physically preventing anyone from putting a readily available 30+ round magazine into a Mini 14.
It even says “same capacity” right there in the picture. Although to be fair, the Mini 14 in that picture either has a flush fit low capacity magazine installed in it or is unloaded.
Why’s the one on top “scarier?”
Because of the type of people more likely to buy the one at the top.
I’m not sure why people like you don’t understand that. It’s not the gun, it’s the sort of people buying it.
And if you are an AR-15 owner and don’t like who the gun is associated with, I’m sorry. You don’t get to choose how society judges things, whether or not it is fair.
Because of the type of people more likely to buy the one at the top.
Who’s that?
You don’t get to choose how society judges things, whether or not it is fair.
Are you saying that a study with a self-selection bias of participants that specifically use MTurk, that has 3 comparative subjects (no gun, pistol, AR) for comparison is indicative of societal perspective?
You know exactly who I am talking about. You don’t live under a rock, I’m sure. Don’t pretend and play coy. I’m not going to play that game with you.
So now you’re going to defend your own ignorant statement with, “I should know better?” You should not make blanket assumptions about who owns what. I think you are living under a rock.
Fine. I’ll play your game this once, but do you really need it spelled out to you that the AR-15 and other rifles designed to look like military weapons even though they aren’t is what society associates with right-wing assholes who are ready to shoot up those durn libruls and queers?
Whether you think it’s a fair association or not is irrelevant. That’s what a large segment of the population associates that gun with, including many gun owners.
Bitch about it all you want, them’s the breaks.
Now, any more silly game-playing you want to do?
Fine. I’ll play your game this once, but do you really need it spelled out to you that the AR-15 and other rifles designed to look like military weapons even though they aren’t is what society associates with right-wing assholes who are ready to shoot up those durn libruls and queers?
I despise games, but I despise ignorant bullshit more. I don’t want to play games with you. The AR-15 is a popular choice among rifle owners in the US typically because of the availability of parts and ammo… that’s the main reason. It can accommodate both 5.56 and .223, so again, if you’re actually keeping one around to protect yourself against ______ (fill in the blank) you’ll have a better chance at acquiring ammo.
I’m the polar opposite of a right-wing asshole (the asshole part may still hold), but if more ARs and AR parts are being produced, it’s simply a matter of practicality in the long-term.
Whether you think it’s a fair association or not is irrelevant. That’s what a large segment of the population associates that gun with, including many gun owners.
Fair association? What the fuck are you talking about? I could give a fuck about perceptions, but assuming that everyone that owns an AR is a right-winger is dumb. I don’t think YOU get to speak for a large segment of the population; you simply speak for yourself.
I can’t help that you don’t like the general public perception of people who own the gun that you own. It doesn’t change that perception and being rude about it also doesn’t help.
It’s also not about what I personally believe, so please stop suggesting it is.
Details like this are really just a distraction. Do you really think the average respondent understands these technical details, or have any good reason to memorize the specs of all rifles? The focus on the AR-15 is not because of any risk associated with that particular gun, but because most people understand that this is a semi-auto rifle. There is no other model of gun that will have that kind of widespread recognition.
Drawing up these very silly technical arguments is a willful ignorance of the underlying issue: What is the limit of deadly force we should allow one person to lawfully own? We don’t let people own tactical nukes. We don’t need to argue over thermonuclear or hydrogen nukes. We don’t need to understand quantum mechanics to regulate these devices. The technical details do not matter. The potential body count is what matters. And so it is with guns, which happen to occupy that grey area where reasonable people disagree on an acceptable level of lethality. You do not need to know all the different models of gun to be killed by one, so we should not require such technical knowledge when engaging in discourse around their regulation.
Gun owners who demand that you have a favorite brand of gun oil before you are allowed to have an opinion will, as a group, gladly make profoundly ignorant statements about regulating other people’s religions, medical conditions, sexual preferences…
Removed by mod
You mean the voter ID laws Republicans have been pushing?
US citizens be like: “It’s fine with us, buchy’all needta keep all that over there!”
😀🤷♂️😅
psypost
This is why I use the AR-10, it’s much safer, it’s 5 AR’s fewer than the AR-15
The bigger bullet means it’s easier to avoid.
I’m more comfortable around the guns I’ve seen in documentaries like Contra and Bad Dudes, with the flashing, softball-sized bullets that travel at like six inches per second
Everyone knows Time Crisis has the most realistic bullet travel physics.
LOL for a second I legit thought “The Contras? They mostly used AK-47s we sold them, right?”
All the other kids with the pumped up kicks You’d better run, better run, outrun my gun
So a good bit cheaper, too, then?
Insert Padme meme here*
Cries in 308 pricing
I’m playing Fallout 4 and my favorite weapon uses .308 bullets, I run out all the time and then have to use other weapons that just don’t feel as good. I spend way too much time going to shops to buy all they have and collecting resources and crafting them just to have less than enough.
It seems the real world has a similar problem.
.308 pricing reasonable on a per-bear-stopping basis, but makes a mess of dinner.
I would prefer my neighbor not own a subwoofer, but I’m against a subwoofer ban for a variety of reasons.
I’m not against subwoofers. I’m against noise ordinances never being enforced even if you call a complaint in and police are usually seen patrolling around town so you know there’s plenty free to respond.
Because subwoofers aren’t tools designed specifically for killing?
Obviously, you’ve never dropped the bass.
Probably because the vast majority people are capable of using a subwoofer responsibly.
Subwoofer ownership isn’t an explicitly stated constitutional right, so it can’t be for that reason.
I don’t necessarily care if my neighbor owns an AR rifle. I do care what kind of person they are if they own one, or other firearms.
Are they one of the crowd that treats firearms with the careless disregard of a fashion accessory? Do they have to accessorized it to the utmost tacticool possible? Do they have a private arsenal? Do they leave it lying around in their home or vehicle, or any other firearm for that matter, unsecured? Do they tie guns to their personal or political identity?
All of these things are negatives of varying severity, especially any failure to secure the guns and tying gun to their identity. Why those? Guns get stolen from homes and vehicles all the time and then are used in crimes while the gun owner washes their hands of the consequences of their lazy storage. Unsecured guns are used in accidental shootings by kids or others. And identity tied to firearms is just an indication of inflexibility and possible political extremism.
Are they one of the crowd that treats firearms with the careless disregard of a fashion accessory?
This. I’m fine with pro-gun people who are responsible gun owners. I feel weird about people who want to tighten regulations and have guns, but if they are responsible gun owners, then it’s fine.
Pro-gun people who treat it as a toy or as a compensation for their dick size are dangerous, and scary, but not in the cool way.
People who are for tightening regulations etc, but own guns and treat them like toys are the lowest of the low, though. Both dangerous and miserable.
Because there is no actual need for such a weapon. Nobody outside the military needs a spraynpray gun. Yeah they look sexy to some, i get that, but i can do as much “damage” more accurately with my plainjane hunting rifle.
They’re just semi auto rifles. The tech is more than 100 years old at this point.
Same, we own a shotgun for bird hunting that doubles as a potential home defense weapon. I don’t want to turn a home invader into Swiss cheese, I want them to GTFO and the sound of racking a shotgun is unmistakable. Practically no one breaking into houses is doing it for funsies, I don’t want to kill them.
The sound of a charging handle racking isn’t much different and the exact same effect could be achieved, fwiw. Also studies have shown that 5.56 or .223 HP penetrate less through drywall than buckshot, and bird can be much less effective than your grandpa thinks. Remember Dick Cheyney’s “hunting trip?”
Though the AR is useless for the birds.
When I had a shotgun because I lived in a bad part of town the loads went Bird, Bird, intermediate. The idea is for them to leave and if they won’t then kill them.
How in the world is an AR a spray n pray gun? Barrels shorter than 16" require a tax stamp and approval. An AR can be built to be pretty damn accurate. Do you just not like that it’s semi auto?
Idk why people go after the AR platform when you can go buy a Barrett .50 cal anti materiel rifle in 49 states, and there’s plenty of less scary shaped semi auto rifles out there.
Ok what does the AR name mean? Assault Rifle? Assault rifles are typically spraynpray by design. Thats their main attraction and the main reason they are targetted
This is factually incorrect. Don’t take this as a judgement on you or your position, just that you should be approaching any side from a factually sound place.
“AR” in “AR-15” stands for ArmaLite Rifle. ArmaLite is the firearms manufacturer where Eugene Stoner was working when he designed the rifle.
Assault rifles, and most other weapons capable of automatic fire, are generally not intended to be used as “spray 'n pray” weapons. That is generally reserved for stationary machine guns (think the beach on D-Day).
Assault rifles generally are classified as weapons that fire an intermediary cartridge that are capable of select-fire. Meaning that they fire cartridges with size and energy in between centerfire pistol (ex. 9x19mm) and full-power rifle (ex. .30-06 Springfield AKA 7.62x73mm) and the operator may select between multiple modes of fire. Usually these are semi-automatic (one round per trigger pull), fully-automatic (continues to fire rounds while trigger is held down) and/or burst-fire (two to three rounds per trigger pull).
The use of fully-automatic fire on modern assault rifles is extremely limited, with standard issue military rifles in the US military having the fire mode completely absent until the recent switch from the M4 (semi-auto and burst-fire only) to the M4A1 (semi-auto and full-auto). Tactically, fully-automatic fire is usually limited in use to room clearing in close combat and for suppressing fire (keeping the enemy combatants from leaving cover) to allow the squad to break contact and retreat to safety. This is reflected in the types of units that have been consistently issued assault rifles capable of full-auto; generally special forces and reconnaissance units that may be deployed outside of range of friendly support.
Full-auto in an assault rifle is simply not very useful in modern military roles. A standard issue magazine holds 30 rounds. An M4A1 in full-auto fires about 800 rounds-per-minute. That means that it takes just a bit less than 2.5 seconds to empty an entire magazine, putting the soldier in the vulnerable position of needing to reload. In most situations, it’s far better to employee a squad automatic weapon, which is generally fed by a belt with much higher capacity, allowing sustained suppressing fire to allow allies to maneuver.
All of that said, I do, personally, agree that civilians (including police forces) ought not to have military-like firearms primarily intended for shooting humans. But that is because I am mostly a pacifist. The ArmaLite Rifle (AR-15) is NOT a select-fire rifle but a semi-auto one. It can, however, be modified into one (illegally) and uses the same rounds and accessories. To me, that makes it “military-like” and should likely be heavily regulated (but won’t be).
TL;DR - Whichever side you are arguing, do it with facts.
Got it already thanks
It literally means ArmaLite Rifle after its original designer and manufacturer. At least verify your information prior to claiming it as fact.
Wouldn’t that make it an ALR and not a AR?
Ok. still it is cosmetically an assault rifle. Colt owns the name now. The ar-15 is the army’s m-16
I don’t understand how cosmetics are relevant to its function. Like many other rifles, an AR-15 is usually semi-automatic, is that the issue you have with it?
Do you really need 30 rounds in one? More rounds is more targets
This doesn’t answer my question, you’re deflecting, however it also accepts 10 or 20 round magazines just fine. Personally I would say I like the option, my preference is 20rds, it makes it a little easier when shooting from a resting position.
Do you really need a fast car or nice clothes? The bus and a burlap sack will work just fine.
The AR in AR-15 stands for Armalite Rifle. Armalite being the company that initially designed and manufactured it, though basically everyone has had a go at making a variant of it. You won’t find the term “assault rifle” in significant use, at least not in English.
The AR-15 sold to the public cannot “spray.” They are semi-automatic. One pull of the trigger, one bullet out of the barrel. Fully auto or burst fire modes aren’t available to the general public; I believe a few made it into circulation but collectors tend to hang onto them. It’s not a bullet hose.
There are a lot of rifles out there that have walnut stocks and such that look like grampa’s huntin’ gun that are functionally similar to an AR-15, ie same ease of operation, same capacity, same (relatively small) caliber, same rate of fire. But you don’t seem to be afraid of those. So I can only assume you have a fear of black plastic. That’s the main unique feature of the AR-15 compared to other semi-automatic rifles on the market, the stock is made of plastic rather than wood.
Here’s the real truth: mass shootings in America are not caused by firearms engineering, and restricting features of firearms isn’t going to solve the problem. A shooting is carried out with an AR-15. People start talking about banning AR-15s. Remember Columbine? That was actually a failed bombing, most of the killings were done with a TEC-9…what would you categorize that as? An open bolt pistol? A “That’s not an Uzi?” and a shotgun. Well TEC-9s were banned. Sure stopped school shootings. Virginia Tech was done with pistols.
You want the problem solved? Work on reducing hopelessness in young men. People HATE that answer, because, well…people hate young men. But that’s the answer.
Millions of M1 Carbine were widely and affordably available for years before the AR-15 was a thing. It, like the AR-15, is also an easily-handled magazine-fed semi-automatic rifle firing intermediate cartridges, and was intended for military service.
Virtually no school shootings occurred until Columbine set off the waves of shootings that continues to this day.
If the AR-15 is the cause of this because it is an easily-handled magazine-fed semi-automatic rifle firing intermediate cartridges, how do people explain the near complete lack of mass shootings despite the wide adoption of the M1 Carbine in a time when gun ownership was even less restrictive?
Not a hard enough question? Ok try this one: actual machine guns used to be widely available and much more affordable than they are today. Why is there relatively little recorded violence with them?
I think the answer is marketing. Much like mp3 players existed before the iPod, sometimes something just takes off and centers on a particular product that maybe has a bit more glitz, or better marketing. I think the idea of legislating specific products is stupid.
They go after this platform, because it’s a favorite of mass shooters. You know this.
Toyota Camrys are also a favorite of car crashers, never you mind that they’re one of the most owned cars, correlation=causation dammit!
And wouldnt you know it, BECAUSE cars can do a shitload of damage in the wrong hands, they require years of training and certification to be able to legally operate.
I didn’t have to do years of training. I took a 2 week driver’s ed course and took a test. Had my provisional as soon as I turned 15.
But on the other side to get a hunting license when I was a kid I had to do a state run hunter safety class to learn about gun safety.
I dont know the Details for the States, but for Canada, the first Test you pass gets you a Learners, in which you arent allowed to drive without a full licence Driver present, and you’re only allowed to take your restricted New Driver’s license after a year of having an L and not getting any tickets, and then a year after that you can finally get an unrestricted license. Multiple years. But I guess if the states is stupid with itd guns, it’d make sense its stupid with its cars too
We let any idiot with a pulse drive because in most of rural America you’d starve to death without a car
There is no functional difference between an AR and any other Semi Auto rifle. Including the ones used by hunters and sports shooters.
If your suburban/urban neighbor knows what model of gun you have and you aren’t hunting/shooting buddies then you’re doing something horribly wrong and are definitely a scary neighbor regardless of what type of gun it is.
Taking the shotty for a walk.
As you do
This is a more of a study on the public’s opinion of this model gun. It gets a bad rap in media, so people who don’t know anything else about it don’t want anything to do with it.
Until they need somebody with one…
Ya know you were making a fair point right up until that last sentence. While yes the reason the AR-15 is so feared is cause its super common meaning that by sheer statistics id expect it to be used in shootings fairly frequently, I dont want some random sonovabitch coming near me with any gun. Not because I fear guns, but because most folks are fucking stupid and unless ive got some type of guarantee they know what their doing im assuming they are a fuck up.
I apply the same rule to power tools and mobile industrial equipment.
The only righteous abortion is my abortion, and the only safe unsecured AR-15 is my unsecured AR-15.
I want to open up an abortion clinic/FFL. Gonna run a special, free AR-15 with every abortion (provided the patient passes a NICs check).
That oughta rustle like, everyone’s jimmies.
Normally pretty much an anarchist in my policy predilections. But there are folks I went to school with that I wouldn’t trust with a power drill, much less a rifle. Seems they’re just the ones that make the biggest deal over having guns -and least likely to use them in any responsible way. The role these sorts of badass-looking firearms play now is to make powerless Americans feel like they have some agency. Likely dangerous when these misinformed, utterly propagandized serfs feel extra pressed and attribute their low quality of life to all the wrong reasons/people.
As an anarchist my position is: Guns are useless until they’re pointed at you. No problem with people owning them, but they should only be used to fight against systematic oppression, and (only if there is no other alternative) self defense. Otherwise guns are completely useless.
The role these sorts of badass-looking firearms play now is to make powerless Americans feel like they have some agency.
In general helping cowards feel themselves bigger. That’s a problem with weapons, yes.
It’s easy to picture powerless people as “cowards”, but now think about a victim of rape who has several known exes they worry about meeting again.
Yep, it’s always the guys who get really angry when you say “do you mind not talking about guns” and then just start loudly talking about their guns more
I’m related to an idiot who got drummed out of two professions for that reason
