AR Ammo/Internet neutrality

[ZRod]

 

 

But really, why does anyone need an assault rifle?

Is this a serious question? Because if you want to get down to it, an "assault rifle" is a military rifle, not sold to civilians (unless you're rich). The AR-15 (what civilians can buy) is a rifle that's functionally no different than a rancher rifle that's been around for 50 or so years.

 

Neither of those have anything to do with this ammo ban. It's based on bad science and fear mongering. Bascially, akin to the the guy who called Net Neutrality "Obamacare for the Internet."

If you really want to get down to it an AR-15 can fairly easily be modified to a select fire weapon capable of fully automatic fire, which I believe makes it an assault rifle. I understand that they're not responsible for even close to the amount of deaths as handguns, but honestly why does anyone one need a weapon like that?

 

For what it's worth I do think the ammo ban is stupid.

[zoogs]

I'm not really a guns guy, so I don't know what it is about the specific type of 5.56mm ammunition they are trying to ban here.

 

Can't people just use different forms of the 5.56mm ammunition?

 

I mean now we're talking about whether the AR-15 should be banned or not, and whether it's "basically a rancher rifle" or "basically an M-16", but isn't that not the particular question at hand?

[ZRod]

Actually I retract my previous statement about the banning being dumb, unless someone can convince me otherwise. I erroneously thought they were banning all 5.56/.223 which is why I went off on that tangent, since that's what most AR-15 variants use. But they're just banning those with certain metal cores.

So yes Zoogs, they could just use the other types, but I'm sure someone who is more knowledgeable can tell us what the problem is with that.

[Saunders]

Actually I retract my previous statement about the banning being dumb, unless someone can convince me otherwise. I erroneously thought they were banning all 5.56/.223 which is why I went off on that tangent, since that's what most AR-15 variants use. But they're just banning those with certain metal cores.

 

So yes Zoogs, they could just use the other types, but I'm sure someone who is more knowledgeable can tell us what the problem is with that.

The short answer, is that the types of ammo they're talking about banning are more accurate at longer ranges, and are used by target shooters. They're no more lethal or dangerous than any other 5.56/.223 ammo. There are long range alternatives, but they cost more. It's simply a cheaper solution. The "armor piercing" tag and "we're trying to protect the police" is simply bullsh#t because just about any rifle caliber ammunition will pierce a standard non plated kevlar vest. Not to mention, somewhere around 90-95% of police shootings were with plane jane FMJ pistol rounds.

 

This is simply political posturing that won't save a single life, and serves no real purpose other than politicans getting brownie points from uninformed supporters.

[Saunders]

If you really want to get down to it an AR-15 can fairly easily be modified to a select fire weapon capable of fully automatic fire, which I believe makes it an assault rifle. I understand that they're not responsible for even close to the amount of deaths as handguns, but honestly why does anyone one need a weapon like that?

Short answer? Because It's easy to shoot, easy to maintain, and it's extremely reliable, and I like it. It's akin to asking why do people need a Corvette or Lambo when a Prius or Carolla will get you from point A to point B?

 

Now, if you want to get into the debate of taking out of the hands of citizens and only allowing the rich and powerful to have something like this, we can go discuss that too.

[zoogs]

I can see that side of it, saunders. Thanks for the info.

 

But, wouldn't being more accurate from long range perhaps make them more dangerous, maybe too dangerous for general use? What's a "target shooter"?

 

So, they are equally as dangerous to kevlar as other rounds. Do they just deliver the same punch as other rounds, or what can they do, apart from being more accurate at long range, that other rounds can't?

 

I think you're right, when it comes down to it, so much of gun violence occurs with equipment that it makes no sense to outright ban. So, from your perspective, what WOULD qualify as something that should be banned?

[Landlord]

I think you're right, when it comes down to it, so much of gun violence occurs with equipment that it makes no sense to outright ban. So, from your perspective, what WOULD qualify as something that should be banned?

 

 

Something that was invented and created from the very start with the sole purpose of taking human lives.

[ZRod]

 

If you really want to get down to it an AR-15 can fairly easily be modified to a select fire weapon capable of fully automatic fire, which I believe makes it an assault rifle. I understand that they're not responsible for even close to the amount of deaths as handguns, but honestly why does anyone one need a weapon like that?

Short answer? Because It's easy to shoot, easy to maintain, and it's extremely reliable, and I like it. It's akin to asking why do people need a Corvette or Lambo when a Prius when get you from point A to point B?

 

Now, if you want to get into the debate of only allowing the rich and powerful to have something like this, we can go discuss that too.

 

Except were not comparing cars that you have to be licensed to operate, we're talking about an as of right now mostly unregulated platform that is really only intended for one purpose and that is "incapacitating" a human target.

 

I completely understand they're fun and cool to have, and that they may even have some use for an avid outdoorsman, but there are plenty of other fun and really cool things to have that are more regulated than firearms.

[zoogs]

Something that was invented and created from the very start with the sole purpose of taking human lives.

That wouldn't work for me. Plenty of tools have the ability to take human life, even if that's not their sole purpose. If a meat cleaver is OK as an instrument of cooking, then surely so is a hunting rifle.

 

And is there not a need for self defense? A home invader without a gun could overpower me, I'm sure, but if I have a shotgun I've got a fighting chance to defend what's mine, instead of it being game over once they're inside.

 

I'm not opposed to limits on tech, as you know. That just seems too broad based. Though, I guess some countries do fall under this rubric.

[Saunders]

I can see that side of it, saunders. Thanks for the info.

 

But, wouldn't being more accurate from long range perhaps make them more dangerous, maybe too dangerous for general use? What's a "target shooter"?

 

So, they are equally as dangerous to kevlar as other rounds. Do they just deliver the same punch as other rounds, or what can they do, apart from being more accurate at long range, that other rounds can't?

 

I think you're right, when it comes down to it, so much of gun violence occurs with equipment that it makes no sense to outright ban. So, from your perspective, what WOULD qualify as something that should be banned?

By target shooter, I mean someone who shoots targets at long range, whether via competition or just hobby. It's also beneficial to hunters. They're bascially heavier rounds are accurate longer. But, there's even heavier rounds that are even more accurate, but cost way more. Basically, you can throw a baseball farther than a wiffle ball. It's a bad example, but it's the same point.

 

As for what do I think we should ban? I don't know. Banning things doesn't really work. Just like the War on Drugs, prohibition, etc... I don't see a ban actually fixing anything. I'm back and forth on required training/licenses too. I can see some benefits, but I also see some drawbacks.

[Saunders]

 

 

If you really want to get down to it an AR-15 can fairly easily be modified to a select fire weapon capable of fully automatic fire, which I believe makes it an assault rifle. I understand that they're not responsible for even close to the amount of deaths as handguns, but honestly why does anyone one need a weapon like that?

Short answer? Because It's easy to shoot, easy to maintain, and it's extremely reliable, and I like it. It's akin to asking why do people need a Corvette or Lambo when a Prius when get you from point A to point B?

 

Now, if you want to get into the debate of only allowing the rich and powerful to have something like this, we can go discuss that too.

 

Except were not comparing cars that you have to be licensed to operate, we're talking about an as of right now mostly unregulated platform that is really only intended for one purpose and that is "incapacitating" a human target.

 

I completely understand they're fun and cool to have, and that they may even have some use for an avid outdoorsman, but there are plenty of other fun and really cool things to have that are more regulated than firearms.

 

That's not really true. A rifle can be used for sport and hunting as well. Is that not valid? Also, depending on where you live, your drivers license can be much, much easier to acquire than a firearm. As a licensed concealed carry holder, and someone who has undergone a fair amount of firearms training, I'd like to see benefits extended to me just like a drivers license. Once you have your DL, you can pretty much buy and drive whatever you want. It's not remotely the case with firearms.

[Saunders]

 

I think you're right, when it comes down to it, so much of gun violence occurs with equipment that it makes no sense to outright ban. So, from your perspective, what WOULD qualify as something that should be banned?

 

 

Something that was invented and created from the very start with the sole purpose of taking human lives.

 

We're talking about Terminators?

[ZRod]

 

 

 

If you really want to get down to it an AR-15 can fairly easily be modified to a select fire weapon capable of fully automatic fire, which I believe makes it an assault rifle. I understand that they're not responsible for even close to the amount of deaths as handguns, but honestly why does anyone one need a weapon like that?

Short answer? Because It's easy to shoot, easy to maintain, and it's extremely reliable, and I like it. It's akin to asking why do people need a Corvette or Lambo when a Prius when get you from point A to point B?

 

Now, if you want to get into the debate of only allowing the rich and powerful to have something like this, we can go discuss that too.

 

Except were not comparing cars that you have to be licensed to operate, we're talking about an as of right now mostly unregulated platform that is really only intended for one purpose and that is "incapacitating" a human target.

 

I completely understand they're fun and cool to have, and that they may even have some use for an avid outdoorsman, but there are plenty of other fun and really cool things to have that are more regulated than firearms.

 

That's not really true. A rifle can be used for sport and hunting as well. Is that not valid? Also, depending on where you live, your drivers license can be much, much easier to acquire than a firearm. As a licensed concealed carry holder, and someone who has undergone a fair amount of firearms training, I'd like to see benefits extended to me just like a drivers license. Once you have your DL, you can pretty much buy and drive whatever you want. It's not remotely the case with firearms.

 

Sure a rifle can be used for those, but the models in question here were specifically designed with a military intent. Depending on where you live it's can be difficult to acquire a firearm because those places have chosen to take action on the issue.

 

And for godsake were not talking about cars here were talking about firearms, cars are pretty heavily regulated for safety by the government, you have to have specific license for specific operation, you pay higher taxes and insurance rates for those higher performance vehicles, you can't legally run nitrous in Nebraska which is a performance enhancement that doesn't really hurt anyone, and you can't just take a Formula 1 car out and run it around the streets.

[Saunders]

Sure a rifle can be used for those, but the models in question here were specifically designed with a military intent. Depending on where you live it's can be difficult to acquire a firearm because those places have chosen to take action on the issue.

The issue being? The average citizen having a firearm? Or are we talking about the origination of firearms bans when the old white guys wanted to keep guns away from blacks/hispanics/jews/etc?

[Saunders]

And for godsake were not talking about cars here were talking about firearms, cars are pretty heavily regulated for safety by the government, you have to have specific license for specific operation, you pay higher taxes and insurance rates for those higher performance vehicles, you can't legally run nitrous in Nebraska which is a performance enhancement that doesn't really hurt anyone, and you can't just take a Formula 1 car out and run it around the streets.

 

Actually.... we were talking about 5.56 or .223 ammo being banned (which is used in a lot more firearms than the AR-15), and you dropped the "why do you need an assault rifle" line. The automatic assault rifle is illegal for the average citizen to own. You can rent one to use at a range, or go through the hoops of the tax stamps and trying to buy one (and it's friggin expensive), so it's similar to your nitrous example. Cars are "regulated for safety" by requiring airbags or them not exploding in the middle of the road. The regulation doesn't stop someone from speeding or driving unsafe.