We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Saturday, December 22. 2012
It is no "assault weapon." "AR" means Armalite Rifle, not assault rifle. It's good for target shooting and for small game and critters like coyotes and groundhogs. Some consider it a lady's rifle, but might best be termed "gender-neutral." It is easily customizable. Very popular rifle. I think what most people understand the term "assault rifle" to imply is an automatic rifle, like a Tommy Gun or an AK-47.
The press seems usually not to to get that the vast majority of firearms are "semi-automatic." As we have mentioned here, a cowboy six-shooter is semi-automatic. As Rudy Guiliani said yesterday, a would-be killer can kill with anything no matter what it looks like. Killers in the US generally use 9 mm. handguns.
This is interesting: The results of the Gun Free School Zone act’s passage have been devastating.
OK, the photos. On top is a Remington semi-auto 30.06, below is an AR-15 semi-auto. Which looks scarier?
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
Go take a look at what is going on at any local gun store.
Ammo, guns and high capacity magazines are flying off the shelves.
This is a fabulous column on just about all aspects of the current (and eternal) gun control debate. It's really long but it has a lot of good information by a very knowledgeable source: http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/an-opinion-on-gun-control/
Ok - now I've seen everything and I can go to my reward satiated with wholesome goodness.
A Hello Kitty AR-15? Seriously?
Minor correction - AR-15s can be converted to what is called "burp" mode very simply and easily using a device called Slidefire. Technically, it is not "full auto" so it is perfectly legal according to ATF. As you can see, it sure as hell might as well be full auto. My state trooper son has another variation of the AR-15 that fires a three round burst selectable to single shot. That replaced his Beretta synthetic stock 12 guage which was also a wicked looking weapon.
Somebody very close to me ( ~~ cough - cough ~~ _) has a genuine AK-47 that he found on an operation in the Central Highlands of Vietnam. He shipped it back in pieces. Every once in a while he gets the urge to shoot it. wink wink, nudge nudge - say no more.
I once considered getting an AK-47 and decorating it with flower stickers, etc. I never did it though. First, it seemed like an expensive way to make a statement and second, I don't like AK-47s.
But I do like the Hello Kitty AR-15! It's not for me, but it sure looks good with that girl. But then almost anything would look good with her!
The AK is very interesting. It has an weird tendency to shoot up and to the right on full auto so you have to pay attention in that mode. Fairly accurate in short bursts and very accurate to 250 yards in single shot mode.
I've often argued that the AK changed the face of modern warfare more than any other weapon ever made. Cheap to make, easy to disassemble and reassemble, no shortage of parts for quick repair - it is almost the perfect assault weapon.
Actually it was (is) pretty common among Afghans:
so I think the thing to do is the same sort of thing to M16/AR15/M4 clones and call them art and they will be untouchable - for that matter, maybe we could get grants for them.
I am deeply saddened by the murder of those innocent children. If me personally surrendering all my guns to the government for free would bring them back and erase the shooting, I would do it and consider it the best trade I ever made.
It won't happen. And I don't think that outlawing AR15s or AK47s will prevent future mass shootings.
The outcry over AR15s has become the new liberal cause de jure. I know you loyal MF readers understand that the real issue is having gun free zones where CHLers can't carry guns and not enough cops to stop the bad guys before they kill the innocent.
Banning AR15s won't solve the problem. I do think the Hello Kitty AR15 looks freakish, though.
A lot of the uninitiated civilians (conservative and liberal) have lived in the protective cocoon of relative safety and don't grasp the concept that chaos stands right next to them waiting and watching for it's opportunity to mess up their lives.
Those of us who know chaos understand that it can happen at any time, anywhere and at any time. Which is why I carry and will continue to carry.
What Tom said is right. The real problem is the assumed safety which they currently have is possible to have "made eternal". When disruption in their lives occur, they feel "something must be done", and often point fingers at the wrong things, things that are easy to point at.
My view, and one I haven't heard anywhere but probably should be said, is "if more guns mean more gun crime, then why are shooting ranges never the place where gun crime takes place?"
Seriously. My wife's response is "should we turn the world into a shooting range?"
Obviously, the answer is not as simple as that, nor is the real world.
But there are significant limitations on the impact of any kinds of restrictions to gun ownership - and people don't realize it. My wife feels that my argument on the dangers of the 'slippery slope' (take away assault weapons purchase, then when crime doesn't go down, take away more until crime is eliminated) is illogical, even though it is backed up with historical precedent.
Another person challenged me recently when I said I fear having my rights taken more than I fear the next massacre. She responded then would I be willing to keep my rights if it meant having someone in my family killed. I replied that is not the discussion, and any answer I gave to that would be specious.
However, I did say I accept the reasonably minimal risk of the next massacre in order to keep my rights, even if it means my family is in that massacre - simply because it is so unlikely. Similarly, I accept the right to cross streets in the city or drive a car even though there is a higher likelihood of being hit by another car. I accept the right to fly in a plane even though there is a risk of being in a major airline accident. I accept the risk of free speech and oppose banning books even though spreading dangerous ideas has helped kill more people than guns.
We fail, in the wake of a tragedy, to separate the tools used in the tragedy from the people who used those tools.
A carpenter who builds a house using nothing but a wrench - hammering in nails with this wrench - would be labeled a 'bad carpenter'. Clearly he isn't a good one. But would you say it was a bad wrench and make a law prohibiting construction with wrenches? It is easy to separate the tool from the person in a situation like this, and it's easy to separate the tool from the person in a car, or a plane. But with guns, the comfy-cozy people of the far left (and some on the right) fail to recognize there is a differentiation.
I'm reminded of the excellent movie "Witness", in which the Amish grandfather is explaining to his grandson what a handgun is - simply a tool for taking life. Well, it's not that easy or simple, but Hollywood sure thinks it is. What's really ironic is I'm willing to bet the writers of that movie all carry guns or had a bodyguard who did. I don't know this for sure, but I've spent enough time out there on business to know many all have their own weapons.
I have to tune in every time that turkey Piers Morgan has "debates" on gun bans. Totally lacking in knowledge. Shouts over people, calls them names. Even though CNN is a home for radical lefties, even they should be embarassed by this clown.
ROFL over the Hello Kitty AR15. Who could possibly want to ban that as an "assault rifle."
One of the most oft repeated arguments is that the AR15 is a "modern" weapon. It is a weapon that has been around over 50 years.
Secondly, the reality of Sandy Hook is that the shooter had 20 minutes of free fire time in the school before police arrived. He could have used any sort of firearm and accomplished just as much carnage. Banning AR15's is not the answer, banning "gun free zones is. I'd much rather be celebrating the dead principal and teachers as live heroes, they having killed the shooter before he could commit the slaughter.
Cowboy six guns are not semi auto, they are single action, with the exception of those cowboys with Webley-Fosberys.
I cannot take a stand against the AR, as I own 4 of them. A Colt Match Rifle, a Jaeger AP-74 in .22 lr, a S&W M&P 15 Optical Sight Rifle, and a S&W M&P 15-22, the two in .22 are so I can afford to shoot them, even the cheap stuff from Russia, Golden Bear, and that sort, is no longer cheap in 5.56 NATO. Here in WI, to load 2 30 rounders in 5.56 is close to $23.00. I can buy a brick of 550 Remington .22lr at Wal Mart for $16.00, and shoot all day. The AR IS America's Rifle. But I sure do like my SIG 522.
I would disagree - a revolver, while it doesn't eject the old cartridge, certainly does present a loaded cartridge to the firing mechanism automatically by simple fact that the cylinder holding the ammunition revolves without having to touch it or intervene in any way.
A very basic form of "semi-auto", but still..... :>)
But it doesn't do it on it's own, you have to contribute the motive force to revolve the cylinder to bring the next cartridge in line with the barrel.
But in either case, it's just a tool, and it's the user that must be judged, not the device.
To answer the question, the one with a human finger closer to the trigger has a slight edge in dangerosity.