[Freewell]

There are many reasons you wouldn't use an AR-15 as a generic hunting rifle, not the least of which would be much akin to why you wouldn't put a V-12 in a go-kart or use torpedoes for sport fishing.

[Kraetos]

Originally Posted by lightning_bug Why do people refer to guns, ships, airplanes, cars - pretty anything that is a valued inanimate possession - as "she" or "her"?

Change the word "people" to "men" in that sentence and you have your answer.

Originally Posted by Rear Admiral Francis D. Foley, U.S. Navy (Retired) Ships are referred to as "she" because men love them.

I certainly refer to my car as "she."

Originally Posted by Dave K, serious question here. Aside from the lack of pretty wooden stock, and a smaller clip, what's the difference? It would seem to me that anything a hunting rifle can do, a military rifle should be able to do better. From a "science of shooting things" perspective, the only differences in targets are that humans are smaller and take evasive actions.

Originally Posted by Freewell There are many reasons you wouldn't use an AR-15 as a generic hunting rifle, not the least of which would be much akin to why you wouldn't put a V-12 in a go-kart or use torpedoes for sport fishing.

Disclaimer: I know very little about guns.

Yes, an AR-15 would appear to be massive overkill for hunting, but I think what Dave is asking is, are there drawbacks to using an AR-15? Nobody is going to go buy an AR-15 to hunt, but if you've already got one, what's the problem with using it to hunt anyway?

[jcoley2]

I am pro guns but I cannot fathom any reason a civilian should have a AR-15 or any variant of this gun. They should be banned.

[curiousuburb]

Originally Posted by jcoley2 I am pro guns but I cannot fathom any reason a civilian should have a AR-15 or any variant of this gun. They should be banned.

Zombies.

No. Wait... that'd be Shotguns.

I'd be more worried about .50cal sniper rifles. Anti-armour capabilities a mile away are a bit excessive for most civilian needs.

But I suppose angry bears might be shielded inside vehicles or something...

[Banana]

Originally Posted by jcoley2 I am pro guns but I cannot fathom any reason a civilian should have a AR-15 or any variant of this gun. They should be banned.

What about overthrow of tyrannical government? Period of general upheaval and lawlessness? (as fooboy earlier referenced during Katrina)

They didn't give us gun ownership so we could shoot at some bears...

And before you say, "Oh, that'll never happen!", even China is arguably the oldest and long-running civilzation (even though they went through dynasties) basically turned into anarchy when the "civilized" white men wanted their tea and porcelains. The government is supposed to be afraid of people, not people of other people (and going to lengths to coerce other group via government so they can feel "safer").

[Dave]

Originally Posted by Kraetos Yes, an AR-15 would appear to be massive overkill for hunting, but I think what Dave is asking is, are there drawbacks to using an AR-15? Nobody is going to go buy an AR-15 to hunt, but if you've already got one, what's the problem with using it to hunt anyway?

That one. I know that military rounds might do more damage, but I can't imagine it'd make that much of a difference in something the size of a large deer.

[Luca]

Originally Posted by Banana I"m no gun experts, but I can think of few possible reasons that may apply or not: 1) Too big a caliber and you get no meat left. Too small a caliber, and you are just torturing the animal needlessly. Likewise, some bullets are better designed for long range plinking. 2) Luca said in another thread that assault rifles are well-designed for suppressive fire. That is, you can emit out several bullets to cover a wide area and thus make it harder for them to return fire. You don't need to suppress animals. You need to kill it. Thus, accuracy is not as big consideration as it would be with a hunting rifle. 3) Too much kick can tamper with accuracy. It has to be recoilless or give little kick. Maybe a sniper's rifle could make for better hunting, but I wouldn't expect the same from a assault rifle or at least anything similar in design.

Well, at least your heart's in the right place!

1) You're right that an AR-15 doesn't use a proper hunting caliber, and it falls into more of the "needlessly torturing the animal" category. Its caliber, 5.56x45mm, is designed to be small mainly for low recoil and so soldiers can carry more rounds with them.

2) The few gun folks here say it practically every time it comes up, but it's exceedingly rare for a civilian to be able to own a fully-automatic weapon of any kind in the U.S. It's not illegal, but you have to submit to some of the most in-depth background checks the government bothers to perform. In other words, if someone has been determined by the government to be fit to own full-auto weapons, I'd consider them more trustworthy than just about anyone, simply because it means they must have a totally spotless past.

On top of that, the manufacture or importation of new full-auto weapons was halted in 1986, with existing ones being grandfathered. That effectively caused their prices to skyrocket. So in addition to being on the straight and narrow, you also have to be pretty damn rich to buy a full-auto weapon (they often cost $10k!).

Of course, assault rifles like turtle's AR-15 are NOT fully automatic, so all that bit about trustworthiness goes right out the window

3) Hunting rifles kick like crazy compared to AR-15s. Doesn't matter though - you ought to hit your mark with the first shot. If you're good/lucky.

P.S. It really bothers me that so many people have to come into this thread and act like turtle is a nutcase for owning a rifle. This is a hobby like any other. You know there are people here who own guns... turtle, Fooboy, Kickaha, and myself, at least (actually I'm not sure how many guns Kickaha owns, but I know he's familiar with them and has lived in households with guns before). You don't seem to feel the need to taunt us constantly, but as soon as someone speaks up about their hobby you have to dogpile on him? Just settle down. If you hate guns, stay out of this thread. You've already expressed your differences of opinion, and I now think less of all of you for it. And that should be that.

[709]

Originally Posted by jcoley2 I am pro guns but I cannot fathom any reason a civilian should have a AR-15 or any variant of this gun. They should be banned.

Oh please. As mentioned upthread somewhere, the people that should be banned from getting a gun like this are almost always weeded out by the background check process. If you want to scream about that .01% that "get through," well, I can point you to about a hundred other areas that I'd be more concerned about if I were you.

That said, I'm not a gun owner (anymore), but I can appreciate the attention to detail and the craftsmanship one of these pieces warrant. At the end of the day, it's a machine. A machine designed to project a mass at high speed and accuracy, sure, but still just a machine. The intention, however, is left up to the person wielding it.


[edit]: What Luca said, too.

[crazychester]

I'm not particularly pro or anti gun (meaning I'm OK with them under certain circumstance). But as far as overthrowing tyrannical governments go, I think you'll find that the vast majority of times this has happened throughout history, it's been done by unarmed citizens (or maybe with rocks and molotovs at best).

Secondly, unless every US citizen had one of these things, if the military didn't turn against the government (which of course is often the key factor), I think da peepul™ would still be up against it. And maybe not stand a chance even then. Revolutions (the violent overthrow of an existing regime) are usually successful based primarily on sheer weight of numbers not what they're armed with.

Being realistic, that's all.

[Swox]

Originally Posted by crazychester I'm not particularly pro or anti gun (meaning I'm OK with them under certain circumstance). But as far as overthrowing tyrannical governments go, I think you'll find that the vast majority of times this has happened throughout history, it's been done by unarmed citizens (or maybe with rocks and molotovs at best). Secondly, unless every US citizen had one of these things, if the military didn't turn against the government (which of course is often the key factor), I think da peepul™ would still be up against it. And maybe not stand a chance even then. Revolutions (the violent overthrow of an existing regime) are usually successful based primarily on sheer weight of numbers not what they're armed with. Being realistic, that's all.

Exactly. The overthrow the government line is beyond laughable in the US. It's cute that people still think they could do it though .

This is one of those issues where people are pretty much on one side or the other. I'm sure you can all guess where the resident Buddhist/hippie stands , so I'm not going to get anymore into it.

[Partial]

Originally Posted by chucker Perhaps we need to talk about teabagging and scrotums. Oh no I di'int…

[Luca]

Originally Posted by Swox Exactly. The overthrow the government line is beyond laughable in the US. It's cute that people still think they could do it though .

That's missing the point. Everyone knows the US citizenry would never be able to overthrow the government (or an occupying force should the government be defeated) using force outright. However, if the opposing force knows that there are a hundred million gun owners scattered throughout the US, it'll make them think twice. Look at what insurgents in Iraq have been able to do to the most powerful military in the world using AK-47s and IEDs (mostly IEDs, really). It would be a long, drawn-out guerrilla war that would test the resolve of the enemy. And the US is so big, there are plenty of places to hide. It would be difficult or impossible for any enemy force (even our own military) to sweep the entire thing.

[AsLan^]

Wolverines!!!

[crazychester]

Originally Posted by Luca That's missing the point. Everyone knows the US citizenry would never be able to overthrow the government (or an occupying force should the government be defeated) using force outright. However, if the opposing force knows that there are a hundred million gun owners scattered throughout the US, it'll make them think twice. Look at what insurgents in Iraq have been able to do to the most powerful military in the world using AK-47s and IEDs (mostly IEDs, really). It would be a long, drawn-out guerrilla war that would test the resolve of the enemy. And the US is so big, there are plenty of places to hide. It would be difficult or impossible for any enemy force (even our own military) to sweep the entire thing.

Oh right so it's about deterring an invader not your own tyrannical government.

I don't want to get into it either so I'm just going to mention two words and then I'm becoming a token resident Buddhist/hippie. (Alright a few more than two.)

Iraq. (Oh you already mentioned it. Guess their guns didn't put you off huh? I think that fabbo, very intelligent, rather dishy, new president of yours has decided your resolve has been sufficiently tested, hasn't he?)

Vietnam. (See my original post for what happened there.)

(I'd add 9/11 but I think it would be below the belt.)

[rampancy]

So this is coming from someone whose experience with guns is pretty much from MoH/CoD, but - what's the difference between the rifle you bought and the "AR-15" used in the military today? What about the M-16/M-4?

[turtle]

Shhhhh....

Baby's sleeping and needs her rest. Go start another thread about if it's worth it to be a patriot in time of need. It is worth it just to be clear though. Even against the odds.

Originally Posted by rampancy So this is coming from someone whose experience with guns is pretty much from MoH/CoD, but - what's the difference between the rifle you bought and the "AR-15" used in the military today? What about the M-16/M-4?

AR-15 is the civilianized M16. Less MilSpec stringent but nearly identical from the outside in every way. It's once you look inside that it changes. Here is a great write up on some of the major differences.

[jcoley2]

Why not get one of these:



I here they really can take down a deer at 1 mile.

http://www.barrettrifles.com/rifle_82.aspx

[turtle]

Very interesting...I'll have to look more into that one. Sadly, I'm off to work right now though.

[Luca]

Originally Posted by crazychester Oh right so it's about deterring an invader not your own tyrannical government. I don't want to get into it either so I'm just going to mention two words and then I'm becoming a token resident Buddhist/hippie. (Alright a few more than two.) Iraq. (Oh you already mentioned it. Guess their guns didn't put you off huh? I think that fabbo, very intelligent, rather dishy, new president of yours has decided your resolve has been sufficiently tested, hasn't he?) Vietnam. (See my original post for what happened there.) (I'd add 9/11 but I think it would be below the belt.)

Took me a while to decipher your post, but as far as I can tell you're basically saying that clearly an armed civilian population wasn't enough to deter the US government from starting wars in Iraq and Vietnam, so why would it deter them from waging war against its own civilian population? Well, that's a valid question, but still, look at Iraq and Vietnam. Just a bunch of poorly-trained dudes with AK-47s held off the might of the US military.

I must retract my statement about it being a deterrent to other nations, though. That's not the point of the 2nd amendment. It's about keeping the government honest. No, we wouldn't be able to destroy our own government should they go completely overboard. And obviously, it's going to have to go pretty damn far overboard before we start having an organized, armed resistance movement. But it's a lot harder for a government, even a tyrannical one, to wage war on its own citizenry than it is for it to go overseas and kill a bunch of foreigners. Would a tyrannical US military have the stomach for such a thing? If not for the second amendment, it would be much easier for our government to become oppressive because they'd know they wouldn't encounter much resistance from the people. Not just to save their own lives, but to save the lives of American citizens who would have otherwise been killed.

I'm not sure if I'm saying everything clearly, just wondering if you at least get my point (I don't expect you to agree).

[hflomberg]

I used an M-16 in the service. Keep it clean, take careof her and she will neever let you down!

Sat Cong

[JohnnyTheA]

Originally Posted by Moogs Dude seriously, I don't care that you own an automatic rifle or that you like to shoot it but you can't expect to post a thread like this among this bunch of techno-hippies and expect anything but grief. Especially when you compare buying a gun to buying a TV. Bit of a stretch... but OK.

I'm a techno but not really a hippie and I like that gun. Too bad the people in SoCal can't own guns like that... If I lived near Turtle, I'd be begging to go shooting with that... Don't own any guns myself but I wouldn't mind shooting a few.

JTA

[Kickaha]

Originally Posted by Moogs Dude seriously, I don't care that you own an automatic rifle or that you like to shoot it but you can't expect to post a thread like this among this bunch of techno-hippies and expect anything but grief.

Yeah, I dunno Moogs, I'm definitely techno, I'm pretty much hippie, but... no grief from this corner. Some of us *do* have our own opinions, you know.

[GSpotter]

@turtle: Have fun with your gun and keep it safe!
Although for a german, this weapons culture in the US looks a bit weird. I friend of mine had this book, which really looked strange to me at the time when he showed it to me.

Personally, my biggest problem with guns in the hands of civilians is the chance that they can get into the wrong hands: Recently, we had an amok shooting just a few miles from where I was born. I school boy took a gun from his fathers (a gun nut) nightstand and killed 15 schoolmates and himself. The son of a coworker was in one of the classes next to one of the victims...

[crazychester]

Originally Posted by Luca I must retract my statement about it being a deterrent to other nations, though. <snip> I'm not sure if I'm saying everything clearly, just wondering if you at least get my point (I don't expect you to agree).

Well no, in that case we do kind of agree. It just seemed to me you based your justification in your first post on people needing guns to fight off invading armies.

The 2nd amendment (and it's validity/worth) is a completely different issue. That, I'm not going to get into either except to say that unfortunately tyrannical governments (especially highly industrialized ones) tend not to become tyrannical in a bang-bang-shoot 'em up way. I think they'd be more likely to go for a divide and conquer psychological approach (of the population) or something like that. So you could end up with all those civilians with guns turning them on each other.

I think (in theory) the 2nd amendment sounds like a good idea and the recognition that governments go bad and constituting the people's right to defend themselves against such, is actually one of the things I most respect about your constitution. Sadly though, it just doesn't always work out to be that simple in practice.

[Kickaha]

Originally Posted by GSpotter @turtle: Have fun with your gun and keep it safe! Although for a german, this weapons culture in the US looks a bit weird. I friend of mine had this book, which really looked strange to me at the time when he showed it to me. Personally, my biggest problem with guns in the hands of civilians is the chance that they can get into the wrong hands: Recently, we had an amok shooting just a few miles from where I was born. I school boy took a gun from his fathers (a gun nut) nightstand and killed 15 schoolmates and himself. The son of a coworker was in one of the classes next to one of the victims...

Hence the strong movement among responsible gun owners in the US for trigger locks, gun safes and the like.

Ironically, it seems to me that where people *haven't* grown up with guns as a part of the environment, is where they do stupid-assed crap like that, leaving them lying out where anyone can get to them. In our house, they were always kept stashed safely, and most homes in the town I grew up in had gun safes or at the *very* least locking cabinets for storage. That was just Gun Safety 101, the kind of stuff you learned about guns by the time you *entered* school, along the lines of "knives are sharp" and "don't run into the road without looking first".

Somehow, though, the idiocy of a few is used as justification for the fear of the many. *shrug* Education FTW.

[turbulentfurball]

The right to bear arms against a 'tyrannical government' perhaps made sense in the 18th century. In the 21st century, I find it incredibly hard to believe that a 'tyrannical government' would come to power in the US, nor would the fact that citizens have weapons would stop an invasion from occurring. Should citizens have access to WMDs to protect themselves from the government that has WMDs? Of course not. It's ridiculous.

The US still allows its citizens to have guns so that men with too much testosterone can prove their manliness by shooting things, be it defenseless animals, paper targets or (that unfortunate minority) people. And those men tend to be the ones with political power.

The unhappy side effect is that the U.S. has one of the highest homicide rates in the developed world, and the highest rate of those homicides being from fire arms.[citation]. (Cue some correlation/causation counter-argument)

Now, turtle I don't believe for one second that you're the type to go off on a homicidal rampage, but I feel the way you composed the first post in this thread was irresponsible. Me owning an iPod is no way like you owning an assault rifle.

[Kickaha]

Originally Posted by turbulentfurball The right to bear arms against a 'tyrannical government' perhaps made sense in the 18th century. In the 21st century, I find it incredibly hard to believe that a 'tyrannical government' would come to power in the US,

Funny, I would swear we were headed severely that way over the last 8 years... or at least that's how a lot of folks framed it. They wouldn't have been... exaggerating, would they?

nor would the fact that citizens have weapons would stop an invasion from occurring. Should citizens have access to WMDs to protect themselves from the government that has WMDs? Of course not. It's ridiculous.

*shrug* Better a letter opener against a tiger than your fingernails.

The US still allows its citizens to have guns so that men with too much testosterone can prove their manliness by shooting things, be it defenseless animals, paper targets or (that unfortunate minority) people. And those men tend to be the ones with political power.

That's your uninformed opinion, and you're welcome to it. But it's uninformed.

The unhappy side effect is that the U.S. has one of the highest homicide rates in the developed world, and the highest rate of those homicides being from fire arms.[citation]. (Cue some correlation/causation counter-argument)

No argument there. Education is the answer.

Now, turtle I don't believe for one second that you're the type to go off on a homicidal rampage, but I feel the way you composed the first post in this thread was irresponsible. Me owning an iPod is no way like you owning an assault rifle.

It's rather like you owning a steak knife. I'm sure you have a few of those around, don't you? Knife attacks/murders in the UK have exploded in the last few years, right? Obviously, the solution is to clear out the kitchens of anything sharp.

And as he said, if you don't like it, don't post. Go make another thread, don't piss in his cereal bowl because you just can't help yourself. It's rude.

[turbulentfurball]

And if I made a thread called 'Guns suck' and said that no one was allowed to say anything to the contrary, I'm sure the first reply would be rather scathing.

[Kickaha]

He was happy about a purchase he personally made, not starting a thread about how everyone should own a gun. He asked that it not turn into a debate.

You decided to ignore that because you just couldn't help it, apparently.

That's what I'd call rude.

"Hey guys! I just bought this new car!" "YOU ASSHOLE! Don't you know cars cause global warming?!?" "Uh, jesus, I was just happy about my... " "I DON'T CARE!"

See? Rude.

Mods? Any chance we could get this crap split off into Yet Another Pointless Gun Debate Thread so it can go down the usual craphole?

[turbulentfurball]

The manner in which he wrote about comparing a *gun* to a new baby, or that buying a gun is like buying harmless electronics was inviting such a reply. Thinly veiled trolling? I'm sorry I took the bait.