The Truth About the AR-15 Rifle

In the wake of the post-Sandy Hook media frenzy, it’s unfortunate that the vast majority of pundits have no idea what they’re talking about when it comes to guns. Especially with a firearm like the AR-15 (a.k.a., “Assault Rifle”). Scanning the press coverage, there’s no end of misinformation about the ArmaLite Rifle (AR) design and why it is such a popular firearm in the United States. Hopefully I can put some of that right . . .

1.Versatility

Before the AR-15 rifle made its way onto the market gun owners needed to buy a different gun for each caliber and application.

Whether they wanted inexpensive target shooting (with cheap ammo like .22lr) or deer hunting (with a more substantial caliber like .308 Winchester), owners had to buy a different firearm for each use. Changing calibers was expensive, time consuming, and generally a one-way process.

Shooters were also stuck with their rifle’s ergonomics. If the stock was too long or too short there wasn’t much they could do—except pay a gunsmith to modify the gun. The same was true if you didn’t like the rifle’s trigger or the sights. Changing anything was a major pain in the butt.

With an AR-15, gun owners don’t need a qualified gunsmith to modify or customize their gun. The average shooter can order the parts online and perform the work themselves with little more than a screwdriver, a wrench and a hammer. [Click here for a how-to.]

In fact, there’s only one part of the gun that an owner has to buy through a gun shop: the “receiver” (pictured above). It’s the serialized part. Technically, as far as the ATF is concerned, it is the gun. I’ve assembled all of my own AR-15 rifles from scratch, having purchased only the receiver through a gun shop.

Everything about the AR-15 platform can be changed to fit the specific end user and their intended use. Long range shooters might add a longer barrel and big scope to the gun for increased accuracy. Those interested in home defense might choose a shorter barrel and add a flashlight to the gun. You can even change the grip to fit your hand exactly and make shooting more comfortable.

2. Hunting

The gun control advocates, the media and a certain President are fixated on the idea that AR-15s are “military weapons” that “have no place on the street.” Again and again we hear that they’re not suitable for hunting.

Not true.

Hundreds of thousands of hunters use the AR-15 platform (which is often sold in complete configurations specifically designed for hunting). The gun is rugged, reliable, portable and accurate. What’s more, the ability to quickly and easily change the rifle’s caliber offers American hunters a huge advantage.

I use an AR-15 that fires the relatively new 300 AAC Blackout round for hunting in Texas. When deer aren’t in season I swap my AR’s upper receiver for one that shoots the much cheaper .22lr cartridge. This kind of caliber swap cuts down on costs and makes hunters more accurate (since they’ve been practicing with their hunting rifle all year long).

3. Self-defense

The AR-15 is the civilian version of the M-16 rifle, as adopted by the U.S. armed forces. The M-16 was developed in the wake of World War II. Generals wanted a rifle that would allow U.S. servicemen to put rounds on target accurately at extreme distances (as they did with the M1 Garand in WWII).

That’s the reason the rifle came with a bulky stock and precision “aperture” sights. The Powers That Be wanted their troops to take precise aimed shots from the shoulder. So despite what the media would have you believe, the AR-15 was not “designed” to “spray” bullets. It was created as a precision rifle.

A great offensive weapon makes a great defensive weapon. The AR-15 is an easy-to-use and effective rifle for self-defense, both at close and distant ranges. If someone was defending say, a school, and they were positioned at the end of a corridor, an AR-15 would give them the speed, repeatability (i.e. ammunition capacity) and/or accuracy they’d need to eliminate a lethal threat. Or threats.

Which is why so many Americans depend on the AR-15 for the self-defense. It’s also the reason the police rely on AR-15s to counter active shooters.

avatar

About Nick Leghorn

Nick Leghorn is a gun nerd living and working in San Antonio, Texas. In his free time, he's a competition shooter (USPSA, 3-gun and NRA High Power), aspiring pilot, and enjoys mixing statistics and science with firearms. Now on sale: Getting Started with Firearms by yours truly!

181 Responses to The Truth About the AR-15 Rifle

  1. avatarAJ says:

    Since this is directed at those without knowledge of it, I would include the fact that AR is short for Armalite, not Assault Rifle. Also, that the AR-15 is not an “assault rifle.”

    • +1. That should be the number 1 thing listed.

    • avatarSanchanim says:

      +1 Thanks for the info Nick!

    • avatarPaul A'Barge says:

      I own a Bushmaster AR-15 (25 year celebration edition).

      If the AR-15 is not an Assault Rifle, please list here for us names of Assault Rifles. I would be interested.

      • avatarStephan l. Hill says:

        Paul, OK, here are a few (not a complete list)
        Wehrmacht Sturmgewehr 44 from WWII (the first assault rifle)
        M16 ( the original one)
        M16A1 (the most common one, Vietnam to Cold War)
        M16A2 (3 shot burst version)
        M4 Carbine
        AK47 (the full auto one, not the semi auto knockoffs)
        FN FAL
        FN P90
        SA80
        HK 41
        AK74 (more recent Russian update)
        The common factor is typically full auto capability.

        • avatarjoe says:

          The m 16 was not the original assault rifle, the STG 44 was. It was German, and made at the end of WWII.

      • avatarjack says:

        Paul, an assault rifle defined by the military is a weapon with select fire capability. Ie it has to have a burst fire or full auto selection. Any civilian model of the ar only has semi auto capability. And as mentioned before, ar stands for armalite rifle, not assault rifle. The media, per usual, is incorrect in the usage of the term assault rifle

        • avatarRoscoe says:

          Re-naming AR-15’s “assault rifles” is comparable to how the Democrats named health care legislation (Obama Care) the “Affordable Care Act”. It is anything but affordable; we are all going to pay more if for no other reason than there is another middleman – the government. The name is just a way to mask the Democrats true intentions and mislead the uninformed public. This is a standard political ploy Democrats are exceptionally skilled at because people must be tricked into accepting most of their ideas.

          Do you seriously doubt the politicians and media didn’t intentionally hijack the acronym AR (Armalite Rifle) and re-cast it as “assault rifle” for the specific purpose of equating it to an evil weapon of war?
          Consequentially, anyone who wants to own one must therefore be an evil war monger.

          The truth is in all of the inaccurate rhetoric of half truths and lies put out by the gun grabber politicians and their liberal mainstream media propaganda machine to misinform the uneducated masses. The gun grabbers’ ultimate goal is to equate all those who exercise their 2A Right to Bear Arms as inherently untrustworthy and evil. So they must be disarmed.

          This is just the beginning. If the gun grabbers gain traction now, the restrictions will only continue to grow – the old slippery slope in action.

      • avatarMark says:

        Any rifle used to assault someone. It’s about the person and not the utensil.

        • avatarDBM says:

          Its also a Carbine and not a rifle.

        • avatarname says:

          first of all the AR-15 (as said earlier Armalite Rifle) is a carbine rifle, and not an assult rifle, and a assult rifle is fully automatic while the AR is only semi. and what do you think people did before guns? they had swords and slashed each other to death, which is a much slower death. Also guns dont kill people, people use guns as a tool to kill people, and 99.999% an AR is used for recreational purposes and not slaying the masses. If anyone wanted to take out the most people possibile they would build bombs (fyi you can build bombs out of common kitchen supplies, my father was a bomb specialist in veitnam and showed me, to my disbelief that you can build a hell of a bomb and not be targeted for buying ‘dangerous’ items, just a nice man picking up some groceries and refilling his cleaning supply. one bomb can take out a lot more innocent people, if it is rigged to blow up a few common exits to trap viticims, keep most officers out and also fire bombs to burn up parts of buildings to near colaspe and scare the shit out of everyone. after that the guy can sweep the area with a bolt action gun and kill everyone, as they will be to terrified to do anything to stop him as ‘what if he has more bombs? will he blow us up and himself if we get out of line?’) this is a way to easy way to wreak havoc on people but no one likes to talk about it, that when everyone has a gun its PROVEN to reduce crime, in sweden (either there or switzerland) every family is required to own at least one gun and they have the lowest gun accident and crime rate in the WORLD!!! guns are not the problem, its that the people have nothing to defend themselves with making easy targets… if one poliece officer was at sandy hook in his car sitting on his ass he could have radioed for back up and confronted the crazy man before he got into the building and just so everyone knows he left his AR in the trunk and killed the kids with a pistol, not an assult rifle, he didnt even ever touch a assult rifle…

    • avatarcoflux says:

      Wrong!

      The AR-15 is categorized as an assault rifle because it shoots an intermediate cartridge vs a full sized cartridge that a battle would.

      If you take notice, the media doesn’t even use the technical term (accepted in the arms business) “assault rifle”, instead they made up their own (and much broader term): “Assault weapons”.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_rifle

  2. avatarMotoJB says:

    Good, well written article…love my AR15′s and AR10′s.

    Unfortunately, the below part doesn’t really help the “don’t hate the AR” attempt here…

    “In fact, the effect of 5.56 ammunition on live animals was studied using dogs, and the researchers found that the smaller and faster bullets caused more damage than the older and larger projectiles. So, in fact, the 5.56 round is more deadly.”

    • avatarLoyd says:

      I agree that some of the reasons the AR-15 is a great platform are counter-productive to our cause. But this is the Truth About AR-15s, and it needs to be the whole truth.

    • Well ya, what good would a firearm be if it was not lethal against a hunting target or an armed home invader.

    • avatarMichael says:

      One of the biggest complaints that the Military has of the M16 and M4 is that the 5.56 NATO round is not deadly enough. Often we will shoot someone and the bullet will simply penetrate straight through and fail to expand and create the type of damage we are looking for. One of the reasons we are taught to aim for the chest cavity so we can damage the heart and lungs. The military actually designed a new round that expands on impact and causes devastating damage to people, but saying that the normal ball ammunition is actually more deadly than a larger caliber round is absolutely not true.

      • avatarjoe says:

        5.56 is not a ball.

        • avatarDB Cooper says:

          Joe,
          The military refers to its full metal jacket bullets as “Ball Rounds” vs say AP or tracer.

      • avatarPatrick says:

        Expanding ammunition is a violation of the Hague Convention 1899 and is not allowed for use by national militaries in international conflicts. It was reaffirmed in the 1907 Hague Convention.

        “(IV,3): Declaration concerning the Prohibition of the Use of Bullets which can Easily Expand or Change their Form inside the Human Body such as Bullets with a Hard Covering which does not Completely Cover the Core, or containing Indentations

        This declaration states that, in any war between signatory powers, the parties will abstain from using “bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body.” Ratified by all major powers, except the United States.”

        “After World War II, the judges of the military tribunal of the Trial of German Major War Criminals at Nuremberg Trials found that by 1939, the rules laid down in the 1907 Hague Convention were recognised by all civilised nations and were regarded as declaratory of the laws and customs of war. Under this post-war decision, a country did not have to have ratified the 1907 Hague Convention in order to be bound by them.”

        Because of this the US designed rounds that tumble and yaw (keyholing). The original Stoner design was in the AR10 in 7.62×39 but the further testing found that the 5.56×45 actually caused more injuring wounds than lethal ones and was deemed inhumane by NATO in its original 55gr version, which means that two or more people are taken out of the fight for each hit, the wounded one and the ones who have to carry him to safety. It was then raised to the standard NATO 62gr which we have now that is such an ineffective round.

        I personally shot one Iraqi 5 times in the chest and he kept coming, he was so doped up he ignored the wounds because they were just painful and he wasn’t feeling any pain that day. Only the follow up frag finally put him, and his 2 buddies, down. For my life, a larger, slower round is a better option for a defensive cartridge than the 5.56×45. Or Hornady TAP 00-buck from a 12ga.

        • avatarDB Cooper says:

          Patrick, The AR-10 was 7.62×51. You must be thinking of the AK 7.62 round. The 62 grain bullet came about because the intel analysts thought the soviets were going to start issuing bullet flak vests to their soldiers and the powers that be decided to go to a steel core round to penetrate the vests at long range. It succeeded in giving the soldiers flying ice picks for bullets. The 55 gr bullets were not that effective against even non drugged out enemy. I had several ROTC instructors in the late 70′s who carried AKs in the Jungles because they got tired of having to shoot a little guy 5-8 times to maybe kill him. Even the SOF guys who first went into Afghanistan started using AKs because the M-4s were worthless againts guys smoking opium. At close range they wanted something with gross knockdown power.
          Just as a note most of the NATO countries had both 5.56 and 7.62 rifles. Mostly because in the event of war we would be supplying them with ammo.

      • avatardubbs says:

        The original AR by Stoner was a 7.62 x51 NATO spitter! If not for some poor last minute tinkering with untested tech( the alloy barrel disaster) the AR 10 might have rang the retirement bell of the M-14 at least 5 yrs earlier. When the AR 15 came along it was initially designed as a survival rifle for downed aircrews, then for security forces, then general deployment by frontline troops. The 5.56 rd is very accurate and destructive and was best suited for modern european warfare against well trained troops with body armor. The over penetration issues come from the ammo designed to defeat body armor( which most violent 3rd world insurgents don’t wear) as well as the focus on stability and longer range accuracy( an AK 47 rd isnt going to make consistent iron sight 300 yd head shots) . Heavier, slower bullets have since
        Been designed to deal with the overpenetration and”stopping power” issue, but honestly head shot and 10 ring shots DO prove the 5.56 x 45 has “stopping power”

  3. avatarsurlycmd says:

    Well done! But I believe most people who need the knowledge will never look for it.
    Some antis who find the info will use the knowledge to exclaim the AR-15 is much worse than they thought.

    Expected anti-rant: No serial number on the part with the barrel? No accountability! The rifle can be changed and the police can do nothing about it!

    Blah, blah, blah, blah, cry, snivel, whimper.

  4. avatarLoyd says:

    Please add that “AR-15″ stands for “Armalite Rifle model 15″ not “Assault Rifle 15″. And please provide links to where TTAG has covered as nauseum that AR-15s are semi-auto (single shot per pull of trigger) and not fully automatic.

  5. avatarSertorius says:

    My only suggestion is to take out the “Bullshit.” I could care less personally, but these sorts of well-reasoned explanations can be usefully linked in comments and emails to enlighten other people. Why risk offending?

  6. avatarBrad says:

    But that’s not what DIFI says and she knows everything about “assault weapons”. I’ll see your logic and raise you one uniformed “expert” opinion!

    http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec12/feinstein_12-17.html

    DIANNE FEINSTEIN: Well, I think you concentrate on both. You concentrate on mental illness and what we can do. You concentrate on safety in schools and those kinds of things.

    But small children have a basic right to go to a school and feel safe. And these guns, because they kill large numbers of people very quickly, they aren’t used for hunting, they aren’t hunting weapons. You don’t need them for defense. They are military-style weapons. And they don’t belong in the streets of our cities or our towns.

    • avatarbontai Joe says:

      We don’t need this rifle for defense? Then why are just about all police departments ussued AR platform rifles? If I’m limited to a lever action, then the police should be also. Oh, I forgot that they are as mayor Bloomburg says, “highly trained”. Not a hunting rifle? Ask anyone hunting wild hogs what rifle they are using! This woman’s head is SO FAR up her own butt, it is amazing that we can hear her talk.

      • avatarGSL45 says:

        I would even throw up this picture, if you could obtain the rights to it:

        http://www.nbcmontana.com/image/view/-/17779904/highRes/2/-/maxh/360/maxw/640/-/6o2e1fz/-/Sandy-Hook-Connecticut-school-shooting-4-jpg.jpg

        I think that really hammers home the last point – that ordinary police officers rely on it to do good. It’s not the gun that’s the problem, it’s the nut behind the trigger.

        (There are other pictures where the officers are in full-on tactical gear, but it looks like they’re part of the military. The pictures of plainclothes officers are better)

        • avatarBilly Wardlaw says:

          Its funny, I was struck by that and many similar images – that of police onsite with ARs and those around them seemingly feeling safe now that they were present. How is the civilian use any different than the LEOs use of the same equipment?

      • They are highly trained enough to shoot wildly at a fleeing perp in the midst of a crowded NYC street. They are trained so well that they are insanely lucky that the 9 hit were only injured.

        • avatardubbs says:

          Chewbacca, If you actually “think” you’d have done better, you show the mentality that gets so many civilian gun owners and police officers both in trouble! Training doesnt mean crap without mental preparedness and experience! Ask any soldier with combat experience or veteran policr officer that has been through a shootong or two,and you’ll know talk is cheap, and so is monday morning quarter backing. Too many bozos think shooting at cans or stationary targets, or UNARMED animals makes them a “shooting expert”.

          While I too was disappointed by New Yorks finest on that incident, I also have seen and been around actual shootings and understand sympathy and panic fire. It happens in combat and it happens in police shootings. And yes, these are people TRAINED to fire their weapons daily. You may train and be well versed with weapons but the avg. Joe with a concealed permit may not be pn your level( or even give a crap); what do you think is gpnna happen when thay guy feels he has to “defend himself” and starts
          Firing???? Doubt he’ll be accurate….

    • avatarWLCE says:

      “they aren’t used for hunting, they aren’t hunting weapons. You don’t need them for defense. They are military-style weapons. And they don’t belong in the streets of our cities or our towns.”

      first of all, frankenstein, i dont give a f–k if they arent hunting weapons; “hunting” in the 2nd amendment is right beside muskets…they both arent there. besides, ARs are very ideal hunting weapons; theyre ergonomic, lightweight, safe, reliable, and accurate.

      Oh really? I “dont need”? well you can f–k off. my needs are determined by me and me alone. btw, since you act like the arbiter of my needs mrs finklestein, please provide me with armed secret service protection like what youre entitled to.

      and to think these losers represent me…

      • avatarRoscoe says:

        Absolutely!

        The AR-15 was a late 50’s early 60’s re-engineering of the rifle to take advantage of technological advancements and modern concepts; no more, no less.

        The AR-15′s progression in the rifle development chain is no different than progression was from the muzzle loading flintlock to the single shot breech loader, to the lever action repeater, to the clip fed auto loaders of the 1930’s and 40’s to the modular ergonomically improved modular (customizable) auto loaders of today (a la AR-15′s).

        To apply the logic of today’s gun grabbers’ vis-à-vis the 2A, then the writers of that amendment must have meant the Right would only extend to possession of spears, axes, clubs and bows ‘n arrows; not the scary modern flintlocks of the day.

        Now that makes a lot of sense, doesn’t it?

    • avatarjoe says:

      hey dianna, just cause it looks like a military weapon doesn’t mean it is one. That type of assumption is typical of liberal gun haters. There are hunting rifles that fire just as fast, and are some times more deadly.

    • avatarSteve says:

      AR stands for Assault Rifle! There is no sense hiding it. Colt made the “AR”, Bushmaster makes the “AR”. Armalite is just a manufacturer of weapons just as Colt, Bushmaster, S&W, Olympic Arms just to name a few… and not the owner of the “AR” term.
      The bigger rounds weigh more and take up more space reducing carry capacity. Most combat was at 100 to 300 yards so the larger round with its extended range was wasted. Running out of ammo has killed many combatants. I don’t know about you, but I’d rather carry more ammo than run out!
      In war: there were more civilian casualties than military combatants. I believe it was somewhere above 60 % were civilian casualties.
      Why are some people trying to disarm the people? Do you think the enemy is going to come with lever action weapons? No… they will bring their high capacity weapons!
      Guns protect our freedom. Without our guns you will be under their (the enemy. Who ever they are) control… or die!
      When the Japanese Emperor wanted to invade the United States he was told by his general: “If you invade the United States, you will have a gun pointed at you from behind every blade of grass!”
      Maybe if more law abiding responsible people carried concealed weapons these mass shooting wouldn’t happen, or not last long.
      School officials and teachers could be trained and carry concealed. There could also be panic buttons through out the schools locking all doors. They would stay locked until the police arrived to take control of the situation.
      A pump shot gun can cause alot of casualties. Each shell carrying multiple projectiles hitting multiple people a one time. If some people have their way we wont even have a knife and a fork.
      As for these weapons on the street! I lived in NYC… and in the 30yrs I lived there, I never saw any of these weapons on the street. Until I saw some police standing in doorways carrying M16′s and MP5′s. This was in 2010, 70 something street next to Central Park.
      This country was built on guns, by guns. It is simple! If you don’t like guns then leave. There are plenty of countries that don’t allow their population to have guns. Russia is one. After all they have all the same rights we have in the U.S. (Not!)
      Ask yourself this… Why is the government buying hollow point ammo? It can’t be used in war. So who are they planning to use hollow points on? Civilians? (Zombies maybe…) Why? What is being hidden? What is being planned that we have to be disarmed?

      • avatarDB Cooper says:

        The “AR” in all AR pattern rifles stands for Armalite Rifle

      • avatarSteve says:

        Sorry Steve but you may want to look into the AR-5 and rethink the meaning of “AR”. Although other companies are often using AR-15 and AR-10 to designate their “AR pattern” rifles, the designation and it’s meaning were created by ArmaLite.

    • avatarJamie says:

      I also think her opinion is invalid because she doesn’t obey any of the safety rules that we hold very important:

      http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/rawfile/2009/07/ak47_5a.jpg

      Oh, right. She’s a senator and her friend was shot, so she must be a firearms expert, and naturally is always right… Therefore the rules are now:

      - Always assume the gun is unloaded
      - Keep your finger bent and on the trigger at all times
      - Keep the muzzle pointed in an unsafe direction (preferably at people)
      - Be completely unaware of your target and its foreground and background

      Am I perhaps missing any unsafety rules here?

      • avatarDB Cooper says:

        Jamie,
        Yes you missed one unsafe rule. Always make sure the Safety Selector lever on your weapon is on the Fire position while doing all of the above

  7. avatarMichael B. says:

    Freedom ain’t free. Donate to your favorite gun rights orgs.

    We have a long fight ahead of us.

    • avatarDan Knowles says:

      With all due respect, I think the time to rely on the political process is coming to an end.
      The NRA has, I think, wasted my money in furthering their own political clout while trading away the 2d Amendment every time they negotiate any kind of infringement. There are other groups that I have supported, but things are accelerating, and the political process only works when all parties negotiate in good faith. This administration and it’s fellow travelers don’t.
      Save your money and gear up.
      There will be a fight.

  8. avatarKirk says:

    On NPR (I know, I know) yesterday, some soi-dissant “expert” on AR-15s airily commented that owners “frequently, easily and commonly” convert them to “fully automatic.” We do?

    Not only would I not know how, I would not do his because it would make me a felon and preclude me from shooting at ranges with limitations on frequency/interval of fire to ensure no one is somehow using a fully automatic firearm.

    I guess I’d better keep my gatling gun under wraps until the latest all blows over.

    Interesting how difficult it is to discover whether Nancy Lanza’s guns were securely stored: http://guardamerican.com/index.php/blog/146-crime-punishment/345-sandy-hook-guns-were-secured

    • avatarMorseus says:

      Well, there is that whole slide-fire gizmo . . .

      • avatarSMSgt Mac says:

        Slidefire.. the setup that allows you to operate the trigger to fire individual shots once or repeatedly fire a controlled number of times. One trigger squeeze, one shot, no matter how many times you shoot it in a row. Which is why it is frickin’ legal, and very handy for taking down feral pigs in numbers.

    • avatarPaul A'Barge says:

      Per the news, Lanza’s mother felt he was slipping away and being a doomsday prepper and a hoarder of guns and food, she chose to bond with him by taking him …. shoooting.

      My guess is that she’s the one who taught him how to use the AR-15. And then made sure that he had easy access to it.

      Brings a whole new dimension to “Hi Mom, I’m home!”

    • avatarGordon Shumway says:

      Really? Ive known plenty of people who have illegally converted AR-15′s and AK’s to full auto. Only one of them went to jail and the only reason he became a convicted felon is he didnt know how to keep his mouth shut. I’m as pro gun as anyone but even I know it is extremely easy to convert them to full auto given a handful of readily available parts and a few readily available tools.

      • avatarjoe says:

        Oh good, they got away with it. Well that just makes it right automatically, doesn’t it. I’m all for gun rights, but the illegal modification of fire arms is dangerous for sure, not to mention wrong.

  9. avatarg says:

    Great write-up, Nick!

    I think the latest hysteria around the rifle is getting out of a control… I just heard on the news hat Cerberus is now selling its stake in Bushmaster because of the shooting? Wow.

    • avatarfred says:

      Good job Nick. I like the benefit of swapping parts to fit the hunting need. Just like the shotguns you find sold with a basic barrel for deer and another “wingmaster” barrel you can swap in for hunting birds.
      No one has proposed taking away the multiple round or semi-auto features that have been common for 40+ years in duck guns for the same reasons that they should focus on behaviour of user and improve mental health care. But that would be too easy for those seeking a quick fix to DO SOMETHING….

  10. avatarWade says:

    I saw Josh Horowitz on the news last night talking about how “pistol grips help keep the barrel down when shooting rapidly”, and some incoherent verbal vomit from which I managed to translate into something to do with “assault weapons like the one used in Sandy Hook are especially dangerous… *incoherent*… hold ammunition in the pistol grip, making it easier to kill lots of people.”

    I’m amazed someone would let this imbecile anywhere near a camera.

    • avatarBLAMMO says:

      Last night on FNC, Mara Liasson used the term “multiple weapon high speed clips”. Can that possibly mean something even to her?!!

      • avatarDyspeptic Gunsmith says:

        No, these highly educated people are just spewing words. They have no clue what they’re talking about.

  11. avatarJim says:

    Yeah the part about the 5.56 round being deadlier than say, a .30-06 isn’t going to win any arguement with an anti. Maybe claiming that the AR was (sorta) originally meant as more of a police weapon might fly but a bulket is a bullet to an anti and unless you can convince them that AR’s are just a step up from bb guns they will still see them as evil black murder machines. I mean AR’s were adopted by the Air Force as a weapon for security guards. The industry should consider pushing that fact. Assault weapon? No its a defense weapon. But it’s too late for that I think. Maybe wooden stocks and blued finishes might help. Hell I might even buy one then. Yeah I’m an OFWG. I like mine pretty.

    • avatarAccur81 says:

      The 5.56 round is most certainly not more lethal than a single round of .308 Winchester or .30-06 Springfield. Whether you look at ballistic gel, kinetic energy, TKO value, momentum, stopping power, barrier penetration, etc. I don’t know of a single metric where the 5.56 exceeds the .308 in lethality except in rapid – fire capability.

      • avatartdiinva says:

        +1

        It’s a varmint round and an inferior one at that. 243 is a much more lethal round then a 223.

      • avatartdiinva says:

        And it doesn’t even exceed the 308 in RPM. The M-14 can spit out the same number or founds per minute as the M-16 in full auto. The rated AR ROF is the same as the M-1 and M-14 in semiauto mode. But as I noted in an early posting that the M-1 could actually sustain 20RPM forever. LLike all systems of its era, the M-1 was over engineered to ensure that it met spec. When you only have paper, pencil and slide rule for design and can’t do finite element analysis you build in a generous safety factor.

      • It is not as lethal, but it was a compromise. The military found it to be lethal enough, given that benefits gained of decreased weight. The military has recently been taking M14s (7.62) out of storage and upgrading them to EBR (enhanced battle rifle – basically getting rid of wood stocks and adding plastic furniture and rails) to counter AK threats from the enemy. In Afghanastan we have found ourselves in wider area situations and the AK’s 7.62 has a range advantage over the M16/M4 5.56. The have been issuing one M14 per squad.

        • avatartdiinva says:

          I had a post explaining it but it got trapped but the essence of the post is that the Army chose the M-16 because it was available and not because of its mythical lethality. The AR-15 was just the replacement for carbine and SMG for Air Force Security police. When “they” decided that the M-14 was not the right rifle it was what they had. It turned out that full auto was a waste of ammo but we were already committed to the 5.56 cartridge. It wasn’t until Iraq and Afghanistan that we admitted that the 308 was a vastly more effective round and started bringing back the M-14 which should really have designated at the M-1-A1. The Garand is the grandfather of all modern military rifles.

        • avatarWLCE says:

          the M4/M16 has no problem engaging AKs in afghanistan. In that environment, the AR-type rifle has a unique advantage since it has superior inherent accuracy.

          As far as the M14 EBRs, go, they are issued to designated marksman as a interim solution to the DM rifle concept. They are intended to counter taliban armed with higher caliber rifles (SVD, Enfield), PKM machine guns, and mortars by extending the range of a infantry squad.

        • avatartdiinva says:

          Now just think what kind of firepower advantage you would have if every member of the squad had an M-14.

        • avatarWLCE says:

          have you ever patrolled with all of your gear and a M14 EBR? I have. if all infantrymen were equipped, their performance would be significantly lopsided and reduced for fire and maneuver.

          There are plenty of situations where the M4 is more ideal than the M14. In afghanistan, the M14 happens to have the advantage in maximum effective range. but that is not even getting into maintenance, expensive parts, and weight issues.

        • avatartdiinva says:

          My dad was a WWII paratrooper. They jumped with so much gear that they could barely get on the airplane. After jumping they walked into combat. They carried the M-1 and a lot ammo. They did pretty well don’t you think?

          My dad’s favorite movie was “From Here to Eternity.” He was a prewar regular. I asked him if ever boxed like in the movie. He told why would you ever want to get into a fair fight? You always want an advantage. There was better or worse. There is no such thing as good enough.

        • avatarWLCE says:

          they also ditched the unnecessary gear that was interfering with fire and maneuver, leaving no more than 40 lbs of water, grenades, and ammo.

          anything they brought with them (a soldiers packing list in WWII was ridiculous and a paratroopers even more so) was mostly lost in the jump over normandy anyways.

        • avatarBilly C says:

          One factor you are all overlooking, yes .308 has more range, stopping power, ect… However as a former US Army Infantryman who carried and used M4/M16 rifles there is an inherent advantage over 7.62×51 ammo, first you have to understand that the infantry is a mobile fighting unit meaning we had to move fast and far distances and be able to go long periods without re supply so we needed to carry as much supplies and ammo as possible to ensure mission success, and the .308 ammo is far heavier then 5.56 so an average infantryman could carry several hundred rounds of 5.56 ammo over carrying only a couple hundred rounds of 7.63/.308 ammo. This is the reason each squad had one M60 machine gun and the gunner had an assistant gunner to help carry extra ammo and barrels for the M60 so now you have two men to support one weapon because of weight of ammo an barrels as well as other related items. An infantry unit needs to be effective and you can’t be effective when weighted down with only a small amount of ammo, and even though it doesn’t have straight knockdown power based on the caliber of the round that is compensated by the round tumbling upon entry of the body and I’ve seen close up what a itty bitty 5.56 round can do to a body so it is effective enough to ensure mission success when combined with the other weapons carried by a full infantry squad such as the M16/M203, M60/M249 SAW and so on. I own several AR-15′s and one AR-10 .308 win and I can tell you with 100% certainty that one 19 round .308 mag weighs as much if not more then 2 30 round 5.56/223 mags, another thing you have to consider is that higher caliber weapons are built more robust, for instance one of my fully accessorized AR-15′s with full mag, quad rails, weapon light, scope, fore grip, laser sight and bipod weighs less then my bare AR-10 does with only a scope or holographic sight on it so again it comes down to weight and a soldier needing to be effective at close to moderate ranges and 5.56 accomplishes this task and it does it very well for its intended purpose and ill guarantee you I can take out a target at 200/400 meters as well with my AR-15′s as anyone can with a .308 because that is what I was trained to do because it’s where you hit that makes the difference and I can sit and place 30 rounds in a quarter dollar sized hole at 100 meters all day long and that wouldn’t change much at 200 meters and beyond. So from someone trained to use an M4/M16 properly it’s a very effective weapon and a more then effective round so it all comes down to the hands guiding the round and not necessarily the size of the round

          BC

        • avatarDBM says:

          Billy,
          So you can sit and hit a quarter sized target at 100 meters all day. Did you do it when people are shooting at you? Not saying you can’t do it but you werent using a military issue M-4 AND after having trained a few thousand of you guys I can tell you there are very few people in the military that can shoot that well. You should volunteer for sniper school.
          Also, you guys are trained to fire supressive fire and not pinpoint targeting. Doing a pinpoint well placed shot on a running target at range is pretty hard to do. You guys still manage to burn about a 10,000 rds a kill.
          The 5.56 (especially the M855) has a long history of underperforming in combat. So you can carry a lot of rounds to spray around. You have to hit someone multiple times to make sure they stay down and all of the vaulted hydrostaic shock (out to 50m’s) fagmentation (50-100meters) seldom works. I had ROTC instructors that carried AK’s in the brush in Vietnam because they got tired of having to shoot a tiny little asian guy 5-10 times to kill him when one 7.62 from an AK did the job. You don’t have to carry as many rounds when you are actually shooting to kill someone. Are you aware that a WW2 infantrymans basic load of ammo was 50 rounds? And are you aware of the history of MG’s and why they wiegh as little as they do and why the extra barrels and all of that ammo? If not dust off some military history books.

    • avatarWLCE says:

      ARs were also extensively used by advisors before the Vietnam war kicked off and just the time when air force security forces started adopting it.

      It was lightweight, making it ideal for jungle warfare, accurate, had significantly lower recoil than battle rifles, and you could carry more ammo. it was a ideal counter to the AK and far more suitable for mass production than the M14.

      The M16 was anything but “defensive’.

  12. avatarKen says:

    Unfortunately, you’re preaching to the choir. The anti’s are not interested in having the record set straight. They’re only interested in those things that support their view of the world. As long as they keep spitting forth their drivel and the MSM continues to parrot that as truth, we’ll be on the defensive.

    • avatarBrad says:

      We’re watching true propaganda and misinformation in action. Goebbels would be impressed at how our “modern-day” media is twisting and turning the truth so effectively. Essentially using our own 1st amendment to destroy the second. Bravo MSM, bravo. One question though, what will they do when the 2nd is gone and they set to work at redefining the 1st. From there, it’s a short hop and a skip to censoring “dissident” media outlets that “hurt the children”. It works both ways. Morgan Freeman already pointed the finger at the media the other day. When guns are banned and axe murders break into schools and theaters, who will get the blame then MSM?

    • avatarSanchanim says:

      Just posted this article on Facebook to all my anti gun friends.

  13. avatarSoccerchainsaw says:

    If I could only afford one rifle, the AR would be my choice. It may not be ideal for every purpose, but it works well enough for anything I’d want to do with it.

  14. avatarpk in AZ says:

    You know the old saying……

    Tell a LIE often enough and people think it is the truth!

  15. avatarJason says:

    I thought if you wanted 308 you needed to move up to the ar-10 platform. Can you get a magazine fed ar-15 in 308? I thought if you could do it it would only be single shot or something.

    I have heard that you can get powerful calibers in the ar-15 but I wonder if they are really operating in semi-auto mode vs single shot. If I could get something suitable to hunt elk then I’d be really interested. It seems the best I can do is 6.5 grendel which is still lacking in my opinion.

    Thanks,
    Jason

    • avatarBrennan says:

      I think the 308 reference was just a reference. When he got into detail he said .30 caliber and .300 AAC blackout.

      As far as I know, .308 needs AR 10 platform, but there are .30 calibers that will fit the 15 platform.

      Good read. I agree that the Armalite Rifle needs a mention.

      • avatarAccur81 says:

        The .308 Winchester – the 7.62 x 51 mm – is too long to fit into an AR-15 magazine well. Shooting the 7.62 x 51 requires the AR-10 platform.

        The following can be fired from an AR-15 lower with the appropriate upper and magazine:

        .22 LR
        .223 Remington
        5.56 NATO
        5.45
        6.5 Grendel
        6.8 SPC / 6.8 SPC Spec II
        300 AAC – 7.62 x 35 mm
        7.62 WT
        .458 SOCOM
        .50 Beowulf
        9 mm

        There may be more pistol calibers that I forgot, because I don’t see much point in shooting pistol calibers out of an AR-15.

        The AR-10 can fire the .308 x 51 family such as the 7mm-08 and .243 Winchester.

  16. avatarEh says:

    Great start, the pro gun, pro individual rights side needs more well reasoned and well presented arguments

    • avatarjoe says:

      the anti gun people have no reasoning in their argument! They don’t even know what their talking about!

    • avatardubbs says:

      …. And that includes “fence sitting”liberals who own guns but act fearful of going against their political brethren. I don’t know anyone who wants aanton gun violence. Sandyhook and the aurora shootings are about mental illness, more so than guns.(same sick individuals would have used improvised explosive devices or blade weapons if they couldn’t get ahold of guns). We do need gun control, but only when it applies to keeping kids, criminals, and the mentally ill from possessing or having access to them.

      The “blk rifle” may look scary, but I fear the vicious criminal who can use things that we can’t “control”( pipe bombs, and other weapons if mass destruction).

  17. avatarBrian says:

    slight detour: what is that bag in the pic? i love it!

  18. avatarTed says:

    Eugene Stoner was a genius – no doubt – unless you are one of the guys that don’t like direct impingement designs. I do really like my AR-15.

    Mikhail Kalashnikov was also another genius with a slightly different vision of a rifle. How about a truth about the AK-47 article? That would also be an interesting read.

    • avatarDyspeptic Gunsmith says:

      Where Stoner (and his cohorts) were geniuses was in using their aerospace manufacturing knowledge to a) reduce costs and b) make use of the aircraft manufacturing technology (including numerically controlled machining that was the new hotness back then) to reduce unit costs.

      Most people who aren’t gunsmiths have absolutely NO idea how much machining went into classic gun designs like the M1/M14 or even the 1903 Springfield. Never mind guns like the M1917 Enfield. If you plop a receiver from those guns down in front of a machinist/engineer and point to a room full of manual machines and say “Duplicate that!” you see some serious heat come off their skulls as they work out how to do it.

      The AR platform? Pfah. Simple. So very, very simple. And with most of the parts made from 7075 aluminum, so very much easier on the tooling, which is a big part of the cost of machining steel. No heat treating, which is another big cost in the prior weapons systems.

      If I set up a shop of guys today to make M1 Garands the old fashioned way, with manual machines, heat treated 8620 steel, the whole deal… you’d be looking at a gun up in the range of $4K to $6K… per copy, assuming I’m paying the machinists and gunsmiths only about $20/hour. The receiver alone would be up in the $500 to $800 range.

      Today, you can get an AR lower/upper combo for under $200. Well, not today — two weeks ago, you could.

  19. avatarRob Drummond says:

    Well written & informative, but I think the ones who need to read this will not.

    To the anti gun and more directly to the anti-AR they know they are right and they have emotion on their side & that is compelling. It doesn’t matter that techically an assault weapon might be defined as having a bayonet lug and depression on the barrel to allow the use of a grenade launcher. Most of the media use Auntomatic weapon/machine gun/assault weapon to describe the same thing. I had a discussion with someone at work the day the school shootings took place and he said no need for AR’s or Ak’s, etc. I said to him that the AR is the most popular rifle in the US today & is used for anything from home defence to all types of hunting. He said all the more reason to ban them. I also said that this type of stuff is going to keep happening and that both Sept 11 and before that Oklahoma City bombings took place without a single gun used. He still said limiting guns would limit crime.

    In the end the NRA isn’t going to save our gun rights and neither are the weak kneed senators or congressmen it is only US & us alone! Proof of that is the AWB of the 1990′s. I own all sorts of guns & I never owned an AR but now I think it’s time to go out and get one simply because I believe it is my right and I choose to exercise it. Going out and buying an AR has nothing to do with what happened at that school nor are you heartless if you own one. I think we can all do ourselves a favor and get one just to show them WE chose to. And another thing, if a pilot had a firearm in one of those planes could it have made a difference on 911? If one teacher or school official had a firearm could it have made a difference? Maybe but at least in these cases we will never know.
    Rob Drummond
    Hillsboro, NH

    • avatarjoe says:

      If the new town teachers had been armed, it would have made all the difference. I doubt a single child would have perished. As for 911, I’m not sure. The pilots may not have even realized the cabin door was opened until box cutters were upon them

  20. avatarJosh says:

    I think you are missing the point in some cases. Semi-auto rifles are incredibly versatile and effective at spitting bullets where aimed, and those bullets happen to do an exceptionally good job of destroying what they hit. Personally, I consider them overkill for hunting… hell, most of the counties I hunted deer in didn’t even allow rifles.. shotguns only.
    In terms of home defense, I recall the articles and comments explaining why ARs are the best home defense weapons versus shotguns and handguns, but I don’t see that really being effective in swaying the general public. You can probably get by defending your house with a Mossberg or Glock and be just fine in 99% of HD situations.
    Semi-auto, magazine weapons are just incredibly effective versus multiple targets, so they make mass shootings that much more deadly. Its just plain true. Take any mass shooting in recent memory, switch out the weapon with an equivalent revolver or bolt-action (or even a pump action shotgun), and you’d find that more victims would have a chance to get away or subdue the attacker during the reload.
    I do think that responsible, designated armed adults in many places would dramatically deter these spates of violence, and reduce the body count.
    But you must admit that modern weaponry has enabled nutcases to be more effective.
    Yes, same day as Newtown a guy in China stabbed/slashed 22 kids with a knife.. but none died. Guns are more effective than knives, and semi-auto magazine fed guns are more effective than their predecessors..
    While banning firearms just won’t work, you need to understand the other side’s viewpoint.. these things are better at killing, and in my opinion do lead to higher bodycounts than other guns.

    • avatarspeedracer5050 says:

      @Nick..great article! Always enjoy reading your prof pins postings of positive proof for us all!!

      @Josh.. Any shooter with a modicum of practice can be pretty darn quick even with a revolver, lever action or bolt gun.
      I have 3 revolvers, one of which is a S&W model 67 .38spec. Shooting right handed(natural lefty) I can unload 6 rds in a 10″ circle at 10yrds within 8-9seconds max,usually around 7 secs.
      Left handed about the same but a little tighter groups. Now I carry it occasionally with 2 speed loaders of 130gr Winchester PDX, also same in cylinder. Again r/hand 6 rds in 8secs,reload and 6 more in 10-12 secs.
      My point is that having a semi auto doesn’t necessarily make you any quicker or slower that someone with a lever gun or a bolt gun.
      Some of the mass murderers had prior shooting experience some didn’t.
      Having rebuilt or refurbished M16a1′s and A2′s in the military I can tell you there is an enormous amount of work to reconfigure an AR15 to fire full auto.
      Milling, filing, fitting, just getting the necessary parts or parts specifications is pretty tough.
      By banning semi auto weapons in general you are only going to make a determined killer resort to other weapons or other, usually more horrific, means of accomplishing their goals.
      Anyone with the knowledge can go to most any store and get everything they need to reek absolute havoc and never have a firearm of any type in their possession at any time.
      If you can find a video of Tom Knapp on the Internet watch it. He is a pro speed shooter with a shotgun, amazingly fast and accurate even with a pump shotgun.
      In our area it is illegal to hunt with any rifle,semi or AR or bolt gun chambered in .223 because it is not considered a good enough stopping round to kill a deer with one shot.
      Personally I hunt deer and wild hog with a 1924 Moisin Nagant 91/30 chambered in 7.62x54R. Much more lethal and more efficient for a humane one shot kill, and it is a 5 rd bolt operated rifle.

    • avatarDyspeptic Gunsmith says:

      First, A revolver with speed loaders can put shots downrange almost as fast as a semi-auto. If you don’t believe me, then go look up a guy by the name of Jerry Miculek.

      Second, high body counts don’t require guns at all. Everyone seems to forget that in NYC, where guns are oh-so-smugly controlled, there were 87 people killed in a mass murder done with a plastic bottle of gasoline and two matches. Go research the “Happy Land Social Club” fire. Up until that time, it was the highest body count mass murder in US history.

      • avatarWLCE says:

        not only that but there is also the ubiquitous pump action shotgun.

        with a ” elmer fudd” looking pump action shotgun and 00 buck (or other cartridge with superior penetrative capabilities), you can fire five cartridges containing nine 33 caliber pellets (00 buck as a example) in a matter of seconds and reload in a matter of seconds. that is 45x 33 caliber pellets in a matter of seconds, far more efficient than a submachine gun in roughly equivalent 9mm (.35 inch).

    • avatarjoe says:

      That’s why gun shops need to be capable of finding out if your doctor thinks your clinically insane. So the nuts can’t get the guns. But don’t take our guns or clips away, deal with the real problem, instead of using the gun as a scape goat.

  21. avatarGregolas says:

    I really don’t know as much as I should about AR’s(don’t own one). This article was an excellent ripost to all the Piers Morgans in the press who have been educated far beyond their intelligence.
    Thank you Nick, for upping my I.Q..This is a keeper.

  22. avatarMartin says:

    Great article
    Also I like you pointing out that AR does not mean assault rifle that is a massive pet peeve when I hear them called that

  23. avatarAharon says:

    Nick,

    What are the makes and models of the hearing protector and the tactical bag shown in the top photo? Thanks.

  24. avatartdiinva says:

    Nick:

    Great article but you propagate some myths and misinformation on the origins of the AR-15/M-16.

    The Air Force adopted the AR platform in the late 1950s to replace the M-2 carbine and M-2 Grease Gun used by the AF security police. Armalite took their failed entry for the M-1 replacement and adapted the platform to meet the AF spec. (An example of modularity) The Army decided that the M-14 was “unsuitable” for jungle warfare because of its size, the difficulty in using full auto and the wooden stock. Surprisingly the Army and Marine Corp did not find the weight, wood stock and lack of full auto a liability in the Pacific theater during WWII. We were in the middle of war, the Army wanted full auto and the AR platform was on contract and ready to buy.

    SLA Marshall had a big influence on the decision to go with fully automatic rifles. His research purported to show that many American soldiers did not fire their M-1s because they didn’t think that their individual fire had a meaningful effect on the outcome of a battle. Soldiers equipped with BARs or SMGs were more active participates. Therefore, if you give everybody the opportunity to “spray and pray” you will be more effective. Post Vietnam analysis showed that this wasn’t true, and that charitably, Marshall had misinterpreted his results. Infantry using good tactics and semi-automatic fire almost always wins the battle. This should have been obvious since even using short bursts an M-16 has fewer trigger pulls per mag than semiauto mode and auto fire is sending rounds basically to the same target. The three round burst mode is designed to make up for the poor lethality of the 5.56 NATO round.

    While you give good reasons for the popularity of the AR-platform the real is because it is the weapon that serviceman learned to love. That is the same reason that WWII vets snapped up the M-1 for sport shooting and hunting when it became available through the CMP in the late 1950s.

  25. avatarAgi Quod Agis says:

    preaching to the choir…. the uninformed will have a problem with the AR-15 because it looks like a M-16 / M-4. The ordinary citizen fails to understand why a weapon that looks just like the one their uncle / grand dad / brother carried in Vietnam, needs to be used by a civi….you can get into the semantics of assault rifle or carbine definition, etc….that’s just splitting hairs…. I know people who get flustered because everyone calls a photocopy machine and photocopies; a Xerox machine or Xerox copies…misinformation becomes accepted.

  26. avatarLance says:

    Very good Nick!

  27. avatarMark N. says:

    Yes there is the confusion between full auto and semi-auto rifles as mentioned, but as Josh says, and I agree, a semiauto with a 20 or 30 round mag allows the operator to put a large number of rounds down range in very short order, making them that much more “lethal” than bolt guns or shotguns. Most people do not see the need for a semiauto rifle for hunting, and quite frankly, other than varmints or hogs, I don’t either. These are the perceptions that most affect the gun banners, and I haven’t seen a cogent argument yet as to why, other than versatility, AR10 or AR15 platforms are useful hunting platforms. The anti argument is very emotional and visually compelling, the pro argument not so much.

    • avatarCarlosT says:

      One pull of a 12 gauge trigger on a chambered 00 buck shell launches nine projectiles at once. No AR will do that. Four 00 buck shells have more projectiles than a 30 round magazine. How fast can someone cycle four shells through a pump shotgun? If the goal is to spray projectiles as quickly as possible, then the shotgun is definitely the way to go.

    • avatarjoe says:

      But AR 15′s are not the only semi automatics with high capacity mags. Heck, I was offered high capacity mags for a bolt action rifle at my local gun shop. So mark m., what do you say to that?

  28. avatarBruce says:

    Very informative Nick. Thank you.

  29. avatarMatt in FL says:

    For those that asked, the bag in the photo is the Hazard 4 Evac Plan B.

  30. avatarWLCE says:

    AR15s are awesome home defensive weapons. when loaded with anything but M855 rounds, they have less of a tendency to over penetrate than even handguns and shotguns.

  31. avatarPlatoBunker says:

    Very interesting discussion.

    I worked for DoD prime contractors as a weapons designer and analyst. Operations Analysts (and they were very influential with Robert McNamara, SecDef during the Viet Nam War) believed that wounding enemy soldiers rather than killing them imposed a greater logistics burden and was more demoralizing to their comrades. (Gen. William T. Sherman believed pretty much the same thing and he came to the conclusion without the mathematical stuff.) This is consistent with my belief that the 5.56 or .223 is not an especially effective round for anything but varmint hunting. It really was designed as a method of inflicting wounds rather than killing people. That is damn dangerous to our soldiers. The OpAnal guys knew that even at degraded effectiveness the enemy remained dangerous for some time.

    My bottom line opinion on the AR-15 in .223: a mediocre weapon for home defense, an inhumane one for hunting anything but very small game.

    • avatarjoe says:

      Then why, plato bunker, are they used for boar hunting? if it is inhumane to use on a deer, using on a wild boar will get you killed.

  32. Most of what you say is not relevant to the current debate. Hunters did just fine for years with Kentucky Long Rifles, muskets, breech loaders, bolt action rifles, double barrel shotguns, and lever action rifles. The gas operated killing rifles like the AR-15 have never been “required” to hunt well or defend a home. Large magazine rifles were never needed for hunting. The so-called advantages here for hunters are outweighed by the social disadvantages that these guns are mass killing weapons. The Second Amendment lets you ban individual guns. Let’s ban all gas operated rifles and move along. Muskets were good enough when the Second Amendment was adopted. They are good enough now.

    • avatarschizuki says:

      Agreed. Also, the media encourages these killings by giving the assailant the attention he wants, with 24/7 coverage on radio and television. News organizations should be limited to print only, on manual presses – the hand-cranked printing press was good enough when the First Amendment was adopted, it’s good enough now. And because poor mental health is a factor in all of these cases, we need to be able to easily commit eccentric and potentially dangerous individuals to sanitariums – binding and beating the mentally ill in veritable prisons was good enough in the founders’ day, it’s good enough now. Your logic is impeccable.

    • avatarSMSgt Mac says:

      First the question of “can the AR-15 be used for hunting?” is irrelevant to the Second Amendment. It is only brought up by people who think that because they don’t see the need for one, others don’t have a need either. When it is brought up, the counter is of course that it IS used for hunting, and the usual unspoken part of the response is…but that has nothing to do with the Right to Bear Arms. Your assumption that a large capacity magazine isn’t need for hunting is also an assumption unsupported by fact. If I am on the ground dealing with a sounder of wild or feral boars, I want as much ammunition ready to feed into a chamber as fast as possible. I want the same for any dangerous game or predator, like a mountain lion or perhaps the two-legged slimebag that the 5.56 or .300Blk in rifle or 9mm/.45 cal in pistol will handle– but might need more than a couple of rounds to take down. BTW, I hunt with a 20 round magazine in my AR because it is MY judgement that it is sufficient, and it is easier to carry and handle than a 30 round.
      Now, do I really need to point out what is horribly wrong with:
      “Muskets were good enough when the Second Amendment was adopted. They are good enough now.”
      …or have you reconsidered?

      • How folks like to use the AR-15 is not really relevant. The weapon has proven to be dangerous as have other gas operated weapons. It would be easy to ban them all. Would such a ban be legal? Yes, fully automatic weapons and sawed off shot guns have been illegal since the 1930s.

        Three key points: (1) There is no “right to hunt” in the Second Amendment; (2) There is no “natural right” to own guns. The Second Amendment creates a “constitutional right” to own guns, but “mistakes” in the Constitution like the Second Amendment can be corrected by right-thinking individuals; (3) The Constitution is silent on the question of “self-defense.” The law on self-defense is created by statute.

        A “fair” rule on self-defense would be this: if you believe that another person poses an imminent danger to your life, you can shoot him. But there is a price, ten years in prison without parole if you plead guilty to the crime of “self=defense with a firearm.” If you make the state take you to trial on the charge, the penalty would be life in prison.

        Fair to say here that when you choose to shoot another person in “self-defense” you have said your life is worth more than another life. That is fine if you believe it. But there should be a cost associated with that decision.

        • avatarjeffsmccabe says:

          That makes no sense. Your choice is to be killed or to go to prison for 10 years or life. “Fair to say here that when you choose to shoot another person in “self-defense” you have said your life is worth more than another life. That is fine if you believe it.” With the possible exception of yourself, most people would believe that. For whatever bizarre reason, most folks would not equate their life with the life of the guy who, unprovoked is trying to kill them. I have to assume your comment is some sort of satire.

        • avatarspeedracer5050 says:

          So how long have you been working undercover for the BATFE?? I guess Eric Holder is maybe your uncle or cousin?
          Why in hell would you spout some off base statist, fascist crap like that unless you are trying to undermine the Constitution and spying on us to report us to the FBI !!!!!!
          So what is it??
          Or maybe you are just that damn ignorant!!

        • avatarSMSgt Mac says:

          HH’s ramblings provide a target rich environment. The equivocation in comparing someone taking a life in self-defense to those who would do so in commission of a crime is most delicious to the logician in me, so I will save it for last. But first, let us deal with the low-hanging fruit.

          RE: fully automatic weapons and sawed off shot guns have been illegal since the 1930s.

          Putting the vagaries of the term ‘sawed off’ to the side, if HH means modern, non-black powder shotguns manufactured (vs. modified) with barrels shorter than 18” and overall length shorter than 26”, then they have, along with fully automatic weapons always been legal if one is willing and able to undergo the licensing process. Since 1986, no new automatic weapons in the US have been allowed to enter the sphere of private-citizen ownership, but there is a large number of such equipment made prior to 1986 still owned, bought, traded and taxed in the hands of American citizens. Licensed is not “illegal”.

          RE: (1) There is no “right to hunt” in the Second Amendment. (2) There is no “natural right” to own guns. The Second Amendment creates a “constitutional right” to own guns, but “mistakes” in the Constitution like the Second Amendment can be corrected by right-thinking individuals; (3) The Constitution is silent on the question of “self-defense.” The law on self-defense is created by statute.

          Ah, semantic dilettantes. Aside from curious regurgitation of prior comments in point #1 (something not in question at this time BTW) #2 and #3 stand in stark contrast to a large body of legal discussion and philosophical history reaching back about two millennia of Western thought. One of the most recent and explicit expressions of same is found in the famous “Heller” case:
          …it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it ―shall not be infringed.‖ As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), ―[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed… [District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S., 128 S.Ct. 2783, 2797-98 (2008)]

          Thus HH or others may ARGUE that the 2nd Amendment doesn’t describe a “natural right”, but they clearly do so in the face of a very large body of historical and current evidence to the contrary. To simply assert declaratives #2 and #3 as ‘true’ without support–and in light of the extant body of knowledge at hand, bespeaks the massive “genetic fallacy” of such a claim: “Because HH says so” does not make it ‘true’. Thus HH’s assertions in #2 and #3 are not only in error, but unworthy even of serious consideration.

          It doesn’t matter where HH’s beliefs-stated-as-fact or inability to distinguish differences in morality between taking a life in self-defense or taking one in a criminal endeavor come from. Whether they have origins in Near-Middle-Far Eastern mysticism, spring from some naïve literalist, low-end theology driving a minor Christian sectarian stance, are products from a logic-impoverished liberal arts education, or are merely hangovers from some 1960’s kumbah-frickin-ya vegan/humanist love-in. Whatever the ‘reason’, I believe it is “fair to say” HH is entitled to his beliefs, but not entitled to state them as facts in lieu of rational and supported argumentation in a public forum without expectation of derisive admonition.

        • avatarrawmade says:

          Youre a special kind of moron

        • avatarHal J. says:

          If you click on Harry’s name, it sends you to his website…and under the words, “What Does Harry Think?” is “Nothing Found”.

          Hey, at least he’s up front about it…

    • avatarjay says:

      and airplanes are dangerous! 9/11 was a tragedy that must not be repeated! ban all airplane use in the USA! land and sea travel was good enough in 1780 and is good enough today!

    • avatarjoe says:

      Harry, Harry, Harry. I will try not to reach through the computer screen an yell this in your face. THEY ARE NOT JUST KILLING WEAPONS. That is just the bull crap the liberals try to feed to little children and gullible elderly folk, when they use things like “high speed, multifire clips” like they actually know what they are talking about. I shot an AR 15 just yesterday, and I am not on the news in the wake of my very own mass killing, am I? NO. So go settle down, grow a pair, and find out what kind of breaks a Kentucky long rifle would actually cause in your shoulder, seeing as its a mans gun.

  33. avatartheBuckWheat says:

    I built an AR in 6.8 SPC with and 18 inch barrel and have found it to be the best deer rifle ever for my hunting. I am more comfortable fulfilling my humane obligation to have a high probability of a first-shot kill with the .277 bullet than I was with the .223 in the normal ARs. The family bonus is that the recoil is low enough that my wife may want to use it for her deer hunting.

    If I want to plink, I have a .22 adapter for use with a 5.56/.223 upper.

  34. avatarRay Elliott says:

    One shot is all that is necessary with my Browning bolt action .270

    • avatarrubenoff says:

      probably in a few years a hunter will tell pf getting an elk, Got me on of those drone’s I operate the thing from my front room with a keyboard, had a it fitted with a winch, Now I fly the drone over the elk shoot him winch him up into the drone, Drop the elk off at the butcher shop and the hide and head off at the Taxidermist. withing 2 days I have the steaks in the deep freeze
      the hide and elks head on the wall in the den, shure beats the heck out of all that fresh air and excersise, But there are so many drones in the air 2 crashed into each other day and the Bear got away, but came back and cleaned up the scraps from the crash

  35. avatarBrian says:

    I see references to the China shooting and people dismissing it because no one died. That is true, but in Aug 2010 2o children did die in China, and several adults to a sword wielding nut job in another primary school. Not only did he kill 20 children he injured 50 others children and adults. They recently also stated China’s home invasion rate has climbed to 50% over ours as did Europe’s after their bans were instated. Crazy is crazy, and the results are always sad. We all know there is a big change coming and it won’t be for the better, but I hope at least the family’s get a false sense of relief from the new laws to help ease their pain if nothing else. Keep in mind the Boy in Aurora Colorado at the movies theater had enough explosives to level the building, for some reason he went with the rifle instead, I guess you could say his rifle saved lives that day though it would be insensitive.

  36. avatarFlyingchipmunk says:

    I greatly enjoyed this article but one thing stuck out to me as false. You talk about “the powers that be” wanting an accurate long range rifle like the M1 Garand. The .223 cartridge was developed because studies showed that soldiers in combat are very inaccurate and the only way to make them better is to put more bullets downrange. In every single war the united states has increased the amount of shots fired per kill, with around 250,000 per insurgent in our most recent wars. The .223 is perfect for this because it has light recoil and they are inexpensive, not to mention you can carry a lot of them. If they wanted a more accurate rifle for precision shooting they would have stuck with the M14 which was designed with that in mind. AR-15s and .223 ammunition are designed to allow soldiers to put more lead downrange while still maintaining the same mediocre accuracy soldiers in combat have always had.

  37. avatarAndy says:

    Very accurate rifle,have a “build rifle”,a Surplus Arms & Ammo lower,with a Palmetto State Armory lower parts kit,the upper is a Sherluk heavy barrel M-4,A-3,with front post sight,red dot sight,and fold down rear sight,shoots just as good as any other big name rifle I have shot,as long as it is Mil-Spec they shoot alike,but some gun snobs will beg to differ!Keep your powder dry.

  38. avatarDave Rudd says:

    Malarchy, the AR 15 was designed to kill enemy soldiers mostly at close range, iis designed to be used from the hip as well as shoulder designed for that and some longer range killings. The US Army learned how well the Germans used their sturm gewehr (Assault Automatic weapon) that we also need them to lay down a large swatt of fire on a target. The M-1 that I fired in basic in 1958 ( I was a willing draftee) was still designed mostly for WW-1 trench warfare. They started to use the move and fire tactic in WW 2, the M-1 did not lend itself very well for this tactic because it was heavy and hard to fire from the hip. The tactic now is to lay down as much fire on target and move to the the next defensive position. The AR 15 fired by the Sandy Hook killer, fas fired from the hip, he used 30 bullet mags. and was able to fire about 156 shoots in less than 5 minutes. This is what the AR 15 Bushmaster was desined to do all day long without overheating. I keep hearing that it uses the same amo as a 22 rifle You can buy a very nice 22 semi auto rifle for about $250.00, my wife bought one recenly for target practic at Dick’s sporting Goods. Why than pay $985.00 for a AR 15. I was told by an expert that the best home defense gun is a cheap shoot gun.

    • avatarMario says:

      Dave, The Conn killer used handguns and not a rifle. The guy in CO used a shotgun and not a rifle as was reported by stupid reporters.

  39. avatarJim says:

    Hi I enjoyed reading all of the comments good or bad above.I recently built my first ar 15 it was a fun project.I plan on bringing it to the shooting range for target shooting.When i read and hear all of the reasons for banning the assault rifle and high capacity magazines would that have prevented sandy hook.There have been well over 60 mass shootings in the united states in the last 30 years did anyone running schools learn anything from them.Where was the surveilance video showing adam lanza getting out of his car in the parking lot.If a person was monitoring screens he could have seen it and maybe called the police who might have responded quickly enough to prevent him from getting in.As far has saying how lethal the ar 15 is and it should be banned im not buying that one.A glock 19 with 5 33 round magazines could have done the same thing maybe allot faster with better concealment.You just cant miss someone running or walking toward a building with a riffle not to easy to hide your intentions.Most politicians passing these bills to make law abbiding citizens look like criminals know nothing about firearms.They are trying to passify these poor parents who lost those beautiful little children.If one of them were my sons or daughters i would be suing the state of connecticut for not providing enough security at that school and any school for that matter.You have to stop the adam lanza,s from getting in the school not worrying how fast they can change magazines.making the magazine capacity to 10 rounds will only make a mentally sick person bring more magazines that can be changed faster than a politician thinks.They have a fire alarm and sprinklers in a school how many fires have there been in schools, What is the ratio of shootings to fires.The boy scout motto is be prepared mass shootings in schools will happen again will our politicians and government learn.Fire arms are a small part of the problem the type used does not matter they all can kill 100,s more can do it as well or better than the armalite ar 15 riffle.one child killed is to many if any politicians are reading this lets pass a bill to keep mentally derainged shooters from being able to enter a school with security.Not punish law abbiding gun owners with bans.

  40. avatarSteve says:

    AR stands for Assault Rifle! There is no sense hiding it. Colt made the “AR”, Bushmaster makes the “AR”. Armalite is just a manufacturer of weapons just as Colt, Bushmaster, S&W, Olympic Arms just to name a few… and not the owner of the “AR” term.
    The bigger rounds weigh more and take up more space reducing carry capacity. Most combat was at 100 to 300 yards so the larger round with its extended range was wasted. Running out of ammo has killed many combatants. I don’t know about you, but I’d rather carry more ammo than run out!
    In war: there were more civilian casualties than military combatants. I believe it was somewhere above 60 % were civilian casualties.
    Why are some people trying to disarm the people? Do you think the enemy is going to come with lever action weapons? No… they will bring their high capacity weapons!
    Guns protect our freedom. Without our guns you will be under their (the enemy. Who ever they are) control… or die!
    When the Japanese Emperor wanted to invade the United States he was told by his general: “If you invade the United States, you will have a gun pointed at you from behind every blade of grass!”
    Maybe if more law abiding responsible people carried concealed weapons these mass shooting wouldn’t happen, or not last long.
    School officials and teachers could be trained and carry concealed. There could also be panic buttons through out the schools locking all doors. They would stay locked until the police arrived to take control of the situation.
    A pump shot gun can cause alot of casualties. Each shell carrying multiple projectiles hitting multiple people a one time. If some people have their way we wont even have a knife and a fork.
    As for these weapons on the street! I lived in NYC… and in the 30yrs I lived there, I never saw any of these weapons on the street. Until I saw some police standing in doorways carrying M16′s and MP5′s. This was in 2010, 70 something street next to Central Park.
    This country was built on guns, by guns. It is simple! If you don’t like guns then leave. There are plenty of countries that don’t allow their population to have guns. Russia is one. After all they have all the same rights we have in the U.S. (Not!)
    Ask yourself this… Why is the government buying hollow point ammo? It can’t be used in war. So who are they planning to use hollow points on? Civilians? (Zombies maybe…) Why? What is being hidden? What is being planned that we have to be disarmed?

    • avatarMel says:

      I agree with most of your comments. I also agree with the 2nd amendment of your constitution. However all you need to do is go on You Tube and look at the videos.It is clear there are far to many people in the US who act irresponsibly with firearms. I live in Canada and have to deal with a lot of legislation controlling firearms. Half of which I agree with and the other half I do not.
      In the case of the the individual who shot up the elementary school, it is obvious he was mentally ill and should not have been allowed access to or allowed to purchase firearms. As I understand he got the weapon from his mothers gun safe. Any way my point is with firearm ownership comes an extreme level of responsibility which many people take to lightly. And like most people in North America I don’t trust any government body.

  41. avatarMario says:

    Steve,
    I don’t know where you get your info from but AR means ARMLITE RIFLE. The term assault rifle is an invention of the libs to create a scary boogy man. The US military bought the AR-15 (as it was originally called) because of political corruption. The original intent was to go to a 6.2, 6.5 or 6.8 m round as the 7.62 mm rounds were concidered to hot to be used in a full auto weapon. The euro’s thought we were nuts for going to a varmit round to go to war with. The 5.56 has seldom lived up to its hype as a man stopper with soldier having to shoot enemy soldiers multiple times (especially at range) to stop them. No mass and over penetration. The steel core round is even worse as you stated. Head shots are great at the range but the target isnt moving or shooting back. The gov’t is buying 40 cal and 357 rounds. These are not the calibar used in most rifles. My opinion is that the buying is designed more to starve the civilian market bullet makers of the raw materials needed to make rounds like 308 and 5.56. Notice how they dropped a huge contract which shocked the market and then regularly drop contracts for 1.5 to 7 million more rounds? Thats to keep the system shocked. Because the libs running the country now spent all of their time in academia and not in the business world they were probably shocked that when the expected hording started that manufacturere seeing a profit opertunity began to ramp up production AND oversea’s manufacturers began ramping up production and exporting it to us.

    Mel,
    In the US we have about 55,000 different gun control laws. I think that is enough. The problem is these laws arent enforced. Many of them are nonsense passed only to feel good. Most of our gun crime is committed in the inner cities yet the politicians try to prevent everyone from owning firearms. Why? Makes no sense. Guns properly used are a great equalizer when bad people try to have their way with the weak. Mr Baddass isnt so bad when he’s looking down the barrel of a cocked .45. The police are not there to protect you so you have to do it yourself.

    • avatarLuigi Tzimopoulos says:

      The police are there to protect you…

      • avatarMatt in FL says:

        Wrong. The police are there to enforce the law and keep the peace of the community as a whole. They have zero obligation or duty to protect the individual. Please read Warren v. District of Columbia and Castle Rock v. Gonzales.

        • avatarLuigi Tzimopoulos says:

          Warren v. District of Columbia determined that the police were not required to compensate the people or even apologize for their non-intentional negligence, not that they had no duty to protect them in the first place. Nice try though.

          In Castle Rock v. Gonzales, it was determined that the police were not required to enforce a restraining order with armed force, and it’s important to remember that violation of a restraining order is not a police emergency, and is normally used as a charge that the person can be arrested for later. The wife also sometimes allowed her husband to take her kids, creating an uncertainty around the police on whether or not the kids were being taken voluntarily. This only applies to Colorado as well, and from what I can tell, their law concerning restraining orders isn’t particularly strong in the first place.

        • avatarMatt in FL says:

          Warren from Wikipedia: “The court stated that official police personnel and the government employing them owe no duty to victims of criminal acts…”

          From the opinion: “The respective trial judges held that the police were under no specific legal duty to provide pro­tection to the individual appellants… After rearguments, notwithstanding our sympathy for appellants who were the tra­gic victims of despicable criminal acts, we affirm the judgments of dismissal.”

          The point is, in these two cases and others, the courts have held that the police do not have a duty to the individual citizen, cannot be held liable for harm that befalls that citizen. The point is, you are your own first responder, regardless of how you may feel about the matter or wish it were otherwise. The reality of the situation stands in direct opposition to your statement that “The police are there to protect you.”

          If you don’t believe me, ask Joseph Lozito.

        • avatarDB says:

          Well… there ya go pligram. Confusin the issue with the facts again.

        • avatarLuigi Tzimopoulos says:

          You’re debating semantics here. What if I said, “the police are there to uphold the law?” It amounts to the same thing, which is they are required to respond if they receive a call that someone is breaking the law.

          Also, the courts ruled that the police had no duty to the victims, victims implying the crime has already been committed against them, and it’s true, there have not been any cases in which the police have had to provide compensation financial or otherwise to the victims of crimes.

        • avatarDB says:

          L,
          I told you stupid can be fixed . Take advantage of the advice. What part of prevent crime and protect victims from crime don’t you understand? Responding after a crime has been committed is like putting on a rubber after sex. And since very few crimes are actually cleared by arrest and the guy goes to jail cops responding to a crime after its committed is just about as useful as putting on a rubber after sex.

        • avatarLuigi Tzimopoulos says:

          You know, it would really help your side better if you didn’t all resort to ad hominem.

          What if I told you that you wouldn’t need a gun if your home invader didn’t have one? Or can’t you fight like a man! Guns are manly, but fists are even manlier!!

        • avatarMatt in FL says:

          Let me know when you figure out how to guarantee that the home invader wouldn’t have one.

          Or be bigger than me.

          Or bigger than my girlfriend.

          Or bring a friend.

        • avatarLuigi Tzimopoulos says:

          There’s no way to guarantee it, but significantly lowering the chance and raising the punishment for armed firearm assault helps. In Britain they have 6.7 firearms per 100 people, here we have 101.5 per 100 people.

          In the UK, you are far less likely to run into a person with a gun.

        • avatarMatt in FL says:

          You keep bringing up England, as if there exists there some higher ideal that we should aspire to. In England, the population is made up of subjects, not citizens. Those subjects have traditionally been denied the use and ownership of arms, all the way back to when that referred to swords and daggers. Times have changed, and the restrictions there have eased somewhat, but the underlying ethos remains. I, on the other hand, am a citizen, not a subject, and the ownership of guns is ingrained in my national heritage, and has been since we used those guns to win the right to no longer be called subjects. The ownership of those guns also carries the intrinsic promise that no one who calls himself an American will ever again be forced to be a subject.

          It’s just that simple. And no amount of regurgitating of gun control statistics will ever change that simple fact.

          Oh, and don’t think I haven’t noticed that you’ve used the civilian disarmament movement’s “30,000 gun deaths” figure, despite the fact that that figure is almost two-thirds suicides. Suicides have been shown to be largely method-independent, and most of the remaining gun deaths are attributable to inner-city crime. So using the 30k figure to prop up your arguments is disingenuous at best, and underhanded at worst.

        • avatarLuigi Tzimopoulos says:

          For god’s sake, you’re saying that 2/3 of those gun deaths are suicide related, and that suicides wouldn’t go down if guns weren’t around? I can tell you right now that if I had used a gun when I attempted suicide and not a knife I would not be writing this to you right now. It’s not a “disarmament figure”, it’s a correct figure.

        • avatarMatt in FL says:

          I’m don’t doubt that suicides might dip, but it’s not relevant to the discussion. And it’s also true that fewer people who attempt suicide would succeed if the method they chose was less… certain. They’d squirm out of the rope or barf up the pills. But you know what? I don’t care about those people. Actions have consequences, and there’s too many damn people on this planet as it is. I care about me. But again, that’s all irrelevant. My point is that it’s disingenuous for the people who want to take away my guns to say it’s about reducing crime and preventing the death of children and then use a figure where 2/3 of the number is comprised of something other than those two things. And that’s without even getting to the part where they define a child as anyone up to 24 or 25 years old, because that neatly encompasses the age bracket of gang-bangers who are likely to kill each other. The truth is, crime is down, accidents are down, gun deaths (both purposeful and not) are down, and gun ownership has never been higher.

        • avatarLuigi Tzimopoulos says:

          It’s not about preventing crime at all, it’s about reducing the deaths, which they would be, as is demonstrated by every other first world country.

        • avatarDBM says:

          Violent crime has gone up everywhere guns are banned. Thugs have nothing to fear.

        • avatarLuigi Tzimopoulos says:

          It is wrong to call them subjects post 1983. They are citizens just as we are. They elect their government, just like we do.

        • avatarMatt in FL says:

          I stand corrected on that point, but my underlying point, and the British peoples’ underlying mindset remains true. They still have a nobility, they still are a nation comprised of more equal and less equal pigs. They are a dramatically different society than we are, and a thousand years of psychology doesn’t disappear overnight.

        • avatarLuigi Tzimopoulos says:

          Wow. I was not expecting racism. You know that this country was founded by Brits, right?

        • avatarMatt in FL says:

          Racism? The pigs thing? Haha.

          It’s an Animal Farm reference.

          Rule #7 (revised): All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others.

          Since the pigs ran the show, the thought is often shortened to “more equal pigs,” because they went from a classless society to a hierarchical one.

          Racism. Hah. You made a funny.

        • avatarLuigi Tzimopoulos says:

          Yes, I’ve read animal farm. You do know it’s an analogy for post-debacle Russia, not all European countries in general, right?

        • avatarMatt in FL says:

          I do, or at least did at one point.

          Not sure how you equated the statement with racism if you got the reference, but that’s fine. It doesn’t matter.

        • avatarLuigi Tzimopoulos says:

          Well it is a bit strange to call a country full of pigs…even for the sake of analogy. I like how you can manage not to resort to ad hominem like DB over here. Any other points you’d like to contest?

        • avatarMatt in FL says:

          I’ve been contesting them since yesterday. I think I’m done now. I have unspecified not-arguing-on-the-internet things to do today.

        • avatarLuigi Tzimopoulos says:

          Yeah. I have to finish coding this firewall, then I have to plant some trees, and also go target shooting down at the archery center.

        • avatarDBM says:

          Its also to close to Christmas Matt.

        • avatarDBM says:

          L, Get a dictionary and educate yourself on the difference between the words Racist and Bigot. Words mean things and you seem to be clueless on their real meaning.

        • avatarDBM says:

          Yes that is correct however there is two problems with your statement. In england when you do run into a person with a gun he is usually a very very bad man while here in the US the person you meet with a gun willalmost always be a law abiding citizen.
          And in england you will be much more likey to meet a person sith a knife. Knives are dangerous because they are percieved to be lease leathal than guns so more people get stabbed or cut. Gun beats knives every time.

        • avatarDBM says:

          Please visit your SPCA. You are absolutely clueless. Besides the fact your average amaerican male hasnt gotten into a fight since HS and he goes up against someone who probably has. Who do you think will win? I shoot the perp and I win. Home invasions often invalve more than one perp. Does you average man or woman stand a chance? No God made Man. Colt made all men equal.

          And what about people on drugs? PCP, Bath Salts etc. I’m 5’10, weigh a pretty solid 210 and have since I was in my early 20′s. When I was in college, 5 guys my size or larger and I got our collective butts kicked by a 5″6″ 135lb guy whack out on PCP. So your saying you can stand up to someone like that? And most home invasions happen at night so you can’t see if the guy is armed or not.
          L you really are a special kind of stupid arent you. Get fixed. We have enough stupid people in the world as it is.

        • avatarDB says:

          L,
          Go on and keep lying to yourself. Police respond and do not prevent and it is not their job. Besides no obligation there just aren’t enough cops to prevent crime. Even police states have rampant crime.

        • avatarLuigi Tzimopoulos says:

          Are you suggesting that a CCW prevents?

        • avatarMatt in FL says:

          I’m suggesting that it has a pretty good chance of nipping it in the bud, or preventing it from becoming worse.

        • avatarLuigi Tzimopoulos says:

          Let me enlighten you with why CCers are part of the problem, not the solution. The less people are carrying guns around in the open, the fewer deaths there are. This is common sense. You simply cannot say that you carry a gun because it makes you safer. If you were the only guy in the country carrying a weapon around, you would be endangering people. You carry a gun because you are scared of other people carrying guns, which is paradoxical because you are also a person carrying a gun. The only reason you carry a gun is because there are other people around carrying guns.

        • avatarDB says:

          L,
          You talk about common sense when you seem to bee uncommonly stupid. The FBI’s own crime stats say otherwise. And as far as the number of deaths are you are that in England murders are only recorded as murders if someone actually goes to jail? Probably overlooked that because it doesn’t fit in with you agenda.
          And are you smart enough to look up the rise in the number of violent crimes in England since the ban took affect or that as a result stabbings have gotten to be such a problem Cops and emts have to wear puncture resistant vests or that you have to be 21 to buy a set a steak knives?
          Are you aware that the constitution is not flexible and that’s why liberals are scared to death of strict constitutionalists getting on the Supreme Court? Activist judges read into the constitution all kinds of things to push their agenda. And no the framers did not set the constitution up to be completely rewritten. It can be changed by amendments. I took constitutional law in college and had an MF’n tough professor. You can take your propaganda and blather it to so other ill educated moron like yourself.

        • avatarLuigi Tzimopoulos says:

          Jefferson: “Every constitution, then, and every law, natural expires at the end of nineteen years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right.”
          It’s not murders, sir, it’s total deaths. Go to gunpolicy.org for more info.
          Here, shootings are such a problem that the cops have to wear…gasp…bulletproof vests!!
          You really need to put out these crime numbers as I have, or your validity is none.
          Also, it makes your position seem all the more futile when you resort to ad hominem, so please stop.

        • avatarDBM says:

          L,
          You are an idiot and don’t know anything about how they report murders in england. Stop getting your info from mother jones.
          BTW are you aware most injuries and deaths of cops are self inflicted? Mostly car wrecks from driving illegally beyond their ability and accident like everyone else.

        • avatarMatt in FL says:

          You lost me at common sense.

        • avatarDB says:

          Actually if you have been keeping up with the new posts by this website you would see the answer is yes. And if you were old enough to remember Bernie Getz you would know when thugs have to wonder who is armed and who isn’t crime goes down. Getz gunned down four would be robbers in the NYC subway system. For the next several months crime in the subway went to basically zero. Cops were complaining of being bored. After he turned himself in crimes in the subway went through the roof.

        • avatarLuigi Tzimopoulos says:

          You need to provide numbers and statements for those assertions there, and also it should be noted that one of the black men that he shot became a paraplegic and won a 43 million dollar civil suit against him.

          On top of that, one single anecdotal piece of evidence cannot trump 32,000 deaths from firearms a year.

          Once again on top of that, your assertion that not knowing who’s carrying a gun and who isn’t lowers crime significantly requires evidence, and I would assert that knowing who’s carrying a gun lowers it more.

        • avatarDB says:

          Signing out for the night.

        • avatarKyle says:

          How on Earth could knowing who’s carrying a gun lower violent crime more? If a criminal knows explicitly who has a gun and who doesn’t, then it just becomes open season on all those unarmed.

          And no it isn’t the total number of deaths, it’s the number of murders. If you go by total number of deaths, we could ban sports cars, alcohol, swimming pools, etc…all manner of different things.

          As for suicides with guns, Japan has four times the suicide rate we in the United States have, and has virtually no guns there.

  42. avatarLuigi Tzimopoulos says:

    What needs to be said in the article is that both the rifle and the cartridge were designed specifically for military use, i.e., they were designed to kill people, quickly and efficiently. They were not designed for hunting nor other sporting uses, and because of parts like positive reset triggers and the slidefire, the distinguishment between an assault rifle and a “semi-automatic intermediate cartridge rifle” is a very slim line, especially when you can bumpfire with rubber bands or just with your hands. The only differences, and I mean the only differences, between an AR-15 and an M16 are the name, the auto sear in the M16, and the trigger grouping. There is literally no other difference between the two, and most military men will tell you that they almost if ever use the full-auto setting anyways.

    • avatarDBM says:

      Luigi,
      Very ill informed aren’t you. The 5.56 is a varmint round selected by politicians more than by military requirements, Soldier don’t use full auto because very few current rifles in the military are full auto. They have a 3 rd burst setting, So its just not possible for them to fire full auto. Next there is very little difference between an M-1 rifle and a BAR except the sear assembly and the BAR is full auto, As fare as that goes ,its the sear assembly that separates all semi auto rifles from full auto rifles. I use to know a guy who years ago bought a factory new Browning .22 pistol that would go full auto when you fired the 2nd shot after reloading. It was a hoot to shoot but was basically useless/

      • avatarLuigi Tzimopoulos says:

        I’ll notice you didn’t deny that the AR-15 was designed to kill…and you of all people should know that the 5.56/.223 was selected by CONARC in tests showing that quick, accurate fire was more effective than slow sprays of bullets.

        3rd burst can be jimmied into full auto by an experienced trigger finger, and you overall missed the point of the post.

        • avatarDB says:

          L, News flash all guns, knives, spears, slingshots etc are designed to kill.

          And as far as your statement that a fast finger can turn a 3 rd burst into full auto is so full of it. The hard pull it takes to initiate the burst throws off your aim point. Someone is filling you full of BS. You may have seen a vid of a guy that could do it with a semi auto but if you listened to what he said you would have heard him say something about years of practice and 1000′s of rounds. He was also shooting at stationary targets.
          When I was active duty, I shot expert with everything 50 cal and below. And even though I know there were better shots out there than me, I never personally ever met anyone who could outshoot me with an M-16A1. At the NTC I once shot down one of the aircraft target drones using another soldiers rifle and not changing the sights. That was after more than 20, 000 rounds had been fired at it with M-16′s, M-60′s, M-2′s and Vulcans. I was the only person shooting after everyone else had run out of ammo and I did it on my second shot. It wasn’t luck. Long winded way off saying I use to be pretty damned good and I can tell you that without putting a hell of a lot of rounds down range and actually being trained on how to fire full auto you ain’t going to hit jack. After the first 3 rounds you’re bird hunting. Stop watching movies and reading lies written by people who have never touched a rifle or pistol in their lives.

          Take a good look at FBI crime stat’s and you will see murders by full auto rifles are so rare as to be non existent. Murders by Rifles (all types) are rare. And most murders are committed by illegally purchased handguns by felons in inner cities. Tell me why don’t cities like NYC etc enforce the gun laws they already have?
          In this world there are 2 types of people – predators and prey. Predators avoid other predators and go for the pray that cannot defend themselves. You are the type that will be prey to a predator and me and my friends will never ever violate your desire to be prey. Hell, I’ll even point you out so they don’t make the mistake of coming to my house..

        • avatarLuigi Tzimopoulos says:

          Enforcing the gun laws is very important. Also, you just implied that you’re a predator, strange, but whatever.

          As long as you’re not one of those deluded folks who says that the guns aren’t the ones that make these killings possible, I agree with everything you said there.

          And while those slingshots and spears and such are designed to kill, you’ll notice that no army on the face of the planet uses them. They cannot kill as many or as quickly as a gun can. Do you really think that Newtown could have been committed to the degree that it was with a slingshot? Or knife? Or spear? They have attempted school knifings in China all the time, and last time I checked the total death toll was under a half dozen.

        • avatarDB says:

          L, I’m usually not one to name call but have you ever considered supporting your local SPCA and getting spay or neutered?
          You obviously don’t consider actually enforcing laws important. We now have over 60,000 gun control laws across this nation and yet you propose taking everything away from people so they cannot protect themselves. Hey that’s worked out really well in England and Australia hasn’t it. I refer to myself as a predator because I am not prey as you are. You will always be a victim of something
          People in china for example like to take knives and slice kids throats as they walk out of schools, Very fast silent and efficient. And as far as guns go yes they can be used to kill people but they are also used to stop people from killing people.
          No worries. Like I said before no one I know will come to you aide. Not a problem. We have the constitutional right to bare arms which, I know aggravates you to no end, but we are under no obligation to save you.

    • avatarKyle says:

      There is no such thing as a gun “designed to kill people.” People are, biologically speaking, just another one of the many animals of the animal kingdom. We are a short-haired, long-legged, upright-walking ape. The gun doesn’t care whether it’s shooting at humans or deer or coyotes or hogs or bear or whatever.

      Furthermore, even if there were guns explicitly designed for killing humans, those would be the guns specifically protected by the Second Amendment.

      And the right to keep and bear arms is the right to keep and bear the basic tools of war. Arms are tools of war, utilized by the military, which is the entity that makes war on behalf of the State, and the also by law enforcement (who are technically civilians) and regular citizens. War is not just something that countries get into with one another, it is something that can happen to anyone. If someone is trying to kill you or seriously injure you, that person has declared a state of war on you. As such, all humans have a fundamental, natural right to possess the basic tools of war, arms, to be able to defend themselves.

  43. avatarLuigi Tzimopoulos says:

    Well, yes, it has worked quite well in England in Australia. You know that in England in 2011, they had 146 deaths from firearms. We had over 32,000. And before you argue that we are 100x the size of England, we’re not. We’re barely 6x the size.

    You act as if the Second Amendment is actually the Second Commandment. You do realize that the constitution is flexible right, and that the framers believed that it should not only be edited, but actually completely rewritten to adjust with the innovations and trends of coming centuries, right? On top of that, every single other constitutional right is federally regulated in some way, unfortunately, the NSA is not the National Speech Association, but the NRA does happen to be the National Rifle Association.

    • avatarStinkeye says:

      A) Of course there are fewer “gun deaths” when there are fewer guns. But there are also a lot more stabbings, rapes, and assaults. The UK has a vastly higher violent crime rate than the US. I’d rather take the virtually zero chance that I’ll be murdered with a gun in the US over an eightfold increase in the chance that I’d be beaten or stabbed in the UK.

      B) You’re right, the Constitution is flexible. The framers included a procedure to enable that flexibility, in Article V. As soon as you have 2/3 of Congress on board to restrict the 2nd Amendment, and 3/4 of the states ratify it, you’re in business. Until then, “shall not be infringed” is a pretty clear statement.

  44. avatarAnonymous says:

    “Well, yes, it has worked quite well in England in Australia. You know that in England in 2011, they had 146 deaths from firearms. We had over 32,000. And before you argue that we are 100x the size of England, we’re not. We’re barely 6x the size.”

    I agree. Disarmament and the attempted removal of all rights by legislation has worked quite well in England. The fact that there are millions of camera’s monitoring everyone’s activity also reinforces this. We are all aware that the removal of civil and natural rights have been removed in England. We are also aware that the English freely cooperate without complain and do as they are told. If the English government sent some police (likely with rusty barrels – e.g: http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/09/robert-farago/british-understatement/) to round up subjects who were socially and culturally different and outside the norm to send them to gulags, the English would cooperate without complain.

    “You act as if the Second Amendment is actually the Second Commandment.”

    You perceive that we act as if the Second amendment is actually the second commandment. Your perception, however distorted, does not make it so.

    “You do realize that the constitution is flexible right, and that the framers believed that it should not only be edited, but actually completely rewritten to adjust with the innovations and trends of coming centuries, right?”

    Your source please? What evidence do you have to suggest that the framers believed the constitution should be “completely rewritten.”

    “On top of that, every single other constitutional right is federally regulated in some way,”

    I agree. Our current government is involved in violation of civil, natural rights and prior and continued assumptions and seize of authority not vested to them in the constitution and by law.

    “…unfortunately, the NSA is not the National Speech Association, but the NRA does happen to be the National Rifle Association.”

    And your point is?

  45. avatarLuigi Tzimopoulos says:

    In Switzerland, ammo is banned. That’s why they have the lowest accident rate.

Leave a Reply

Please use your real name instead of you company name or keyword spam.