Another AR 15 killing in the US

Soldato
Joined
10 May 2012
Posts
10,054
Location
Leeds
How's it inconvenient? If I lived in the US I'd probably keep a firearm in my house too while the gun laws are so ridiculous. I'd much prefer to not have to!
What has this and wanting sensible gun control enacted got to do with eachother? She fired 1 round, you don't need an ar15 to have done that.

What is inconvenient is going shopping when some loon snaps and goes on a spree of their own with their legally owned weapon.

In what circumstances would you not have to? Criminals don't obey the law, they're already committing crimes by shooting people and/or breaking into houses, the only people gun laws affect are people who wouldn't commit those crimes anyway.

Yes it's extremely tragic when someone decides to shoot up a place, but that seems to be more of a cultural thing that needs addressing. It seems to be partly mental health, people feeling isolated, disenfranchised from society in general - these are things that need addressing. It's the same as people who decide to commit any act of random violence, there are underlying problems to begin with, you don't solve them by attacking tools that law abiding citizens use. When people were using vans to drive into large groups of people, no one blamed the van.
 
Soldato
Joined
19 May 2005
Posts
18,049
Location
Lancashire
I was surprised to see this story reported, normally the media just pretend these things don't go happen. Slightly inconvenient for the gun haters that a woman and her family were saved by an AR I suppose, still you can call Americans stupid and suggest she should've taken the time to choose a better weapon for the job and take the time to thoughtfully not keep shooting at them as they run away

I wasn't suggesting she picked a better weapon, just that an assault rifle isn't needed and is massively dangerous for everyone else living close by. This story would have no doubt had the exact same result had the only weapon she had to hand been a shotgun.

I wonder how many armed home invasions there are in America and how many have been "won" by the home gun owner, that wasn't using an assault rifle and I wonder how many of those are reported by the media. I think the only reason this was reported by the media is because she used an assault rifle and it'll get them views/click.
 
Joined
16 Feb 2010
Posts
5,215
Location
North East England
In what circumstances would you not have to? Criminals don't obey the law, they're already committing crimes by shooting people and/or breaking into houses, the only people gun laws affect are people who wouldn't commit those crimes anyway.

Where not every idiot owns a gun or has easy access to one.

Yes it's extremely tragic when someone decides to shoot up a place, but that seems to be more of a cultural thing that needs addressing. It seems to be partly mental health, people feeling isolated, disenfranchised from society in general - these are things that need addressing. It's the same as people who decide to commit any act of random violence, there are underlying problems to begin with, you don't solve them by attacking tools that law abiding citizens use.

Millions of people worldwide have the same issues and yet they don’t shoot up schools. Why is that? Again it’s the ease of access to guns.

When people were using vans to drive into large groups of people, no one blamed the van.

That isn’t an argument and I would hope even you realise that.
 
Soldato
Joined
12 Jul 2007
Posts
7,867
Location
Stoke/Norfolk
Is the AR15 the civilian version of the M16?

No, the M16 is a select fire rifle meaning it can fire fully automatic and semi-automatic. The AR15 looks the same but it has no "fully automatic" ability so you need to pull the trigger once for each bullet fired. There's a bunch of other minor differences (no bayonet lug on AR15 etc) but thats the big one as it makes an M16 illegal to own for a civilian without a metric crap ton of checks, paperwork and interviews with federal law enforcement which takes months and months and is extremely easy to revoke.

As an aside, you can by AR15's legally in the UK, they just have to have the gas parts fully removed so that it has to be manually "reloaded & cocked" by pulling back on the charging handle before each shot rather than being semi-automatic (where the gun reloads and cocks itself after each shot) like the US version.
 
Soldato
Joined
19 May 2005
Posts
18,049
Location
Lancashire
As an aside, you can by AR15's legally in the UK, they just have to have the gas parts fully removed so that it has to be manually "reloaded & cocked" by pulling back on the charging handle before each shot rather than being semi-automatic (where the gun reloads and cocks itself after each shot) like the US version.

To get one here you need to be sound of mind and need to jump through a lot of hoops and if you wanted it for home defence you wouldn't stand a chance. It's not like the US where they believe it's your "god given right" to own an assault rifle. Then they wonder why these mass shootings keep happening. If they would just make some common sense changes the weapons might actually end up in the hands of responsible owners and not everyone that turns 18 and wants a cool gun.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
5 Dec 2003
Posts
20,997
Location
Just to the left of my PC
No, the M16 is a select fire rifle meaning it can fire fully automatic and semi-automatic. The AR15 looks the same but it has no "fully automatic" ability so you need to pull the trigger once for each bullet fired. There's a bunch of other minor differences (no bayonet lug on AR15 etc) but thats the big one as it makes an M16 illegal to own for a civilian without a metric crap ton of checks, paperwork and interviews with federal law enforcement which takes months and months and is extremely easy to revoke.

Doesn't that make it "the civilian version of the M16"? If the big difference is just that one is semi-auto only and the other is switchable between semi-auto and full auto then they are versions of the same gun. The bayonet lug fits the same theme - with it for the military version, without it for the civilian version.

I don't see "civilian version of the M16" as being a problem in itself. If it's legal for civilians to own a semi-auto rifle, why does it matter if it's a civilian version of a rifle developed for the military?
 
Soldato
Joined
5 Nov 2010
Posts
23,904
Location
Hertfordshire
Doesn't that make it "the civilian version of the M16"? If the big difference is just that one is semi-auto only and the other is switchable between semi-auto and full auto then they are versions of the same gun. The bayonet lug fits the same theme - with it for the military version, without it for the civilian version.

I don't see "civilian version of the M16" as being a problem in itself. If it's legal for civilians to own a semi-auto rifle, why does it matter if it's a civilian version of a rifle developed for the military?

Indeed.

The AR15 design was originally for the military. When Colt bought the rights they redesigned the military M16 but the AR15 was then trademarked as a semi-automatic version for civilians and law enforcement.
 
Associate
Joined
2 Jul 2003
Posts
2,436
in what way is it not? someone abuses a tool, tool gets blamed and called for ban. someone abuses a tool, user gets blamed.

Often see pro-gun folk comparing guns to vehicles for some reason, "They don't ban vans after someone uses them to ram people".

Fine, but using the analogy that a gun and a car are equatable (by the way, they're not) - certain types of vehicles (tools) are deemed not suitable for the road, normal people can't be trusted to control them properly. So no f1 cars, rally cars with full racing specs etc on the roads. You want to use them, go to a gun club, sorry, closed track. Also, normal vehicles require licenses that take a long time to get hold of, have written exams on their use and can be taken away at any time for displaying any kind of incompetence.

So using that analogy and following through the logic every-time someone equates a gun with a vehicle you're all actually agreeing with MUCH tighter gun control and the removal of weapons unsuitable to the general public.
See? We're all on the same side after all!
 
Soldato
Joined
8 Jun 2013
Posts
4,363
who's bringing F1 cars into the equation? by your somewhat incomprehensible argument, cars should be far tighter restricted that guns. the licencing for guns and cars depends on country, as does whether or not they're taken away on misuse; I could probably find 20+ threads on this very site about news stories pertaining to speeding footballers getting away w/ it, a guy w/ 200+ points still driving etc etc.
the entire crux of the whole argument was that an item was being abused and resulted in deaths in both cases, yet people blame the gun in one case and the driver in the other.
 
Caporegime
Joined
8 Jan 2004
Posts
31,994
Location
Rutland
who's bringing F1 cars into the equation? by your somewhat incomprehensible argument, cars should be far tighter restricted that guns. the licencing for guns and cars depends on country, as does whether or not they're taken away on misuse; I could probably find 20+ threads on this very site about news stories pertaining to speeding footballers getting away w/ it, a guy w/ 200+ points still driving etc etc.
the entire crux of the whole argument was that an item was being abused and resulted in deaths in both cases, yet people blame the gun in one case and the driver in the other.

I dont think anyone blames the gun, people blame the access that volatile, impulsive human beings have to guns. It allows them to do stupid stuff on a bigger scale than if they didnt have access to firearms.

Tight gun control is just common sense, but common sense doesnt fit with the American way of life.
 
Caporegime
Joined
12 Mar 2004
Posts
29,913
Location
England
Good for her. **** him.

I'm a little surprised that AR15s are used for home defence. I'd have thought a shotgun would be best placed for that. Guess you're a bit stuck if you miss...

Shotguns are a poor choice due to their limited capacity, range and a long and cumbersome reload, semi automatics are much better weapons for defence purposes.
 
Caporegime
Joined
8 Jan 2004
Posts
31,994
Location
Rutland
Shotguns are a poor choice due to their limited capacity, range and a long and cumbersome reload, semi automatics are much better weapons for defence purposes.

That's not born out in the evidence though as best I'm aware. The vast majority of home defense encounters in the US are at short range with very few rounds fired. No one is taking on 10 assailants at 200 yards through walls and body armour. Apart from in their mass shootings....which is kind of the issue.
 
Soldato
Joined
25 Mar 2008
Posts
9,180
Shotguns are a poor choice due to their limited capacity, range and a long and cumbersome reload, semi automatics are much better weapons for defence purposes.
Sir down and brace yourself... For when your mind gets thoroughly blown.

Let me introduce you to the all-new*, unheralded*, revolutionary*... semi automatic shotgun.

h85iwXW.png

Aside from that.... Is anyone else waiting for this story to go (more) sour?

(*May not be new, unheralded or revolutionary in the year of its 117th year anniversary)
 
Caporegime
Joined
12 Mar 2004
Posts
29,913
Location
England
Sir down and brace yourself... For when your mind gets thoroughly blown.

Let me introduce you to the all-new*, unheralded*, revolutionary*... semi automatic shotgun.

Yeah I'm well aware of tactical shotguns and the like, their range is still crap and at that point you are basically in military territory anyway and would be better served by an assault rifle.
 
Back
Top Bottom