You realize how phenomenally stupid and pointless this nitpick of yours is, right?
The damn gun is deliberately styled to resemble and function in a way similar to weapons used by actual soldiers, with the primary difference being that the ones intended for civilian use aren’t inherently capable of full auto (which would be illegal). The thing isn’t a hunting rifle and it isn’t a handgun. What do you want to call it? A “modern sporting rifle”? Eat me. There isn’t a sport called “AR-15 shooting”. “Assault rifle”? But gun-lovers hate that term. “A cuddly toy appropriate for a five year old”? It wouldn’t surprise me to see that, honestly.
Tell you what. I can make an effort to remember to refer to it as a “mass murder weapon” if you like. I am willing to make that concession, just for you.
Also, independent of all this idiocy, would I be correct in believing that this idiocy is your only objection to my post? Which is to say that you agree that this business about apocalypse scenarios is indeed just bullshit, and people who own AR-15s do not in fact own them because they need them to fend off the hordes.
This is not a nitpick. The phrase “military weapons” is deliberately provocative. And it provoked me. That is your successful use of language. The fact is, the AR15, and its bigger brother, the AR10, are used for hunting. I’m new here, and haven’t yet found out how to include links, but it’s certainly easy enough to google it.There are advantages to using an AR platform. If the hunting is of the depredation variety, it allows for more efficient elimination of pests. For large game, the semi auto allows for a quicker follow-up shot in the event the first shot is not a kill. This is more humane than allowing the animal to get away while manually chambering a round.
I don’t think that an AR-15 matches anybody’s mental image for the term “hunting rifle”.
Do you imagine that the primary use of AR-15s is for hunting? That most AR-15s purchased have been used for hunting (of non-humans) since the time they were purchased?
I doubt that very much. On what are you basing this belief? I have several ARs, and know a number of others that do as well. Not one of us bought them with the idea of shooting someone. While they would be an excellent tool in a survival situation (along with a number of other items), the fact is they are fun to shoot. They are also unique in that they can be customized by the user - most guns require a gunsmith to make changes to the firearm. I can change the trigger, the sights - hell, even the caliber - all in the comfort of my living room. There is no other rifle I know of that allows you to do that.
I am definitely not disputing that the AR-15 has features that make it a fun toy. In fact that was my main point - that people buy these things for reasons that would definitely not impress a person who was just shot by a spree shooter, so they mock up some implausible “but the hordes!” justification that, were it plausible, would hold more weight.
As for whether a gun is bought for the intent of the “depredation” of humanity, I’d say that it’s quite explicit in all the “defensive weapon” arguments that the guns are intended to be used to thin the numbers of human predators. Of course the closest things there are to a license for hunting human predators are things like “self defense”, “stand your ground law” and “castle doctrine”, which limits things somewhat, but all the lurid descriptions of how the hero will handily take out the criminals they encounter make it pretty clear that, at least in the context of the self defense argument, the gun owners consider themselves on the hunt.
Assuming, of course, that the defensive weapon arguments aren’t also bullshit - in theory people could be buying and carrying around handguns for reasons entirely unrelated to taking out villains. The closest thing they can buy in America to a Megatron toy, perhaps?
Fumble with it? Having it concealed does not prohibit a smooth draw. It doesn’t mean the person has to fumble with anything. I’d love to be shown a DGU viedeo where a split second draw was necessary. One that doesn’t involve a pilice office. The concept of necessary split second quickdraws in self defense is hype spewed by the same kinds of people who masturbate to their gun fantasies.
You’re just not paying attention at all. Knowing where all the guns are allows a person to knowingly choose a softer target. If you dont know who is armed, you cant “try a softer target”.
You tell me. You’re the one who brought it up for reasons unknown. I certainly havent proposed such a scenario.
I have no fucking clue what you’re trying to say here, but Im pretty sure you trying to form some kind of veiled insult. I think Im done trying to have a normal conversation with you. “Tiring elevated awareness of danger” my ass. I live an work in the worst fucking province in Afghanistan… Yea, thats still a thing by the way. I think I have a pretty healthy awareness to danger. Im done in this thread.
I agree, I was more implying that I consider the roving bands of hordes that need to be eliminated with an AR-15 to be similar to my odds of winning the lottery. Even in the case of most weeks when I don’t buy a ticket.
There are types of concealment that are relatively smooth, but those were not the types you were talking about. You were talking about types of concealment that would involve reaching up under one’s skirt at the least, or reaching down to the ankle, and saying that you have plenty of time.
Now, I refuse to link to snuff films, so I will provide you with no videos of DGUs where a fast draw was required. I have seen these videos specifically because gun advocates on this board have linked to them to demonstrate that a fast draw DGU is in fact possible, when I expressed doubt that it was likely. I am sure if you ask nicely to any of those who have linked to them in the past, or go into a gun thread and express doubt as to whether a fast draw DGU is possible, they will be more than happy to link you through to these videos where someone is shot and killed because the victim of an assault was quick about pulling his gun. Or, I am sure you can google some up.
Okay, I’m going to apologize for the post above, especially the poor grammar and spelling. I was on my phone, and a bit pissed off. For better or worse, I’ve decided to not ignore this thread completely as I think there are still people in here who would actually like to have a discussion and not try to fire back with strawmen, intentional mischaracterizations, and statements based on ignorance with no desire to be educated. I think I’ll just agree to disagree with elvis and leave it at that.
But there is in fact a National Match, sanctioned by the Government, and established almost 120 years ago. Citizens compete each year at what is a very prestigious event where the top 100 shooters receive a certificate and letter signed by the President of the United States. Even President Obama and President Clinton, assumed to be hugely anti-gun and very anti-AR-15, signed these certificated. These top shooters are known as “The President’s Hundred”. I am talking about the Civilian Marksmanship Program (CMP), and the National Trophy Matches that take place at Camp Perry, OH each year. The program was created by an act of Congress about 120 years ago, and while it receives no federal funding, and is not a “government agency” it is very much government affiliated and supported. Surplus US military rifles and pistols are donated to and sold through this organization. I think they still let people shoot M1s in the National Match, but other than that there is only one option. Competitors shoot AR-15s with iron sights. The whole point of the program when it was started way back when, was to produce a civilian population who were trained marksmen. Because of this, the firearms used in the major matches are M1s, AR-15s, M1911s and M9s… military service weapons and/or similar (such as the AR-15). So a person is all but required to own an Ar-15 to participate. The CMP, with support from the Army Marksmanship Unit and the Ohio National Guard, deliver Congressionally mandated firearm safety and marksmanship instruction to thousands of people every year. Recent focus has been on the training of youth!!
It might not surprise most people that shooting AR-15s is, in fact, a sport. But I think it might surprise a lot of people to know that the major AR-15 sport in the US is a product of the government. Or that the US Military trains civilians, including youth, on the safety and proper use of the AR-15. And that said training is mandated by law! I never hear the CMP brought up in AR-15 discussions, ever. Do people just not know about this?
Shooting an AR-15 is a sport. Well, it can be, anyway. That isn’t to say that everyone who owns one is interested in the sport. I’m sure the number of AR-15 owners far, far exceeds the number of competitive shooters. But to blanketly state that there is NO sporting reason to own an AR-15 is flat wrong. And while the National Match happens once a year, there are enough CMP matches all over the country that a person can spend the majority of his time traveling around shooting competitively for sport. And many people do just that.
This doesn’t even touch on other, nongovernment affiliated, organizations like IPSC and IDPA or the various 3-Gun matches that occur all over the country—many of which all involve the use of the AR-15!
Gun guys can be worse than Comic Book Guys when it comes to terminology and semantics. Personally, I think far too much effort is wasted focusing on differences between assault rifles and assault weapons—how much is a machinegun and the other is a made-up term and doesn’t exists, etc, etc. You’re right that gun-lovers seem to hate that term. And they love to get into long ass debates about what is and what isn’t. I think it’s all a waste of time. Who cares what it’s called as long as everyone understands what one another is talking about.
There are times when the semantics matter, though. And that’s when the discussion moves toward talking about banning certain types of rifles. When the discussion reaches that point, it does become necessary to ask, “What do you mean by ‘assault rifle’?” I think it makes for a more productive conversation to just let the other person define it, and then stipulate to that definition for the remainder of the conversation. No need to argue about what’s what. Just ask them what they mean and move on, IMHO. It seems impossible for many gun guys to do that, though.
I was referring to reaching into the waist band or ankle, sure. But nothing that would require going up a skirt or disrobing. I’ll concede that such a description would be easier for me to show than to explain. In each case, the pistol remains well concealed without baggy clothes, and still able to draw. It’s not a split-second cowboy-style draw, but it’s not a 5-seconds of fumbling and fuckery, either. 2-3 seconds…. 4 tops, maybe, for the more difficult to draw options. That’s not super slow, but it isn’t what I consider “split second”. I consider it “fast enough”, though.
Without seeing a video example, (and I won’t link to any either, since I don’t think you’d care to watch one), I think that you just have a different opinion of what “fast” is. But if you’re saying that you’ve seen videos of someone in a situation where he was able to draw his weapon in a split second due to the fact that he had an openly carried firearm, and that he would have died had he not drawn it in a split second, then I would have to see such a film to believe it. I just did a search and I couldn’t find a single instance. Am I paraphrasing your statement accurately? Here you say a “fast draw” but I am talking about the split second draw that is only possible with an open carry firearm. An open carried firearm can be drawn in a split second, whereas a concealed firearm can be drawn in 1-3 seconds. I was trying to state earlier that, while there are people who argue that they might get into a situation where a split second draw is required, I think that’s bullshit. I think it’s complete nonsense. These are the same people who carry their AR-15 around with the safety off, because that split second manipulation of the lever might be the difference between life or death. That’s just nonsense.
But are you saying you’ve seen videos where someone carried openly, was involved in a successful DGU, but would have ended up dead or otherwise unsuccessful had he/she been carrying concealed and the draw take like 2 seconds? If that’s what you’re saying, I’d love to see an example. Or at least be given enough of a description that I could find the video myself. I still think such a situation is fantasy.
This part seems to be arguing against a point I never made—or at least never intended to make. I never said that a fast draw was not possible. Quite the opposite, actually. I was saying that drawing a concealed firearm can be done fast enough. A person can draw a concealed firearm fast. That was my point in saying that carrying openly, to ensure a split second draw, is unnecessary because a person can get to their concealed firearm fast enough. Does that make better sense?
I was aware that there were shooting competitions, Some of the history you have said here is new to me though, I appreciate that.
At the same time, that is the govt teaching about gun safety and responsibility, while setting it in a competitive environment to assure that people take it seriously.
I think it would be possible to create a “lethality index” to categorize guns, both by their theoretical, and their actual uses.
I have joked before that you could just measure the drool from a “gun nut’s” mouth the rate a gun, but that is obviously a bit fascisious.
But, as it comes to effective rate of fire, effective accurate distance, distance the bullet travels unimpeded, caliber of bullet used, and magazine size, you can come up with a rating system. You cross that against the actual death and injury caused by firearms of that type.
At that point, you don’t need to worry if it’s a clip or a magazine, or if it’s an assault rifle or a sporting rifle, it has a rating, hopefully one that is assisted in determining by those in the pro-gun crowd.
I was referring to when you said, "The human body has natural curves and indentions that are capable of concealing firearms, such as the small of the back. There are tons of options such as the ankle, under the shoulder, whatever you call the space where your thigh meets your torso, off to the side of the mons pubis. "
Now, maybe it’s just that I don’t stretch much, but I couldn’t draw a gun from most of those areas without taking some time and making it obvious. And on the mons pubis part, for some reason I was picturing that as where you would put it wearing a dress. I do know that they make inner thigh holsters for women.
There is one where there is a guy that comes into a pharmacy and points a gun. One of the people behind the counter uses his co-workers as human shields as he draws his gun and fires. Then there is one in I think an internet cafe, where someone comes in to rob the place, and one of the patrons come out shooting. Then there was one in a gun store. (at first, I would think that’s a terrible idea, but apparently, it does work, as some of the guns on the street were the product of robbing a gun store.) The one that I would be more interested in finding is an attempted carjacking, I think, on the street, where a guy comes up and pulls a gun on another guy, the second guy pulls his gun very quickly, then takes the assailants gun. I tried to find that one, as there was not a dead body on the ground at the end, and it actually is a pretty good example of a GU done right, but I’m not finding it easily.
Maybe if any pro-gun advocates are reading this thread, they will help us out here. I’ve tried to find the thread, but I participate in too many gun discussions, I have no idea where it is.
That was not an argument against anything that you said, that was the argument that I was in when I was shown these videos. I expressed doubt that a DGU is a reliable way of preventing being assaulted when they already have a gun pointed at you, and they linked several videos of people doing just that.
As far as concealment is concerned, I have seen some concealed holsters that really don’t slow down the draw. But, I have also seen concealment that means that it will take many precious seconds to ready your weapon. The ones that don’t slow you down as much are easier to notice.
I’m trying to describe something like this. When sitting down, the barrel shifts to the space between the things. But the gun itself is not strapped between the thighs. And the gun can be drawn from above the waistband. It allows maximum concealability, maximum versatility and clothing flexibility, and only a slightly slower draw than a regular IWB holsters. Thunderwear makes holsters that allow this type of carry. It is one of my favorite everyday holsters. See examples shown at https://www.thunderwear.com/ . I’ve worn this with just about any outfit you can think of, including shirtless at the beach.
I am familiar with this one. In fact, this was one of the ones on my mind when I was trying to say that a person usually has plenty of time to assess the situation and gain access to the firearm when it is needed. That patron could have kept that firearm just about anywhere on his person, including in a backpack, and the results would have been the same.
I used to manage a gun range/ store. I always carried openly. I think that in a place like that where everyone already has their guns out, a split second draw is more necessary, and should be a consideration. I also open carry when in bear country or salmon fishing.
But I think that practically every situation where a gun would have helped, or did help, the access to the firearm–while fast–was not split-second, high-noon-cowboy fast. When having conversations about why a person chooses to openly carry (where allowed by law), this is almost always one of the reasons, if not the reason. I am confident that I can draw fast enough for practically any situation in which I would need to without resorting to open carry.
Oh. But in many of those situations, the gun was drawn from concealment which was the point I was trying to make. That concealed carry is an effective way to have a firearm available when/if needed. Open carry is not necessary. I’d still be surprised to find a video in which a person successfully employed an open carry firearm in a DGU situation where a concealed firearm would have had an opposite, negative result. That was the kind of situation I was referring to as being fantasy.
Yea, it all comes down to compromise. What people who don’t carry often, or at all, usually don’t realize is that a person doesn’t make a conscious, logical thought each day about carrying. It isn’t, “Am I going to get mugged today? Should I wear this today, or not? What are my chances of being car jacked this particular day.” People who carry are not living in fear everyday. Most people realize that it’s like putting on a seatbelt. You just do it. Every time. Before starting the car, you don’t think, “should I buckle up this time? might I get in a wreck this time”. The only way for it to be effective is to do it every time. So it’s important to have very comfortable, unobtrusive, and unnoticeable options for carrying in a wide variety of clothing choices that will also allow you to draw it fast enough in a dangerous situation.
I think that Bear’s perspective maybe carries a little more weight here, since he has “been there and done that.” I am not really sure where I stand on the AR-15’s status…I don’t think the political capital exists to ban it outright, and I might be in favor of laws allowing it to be purchased but under stricter criteria than bolt-action rifles or shotguns. In general I don’t think now is a good time for Democrats to risk losing votes by pushing gun control. Note that the Democrat who won in Pennsylvania was NOT anti-gun; and similar young Democratic up-and-comers with potential, like Jason Kander, are not anti-gun. What do these guys have in common? They served in the military.
