- Hey USA, hows that Second amendment working out for you guys?
Pretty sure the AR stands for Assault Rifle. It was designed and built with the purpose of being a lightweight assault rifle. I agree that certain organisations say this isn’t true, but it’s worth reading the design history to understand the nature of the weapon.
Pull up a sandbag time…..I was trained on the SLR, semi automatic rifle. 675 rounds per minute. (That would be belt fed and under test conditions). I’m sure other former soldiers would attest for the power and speed of a semi auto rifle (with or without the assault word used)….to be fair the slr would jam after 10 rounds if it was wet, humid, dry, cold, warm etc etc.
The armalite ar-15 is 600 rounds per minute. But again that’s test conditions and belt fed. 45 per minute using standard magazines is the data from the manufacturer.
Semi auto is still frightening and unnecessary in civilian hands. (I’m against hunting apart from under strict circumstances)
For me saying firmer gun controls need to be implemented, whilst true, is glossing over the other underlying social, economic and cultural issues that need to be addressed.Posted 7 months ago
Getting caught up in the semantics of a name is one of the reasons why this debate rages on. The question is; do members of the public need a long-barrelled, semi-automatic weapon, capable of a high rate of fire, with 30 round magazines?
I have access to a wide variety of firearms through work, knowing the amount of time it takes to remain proficient in their use, time which gets reduced every year, it’s quite scary to imagine someone in possession of these thinking they could actually do a good job. Or worse, this incident ad infinitum.
I am pretty glad we don’t have them, the amount of John Rambo wannabes we already have (airsoft/milsim), makes me glad we limit them to BB guns.Posted 7 months agodangeourbrainSubscriber
thinking they could actually do a good job.
The vast majority of people who own one of those weapons would happily and honestly tell you the “job” it’s for is shooting targets in a range where is a perfectly good tool for the job. A few would tell you it’s for hunting but they’re few and far between and most hunters would think they’re idiots.
No-one in their right mind thinks a long barreled weapon of any sort is for home or personal defence, that’s what they have hand guns for, and depressingly a lot of the same range shooting folk would tell you that’s exactly what the hand gun is for.
A lot of gun owners own a hand gun “incase they need to shoot someone” that’s what you need to change, the idea any sensible law abiding person might ever need to shoot someone.Posted 7 months agonickcSubscriber
I think there is a certain mindset of a group of US citizens (culturally) who are waiting to “End Times” they fear that Govt/Society/Laws are going to inevitably break down at some point in the future, and they want to be ready. And ready in their minds means Military style weaponry. Which the NRA are happy to market to them
I don’t think most ‘mericans have any issue with sporting rifles, perhaps even certain handguns or shotguns, but the steadily increasing militarisation of weaponry (and equipment) is way too commonplace. If I was a legislator, that’s what I’d be aiming at.
brew a beer over 5%
(humblebrag warning) Just back from Moab (Utah) where I enjoyed an 8% beer…It was yummy. Like most things in the US, there is mostly a ban on beer over 3.2% (I know, right) but it’s more complex than that…Posted 7 months ago
I’m not disagreeing with you, but the circles I move in the US, many prep for the bloody apocalypse and think long barrels are for shooting people too. I have met a few good ol boys who simply have bolt actions for hunting and shotguns for pests. They’re good fun to hunt with and have a huge respect for weapons, animals and life in general.
But I’m in agreement with you, it’s the attitude and culture that needs to change. 12 people died in that bar in California, I imagine that’s a drop in the ocean when you look country wide. The Why is the most important question here.Posted 7 months agonickcSubscriber
Mike, It was really weird, you could go into a bar and get a can of stronger beer/larger, but not on tap. Like a wee petticoat of compliance with legislation…But yeah, Moab might be a bit different though.
moose, it was surprising just how much of the stuff around outdoor sports was labelled as “Military Grade” or “Surplus” or just painted camo, or olive green.Posted 7 months ago
Nickc, have a look on instagram, it’s littered with this lot running ‘tactical’ drills in high end military equipment. Making up utter toss shoots and ‘developing’ new tactics and techniques. They cater for a market, one that is growing as the divisions and hate grow. No better time to be in that business, fascists vs libtards, etc, etc.Posted 7 months agodangeourbrainSubscriber
outdoor sports was labelled as “Military Grade” or “Surplus”
See “aircraft grade” in bike manufacture. No-one intends to try flying their bike but it suggests a level of quality “well if it’s good for the US Army/building planes etc, it’s good enough for me at a weekend”
(Accepted there are a small number of folks who genuinely see them selves as some sort of potential malitia)Posted 7 months agoCougarSubscriber
the majority of my generation, don’t think being homosexual, same sex marriage, having an abortion, women’s education and thousands of other things are morally acceptable because the government decriminalised them (or made them legal).
That’s exactly what I was alluding to earlier. The older generations will generally have fairly entrenched views which a) we’re not going to change and b) might be said to be morally questionable. My grandparents’ era wouldn’t have seen anything wrong with sitting in a pub muttering about puffs and darkies. But both of these clauses are much less applicable to the younger generations. (Just look at the brexit voting demographics.) You can effect change but it takes generations, kids need to have grown up with it. Just because we can’t change something overnight doesn’t make it an inherently bad idea to at least try to make a start.Posted 7 months agow00dsterSubscriber
Moose, my post about the name was not to be argumentative but to show how organisations with an interest try to down play the nature of certain weapons. They are obviously assault rifles, but when they are in the wrong hands they get referred to as sports rifles as that doesn’t sound as bad.
its in certain organisations interests to make the general public think it is acceptable for people to have military grade weapons in their homes. The general public pick up on the rhetoric and repeat it without knowing any different.Posted 7 months agoamediasMember
Just because we can’t change something overnight doesn’t make it an inherently bad idea to at least try to make a start.
Exactly, you can’t fix it overnight, but right now we’re what, 20 years away from (maybe) fixing it if we started now? Just like we were 20 years away from it a decade ago… the point being you have to start otherwise it’ll always be 20 years in the future.
Same with drink driving, same with cycling deaths, same with gun deaths, same with mental health, same with knife crime, same with $insert-issue, now is always the best time to start working on fixing it.
“It’s hard” or “it’ll take ages” are never good reasons not to do things that are worthwhile.Posted 7 months agomindmap3Member
As an outsider, their obsession with gun ownership is nuts. Stuff like an AR-15 doesn’t seem particularly suited to target shooting, hunting etc. Changing the mindset will take some doing, especially with the NRA involved and their political contributions but surely there must come a time when gun ownership will need to change? Whilst it doesn’t solve the issues that drive people to shoot others taking away a relatively easily obtained device to enable it will surely save lives?
I know many Americans feel very strongly about the 2nd amendment, but it was written in a very different era – do those threats / concerns really apply in modern life? It hasn’t moved with the times.
Some of the comments you see on FB etc from Americans supporting the right to own guns are nuts. One chap referenced the UK and our issue with knife crime. He genuinely believed that knife sales had been banned and as such people were regularly getting stabbed with pens instead!!! This wouldn’t happen if we were able to have guns. I know people like this who think guns are the answer to personal protection / life’s ills are not necessarily by the minority but they’re very very vocal about the need for guns and impossible to discuss the issue with.Posted 7 months agomikey74Member
Keep people afraid of an outside terror and they will continue to buy guns; at once fuelling the NRA and the gun retail business, but at the expense of lives. Seems a typical Republican MO. Similar to Chump’s love of coal and destruction of EPA: Sure, it may put money in the pockets of the heads of business, but at the expense of ordinary American’s lives through pollution and climate change.
The sooner Americans wake up and realise they are being played, the better.
I get that some people just like guns: In that case, keep all guns under lock and key at registered firing ranges.
Oh, and those asking why we should care: If you can’t get animated about innocent people dying for no good reason, regardless of where it is in the world, then you have a problem; especially when it’s in a country we have so many social, cultural and political ties with.Posted 7 months ago
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.