Skip to main content

View Diary: AWB and honesty (213 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Because, perhaps, gun owners (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    oldpunk, Bisbonian, tytalus, Sandino, Quicklund

    could help craft a bill that would effectively separate weapons that are good for hunting and weapons that are only good for killing lots of stuff at the short to medium range.

    Seriously, anybody who argues that an AR-15 is a better weapon for hunting than even a halfway decent bolt action hunting rifle is stupid or lying.  Sure, it can be used for hunting, but then again so could a .25 caliber Saturday Night Special--but only a moron would choose to use one for hunting.  We all know that.  So why not work to get rid of the weapons that have no other use than to kill lots of people or give the owner a hard-on--cause that's the only thing an AR-15s are good for.

    "Empty vessels make the loudest sound, they have the least wit and are the greatest blabbers" Plato

    by Empty Vessel on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 03:39:38 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  So, you'll dismiss out of hand... (13+ / 0-)

      ...those who happen to disagree with you:

      Seriously, anybody who argues that an AR-15 is a better weapon for hunting than even a halfway decent bolt action hunting rifle is stupid or lying.
      That is already enough for me to question your intent to discuss the subject honestly.  Declaring that anyone who disagrees with you is either "stupid or lying" is an unsupported opinion at best, an ad hominem attack at worst.  Neither is a particularly compelling argument.

      Further, you now seem to be insisting that only hunting rifles are acceptable for ownership.  This is a limitation that you offer no support for beyond your insistence.  This is not a particularly compelling argument.

      And this comment:

      So why not work to get rid of the weapons that have no other use than to kill lots of people or give the owner a hard-on--cause that's the only thing an AR-15s are good for.
      ...shows, quite clearly, that since you cannot support your earlier "arguments" with facts or logic, you are willing to resort to personal insult.

      That being the case, I see no particular reason in continuing this discussion.

      Have a lovely evening.

      Yes, I often dress as a pirate. Your point?

      by theatre goon on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 03:49:45 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I note you in no way tried to defend (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Bisbonian, oldpunk, tytalus, Sandino, Quicklund

        an AR-15 as a hunting weapon.  Rather you just said I am offended and said good day.  Very telling. As for my reasoning as to why AN-15 is a lousy hunting weapon...see link in the first comment in this thread.

        Basically it has to do with muzzle velocity and bullet size and the fact that the impact energies of an AR-15 drop very quickly above 100 yards, making them lousy hunting weapons.

        "Empty vessels make the loudest sound, they have the least wit and are the greatest blabbers" Plato

        by Empty Vessel on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 04:10:24 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  AR-15s aren't restricted to a single caliber (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          oldpunk, theatre goon, gerrilea

          AR-15s can take different caliber uppers. You can hunt with an AR-15 outfitted with a 6.8 SPC, 6.5 Creedmoor.  .243 Winchester, 300 Blackout, or 7.62x39 upper.

          And coyote hunters seem to have no problem hunting with the .223/5.56 round.

        •  There was nothing to respond to. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          rockhound, gerrilea, fuzzyguy

          You made an unsupported assertion, along with several outright falsehoods and personal attacks against those who disagree with you.

          Once you devolved to those dishonest tactics, I saw no more reason to attempt to engage you in discussion -- you showed that you were not interested in honest, adult debate.

          I thought I made that clear -- my bad if it was not clear.

          Of course, I never said I was offended, either, so I guess it didn't really matter if I was clear or not, you had no intention of responding to what I actually said.

          Yes, I often dress as a pirate. Your point?

          by theatre goon on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 05:07:12 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Plus tumbling rounds are designed to maim not kill (0+ / 0-)

          A wounded enemy soldier takes him out of action and also causes the enemy to care for and feed a non combatant. In war, oftenit is better to wound than to kill.

          In hunting, never.

    •  I know this isn't your intent, so apologies (8+ / 0-)

      in advance:  Since a 7.62 is generally a more destructive round, it would arguably make a better hunting round.  That would make an AK-47 a better hunting rifle.  Which would mean that the AK would be exempted from any SLGB* based on its valid use as a hunting gun.

      * SLGB = Scary Looking Gun Ban (Sorry, the whole acronym thing got to me)

      •  At what distance would the AK be the better round? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        oldpunk

        To figure out the destructiveness we need to combine muzzle velovity and caliber to determine the impact velocity at different distance. Further, the energy removed from the firing chamber to load the next bullet reduces the energy of the bullet.

        So, a bit over simplistically, a 7.62 shot from a bolt action would be far more deadly at greater distances than a 7.62 shot from an AK.  Thus, again, the bolt action of the same size would be a far better hunting weapon.

        "Empty vessels make the loudest sound, they have the least wit and are the greatest blabbers" Plato

        by Empty Vessel on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 04:06:35 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I know this is an unpopular concept here, but (14+ / 0-)

          since I don't own any firearms and never have, I can say it.

          Why does owning a firearm have to have a reason?

          As you've repeated, "for hunting", there are other reasons isn't there?

          Or they not allowed now?

          Why do you have the right to free speech, free press, free religion?

          Do you need a reason?  I didn't know our rights had to be justified, really.

          And justified in such a narrow scope, as you've done here.

          -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

          by gerrilea on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 04:28:28 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  It affects cost-benefit analysis (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            oldpunk, theatre goon, Quicklund

            I have a right to buy fancy socks without having any need and without justifying them to anyone.

            However, since I don't have a need, the social cost of making them harder for me to own would be low.

            If there were a big social benefit to banning fancy socks, then there'd be a utilitarian argument for doing so.

            If I needed fancy socks to put food on the table or protect my livestock, the calculation would be different.

            •  Understood, but must this issue be "utilitarian"? (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              oldpunk, Robobagpiper, theatre goon

              Isn't that where we get into trouble and such heated debates?

              If we accept the fact that the RKBA's is an unalienable individual right, then the reason is immaterial.

              Unless the focus moves to LEO and military and even then the limits have to be the same, equally applied.

              The fact that there are White Papers revealing the arguments that drones can be used against US citizens on US soil makes me jealous.  If they can have all the high tech toys, why can't we?

              I've always believed we should have as many guns and bullets, plus one than our government has.  Keeps the power structure where it should be, with the people.

              But I'm stubborn like that.

              -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

              by gerrilea on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 07:20:10 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  Rights have to be justified where there is (5+ / 0-)

            pressure to curtail them without actually doing the hard work of amending the constitution. Such justifications seem to me intended to try to keep the centrists/wishy-washyists/undecideds at least a bit favorably inclined toward gun ownership.

            I think most "activist/paying attention" gun owners are not so much justifying ownership of firearms per se, but ownership of specific categories of firearm, e.g., semi-automatics. I've ready plenty of comments from RKBA opponents inviting us to go back to muzzleloaders, since that is what the founding fathers had in mind (the commenters conveniently ignoring the founders were also completely down with slavery, suffrage only for white males, certainly no right to contraception, etc.)

            YES WE DID -- AGAIN. FOUR MORE YEARS.

            by raincrow on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 10:20:38 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Free speech isn't regulated? Free Press? (0+ / 0-)

            We accept regulations on our other rights day in and day out … Why is the Second Amendment so sacrosanct?

            Baby, where I come from...

            by ThatSinger on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 06:46:08 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  "We" don't anything...we have no choice (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              theatre goon, oldpunk, fuzzyguy

              in the matter.  

              I didn't talk about "regulations" but reasons why one exercises said rights.

              There is no reason stated to justify my exercising my faith, my right to protest or my free press.

              The framing of the 2nd A as exclusively for "hunting", was the issue I saw AND commented on, okay?

              -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

              by gerrilea on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 09:03:53 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Most RKBA adherents cite "self defense" as (0+ / 0-)

                the primary "reason" that their "RKBA" should not be regulated... not hunting... not target shooting...

                "Regulation" is the primary, recurring theme in this conversation, is the issue I usually see and I commented, okay?

                Baby, where I come from...

                by ThatSinger on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 01:30:06 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

        •  100-150 yards, maybe a bit more. (6+ / 0-)

          There isn't a big difference ballistically between a 7.62x39 shot from a bolt action rifle (yes, they exist... CZ makes one) and an AK. The bolt action will be a smidge faster, because it's not bleeding gas to work the action, but not enough to matter.

          Accuracy differences would account for more, most AKs are not extremely accurate guns, but with good iron sights or a low-power scope, they do well enough out to the range limits of the cartridge. 2-3 inches at 100 yards will git 'er done in the field... again, comparisons to the .30-30 are useful.

          --Shannon

          "It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees." -- Emiliano Zapata Salazar
          "Dissent is patriotic. Blind obedience is treason." --me

          by Leftie Gunner on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 06:44:30 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  An AR-15 is an excellent rifle for lots of things (8+ / 0-)

      that have nothing to do with killing humans.

      They are excellent target rifles.

      They are excellent varmint and predator rifles.

      Depending on the size of the deer where you live, and with good load selection, they're a decent choice for a deer rifle, and the SKS and AK platforms are even better. (7.62x39 ballistics are pretty close to the .30-30... whcih has killed a shitload of deer.) WIth a switch of the upper reciever (not controlled by any Federal laws, it's not a "gun" per the 1968 Gun Control Act) to a larger cartridge than the .223 Remington, they're an execellent all-around medium game rifle.

      With surplus 5.56 NATO ammunition (once we're done shooting it up in Afganistan and panic-buying it at home), they're excellent for general plinking. Cheap to shoot for a centerfire rifle, more fun than  .22. Put a .22LR upper on one, and it's just another .22... the best plinking rifle ever made.

      So yes, they have plenty of purposes... as many as there are people who own and shoot them.

      Because "purpose", in the human sense, is not a property of objects.

      --Shannon

      "It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees." -- Emiliano Zapata Salazar
      "Dissent is patriotic. Blind obedience is treason." --me

      by Leftie Gunner on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 06:39:20 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site