The Gun that Divides a Nation

[Gospel]

I find the quote in the article "About 1 in 20 U.S. adults — or roughly 16 million people — own at least one AR-15, according to polling data from The Washington Post and Ipsos." just absolutely gobsmacking.
Is it fear, posturing or something else that causes such a high rate of ownership?
They would be of better use in Ukraine.

I think it's to avoid what's happening in Ukraine. Not exactly the same situation but Russia does believe Ukraine is theirs, so its similar to a tyrannical government turning on its own people from that prospective.

 

[Gospel]

Out of curiosity I checked some US stats - 8% of the pop are hunters (own a license) and 44% own a gun

Kinda like if 8% of the population had a driver's license but 44% owned cars.

If you've driven in Florida you'd know those numbers are accurate.

 

[southernhybrid]

Here's another article about the AR-15. This one is about how the gun was advertised over the years. It helps us understand how easily some people can be manipulated by such things. Regardless of your stand on AR-15s, I think most of you will find this analysis is interesting.

https://wapo.st/3lKAP8K

This analysis is based on a review of more than 400 advertisements, catalogue entries, brochures, social media posts and other messages produced by gun manufacturers and ad agencies. Many of the ads appeared in gun-oriented publications, including American Rifleman and Guns & Ammo — and some have been cited over the years in lawsuits and Federal Trade Commission complaints filed by victims of gun crimes or their families. The Washington Post sought additional analysis from experts on the intersection of marketing and culture.

The ads show how an industry attuned to public opinion across the decades, particularly among its heavily conservative customer base, has heralded the AR-15 as a weekend toy, an effective tool for hunting and home defense, and an expression of masculine energy — at times, all at once. Frequent images of police and soldiers wielding tactical rifles in the field urged civilian buyers to, as one ad put it, “use what they use.”

Unless otherwise noted, gunmakers whose ads appear in this story did not respond to requests for comment.

1957

Armalite makes a prototype
Gunmaker Armalite starts work on a prototype based on the U.S. military’s desire for a lightweight rifle capable of automatic fire. The company dubs it the Armalite Rifle Model 15, or AR-15.

The list goes on, all the way back to the late 1950s. I grew up in the 50s and 60s. Guns weren't fetishized like they are now and nobody felt deprived for now owning a military grade weapon.

 

[Tigers!]

But you bring up an interesting point. Perhaps it is bullets that need the regulations. Just tell gun owners that we won’t infringe their rights to own guns but bullets will be heavily regulated.

Perhaps you can only buy bullets if you are a member of a gun club or society. This was actually suggested in Victoria during the eighties.

 

[Patooka]

I think it's to avoid what's happening in Ukraine. Not exactly the same situation but Russia does believe Ukraine is theirs, so its similar to a tyrannical government turning on its own people from that prospective.

I strongly suspect that you are playing Devil's Advocate, but here is a post from some fuckwit two years ago poking holes into that argument.

The list goes on, all the way back to the late 1950s. I grew up in the 50s and 60s. Guns weren't fetishized like they are now and nobody felt deprived for now owning a military grade weapon.

There's a few things I disagree with Beau on when it comes to guns (I very much believe in the seatbelt theory), so I'm only going to post the video that articulates how much AR-15s are fetishized in America these days;


Southernhybrid is 100% right.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Anyone who thinks there is a point where gun crazies will be convinced that too many guns and military assault weapons are a bad thing is living in a dream world. You could stack the corpses of millions of school children killed by assault weapons all over this country in plain views and it wouldn't matter. And it wouldn't matter to the congress critters who make money catering to gun crazies. The carnage can be explained away but not my love of my AR15.

 

[Gospel]

I think it's to avoid what's happening in Ukraine. Not exactly the same situation but Russia does believe Ukraine is theirs, so its similar to a tyrannical government turning on its own people from that prospective.

I strongly suspect that you are playing Devil's Advocate, but here is a post from some fuckwit two years ago poking holes into that argument.

The list goes on, all the way back to the late 1950s. I grew up in the 50s and 60s. Guns weren't fetishized like they are now and nobody felt deprived for now owning a military grade weapon.

There's a few things I disagree with Beau on when it comes to guns (I very much believe in the seatbelt theory), so I'm only going to post the video that articulates how much AR-15s are fetishized in America these days;


Southernhybrid is 100% right.

Nope. Not playing devil's advocate. Just touched on the main reason the right to bear arms was put in place. The video didn't contradict that either. In fact his opinion is that the culture around guns have moved away from that and turned into things like masculinity, and using guns against your fellow citizens to solve your problems.

 

[Patooka]

Not playing devil's advocate. Just touched on the main reason the right to bear arms was put in place. The video didn't contradict that either

The video was addressing southernhybrid's post. The link to the post I made two years ago addressed what you said. I just didn't want to start two separate posts to address the two points. EDIT: With hindsight, I really should have been much clearer in my post. That's on me.

 

[Gospel]

Yes southernhybrid was (still is) right. Movers and shakers in the gun industry and gun rights advocates have changed the public perception of guns in general over the years into the mess we have today.

 

[Gospel]

I strongly suspect that you are playing Devil's Advocate, but here is a post from some fuckwit two years ago poking holes into that argument.

Also, you were correct on that post you linked. Thing is, whether or not the government can be defeated doesn't change the reason why the right to bear arms is in the constitution.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It's something else... The AR-15, like it or not, is absolutely the most pleasant to shoot firearm ever created. For gun enthusiasts, how enjoyable to shoot a gun is is all that matters... people that like to target-shoot, love the AR-15. You can shoot that thing all day with no fatigue and still enjoy all the pew pew.
If the most popular firearm was a Browning .22, then that is what would be killing children in schools instead of the AR-15, and talk of handling the issue of "people-hunting rifles" would be had instead of "assault-style rifles"

Yup--light round, reasonably heavy gun = little recoil.

 

[Gun Nut]

But you bring up an interesting point. Perhaps it is bullets that need the regulations. Just tell gun owners that we won’t infringe their rights to own guns but bullets will be heavily regulated.

Perhaps you can only buy bullets if you are a member of a gun club or society. This was actually suggested in Victoria during the eighties.

I am not opposed to sane gun regulations (and I am of the opinion that the second amendment gives the STATE the right to form a police force and the PEOPLE that make up the police force cannot have their right to bare arms infringed by the FEDERAL government).
However, the supreme court has expanded the scope of the 2nd to such a degree that it is difficult to so much as regulate holsters and flashlights that attach to firearms... so forget that idea about bullets - it will never fly.

The only solution that I can see is extreme enforcement of current laws, and increasing penalties to near-Draconian levels - i.e. illegal possession of a firearm carries the death penalty... Failure to register a weapon - death. Illegal modification of a firearm - Death...
Being the registered owner of a firearm becomes a forfeiture of some 4th Amendment rights... like search and seizure - being registered IS probable cause to search for anything that might be illegal.

 

[Gun Nut]

It's something else... The AR-15, like it or not, is absolutely the most pleasant to shoot firearm ever created. For gun enthusiasts, how enjoyable to shoot a gun is is all that matters... people that like to target-shoot, love the AR-15. You can shoot that thing all day with no fatigue and still enjoy all the pew pew.
If the most popular firearm was a Browning .22, then that is what would be killing children in schools instead of the AR-15, and talk of handling the issue of "people-hunting rifles" would be had instead of "assault-style rifles"

Yup--light round, reasonably heavy gun = little recoil.

It's not really about that at all.... It mostly is about the unique gas recoil system it uses to counteract the extreme force of the rather large amount of powder behind an otherwise tiny bullet... so you get a very big bang, lots of destruction, and super light handling.
An otherwise experienced person firing an AR-15 for the first time feels like they went from a slightly rusted eBike to a Tesla Plaid.

 

[Jarhyn]

It's something else... The AR-15, like it or not, is absolutely the most pleasant to shoot firearm ever created. For gun enthusiasts, how enjoyable to shoot a gun is is all that matters... people that like to target-shoot, love the AR-15. You can shoot that thing all day with no fatigue and still enjoy all the pew pew.
If the most popular firearm was a Browning .22, then that is what would be killing children in schools instead of the AR-15, and talk of handling the issue of "people-hunting rifles" would be had instead of "assault-style rifles"

Yup--light round, reasonably heavy gun = little recoil.

It's not really about that at all.... It mostly is about the unique gas recoil system it uses to counteract the extreme force of the rather large amount of powder behind an otherwise tiny bullet... so you get a very big bang, lots of destruction, and super light handling.
An otherwise experienced person firing an AR-15 for the first time feels like they went from a slightly rusted eBike to a Tesla Plaid.

I was in some ways shocked by how much harder practically ANY weapon besides the M-16 kicks.

The M-16 does this by launching a heavy bolt backwards with that gas against a long spring, while the chassis of the weapon stays put. As you say, the bullet launches TWO masses instead of one, and it ends up soaking the recoil force.

The huge mass of the bolt against the tiny mass of a very fast bullet evens it out, and the buffer spring spreads the force out very well over time, transferring it smoothly rather than sharply from the bolt to the body of the weapon.

Normal bolt action rifles slake all of that force directly in the stock at the moment of firing, and even normal semi-automatics don't have the massive sliding bolt and buffer spring.

 

[Elixir]

Normal bolt action rifles slake all of that force directly in the stock at the moment of firing,

… which, along with the bolt operation makes them a poor choice for mass murders.
Good for hunting rifles though.

 

[Jarhyn]

Normal bolt action rifles slake all of that force directly in the stock at the moment of firing,

… which, along with the bolt operation makes them a poor choice for mass murders.
Good for hunting rifles though.

Indeed. When the bullet has to move smoothly, I expect it means tolerances have to be looser than for a hand-operated bolt, a little more wide on the spaces as it were, and a little more play, though not a lot.

I expect a hunting rifle with the same cartridge and ball would cut much tighter wads.

 

[bilby]

However, the supreme court has expanded the scope of the 2nd to such a degree that it is difficult to so much as regulate holsters and flashlights that attach to firearms... so forget that idea about bullets - it will never fly.

The whole idea is that the bullets should never fly.

 

[Patooka]

Yes southernhybrid was (still is) right. Movers and shakers in the gun industry and gun rights advocates have changed the public perception of guns in general over the years into the mess we have today.

On that note; if Columbine happened post 9/11 instead of pre 9/11, how popular would Ingram's MAC-10 be?