β-SJL 2020 - the Dumb and Dumber ticket!

[Derec]

We all know β wants to ban certain rifles because they look like military weapons even though they do not behave like actual assault rifles with selective fire and even though by far the most murders are committed with handguns and several times more people are killed with knives than with rifles of any type.

But Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee (she who mixed up the Moon with Mars and thinks there are still two Vietnams) confused an AR-15 with a heavy machine gun.



AR-15s weigh less than 7 pounds. They shoot 5.56mm (or .223") ammunition, not .50".

She is probably confusing the rifle with a heavy machine gun like the M2 which weighs more than 100lbs with the tripod and shoots .50" BMG ammunition.
An AR-15.

A .50 cal machine gun.


Comparison of bullets.

The AR-15 fires the 5.56x45mm NATO round. The AK-47 fires the 7.62x39mm round. Both are much smaller than the .50 BMG (or should that be BFG?)

Anyway, these two morons are made for each other. β should pull a Ted Cruz and name SJL as his running mate as a Hail Mary pass.

 

[ZiprHead]

Wounds From Military-Style Rifles? ‘A Ghastly Thing to See’

Trauma surgeons tell what it is really like to try to repair such devastating injuries. “Bones are exploded, soft tissue is absolutely destroyed,” one said.

Perhaps no one knows the devastating wounds inflicted by assault-style rifles better than the trauma surgeons who struggle to repair them. The doctors say they are haunted by their experiences confronting injuries so dire they struggle to find words to describe them.

 

[ZiprHead]

 

[fast]

The AR-15 fires the 5.56x45mm NATO round. The AK-47 fires the 7.62x39mm round. Both are much smaller than the .50 BMG (or should that be BFG?)

The Barrett M82A1 fires 10 rounds of 50 BMG

 

[Gun Nut]

When ignorant people are involved in legislation of that which they are so ignorant, we end up of with laws and policies that fail to meet the objective at best, and make the problem they are trying to mitigate even more severe, at worst.

 

[Derec]

View attachment 23967

The original AR-15 was a military rifle - it became the M-16 the US Army uses. The civilian, semi-auto version is not a military rifle, although it looks like one. Same with the real AK-47 vs. civilian semi-auto version.

 

[Derec]

The Barrett M82A1 fires 10 rounds of 50 BMG

So? It's not an AR-15. And while substantially heavier than an AR-15, the M82A1 is, at 30lbs, not quite as heavy as to be compared to "10 moving boxes".
In any case, SJL is an idiot.

 

[Derec]

Wounds From Military-Style Rifles? ‘A Ghastly Thing to See’

A misleading article. The fact is, any rifle with comparable barrel length and shooting the same cartridge will have same bullet ballistics. There is nothing special about AR-15 and AK-47 style rifles that makes their wounds worse.

And the fact still remains that rifles of all types are responsible for only a small fraction of all homicides. Handguns are responsible for a lot more, and even blunt objects account for more total homicides.

β's proposed ban/confiscation is based only on emotion, not on any facts.

 

[ZiprHead]

Wounds From Military-Style Rifles? ‘A Ghastly Thing to See’

A misleading article. The fact is, any rifle with comparable barrel length and shooting the same cartridge will have same bullet ballistics. There is nothing special about AR-15 and AK-47 style rifles that makes their wounds worse.

Yes it's the rounds they shoot. And almost all the rifles that use the 556 NATO are military style weapons.

 

[southernhybrid]

https://time.com/4371452/orlando-shooting-ar-15-military-civilian-family/

In the wake of the Orlando shooting that left 49 victims dead, the family of the inventor of the AR-15 rifle says that the gun was not intended for civilian use but for military purposes.

“Our father, Eugene Stoner, designed the AR-15 and subsequent M-16 as a military weapon to give our soldiers an advantage over the AK-47,” the Stoner family told NBC News. “He died long before any mass shootings occurred. But, we do think he would have been horrified and sickened as anyone, if not more by these events.”

The AR-15 has become the centerpiece of a national debate over assault weapons and gun control, after attackers have used them and similar guns in mass shootings. Proponents of stricter gun control say that assault weapons like the AR-15 should be banned, arguing they are not intended for civilian use. Gun rights activists say that banning the gun would infringe on Americans’ Second Amendment rights. The National Rifle Association has taken to calling the AR-15 “America’s rifle.”

The gun was designed to be used as a military grade weapon. The man who designed the gun referred to it as a military grade weapon. And, I've heard quite a few military officers recently agree that the AR-15 is a military grade weapon. So, who's the dumb ass now?

Eugene Stoner, an ex-marine and the rifle’s inventor, never used his AR-15 for sport, kept it for personal defense, or even owned one. His family said he made millions by using his design, but only for military sales.

“After many conversations with him, we feel his intent was that he designed it as a military rifle,” Stoner’s family explained, saying that their father wanted to make the “most efficient and superior rifle possible for the military.”

 

[fast]

I’m so pro-gun it ain’t funny, so nothing I say should be construed as arguing against gun rights, yet it’s still interesting to be aware of the statistics that pertain to an issue at hand. That said, consider the following:

Let’s say as a politician that your immediate concern is not that of homicides in general but rather mass shootings specifically—despite variance in casualty rates. What are the statistics that answers the question of a mass murderers weapon of choice?

In other words, focus not on all homicides but rather the kind that gets media coverage and heated demands for action. I’m talking specifically about mass shootings. How many have there been? What kinds of guns were used? How many got shot? How many shot and killed? What were the guns?

None of this is to lay a foundation for banning anything, but the relevant statistics is highly dependent not on what is more important—but rather what the question is.

 

[Gun Nut]

Another word on "military style" weapons...
It's all in the look. The military has done extensive research in the areas of Weapon Effect and Weapon Pull.. psychological examinations on the effects of the appearance of a weapon, the role the weapon plays in the battlefield and how the weapon itself influences it's wielder.... it is well known that how a gun looks and feels makes a difference on how people behave on either side of the barrel.
a .223 coming out of an 18 inch barrel is the only balistally significant piece of information. However, what that platform looks like and how it feels to wield changes the dynamic of how many rounds may be fired, or if it is fired at all, in any given situation. That is simply a proven fact by the most invested entities in that type of research - our military.

So, while it is true that a .223 is a .223 and a 7.62 is a 7.62... the weapon that screams "badass motherfucker!" has a different effect on those using it than a balistally equivalent weapon that screams "gonna bag me an elk!"

So why is the AK and AR so popular.. two reasons... they scream "badass motherfucker" in a way that appeals to many... and they are both really an excellently made wepaons platform that none other comes close to... if you have ever fired a variety of rifles, you would know exactly what I mean... It's like every rifle out there is somewhere between a Kia or a Honda.. from pretty bad to not at all bad car. But the ARs and AKs stand out as Ferraris and Teslas.. in terms of relative performance, feel, handling, and technology.
That's why they are popular. They're damn good weapon platforms that say "I'm a badass motherfucker".. and unfortunately, it can be argued that the LOOK of it that is screaming badass motherfucker IS the problem.

 

[Gun Nut]

I’m so pro-gun it ain’t funny, so nothing I say should be construed as arguing against gun rights, yet it’s still interesting to be aware of the statistics that pertain to an issue at hand. That said, consider the following:

Let’s say as a politician that your immediate concern is not that of homicides in general but rather mass shootings specifically—despite variance in casualty rates. What are the statistics that answers the question of a mass murderers weapon of choice?

In other words, focus not on all homicides but rather the kind that gets media coverage and heated demands for action. I’m talking specifically about mass shootings. How many have there been? What kinds of guns were used? How many got shot? How many shot and killed? What were the guns?

None of this is to lay a foundation for banning anything, but the relevant statistics is highly dependent not on what is more important—but rather what the question is.

So I was just posting about (other things and) how the AR and AK platforms are simply the "best"... read my previous post if you want...
But concerning your question on "what do school shooters use"? They use what is popular, and therefore readily available.

If we were to do a study on the Operating Systems used by malicious computer hackers, one may find that Red Hat Linux is the culprit* in most cybercrime... should Linux be regulated or banned, or something, but not Windows or Suse linux because of those statistics?

Sorry.. is Linux the culprit or is the hacker the culprit? You just let that go right by, didn't you?

 

[fast]

I’m so pro-gun it ain’t funny, so nothing I say should be construed as arguing against gun rights, yet it’s still interesting to be aware of the statistics that pertain to an issue at hand. That said, consider the following:

Let’s say as a politician that your immediate concern is not that of homicides in general but rather mass shootings specifically—despite variance in casualty rates. What are the statistics that answers the question of a mass murderers weapon of choice?

In other words, focus not on all homicides but rather the kind that gets media coverage and heated demands for action. I’m talking specifically about mass shootings. How many have there been? What kinds of guns were used? How many got shot? How many shot and killed? What were the guns?

None of this is to lay a foundation for banning anything, but the relevant statistics is highly dependent not on what is more important—but rather what the question is.

So I was just posting about (other things and) how the AR and AK platforms are simply the "best"... read my previous post if you want...
But concerning your question on "what do school shooters use"? They use what is popular, and therefore readily available.

If we were to do a study on the Operating Systems used by malicious computer hackers, one may find that Red Hat Linux is the culprit* in most cybercrime... should Linux be regulated or banned, or something, but not Windows or Suse linux because of those statistics?

Sorry.. is Linux the culprit or is the hacker the culprit? You just let that go right by, didn't you?

No, no, no, it didn’t go by at all! And you’re right and I agree. My curiosity is separate and apart. It wouldn’t make a difference if every school shooting involved an AR-15. Reducing the preferred weapon of choice (if it is) from the pot of pickin’s leaves no man hungry—they’ll find another gun to shoot with and another food to eat. I’m with ya buddy.

 

[Derec]

And almost all the rifles that use the 556 NATO are military style weapons.

5.56x45mm NATO is based on 223 Remington and thus they are almost the same. Many non-military looking rifles shoot those.

 

[Derec]

The gun was designed to be used as a military grade weapon. The man who designed the gun referred to it as a military grade weapon. And, I've heard quite a few military officers recently agree that the AR-15 is a military grade weapon.

Of course it is designed to be a military weapon. But civilian versions are different than the military version in that they do not support continuous and burst fire modes. The civilian versions are the essentially the same in capabilities as non-military looking semi-auto civilian rifles.

So, who's the dumb ass now?

Still Sheila Jackson Lee. Remember, she confused a 6.5lbs rifle with a heavy machine gun firing much bigger bullets such as Ma Deuce.

“After many conversations with him, we feel his intent was that he designed it as a military rifle,” Stoner’s family explained, saying that their father wanted to make the “most efficient and superior rifle possible for the military.”

And the military still uses it, except they call it the M-16. The civilian version is still called AR-15 and is different from the military rifle.

 

[ZiprHead]

And almost all the rifles that use the 556 NATO are military style weapons.

5.56x45mm NATO is based on 223 Remington and thus they are almost the same. Many non-military looking rifles shoot those.

But they are not the same. Using the 556 Nato in a gun designed for the 223 Remington is asking for trouble.

The significant difference between the .223 Rem and 5.56 NATO lies in the rifles, rather than the cartridges themselves. Both the .223 and 5.56 rounds will chamber in rifles designed for either cartridge, but the critical component, leade, will be different in each rifle.

The leade is the area of the barrel in front of the chamber prior to where the rifling begins. This is where the loaded bullet is located when a cartridge is chambered. The leade is frequently called the “throat.”

On a .223 Remington spec rifle, the leade will be 0.085”. This is the standard described by the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers’ Institute, Inc. (SAAMI). The leade in a 5.56 NATO spec rifle is 0.162”, or almost double the leade of the .223 rifle.

A shorter leade in a SAAMI spec rifle creates a situation where the bullet in a 5.56 NATO round, when chambered, can contact the rifling prior to being fired. By having contact with the rifling prematurely (at the moment of firing), chamber pressure can be dramatically increased, creating the danger of a ruptured case or other cartridge/gun failure.

Conversely...

The reverse situation, a .223 Rem round in a 5.56 NATO gun, isn’t dangerous. The leade is longer, so a slight loss in velocity and accuracy may be experienced, but there is not a danger of increased pressures and subsequent catastrophic failure.

How serious is the danger of firing 5.56 ammo in .223 guns? Dangerous enough that the SAAMI lists 5.56 military ammo as being not for use in .223 firearms in the technical data sheet titled “Unsafe Firearm-Ammunition Combinations.”

https://bearingarms.com/bob-o/2011/02/15/223-remington-vs-556-nato-what-you-dont-know-could-hurt-you/

 

[Gun Nut]

And almost all the rifles that use the 556 NATO are military style weapons.

5.56x45mm NATO is based on 223 Remington and thus they are almost the same. Many non-military looking rifles shoot those.

The difference between ammunition is a complicated subject... not on a technical level... but why the military uses this or that versus what has existed in the past, etc...
The military publishes requirements for a weapon platform... this includes the ammo. Different manufacturers attempt to meet the requirements and bid on the contract to supply it. The military looks at requirements for ammo and for the weapon platform separately. The ammo has its specifications, the ballistics have their specs, and the platform has its own... So, the result is that it gets complicated... and different ammunition packages that are only very slightly different from each other come into existence.

While the 5.56 / .223 are nearly identical, and most weapons that fire one will fire the other, and most of those are military-style... it is still also nearly identical to the .308 (three-oh-eight), and not to be confused with the 30-08 (thirty-ought-eight), which is for larger game hunting rifles.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Who cares if they mix them up. Neither should be in the hands of random civilians. I would totally be a gun grabber if I was a US politician. I'd even ban hand guns except for with very very strict screening.

 

[Gun Nut]

Who cares if they mix them up. Neither should be in the hands of random civilians.

Some people care... the poster that pointed out that certain ammo types are almost exclusively used with "military-style" weapons seems to care.
My point was only that the ammo types OF COURSE are sometimes tied to only military weapons, becaus ejust like the weapon, the ammo was designed just for it.
Nearly identical ammo is available for all kinds of nearly identical (civilian) weapons.
So if .223 "shouldn't be in the hands of civilians", then how can .308??? They are nearly identical... and .308 has been around since, what? 1950?

Edited to add: Oh crap the 308 is nearly identical to the 762 (what the AK fires), not the 562 (what the AR fires)... I got that backwards, but the point is the same... see what I mean about it being a little complicated.. heh.