The Gun that Divides a Nation

[southernhybrid]

Ironically, the day that the article was released that I was planning on posting some time today, turned out to be the same day that a person killed 6 people with an assault weapon.

I thought this topic could use it's own discussion since, while most murders aren't the result of these weapons, many or most mass shootings that kill high numbers of people are done with assault weapons. The article which I'm gifting, contains a list of mass shootings committed with AR-15s and the number of victims resulting in these horrible crimes. Not only that, but those who support these guns don't usually think of the emotional damage that fear is having on our society, especially among teens and young adults who have developed anxiety disorders, sometimes out of fear of being the victim of gun violence. There was another article about such fears in the NYTimes, ( I think ) and if I can find the time, I'll add that one to this thread.

Perhaps this topic has been discussed to death, but considering how much attention it's getting and how political it's becoming, I thought maybe we could try again. Please read the article or at least scan it, if you're going to reply. It has a lot of information in it.

https://wapo.st/42XmMNV

The AR-15 wasn’t supposed to be a bestseller.

The rugged, powerful weapon was originally designed as a soldiers’ rifle in the late 1950s. “An outstanding weapon with phenomenal lethality,” an internal Pentagon report raved. It soon became standard issue for U.S. troops in the Vietnam War, where the weapon earned a new name: the M16.

But few gunmakers saw a semiautomatic version of the rifle — with its shrouded barrel, pistol grip and jutting ammunition magazine — as a product for ordinary people. It didn’t seem suited for hunting. It seemed like overkill for home defense. Gun executives doubted many buyers would want to spend their money on one.

The industry’s biggest trade shows banished the AR-15 to the back. The National Rifle Association and other industry allies were focused on promoting traditional rifles and handguns. Most gun owners also shunned the AR-15, dismissing it as a “black rifle” that broke from the typical wood-stocked long guns that were popular at the time.

“We’d have NRA members walk by our booth and give us the finger,” said Randy Luth, the founder of gunmaker DPMS, one of the earliest companies to market AR-15s.

Today, the AR-15 is the best-selling rifle in the United States, industry figures indicate. 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.

Almost every major gunmaker now produces its own version of the weapon. The modern AR-15 dominates the walls and websites of gun dealers.

It's an interesting article that discusses the origin of the AR-15, and how it became the symbol that it is today. Is it hopeless, or can anything be done to change things.? I keep picturing some of the female idiots in Congress who pose with AR-15s and wonder if they had any influence on some of these shooters.

 

[Tigers!]

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.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I remember a conversation with a former workmate about owning firearms. He owned an arsenal but wanted more. He wanted grenades and claymore mines, machine guns, rockets, etc. He wanted everything but couldn't have them because of laws. I think that answers the question of why there are so many out there. If M60 machine guns and Quad 50 caliber machine guns were made available for public purchase today there would be a run on them. The price wouldn't matter. If mortars and grenades were legal they would sell off the shelf too.

The mentality is a mix of fear, aggression, mistrust, pride, paranoia, doomsdayism and bragging rights. I would say paranoia and aggression are at the top of the list.

 

[Patooka]

As the U.S. military was sent to fight in Afghanistan and Iraq, gunmakers looked to play off the conflict-zone images of soldiers in tactical gear holding M16 and M4 carbine rifles. The next best thing for civilians was buying an AR-15. “There has never been a better accidental advertising campaign in history,” said Doug Painter, a former president of the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), a firearms industry lobbying group.

Pretty much. It's all about the cosplay. So don't worry, the problem is going to fix itself. The US military is replacing its M-16/M-4s with M-5/MCX Spears. A rifle that can consistently and accurately penetrate modern day body armour at a range of 700 metres. I predict in a couple of years there's going to be a run on cheap knockoffs of the thing that fires 6.5 Creedmore and no one will want the AR-15 anymore.

So relax. The AR-15 will go away and will no longer be a problem .

 

[Elixir]

The MCX Spears was put into the civilian market back in January 2022.

 

[Patooka]

The MCX Spears was put into the civilian market back in January 2022.

At the moment it's obscenely expensive. Cheap generics are going to come through when CoD games and movies displaying 11-Bravos armed with it start to come out.

And yes I'm being deliberately jingoistic because when you get right down to it, it's renaissance fair cosplay for people who still think Steven Seagal is someone worth emulating. And in a couple of years time, they are going to want to play dress up with something more powerful than Stoner's creation.

 

[Derec]

in a couple of years time, they are going to want to play dress up with something more powerful than Stoner's creation.

I always wanted one of those F/A18s like Maverick flies.


Or even better, a thrust vectoring Gen 5 that can turn on a dime.

 

[Shadowy Man]

in a couple of years time, they are going to want to play dress up with something more powerful than Stoner's creation.

I always wanted one of those F/A18s like Maverick flies.


Or even better, a thrust vectoring Gen 5s that can turn on a dime.

You have no constitutional right to that plane. Just the weapons it carries.

 

[bilby]

in a couple of years time, they are going to want to play dress up with something more powerful than Stoner's creation.

I always wanted one of those F/A18s like Maverick flies.


Or even better, a thrust vectoring Gen 5s that can turn on a dime.

You have no constitutional right to that plane. Just the weapons it carries.

On the contrary, a warplane is an essential requirement to carry many of its arms, and as such the right to it is protected under the 2nd amendment, which states:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

You have a right to keep firearms, and also a right to bear them - so the government cannot ban holsters, shoulder-straps, or F/A18s from private ownership.

 

[JohnG]

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

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

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.

 

[Shadowy Man]

in a couple of years time, they are going to want to play dress up with something more powerful than Stoner's creation.

I always wanted one of those F/A18s like Maverick flies.


Or even better, a thrust vectoring Gen 5s that can turn on a dime.

You have no constitutional right to that plane. Just the weapons it carries.

On the contrary, a warplane is an essential requirement to carry many of its arms, and as such the right to it is protected under the 2nd amendment, which states:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

You have a right to keep firearms, and also a right to bear them - so the government cannot ban holsters, shoulder-straps, or F/A18s from private ownership.

But only if it is armed. Strip all the weapons off of it and you have no right to own it anymore. Maybe you can license and register it because there’s no right to infringe in anymore so it can be Regulated.

Best to keep it loaded up with weapons then your right to it shall not be infringed!

 

[Swammerdami]

When The Decline and Fall of American Society is written later this century, rampant gun ownership will be a metaphor for the mass insanity.

I always wanted one of those F/A18s like Maverick flies.
. . .
Or even better, a thrust vectoring Gen 5s that can turn on a dime.

You have no constitutional right to that plane. Just the weapons it carries.

Isn't that like saying we have no constitutional right to an AR-15, just to the bullets it uses?

 

[Shadowy Man]

When The Decline and Fall of American Society is written later this century, rampant gun ownership will be a metaphor for the mass insanity.

I always wanted one of those F/A18s like Maverick flies.
. . .
Or even better, a thrust vectoring Gen 5s that can turn on a dime.

You have no constitutional right to that plane. Just the weapons it carries.

Isn't that like saying we have no constitutional right to an AR-15, just to the bullets it uses?

No. Because a gun without bullets is basically a hammer while an airplane without missiles can still be valid transportion. Maybe not the most efficient.

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.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I find the argument of beholding the 2nd Amendment like it were written by Christ as the most ridiculous argument there can be. If the Founding Fathers saw the number of people being killed today because of firearms, I'm think Madison wouldn't be saying "but the 2nd Amendment...". The Bill of Rights was meant to ensure the government doesn't abuse its authority over the people. It is cute that people think their $25,000 firearm arsenal protects them against our standing $800+ billion a year military, but the truth is, the 2nd Amendment protects America from tyranny much less than the 1st.

It is getting people killed and it isn't protecting all too many. In fact, one actual argument is that guns protect other people with guns. I mean... that is a defense actually used to justify their existence.

And we can't even address weapons generally used for mass shootings. And ultimately because a bunch of people are paranoid fools suffering some incredible delusions of thinking they could put up a fight against the US military.

 

[Gun Nut]

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.

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"

 

[Gun Nut]

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.

more like if 8% of the population ran marathons, but 88% owned sneakers.

 

[Gun Nut]

in a couple of years time, they are going to want to play dress up with something more powerful than Stoner's creation.

I always wanted one of those F/A18s like Maverick flies.


Or even better, a thrust vectoring Gen 5s that can turn on a dime.

You have no constitutional right to that plane. Just the weapons it carries.

On the contrary, a warplane is an essential requirement to carry many of its arms, and as such the right to it is protected under the 2nd amendment, which states:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

You have a right to keep firearms, and also a right to bear them - so the government cannot ban holsters, shoulder-straps, or F/A18s from private ownership.

But only if it is armed. Strip all the weapons off of it and you have no right to own it anymore. Maybe you can license and register it because there’s no right to infringe in anymore so it can be Regulated.

Best to keep it loaded up with weapons then your right to it shall not be infringed!

Just FYI, you can own a military fighter.... it will be stripped of all avionics and weapon hardpoints for national security reasons - think of that as a redaction... but for around 30 million you can definitely own one*
Why you wouldn't spend half as much for twice the jet in the civilian market, I wouldn't know.

* Pepsi Co. found this out the hard way
see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_v._Pepsico,_Inc.
and

 

[southernhybrid]

WaPo is doing a number of articles on the AR-15 this week, and since I have quite a few articles left to gift, I'll gift again. The next one gives some very detailed information about how a weapon like the AR-15 damages the body.

https://wapo.st/3Kf3I6h

The AR-15 fires bullets at such a high velocity — often in a barrage of 30 or even 100 in rapid succession — that it can eviscerate multiple people in seconds. A single bullet lands with a shock wave intense enough to blow apart a skull and demolish vital organs. The impact is even more acute on the compact body of a small child.

“It literally can pulverize bones, it can shatter your liver and it can provide this blast effect,” said Joseph Sakran, a gunshot survivor who advocates for gun violence prevention and a trauma surgeon at Johns Hopkins Hospital.

During surgery on people shot with high-velocity rounds, he said, body tissue “literally just crumbled into your hands.”

The carnage is rarely visible to the public. Crime scene photos are considered too gruesome to publish and often kept confidential. News accounts rely on antiseptic descriptions from law enforcement officials and medical examiners who, in some cases, have said remains were so unrecognizable that they could be identified only through DNA samples.

As Sakran put it: “We often sanitize what is happening.”

I've read that those who love to target shoot love these weapons, but at what cost to society should we celebrate the fun of target shooting. Seems kind of sick to me that we have about 20 million of these weapons floating around in the. US.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Just FYI, you can own a military fighter.... it will be stripped of all avionics and weapon hardpoints for national security reasons - think of that as a redaction... but for around 30 million you can definitely own one*
Why you wouldn't spend half as much for twice the jet in the civilian market, I wouldn't know.

* Pepsi Co. found this out the hard way
see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_v._Pepsico,_Inc.
and

No they didn't. The court found in their favor, that it was obviously a joke. I remember seeing the ad as a teen, it clearly was a joke then as it is today. Pepsi modified the ad to make it loophole proof.