Many people may not know this about the AR15.

[shockey80]

The AR15 is the twin of the M16. I am an expert with the M16. I had special training in the Army.

The AR15, like the M16 fires a small bullet. It is fired at high velocity. When that small bullet strikes the body it is designed to cause massive damage. The bullet begins to tumble, it can change direction , it can break apart and scatter. It is possible, if you are shot in the shoulder the bullet could out your neck or some other part of your body. That small bullet packs a big punch.

The AR15 is not designed for hunting. It is designed to tear a human body to pieces. They must be banned.

[underpants]

1. Me too

BRM Basic Rifle Marksmanship

I got to throw 2 live grenades too

You are right. Tumbling rounds are specifically made to rip apart your organs.

[Aristus]

2. I agree 100%.

I served in the Army, too. I was a tanker, so my primary sidearm was the Beretta 9mm. But like every other soldier, I trained with the M16A1. And every tank was assigned an M16A2. So I know the weapon pretty well. I'm pretty sure that even 25 years after I ETS'd, I could take it apart and put it back together blindfolded.

But even here on DU, I run into smug, self-satisfied gun-nuts who say things like: "Well you know, the AR-15 and the M16 are nothing alike. It's all just a bunch of alarmism."

Maybe together, we veterans can shine a little light into the dark morass of ignorance that is the mass-murder cult of gun-enthusiasts.

[OhNo-Really]

68. Easily customized to become automat machine gun-like too

You have to understand a few of the AR-15's popular features:

1. Soft kick, babies can fire them.

2. Easily custom fit with bumps

3. Converted to be FULLY AUTOMATIC machine guns

https://m.

[better]

74. Two things worth noting however

First, any semi-automatic weapon that produces sufficient recoil energy can be bump-fired, with zero modification. Hold trigger finger still, pull weapon into it. That's literally all it takes. Second, and far more important, bump fire stocks increase the rate of fire to something on the order of 10 rounds a second. Limit the weapon capacity to 5 or 10 rounds and they become rather worse than useless, since you have to reload literally every second.

[OhNo-Really]

101. One thing worth noting, it took 30 seconds to find 30-60 BULLET clips for AR-15 online

[better]

189. Yes, I know.

I'm saying we should ban those.

[yagotme]

91. Well, a few disagreements:

(1). "Babies". An exaggeration, I know. Not precise.
(2). Agree. But shoestring works also, and is cheaper/easier to get. Also, holding trigger finger out, stiffly.
(3). Converted to "fully automatic". Yes, they can be. And anyone caught doing so, without ATF approval/stamp, faces fines and
imprisonment.

[OhNo-Really]

96. I consider 1-1/2 & 2 yr olds babies

Is this really legal? Oh no, really?

https://m.

Not to be out done by this 1-1/2 year old shooting AR-15

https://m.

When they grow up a little, dad can add the BUMP stock

12 year old shooting AR-15 BUMP

https://m.

AND.....if the guns are not inappropriate enough, the bullets tumble inside the body, ripping all in its path to shreds.

AS FOR FINES? Explain the video

[yagotme]

172. You didn't read my post correctly.

Or, you don't understand. More gunsplainin', so here you go:

I stated that converting a rifle to FULLY AUTOMATIC would result in fines, etc. Bump stocks are not fully automatic. The shooter manipulates the trigger every round. Full auto doesn't work like that. One pull, many shots. One pull, one shot, for semi. The bump stock just allows you to pull the trigger very quickly. A technical difference, yes, but tech is tech.

And "babies" brings up the image of a newborn-1 yr old child that cannot walk or converse. I see toddlers in your top 2 videos, and the youngest one isn't really in "control" of the rifle.

Better?

[OhNo-Really]

177. Thank you. Muddled mind overcome by sadness and anger and wtfery

Feels like we have armed brown shirts waiting on the sidelines with machine guns and 100 round clips that shoot bullets that travel inside our bodies tearing ourmorgans and tissue to shreds. Not the typical hole in xit wound out shot.

How many AR-15 would it take to subdue a small town? How much ammo?

[SergeStorms]

175. Wonderful. "Death Bunnies" for the.....

seriously depraved gun nut who can now equate automatic weapons fire with sexual gratification.


What a great fucking country we live in.

[TheMastersNemesis]

3. Tumbling Bullet Correct. Saw Two Dead VC Where Exit Wound Far From Entry Wound.

[TheMastersNemesis]

4. AR-15 Actually Hyped Up M-16 That Can Have Bigger Magazine.

[samir.g]

36. 15 holds more bullets than 16?

I did not know that. Thanks!

[sarisataka]

38. The magazines are interchangeable

So that claim is false

[OhNo-Really]

103. SEE THIS PIC: 30-60 BULLET clips available online, under $20 each

Took all of 30 seconds to search and find cheap clips for mass destruction.

Each bullet is designed to rip through the body, shredding all organs and tissue before stopping its trip.

One Vet described how his bullet entered his thigh, destroyed his hip, and traveled through his right buttocks before lodging in his left buttocks. ONE BULLET.

Surgeons are describing the damage from ONE BULLET that "smashed the young student's organ like a sledgehammer smashed watermelon."

Kids are being taught to use these weapons. There are natioanl 3-Gun competitions for kids. The AR-15 is one of the guns.

THIS NRA INSANITY HAS TO END. Did you hear them this morning spouting their hateful messages this morning? I'll drop vids here in a minute. Ms. Dana Loesch was mentored by Breitbart and is a dangerous voice inciting the rascist base, imo.

Liberals are no less hated by these people thans to decades of librul bashing by the deplorable demons like Coulter, Rush, Hannety, Beck, Jones, Malkin, Fox News, Breitbart, 100s of right wing radio stations.

"We are the superior product" Loesch reassures her audience. Meaning "we are white, armed, and not liberals" we can assume.

https://m.

[AtheistCrusader]

123. Keep looking. There are 120 round drums.

Still doesn't validate your claim.

[A HERETIC I AM]

145. We have the superior product

LMAO....yeah, sure lady

It’s called “Go fuck yourself, I got mine and you can eat shit and die, for all I care”

Yup. Pretty superior

[OhNo-Really]

165. Seriously bad line, aimed at the white supremist/racists imo

NRE CAlls Trump a Superior Product....hey, a headline. can't make this Onion quality

stuff up

[sarisataka]

40. No it is not

The magazines are interchangeable

[cab67]

55. my understanding

is that the AR-15 can use several different magazines, some of which are higher capacity than those typically used for an M-16. Is this incorrect? I'd like to know if it is.

[sarisataka]

75. When the M-16 came out

20 round magazines were standard. Eventually 30 magazines became standard military issue.

The are magazines available ranging from 5, for hunters, to 100, for lunatics. All of them will work in AR 15 or M 16 rifles

[jimmil]

99. In Vietnam...

the M-16s had 20 round clips because at that time the 30 round banana clips had a tendency to bind and the spring could not provide tension to position a new round. Not a happy ending in combat. I have not fired an M-16 in 40 years but I really didn't think a lot of them then.

[AtheistCrusader]

125. The AR-15 and the M-16 are physically identical in every way that matters to feeding a mag into

the mag well, and releasing it. They are 100% compatible/identical, in that 'part' of the weapon. There is, in fact, no way for the 'rifle' to 'know' how long anything in the mag well is. You could, in theory, plug in a mag with an infinitely large hopper into either rifle.

The 100 round beta-C mag works in both.

[aikoaiko]

108. What? No.

Both the AR15 and M16 can take identical magazines. The military may not distribute certain magazines, but that's a different issue.

[Yonnie3]

5. I am told that there are similar guns,

in caliber, velocity and rate of fire that don't look like the AR15. We must be aware of this and push for a ban on all such weapons. It is not the scary look that kills and maims.

[getagrip_already]

24. there are ak lookalikes as well as some m14 lookalikes I believe as well

[Yonnie3]

31. Thank you.

AK15 lookalikes have that scary look.

A quick look at the M14 shows it had that less threatening look I was told about. I will look at the specifications and look for others with similar.

If anyone had told me I'd be studying gun specifications now a few years back, I would have been less than polite. There is so much misinformation out there and much good too. Sorting it is the issue.

[yagotme]

93. Knowledge is power. nt

[njcpa1978]

199. M14 vs 16

The M14 used the larger NATO round, and did less damage as it would pass right through a person. Not good, but because of its mass it wasn't easily deflected. The .223 caliber M16 round is light enough to bounce around inside you. I fired both in the Marine Corps and the 16 was really designed for jungle warfare, close range and lots of firepower. It could fire 13 rounds a second in full automatic mode. Just what we need on the streets.

[ADX]

6. From the tenor of your post...

...perhaps it's the .223/5.56 round that should be banned rather than the AR itself because there are numerous other firearms which are capable of firing the exact same cartridge at the same rate of fire.

[lastlib]

52. Let's cover all the bases here--ban 'em both.

People's lives Matter. F&ck the gun-humpers!

[ExciteBike66]

62. I don't think anyone who wants an AR-15 ban is against banning other similar weapons...

Just think of "AR-15" as shorthand for "rifles that can easily be fired quickly and can do a lot of damage".

[samir.g]

64. Ban them all

[TheMastersNemesis]

7. I Carried My Captain's CAR15 In Nam. It Was About 18" Long With Expandable Stock.

Plus it was fully automatic as needed.

[uponit7771]

8. +1, that's right !!! The AR-15 was designed to kill a lot of people quickly !!!

[mitch96]

86. Exactly... The gun is a force multiplier.

One insane person with a knife can do damage. An insane person with an easy firing gun with a 30 round magazine can do a lot of damage in the same amount of time...
These things are nutz....

m

[Ryano42]

9. Absolutely...I think the destructive power needs to be demonstrated

using ballistics gel or carcasses. This needs to be seared into people's minds!

And like any Full Metal Jacket round it can do horrendous damage after it leaves it's intended target or misses it.

Through walls, wood or metal frames, doors and across into other buildings.

It's literally the worst round for DEFENSE. It was designed to KILL.

[exboyfil]

13. That seems to contradict the earlier post about

the round fragmenting. Aren't steel jacketed required by Hague Convention?

Don't know much about these weapons and ammo. Just asking the question.

In a sense all ammo is designed to kill. That is the point. The biggest problem with these weapons is the ability to fire off a large number of rounds before reloading, and to be able to quickly reload. Rate of fire is also an issue. I personally would like to see all cartridge fed semiautomatic weapons (rifles and handguns) banned in the U.S. Also no more than six rounds for manually loaded weapons. Limiting commerce on large capacity magazines would be a start.

If you watch a video of someone firing off 100 rounds in less than two minutes you get an appreciation of how dangerous these weapons are.

[Ryano42]

30. Absolutley correct...it's a combination of velocity bullet design and other factors...

capacity/rate of fire is the reason.

I think going back to the Assault Weapons Ban is an good IMMEDIATE FIRST STEP.

Along with ending this delusion that ownership is a right! Do I have a right to drive a car??? Fly an airplane???

I was handed down my fathers state of the art assault weapon, circa 1936; the M1 Garand. No one could perform a mass shooting with that...8 rounds and even a skilled marksman would take a long time to reload.

There is no reason anyone except the military/police should have more than 5 rounds at a time ever, the traditional hunting rifle amount.

[dixiegrrrrl]

92. any ban has to be carreful with wording.

The NRA cleverly renamed the AR15 and similar weapons "sport hunting rifles." Magically neutered all conversation about Assault Weapons.

Someone here on DU said we need to call them "School Shooter guns".

Language is important.

[yagotme]

94. M-1 reloading:

6-10 seconds, depending on how you're carrying your ammo. I do WW2 reenactments, and with practice, it doesn't take long. And the '06 round beats the crap out of the .223/5.56 round for damage/lethality.

[Ryano42]

97. Agreed. The .30-06 is a monster...accurate to over 1000 yards...

So glad mine has only been unleashed against paper or a tin can...

But the sheer rate of fire from an AR-15 with drum magazines and a deranged triggerman...

It's like an entire WWII infantry squad laying down fire. Those who think one teacher with a pistol could counter that...insane.

And if that teacher leveled the same fire back with their own AR...scores dead...hundreds?

These dRumpian solutions talked about...pathetic and deadly. Only way to stop is to do everything to PREVENT.

[SonofDonald]

77. Not "Cartridge Fed" they are magazine fed

Cartridge is the bullet the magazine is what holds the bullets and feeds them into the breach.

There are many designs of magazines for the AR-15-M16 including 20, 30 and larger capacity types, as for rate of fire on a semi-automatic weapon it's as fast as you can pull the trigger unless you use a bump stock or other type of trigger manipulator.

Somebody mentioned the M-14 although the military type uses a larger round the Ruger Mini-14 uses the .223 round like the AR-15/M-16, with the design of the M-14 military weapon.

I've hunted with a Mini-14 for years but no longer hunt, I don't want to kill anything ever again, btw it uses the same magazine as the AR-15/M-16.

And that's part of the big problem, there are literally hundreds of thousands of these magazines out there already, I'd be so happy if they quit making and selling killing machines today but getting them off the street where they can never be used to kill another human will not be easy no matter what laws are passed.

It's already gone way too far for too long, I don't know what the answer is but at least it sounds like the nra may have accepted money from Russia to help the dotard and that would hopefully take them down.

The nra needs to be put in the dustbin of history.

[exboyfil]

82. Sorry for the mistake

I agree I should have said magazine.

The advantage of making commerce illegal on high capacity magazines is that the casual shooter would be somewhat deterred. You are right that there is probably no short term solution, but both this shooter and the Las Vegas shooter were recent purchasers of their guns and magazines.

[AtheistCrusader]

132. Pretty much everything you just said is wrong.

5.56 FMJ Ball can go through the thin side of a 2x4, but not the edge-on width.

It was not designed to kill. It was designed to maim/disable. Kill an enemy soldier, you take one soldier out of the fight. Wound an enemy soldier, you take out three (one injured, two to carry him or her)

ANY long gun will go through a residential door. Even a .22LR.


FMJ ball is legal for use by soldiers by international conventions for completely opposite reasons you specify. Hollow-point would kill better. The Army is prohibited by international law from using it in combat.

It's actually a pretty good defensive weapon. Short. Light. Doesn't kick much. Doesn't over-penetrate nearly as much as you indicate. My 110 year old bolt action rifle would kick the AR's ass up one side of the street and down the other in a penetration test.

Please stop legend-making the AR. It's part of the reason these shithead shooting spree assholes are so attracted to it.

[Ryano42]

135. I refuse to argue with you...

I've had my amount of trigger time and have hand loaded since my competition days in my teens. The -06, 7.62MM NATO or 7.62 X 39 would be more "effective"...

The issue is not the ammo specifics; it's the mind behind the trigger, why and how they got the trigger to pull and the devastation that can be wrought by the amount of ammo carried and rates it is expended.

As I said in another post...PREVENTION.

[AtheistCrusader]

136. You're misremembering. My 30-06 WILL go through my exterior wall and penetrate the neighbors

house if I use it 'defensively'. Are you fucking kidding me.

Over-penetrating through the neighbors house does not make a more effective defensive weapon. It makes a completely unusable defensive weapon, unless you have ZERO regard for the survival of innocent bystanders.

[Ryano42]

139. That's why it's locked up!

I would NEVER fire my Garand in such a situation!

[AtheistCrusader]

141. Ok. Maybe we're not disagreeing then?

I'm not sure now.

[Ryano42]

143. Not in the slightest sir...

Let me get you a

(I think rock salt would work much better or light bird shot!)

[AtheistCrusader]

144. You had me at what appears to be a glass of guinness.

[Ryano42]

148. THIS is why DU is so amazing...talking it out

Don't post much but I've been here for 14 years...

[SHRED]

10. Ban weapons of war

Regulate the hell out of handguns and hunting rifles.

This should be our position as Democrats.

[shanny]

11. agree 100% nt

[Mr. Ected]

12. It should be common sense

And is to everyone else in the world except the nutbags in the USA who cling onto a poorly-crafted constitutional amendment as their raison d'etre.

[Mr. Ected]

171. Please illuminate me.

In what manner is the First Amendment poorly crafted? I've never heard it assailed in that way.

[Clarity2]

45. Damn straight

Ban the assault weapons. Only allow rifles and shotguns without any alterations, and if you need a hand gun, you have to show some proof there is a reason for protection - what are they so worried about if they are “law abiding citizens”?

[SHRED]

46. No semi automatics.

[Clarity2]

106. I know nothing about guns

So Im assuming thats a rifle or shotgun...

[yagotme]

154. Semi automatic refers to the action style.

Rifle, pistol, shotgun. When the round is fired, recoil forces and/or expanding gasses extract the fired case, recock the action, and feed and chamber a new round. The trigger is then ready to be reset and pulled again. Another term is "self-loader".

[Marengo]

138. What is your definition of a weapon of war?

[SHRED]

146. Anything not a hand gun or hunting rifle

I'm not gonna tolerate "gun-splaining" so I hope we don't go there.

[yagotme]

155. So, my Colt 1911A1, made in 1944, is safe??? n/t

[Marengo]

159. The Pistol, Semiautomatic, 9mm, M9 is not a weapon of war?

[Calculating]

14. This is silly

The mini 14, AK variants, and a variety of other rifles fire the 223 round. Shall they all he banned? How about my m1a which fires 30 rounds of 7.62x51? Those have twice the kinetic energy of an ar15 round. Do we ban those?

[mac56]

20. Gun nerds.

Even though they have the knowledge necessary to move us toward an informed solution, all they want to do is strut that knowledge around and make the rest of us feel dumb.

You know what? I have more respect for REAL nerds.

[Calculating]

25. You want an informed solution?

Universal background checks, no gun ownership of any kind below the age of 21, and better follow through on tips by the police and fbi.

[SlimJimmy]

47. Bingo. Best reply in this thread.

[SHRED]

49. Here's a better solution

Ban weapons of war, no semi-automatics, and then regulate the shit out of limited capacity handguns and hunting rifles.

This isn't rocket science folks.

#GunReformNow
#GunControlNow

[cab67]

61. a complete ban on semiautomatics would not be workable.

This isn't a matter of preference on my part - it's reality. The majority of handguns sold on the market are semiautomatic. So are many hunting rifles.

Fully automatic weapons should certainly be prohibited - and, so far as I know, they already are.

Certain kinds of semiautomatic weapons should be restricted (e.g. rifles with high-capacity magazines). So should devices that increase magazine capacity beyond a certain level. Requiring gun owners to carry liability insurance, and scaling the insurance based on the type of firearm, would be a better solution IMHO.

[SHRED]

71. My starting point is where I'd start in the discussion

Legitimate hunters should want these solutions to protect their sport. Otherwise the backlash coming could be a lot worse.

[yagotme]

95. The problem I see with getting "legitimate hunters" on board,

is that these rifles ARE used for hunting. Not everyone hunts deer. And I have seen calls for banning "sniper" rifles. What do you think "legitimate hunters" use? Bolt action, scoped rifles, aka "sniper rifles".

[samir.g]

109. Hunting is not a right.

They'll get over it.

[yagotme]

113. That's a different position that I'm used to hearing.

Usually the argument is "You don't need XYZ to hunt."

Now, I guess it's all on the table, huh? Hunting guns, too? After all, it's not a "right", not listed in the 2d amendment or anything, like I've been told. You might want to rethink that strategy, for the reason I gave in the post above.

[samir.g]

114. It's a hobby. An obsolete one that was useful 100 years ago.

[yagotme]

116. Again, the arguments for banning XYZ were that they weren't

suitable for hunting. Now, you want to eradicate that. You want the whole, entire, gun community to get off their butts and go to the polls? Because that's how you do it.

[samir.g]

117. fine, leave them their precious bambi-killing

for now.

[yagotme]

122. "For now."

Yes, that's what they fear. Now I guess they actually do have a point when they bring up the "slippery slope". Thanks for enforcing that.

[AtheistCrusader]

147. That makes the other side not want to come to the table.

They don't trust us to craft legislation on this, or to take a step and even make sure it was the right thing before asking for more.

You're doing us a huge disservice.

[Act_of_Reparation]

196. You obviously know a lot about wildlife management.

Did you go to Upstairs Hollywood Ecology College, too?

[TwistOneUp]

134. Re: Fully automatic weapons should certainly be prohibited

They are, by the National Firearms Act of 1968. With few exceptions (collectors, sales samples), private citizens cannot own fully automatic weapons nor silencers. And this law used to be enforced - a Chicago police officer was arrested and found gulilty of making silencers and got 10yrs, even tho they only found the screens and washers used in the construction of the silencers and not the actual silencers.

Yet for some reason the ATF has "determined" that the NFA does not apply to bump stocks. They have previously applied the NFA to "auto sears", the actual component that converts semi auto to full auto, but not bump stocks. Insane!

[yagotme]

160. Bump stocks rapidly manipulate the trigger,

unlike an auto sear, which actually makes the weapon fire full auto. Many here complain about "gunsplainin", but that is what the ATF does every day. They have a set definition of what a "fully automatic" weapon is, and if it doesn't fit that definition, then it isn't full auto. By current definition, the bump stock passes the test. They have to redefine their language to fail the bump stock. That's why "words mean things." Don't hand me an apple when I ask for an orange, just 'cuz they're both round, and fruit.

[quakerboy]

184. What is workable

The only thing that is "workable" at this time is to do NOTHING.

And when the current crop of voters age out, and the ones who grew up having to drill for school shooters and hearing politicians prat about how things are just impossible to change without even trying to do anything become the main active voting block..

Then everyone loses. Thats when absolutes become real, when the idea of banning guns becomes a likelyhood, rather than just a boogeyman the RNRA made up to sell fear.

All because it was unworkable to come up with a reasonable compromise now.

[cab67]

186. I agree

But a full-on ban of semiautomatic firearms is not a reasonable compromise.

[quakerboy]

192. As unilaterally determined by you.

There are those that have determined that a ban on automatic weapons was not a reasonable compromise.

But regardless, the choice ahead of you now is whether you will be a part of the RNRA forces that would see nothing happen now, resulting in ever more blowback and a generation of people subjected to school shootings, resulting in an eventual gun ban. As has happened in a great many countries. Or whether you would care to be part of a solution that allows gun owners to remain gun owners in the future.

It seems you would see Nothing changed, with the inevitability of more dead children, and a full gun ban. This attitude seems common among those old enough they figure that by the time it actually happens, they wont be around to care anymore. It seems a shitty way to live, to me, not giving a damn about the people who come after.

[cab67]

197. This is a vapid misunderstanding of my view

Much has to change. Semiautomatic rifles that can take high-capacity magazines (e.g. the AR-15) should be banned. So should rifles designed to maximize damage per shot (again like the AR/15 and similar guns). There should be limits on the number of guns one can purchase, and gun shows should not happen. Gun owners should be required to carry insurance. ‘Castle doctrine’ laws should be repealed.

We also have to get reasonable people into office. My state legislature was about to vote on a ‘constitutional carry’ bill last week that, among other things, would have made concealed carry permits optional. The vote was cancelled because of the ‘optics’ of holding it right after the Parkland shooting, but the bill almost certainly would have passed. It’s an objectively foolish bill, and we need legislators at every level who understand that.

[brush]

133. How about adding registration of each firearm and an insurance requirment like with autos?

[AtheistCrusader]

140. We only require liability insurance on cars operated on public roads.

We could do liability insurance on guns I guess, but it does nothing when someone intentionally uses a firearm for criminal purposes.

I don't think Allstate is on the hook for liability either, if someone goes off-roading though the bike path trying to kill as many people as possible.

I'm not saying it's a dumb idea or anything, just that I don't think it scales.

[AtheistCrusader]

137. This. Step one. Day one.

I would add registration to the list, but it's a great list/start.

[krispos42]

193. So are we moving the age of major majority to 21 now?

Making parents responsible for their kids to 21, no voting until 21, etc?

[Gidney N Cloyd]

23. Yes. Yes. And yes.

[MineralMan]

27. OK, sure. Ban them all.

I'm down with that.

I earned the Expert Marksmanship ribbon in the USAF in 1965, firing the M16A1. I did that, because I was already familiar with firing rifles at targets. It was interesting to fire a military rifle. I never held one again while serving in the USAF. My job didn't require it.

The only difference between the M16A1 and the civilian AR-15 and similar weapons is selective fire. The M16 can be fired in full automatic mode.

However, that's not a very effective way to use the weapon. If your goal is killing people, the weapon is far better when fired in semi-auto mode. That gives you a better chance to actually aim at something, really.

Now, I've never tried to kill anyone, thank goodness. I've never been in such a position. I'm grateful for that. But, I'm an expert marksman. I didn't become one because the USAF taught me to be one. I can just shoot a rifle accurately, and could long before I enlisted. But, if I did have to use an M16A1 to try to kill people, I'd not use the fully automatic mode of fire. Instead, I'd try to aim and fire in semi-auto mode. That would work much better. So, an AR-15 would be just as useful. It's designed to kill people efficiently. That's why it's a military weapon.

I've also fired an M1. It's also a military weapon. I think we shouldn't be putting such weapons in everyone's hands, really. We're not at war within the United States. We don't need military rifles here.

Put an AR-15 in my hands and I'll still qualify for that Expert Marksmanship ribbon, even at age 72. It's not rocket science to hit a target accurately with one. Those old skills are still there, despite my having zero need for them.

How's that for an answer?

[ExciteBike66]

67. Not only that...

"The M16 can be fired in full automatic mode.

However, that's not a very effective way to use the weapon."

Not only that, but us grunts in the infantry never use the automatic fire option (3-round burst, these days). It is just a waste of ammo. We have automatic rifles and machine guns for suppressive fire, really no need to go full-tilt with the M16.

[MineralMan]

73. The 3-round burst option wasn't available back when I qualified.

Just semi-auto or full auto. I got yelled at by the range manager for selecting full auto when we were told to fire any remaining rounds we had. He didn't say not to, so I switched to auto and emptied my magazine. I put those six remaining rounds in the target, too, since I anticipated the muzzle rise. When he yelled at me, I just shrugged, and he went on his way.

But, clearly, full auto was a waste of ammo and would be in a real situation, too. Growing up, I had a tubular magazine Marlin .22, like a lot of kids where I lived, so I was familiar with using such a firearm. .22 LR ammo was pretty cheap, so we used to do rapid fire sometimes. It wasn't all that accurate, really, but fun, I guess. I was always more interested in how many beer bottles I could break with the least number of shots, so, I generally fired one shot at a time after aiming. Still, once in a while you just had to see how fast you could empty the magazine.

I can't imagine any use for an AR-15, so I've never been tempted to buy one. I stopped hunting, too, long ago, so my firearms are pretty much unused recently. I take them out once a year and clean and lubricate them. That's it. I keep them, though. Why wouldn't I?

[ExciteBike66]

87. Heh, I went all rock-and-roll with the burst mode at the range once

fortunately, it was a night-fire range and no one could see who did it!

[MineralMan]

88. I think I got away with it because they had just verified

my Expert Marksman status. In fact, I had a couple of extra holes in my target, put there by someone nearby, I guess. I was the only airman at the range that day who earned that status. The range master gave me an "attaboy."

[jimmil]

107. In Vietnam...

I can count on one hand the number of times I went full auto. Semi-auto kept you in ammo. Newbies always liked to run a few clips thru before they realized they had nothing else to shoot at the guy trying to kill them. Lessons in combat are hard.

BTW, there are plans for the parts to make an AR-15 into an M-16 on the internet for free. Just get a machine shop to make you up a few sets. This kind of shit is exactly why most gun control will not work and we must come up with some new thinking. Obviously changing society does not work here as our culture seems to produce an over abundance of idiots.

[VMA131Marine]

60. Ban all semi-auto long guns including the M1A

[lark]

15. Thank you,

for your service. I also call for the banning of assault weapons, bump stocks, large capacity magazines, 10 day waiting period, background check for all gun purchases to include mental health, and anyone with a restraining order. Also cdc should capture all gun death/injury information and publish it annually.

[Marengo]

157. What kind of mental health criteria would you suggest?

[lark]

198. Make it mandatory to report anyone who talks, writes about killing others.

Also no one Baker acted or with a restraining order or on a terrorist list can get guns. Make it mandatory for military to report anyone who's unstable and fantasizing about killing people with guns. That should reduce the problem at a minimum. Of course assault rifles also need to be banned along with bump stocks and large capacity magazines.

[Still In Wisconsin]

16. Yep. Not much legitimate use for that 5.56 mm round other than shredding human bodies.

How would you feel about banning the round? I mean, really, is there any legit application for it? Target shooting? Please. .22LR is just as accurate and wayyyyyy cheaper. Deer hunting? Nope. Give me .30-06 or a good 12-ga slug any day.

Nope, 5.56 mm NATO is for killing and maiming humans.

[Marengo]

32. What about similar cartridges, such as the .222? .22 caliber centerfire cartridges are popular for..

Varmint control. Flat trajectory over longer ranges, low recoil, highly accurate, etc.

[FarCenter]

17. The NATO 5.56 mm cartridge was derived from the .222 Remington sporting round

There are several common .22 caliber centerfire cartridges. They all fire bullets of similar weights at similar velocities, some at higher velocities than the 5.56. All bullets in the 2500 to 4000 foot/second velocity range deliver similar wounding via hydrostatic shock, which opens up a cavity behind the bullet like the wake of a speedboat.

[genxlib]

18. I do not have your experience, education or knowledge

So tell me if I am wrong.

It is my understanding that the AR-15 was purposely developed based on the M16 with the sole purpose of marketing a gun that was as close to the M16 as legally possible. And that only real difference was full-auto fire capability.

That alone is compelling argument about what we are dealing with.

They do not belong in civilian society.

[TheMastersNemesis]

56. The AR-15 Is The Same As M-16 As To the .223 Round They Both fire.

Actually they both can use a larger magazine. However the original magazine held fewer rounds. Do not believe there were larger magazines in Vietnam when I was their May have been 15 but it has been a long time since I carried one. Troops used to tape two magazines together so they could flip them into position quickly.

Other models of the M-16 are different designs with other attachable apparatus like scopes. Newer M-16 models are most likely more accurate at farther range. Plus the jamming problems have been resolved.

The original model of the M-16 was more cumbersome to carry in that it did not have a collapsible stock.

[Kaleva]

130. The AR15 can fire dozens of different calibers.

[AtheistCrusader]

149. One caveat. 5.56 NATO has a higher pressure rating than .223 Remington.

Meaning, the military standards are looser tolerances and a bit more rugged for a higher pressure (cups) round.

[yagotme]

163. The "loose tolerance" is that the front of the chamber is cut deeper,

to allow the bullet to "jump" to the rifling, which allows more powder to be put in the case without kicking pressures too high. Some rifles are rated ".223", and some "5.56 NATO".

[AtheistCrusader]

166. Yep, that's it.

If you try to use 5.56 in a .223 rated gun, might fail to feed or fail to extract, etc.

Probably won't kb! but it's unhealthy to risk it.

[yagotme]

173. It'll chamber and extract OK,

but your pressure signs on your brass will definitely let you know you messed up. And, worse case, it could kb if there is the slightest defect in barrel/bolt.

[hack89]

19. Not the case any more

The original military bullets use to yaw or "keyhole" not by design but due to a combination of factors like bullet weight and rifling twist. Since a yawing bullet is not an accurate bullet the Army corrected the problem by going to a heavier bullet and different rifling twist.

[EX500rider]

105. They actually had trouble with the new rounds under performing in Iraq and going back to Somalia

They would drill a small hole right through the bad guys at longer ranges (70yds+) but not put them down, the trouble was more pronounced in the new "green tip" round the army issued.
On page 208 of Bowden's "Black Hawk Down" you will find Delta Sgt Howe's musings on the ineffectiveness of the 5.56 mm green tip vs Delta Sgt Shughart's 7.62 mm.

[yagotme]

164. The new round was designed to "work" with 20" barrels,

but shooting them out of 14" barrels, they just acted like a drill bit.

[better]

21. I too have an expert marksman qualification on the M16

But leaving aside the rather significant difference that the AR15 is a semi-auto rather than a select-fire weapon, the argument you are making here is not actually against the AR15. It's against the .223 caliber projectile, which is fired by literally thousands of weapons other than the AR15, and is in fact very widely used for hunting smaller game.

Would it not make more sense to focus on weapon capacity rather than weapon design?
Regardless of caliber, I'd be a lot less concerned about AR15 patterned weapons with fixed mags with a 5 or 10 round limit.
Still well suited to target practice and small game hunting/pest control, but far less risk for mass shootings.

The damage we see in these mass shootings isn't a product of any specific weapon design anywhere near so much as it is of the capacity and the ease and speed of reloading. Deal with those two things, and the design of the weapon becomes dramatically less relevant. Furthermore, it would be vastly easier for law enforcement to instantly spot violations than any bans on specific weapon designs, combinations of features or caliber.

[moriah]

29. Would you be okay with that, along with licensing and serialization for ammo?

I think a big issue is no, we can't get guns off the street, and many WWI firearms are still in firing condition. Few rounds produced then would, though.

If the casing coded to box number, and we had licensing for ammunition sales and records of purchases, when a crime does occur we could trace to the person by the shell casings.

Would complicate it if reloaded ammunition was used, but if they found shell casings all purchased by people who used the same range, it would let things be traced to the people who collected brass there.

[better]

33. Yes, absolutely.

I have a strong appreciation of firearms, and I love shooting, but I'm 100% in favor of effective, reasonable gun control. I just want it to be both effective and reasonable. Banning capacity adequate to walk into a classroom and kill everyone inside before needing to reload is both effective and reasonable. Banning weapons because of their shape or other non-functional characteristics they may have is neither.

As it stands now, I could replace the factory wooden stock on my 10 round .22lr with one that has a pistol grip or thumbhole, and it would become an illegal assault weapon. Not only are the things that don't matter banned, the things that do matter aren't. That's where I and a great many other gun owners who aren't wingnuts take issue.

[Yonnie3]

42. Hand guns?

Some mass shootings have been with hand guns. Do you have any thoughts on that? Is "capacity and the ease and speed of reloading" an important factor in that particular instance?

I'm asking because I don't know.

[better]

70. Yes, I would say that logic applies to any type of firearm.

This is particularly visible with military assault weapons, pretty much none of which have fixed or low capacity magazines. Soldiers need to be able to engage many targets and/or lay down sustained covering fire. I don't need to be able to do either when I'm out on my land shooting paper targets.

Handguns, however, are already generally quite considerably more tightly regulated, with waiting periods and registration requirements that generally do not apply to long guns. I think that probably plays a role in why most mass shootings are done with rifles rather than handguns, because they're simply easier to get. I can walk into a walmart here and walk out with a rifle, and ammo, today if I want to.

[Yonnie3]

79. Thank you.

My experience with purchasing guns and gun regulation is limited so your information is appreciated. Most of my experience was hitting targets with a 22 lever action rifle and not hitting targets with a 22 revolver. For protection (against varmints up to and including bears) a 12 gauge shotgun (single load) with a variety of loads available was adequate. A double barrel would have been better.

Those guns stayed at the farm when we left, ~40 years ago, because they were farm tools and had come with the farm in the first place.

[better]

81. My pleasure, and thanks for the tactful discourse!

Yeah, I only have my one .22 semi auto and its one 10 round mag, which absolutely never leave my property. I'm not a fan of open carry, but I see no reason why I shouldn't be able to own and use an AR pattern rifle on my own land. High capacity devices, on the other hand, are an entirely different story. There's simply no need for me to be able to own one as a civilian.

[Saviolo]

90. Someone posted this article in another thread:

A doctor talking about the difference between the damage done by a handgun vs. an AR-15.

Full article here.

In a typical handgun injury that I diagnose almost daily, a bullet leaves a laceration through an organ like the liver. To a radiologist, it appears as a linear, thin, grey bullet track through the organ. There may be bleeding and some bullet fragments.

I was looking at a CT scan of one of the victims of the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, who had been brought to the trauma center during my call shift. The organ looked like an overripe melon smashed by a sledgehammer, with extensive bleeding. How could a gunshot wound have caused this much damage?

The reaction in the emergency room was the same. One of the trauma surgeons opened a young victim in the operating room, and found only shreds of the organ that had been hit by a bullet from an AR-15, a semi-automatic rifle which delivers a devastatingly lethal, high-velocity bullet to the victim. There was nothing left to repair, and utterly, devastatingly, nothing that could be done to fix the problem. The injury was fatal.

A year ago, when a gunman opened fire at the Fort Lauderdale airport with a 9mm semiautomatic handgun, hitting 11 people in 90 seconds, I was also on call. It was not until I had diagnosed the third of the six victims who were transported to the trauma center that I realized something out-of-the-ordinary must have happened. The gunshot wounds were the same low velocity handgun injuries as those I diagnose every day; only their rapid succession set them apart. And all six of the victims who arrived at the hospital that day survived.

Routine handgun injuries leave entry and exit wounds and linear tracks through the victim's body that are roughly the size of the bullet. If the bullet does not directly hit something crucial like the heart or the aorta, and they do not bleed to death before being transported to our care at a trauma center, chances are, we can save the victim. The bullets fired by an AR-15 are different; they travel at higher velocity and are far more lethal. The damage they cause is a function of the energy they impart as they pass through the body. A typical AR-15 bullet leaves the barrel traveling almost three times faster than, and imparting more than three times the energy of, a typical 9mm bullet from a handgun. An AR-15 rifle outfitted with a magazine cartridge with 50 rounds allows many more lethal bullets to be delivered quickly without reloading.

[Yonnie3]

98. Thanks - insightful

I can't help but think of the Virginia Tech mass shooting. It was done with hand guns. I have family who teach and work there. I also have met and talked with the surgeon who worked on the victims. He was my father's surgeon and we had these interactions both before and after the shooting.

Surviving an attack is certainly a desired outcome. A much more desired outcome is no attack at all.

I wish there were hard data. I see differing numbers. Anecdotes only give some insight.

Most focus is on the mass shootings, the location, the weapon, and the type of victim without knowing if this is the crux of the issue or just a symptom of a significant larger issue.

I've certainly got more questions than answers.

[jimmil]

110. The .223 and similar ammunition

is designed to tumble when it hits a target. Simple physics with one end weighing much more than the other causes the rear of the bullet to continue on its path while the lighter front is deflected, ie. it tumbles. This causes a lot more damage than a hole straight through. It also kind of gets around the Geneva Convention of war weapons firing a full metal jacket. Long ago it was realized the soft point "mushrooming" bullet caused a lot of damage so they were banned in warfare. Yeah, I never understood "rules" for warfare either. Regardless, full metal jackets were required by armies to stop the horrendous wounds inflicted. Leave it to man to find a way around his own rules.

[JustAnotherGen]

22. Thank you for sharing this point of view

From Experience and Training.

Here's the thing - we don't NEED to know it. YOU need/needed to know it - because it was your job to protect us!

No one other than someone with your training and experience needs to put their god damned hands on one of these.

Lather, rinse and repeat from your post:

I am an expert with the M16. I had special training in the Army

I seriously don't want someone without your training and experience putting their hands on this thing.

Thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you for this post!

[IronLionZion]

26. I grew up around hunters, not one of them ever used an AR-15 or similar

it's just not designed for hunting and isn't suitable for that.

It's designed to kill people quickly and efficiently with little recoil and easy aiming. It's technically true that no military uses the AR-15 but plenty of them still use the M16. The US used it from the 60's up until the present. Our military has been replacing it with the lighter and shorter M4 for better use in close quarters urban warfare.

"urban warfare". These weapons are for war and killing people, not for hunting. People can defend themselves from wolves or whatever much better with a hunting rifle, and drug addicted burglars with a shotgun.

On a related note, if pulled into a argument with a gun nut on this topic, ask them why the semi-automatic civilian version of the military's M4 carbine is illegal everywhere. How can they defend themselves from government tyranny? Billy Bob with his AR15 vs M4, the soldier with the M4 would win.

[samir.g]

44. Semi-automatic version of m-4 is illegal?

I keep seeing pictures of rednecks carrying those. Not sure how that works, or what the difference is.

[IronLionZion]

57. The shorter barrel is illegal. There are laws for the barrel length

the civilian version must have at least 16 inch barrel. The military version is shorter. Police can use them also.

[samir.g]

63. Why does the m4 win?

[IronLionZion]

66. lighter, shorter, more maneuverable

plus the military version is fully automatic with more deadly ammunition.

[AtheistCrusader]

153. Please stop making shit up. FMJ Ball Nato is FAR less deadly than

hollow point or any other civilian accessible ammo.

Military ammo must conform to international (Hague conventions) treaties.


Just... Stop. Please.

We're a signatory to Hague Convention IV of 1907, Article 23(e). We use FMJ Ball in 5.56 NATO. It is far less lethal than hollow-point.

[SQUEE]

152. Short barrel rifles are not illegal.

$200 and a few months waiting on a tax stamp. ame with shotguns under length and suppressors.

M4geries were all the rage a few years back, only difference was a longer flash hider to make it legal at 16".

[AtheistCrusader]

151. The M4 is just a flat top carbine AR-15.

Most people don't hunt with an AR-15 because the .223 round is insufficient (and in some states illegal because it is unlikely to humanely kill) for hunting deer. In my state the minimum caliber is .240

So they use the AR-10, which is the bigger, heavier, .30 caliber brother to the AR-15.

[getagrip_already]

28. there should be special requirements/restrictions for any tactical class weapon.....

Want a gun for self defense at home? A small caliber revolver or shotgun (not a streetsweeper class) works just fine.

But if you want an ar/ak class weopon, or even a glock, you shoud be law enforcement, licensed security, or a member of a licensed well regulated militia with very strict membership criteria.

My 75 year old neighbor would be hard pressed to claim he was a member of a well regulated militia. More like a poorly organized mob.

[Dem2]

34. Read this, it adds more details and pictures

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2011/05/03/guest-post-22-lr-vs-223-rem/amp/

There's a massive difference between a typical .22LR plinker target rifle and a .223 round fired from an AR-15.

[The Wizard]

35. I was issued an M-16 in 1967

The first generation of that weapon. They had to change the powder to a slower burning one because 900 rounds a minute was one of the factors in its jamming. 900 rounds a minute is serious firepower. Even at a reduced rate the weapon is demonic. Its sole function is to kill many people quickly. Maybe using 22 long rifle bullets would make them less dangerous. It's a battlefield weapon and has no function in a civil society.
Those who really want one should sign up for military service where they're under lock and key and an armed guard until their use becomes necessary.
The short pecker gun fetish weirdos have far to much to say about legislation.

[yagotme]

102. The powder burn rate doesn't have anything to do with the rate of fire.

The jamming issues, which there were many, were primarily caused by a powder change to a dirtier powder than the rifle was designed to use, and the information given out that the M-16 was "self cleaning", and no cleaning kits were issued to individuals. Some other issues were production related, but keeping an M-16 clean cured most of the ills.

[jimmil]

120. It was an issue

of ball powder used during the testing of the M-16 versus a rod powder used in production of ammunition for combat troops. Ball powder burns much cleaner than rod powder so you had the problem of jamming in the early M-16 combat versions. That is why the bump is on the side of the receiver. It is true about the cleaning kit. Another mod made to the M-16 was the bolt was chromed to prevent burnt powder buildup. At least that what was told to me while I was in. We also had a couple guys that carried an M-14 always as well as an M-60 and a couple M-79s. I carried about a million hand grenades because I thought they were fun.

[yagotme]

126. If I remember correctly (and I may not be)

the powder deal was reversed. Designed for stick, changed to ball. No matter, one of those things they changed without complete testing in battlefield type conditions. And the forward assist, in my opinion, was a bad idea. You have a case jammed in the chamber, so you hit the assist, and jam it in even worse. It only works if the bolt carrier is just shy of closing. A major jam just gets worse.

Only got to throw 1 live grenade in training. Bummer.

[gfwzig]

37. Gore alert! this is a graphic description I'm sorry but it has to be said/posted

I have used a hunting rifle with the same caliber as an AR15
I have shot deer with this gun.
I have NEVER recovered a bullet fragment from anything that i have hit
just a small hole going in, and nothing but jelly inside the rib cage
no heart no lungs no other organs just jelly
the bullet fragments upon impact and destroys everything
nothing hit in a vital spot with this gun can survive ----NOTHING--!
And that was with only ONE SHOT not dozens.

I never have belonged to the NRA, I never will, I own guns now,
I use nothing but black powder or .22 handguns, for target only
I no longer hunt, even though I own 300 wooded acres in PA.
I regret having hunted in the past, and killing beautiful animals for sport.
I have a distinction between food animals and wild animals.

Hollow point bullets are banned by the Geneva Convention, because they are too lethal.
military bullets are tame in comparison to hollow points.
Military's objective is to wound not kill, it takes more manpower to help an injured man than a dead one.
thus tying up assets that could be used for offensive action against my side.

Most of the bullets sold for (consumer use) hunting are hollow point or expanding core
military bullets retain their shape after impact hollow points shatter into dozens of pieces.

forgive me for being so graphic, but if people truly realized how bad they are.

I likely will remove this post soon depending upon the comments it receives.

[nil desperandum]

43. If you hunted

for food there's no need to hold regret in my opinion.

I've always had an issue with trophy hunting, but food hunting was never a problem for me.

After my military service I don't hunt either, but I don't begrudge those who do...

I carried the M-60 a long, long time ago.

[marieo1]

84. minngal

Thank you for posting this. I think this is something every single human being on the planet needs to know. Please don't remove!! We need it to educate everyone!!

[BumRushDaShow]

85. My father and grandfather used to hunt and fish

(I am in PA - in Philly)

Grew up with "Field and Stream" mag in the house (at least before my dad died). He was a WW2 vet and his father a WWI vet. Had a hunting rifle in the house that my mom gave to her uncle (who was also a WW2 vet) after my dad died.

I worked with guys who also hunted but since they had the meat processed as venison for sausages and other cuts (some place upstate would prep it for them for later pickup), they used crossbows instead of guns. That way you didn't have shot and powder all over the inside.

[AtheistCrusader]

156. You couldn't if you wanted to. No semi-auto .223 for deer in that state.

[Honeycombe8]

178. +1. Good post. nt

[nil desperandum]

39. It's certainly a derivative, but sold to hunters also....

Last edited Thu Feb 22, 2018, 01:48 PM - Edit history (1)

Colt's version of the Armalite Rifle 15 was advertised to hunters.





Also chambered in 7.62 which is a bit more powerful for bringing down larger game.

[Progressive dog]

41. Military style firearms should be banned

They are designed for the killing of only one species.

[Adrahil]

48. Hey, Mr. Expert.....

Did you know.....

That the M193 bullet was NOT designed to "tumble?"

The bullet's lethality varies with velocity and medium. At the right velocity, the bullet becomes unstable in flesh and the bullet "tumbles" and is ripped apart under its own internal forces, causing massive damage.

The travel distance it takes to do this varies a lot. That why some people survive hits with very little damage (the bullet passes through without tumbling) and some suffer devastating wounds from a single hit.

It wasn't until the early 2000's that ballsitics experts working for the Navy really figures this out. They were seeking a bullet design for use by the SEALS until that was more consistently lethal. They came up with one.

.223/5.56 ammo can be designed for hunting. It is softpoint ammo (usually designed for use in a bolt action rifle, and it is more consistently lethal than M195 or M885 ammo because the military is limited to Full Metal Jack ammo by the Hague conventions.

There is also "ballistic tip" hollow point ammo designed for hunting using a Semi-auto rifle. It, too, is more consistently lethal than standard M193 or M855 ammo.

This is the AMMUNITION, not the design of the gun which we are talking about here.

The lethality of the AR-15 has to do with how much ammo it can put down range in a very short period of time. Any centerfire rifle cartridge is going to do horrible things to the human body, but especially ammo designed for hunting, since the purpose of hunting ammo is to kill animals.

I'm for limiting access to these dangerous machines. But let's not talk mess-tent nonsense.

[samir.g]

53. Hey, mr pedantic internet guy

Big deal. We know they need to be banned.

[Adrahil]

76. Yes, I know... knowledge is useless...

if it's a bout something we don't like.

You're SOOOOO cool, aren't you?

But I agree that we have to get these things off the street. We won;t do it making arguments that are absolute bullshit. You you can either learn from this, or, as usual, get nothing done.

Your choice Big Shot.

[AtheistCrusader]

158. It's not pedantery to show a post is complete bullshit from stem to stern.

[yagotme]

167. So, where was he wrong??? nt

[AtheistCrusader]

174. Post 48 specifies clearly, and accurately where it was wrong.

Sorry, post 48 not 41.

[yagotme]

176. My bad. I thought you were suggesting the explanation was wrong.

I got confeust.

[AtheistCrusader]

183. Yeah, no it was the OP that is off the rails

[sarisataka]

50. Out of curiosity,

What is your special training? It is my understanding every army recruit received training on the M-16

[Sgent]

51. Your arguing against

the .223 round, not the gun. A lot of guns use the .223.

That said, I'm in favor of banning semi-auto rifles and/or fixing capacity at 5 rounds.

[mikehiggins]

54. I was in college when the AR-15 was developed.

The gun was designed to replace the M-14 rifle that'd proved less than desired in jungle warfare. The high rate of fire plus the incredibly damaging round the weapon fired was two of the selling points, as well as the relatively light-weight and recoil and ease of manufacturing. Demonstrations of the weapon (AR-15) included blowing the hell out of fifty gallon water containers and smashing cinder blocks into, well, cinders. This would be the weapon that would win the war.

Armalite was the name of the development firm and was quickly bought up by Colt (IIRC) which made winning a DoD contract much easier.

This gun was developed and designed to kill human beings in the most gruesome ways ever, not for sporting or hunting or any other purpose whatsoever.

They should be banned.

[Pachamama]

58. The AR-15 and M16 are Meatgrinders and weapons of death....

They are not for "self defense" or for hunting....they are only for mass destruction and killing....

The weapon of choice to kill many people at once.....



They need to be banned in the hands of civilians and not be sold or owned in the United States....

[calimary]

59. Thanks so much for making this point, shockey80.

These massacre machines are so vile that even one of my gun-lover friends hates them and wants them banned. Seriously! I NEVER thought I'd hear that from this particular person. She pointed out that the talking point about AR-15s being good for hunting is complete bullshit. Because it tears up the target. If you think you can use it to hunt your dinner that night, the prey will be shredded to smithereens and there'll be little if anything left of it to eat.

The AR-15 has NO business in ANY civilian hands. And NO civilian has any sort of divine "right" to own one. It's a war weapon. Designed for the military to use IN COMBAT. Even the average cop isn't armed like that.

[stanleyollie]

65. It is crazy

Even on a military base a member of the military must house theyre weapon at the armory, yet civilians can take one with them to Kroger, only in America

[GulfCoast66]

69. The ones used by the military are way less deadly than ones civilians can buy

By international law the military has to use fully jacket bullets that remain intact when hitting flesh and the victim can live.

Hunting ammunition is designed to do the opposite. Open up or come apart causing massive damage and if hitting the torso is almost always lethal.

And in the hunting world it is not even much of a contender for power. The rifle I hunt with(bolt action, 4 round capacity) is way more powerful and it is wimpy compared to rounds used for elk.

These rounds and even semiautomatic rifles have been around for over 100 years. But normally in a magazine that holds 4-6 rounds. And that is the difference in the past 25 years.

We have allowed weapons of war that hold 10-30 rounds in one magazine. Get rid of all them and go back to the guns Americans has access to in the 60s would solve this problem. And even more so if extended to handguns. Limit capacity to 6-10 like most had in the 60’s would help immensely.

Combine that with comprehensive background so that ALL firearm transfers, even within families, requires a background check combined with registration and we are on our way to a safer nation.

[Stainless]

72. I learned the facts about the M16 in basic training in 1967

The AR15 and other semi-auto weapons are now the main tools used by domestic terrorists in our homeland. The NRA enables and encourages terrorism; they only care about money and power.

[stonecutter357]

78. K&R

[malthaussen]

80. When they trained me in the M-16...

... (a very long time ago), they said that the "tumbling" was really the light round ricocheting off the large bones, which could lead to a round say, entering at the hand and departing by the shoulder. Doing massive damage en route, of course.

That sort of round is unnecessary for hunting, it's only purpose is to rip people apart, as you say. But hey, doesn't the 2nd Amendment specifically say that we have the right to rip our fellow citizens to shreds?

-- Mal

[marieo1]

83. minngal

shockey80, first of all thank you for explaining this to us. I am wondering why other people are being silent on this!! Especially others that have been in the military and know exactly what these murderous weapons will do - where is their conscious. I am truly baffled!! Thanks again!!

[BamaRefugee]

89. My proposal: any gun that can cut a small adult in half in 10 seconds should be banned.

NRA members should feel free to volunteer as targets to prove their claim that these types of weapons "Are no different from a shotgun or a bolt action rifle".

[yagotme]

104. So, you want to ban shotguns?

They're capable of the feat that you list. In less time.

[samir.g]

111. Hell yes I do.

[yagotme]

115. So, an all out ban on everything.

Won't work. Just sayin'.

[samir.g]

119. Maybe not all at once, but we are on the right side of history

[yagotme]

124. What history is that?? nt

[Wednesdays]

188. The same one most of the civilized world belongs to

[BamaRefugee]

128. You're going to tell me, a shotgun owner and user for over 50 years, that someone with a shotgun

standing at the same distance from a victim that someone with an AR-15 or similar would in a school setting, let's say 15 yards, can cut a person in half inside 10 seconds? What choke what pattern, what gauge are you talking about? Even if you're going the ammosexual route and waiting to lecture me on slugs, buckshot and slugs won't do that. In close quarters buckshot and slugs do heavy damage, but people do not explode, fly backwards, and there is not always a huge window for them to fall through.
Post your proof, I'd be very interested in seeing it.

[yagotme]

129. You want me to provide proof, but you don't want to hear technical facts.

OK.

[BamaRefugee]

131. Techical facts are always published, annotated, cross-referenced so yeh

show me studies showing a shotgun is just like a AR-15 or similar, they should definitely be out there, not just personal anecdotes. I'd love to see photos of the "pattern" each shot from the AR makes, it's just like a shotgun right?

And if I'm wrong I'm more than happy to negotiate my "10 seconds" that was just the first draft of my proposal. We can say 7 seconds, 5 seconds, whatever you prefer.

[yagotme]

142. Don't know where you got the part about where

the AR is "just like a shotgun, right?" I stated it was capable of the same or worse damage. For instance:

AR: Hi cap magazine, fires 20-100 bullets depending on magazine, .224 inch diameter, one round at a time.

Shotgun: 12 gauge, 3" shell, #4 buck shot, roughly .24 inch diameter, 41 pellets per shell.

So, a shooter fires his AR as fast as he can (semi-auto now, 1 pull of trigger = 1 round), and MIGHT manage to empty a 100 round drum, if it doesn't jam, in 10 seconds.

Then another shooter, with a 3" 12 gauge pump hunting gun with cylinder choke, fires 3 rounds in well under 10 seconds. Well aimed, also, unlike the guy spraying rounds from the AR.

OK, math time: 3x41=123>100. At 15 yards or less, you are putting more projectiles on target with the shotgun than you are with the AR. And, I didn't forget shot dispersion. The shotgun load will spread, but so will the grouping of someone trying to get off 100 rds of .223 in 10 seconds, so I called that a wash. The shotgunner can actually aim carefully in 10 seconds.

Let's not forget velocity:

AR: 3000 +/- fps
3" 12: 1300-1450 fps +/-

https://www.sportsmansguide.com/product/index/remington-3-magnum-12-gauge-no-4-buckshot-41-pellets-5-rounds?a=1593371
https://www.shootingillustrated.com/articles/2012/1/31/buckshot-basics/
(different shot size, but close)https://www.sportsmansguide.com/product/index/winchester-12-gauge-3-oo-supreme-high-velocity-buckshot-5-rounds?a=1589554

And, there's a 3 1/2" magnum, too. Even more pellets. Same time frame.

[AtheistCrusader]

161. Neither can the AR-15.

Neither weapon will literally chop a person in half.

Both will cause a hell of a mess, and kill the victim though. Getting hit with buck shot at that distance is the equivalent of getting hit with 9 9mm rounds all at once. Nobody talks about a 9mm handgun chopping people in half.

[aikoaiko]

100. Except the M16 (and variants) can fire full automatic and the AR15 is always semi-auto.

Per ATF definitions.

I live in south Georgia and the deer are on the smaller side and feral pigs are generally less than 100 pounds. 5.56 is perfectly fine for hunting them.

Rifle bullets can move around the body but usually that has to do with hitting bone. Remember the magic bullet in the JFK assassination.

5.56 bullets typically don't tumble in ballistic gelatin, but they do break apart.

[Honeycombe8]

179. I was going to ask about that: Do AR15s & AR16s rapid-fire?

So that you can kill more people in so many seconds than other rifles or shotguns?

[aikoaiko]

195. ARs don't shoot any faster than any other semi-auto rifle.

and many semi-auto rifles have detachable magazines too, but there are a lot of large capacity magazines made for AR15s. Standard issue magazines for ARs is 30 rounds. Magazines that are larger often jam. If I recall correctly, the Autora theater shooter had a 100 round magazine but it jammed.

Most nonAR semi-auto rifles come with magazines in the 5 - 10 range and there aren't many larger magazine aftermarket choices.

Also, there is the issue of bump stocks and bump firing (eg Las Vegas shooter). Bump firing harnesses the natural recoil of a semi-auto gun to shoot faster. Folks are focusing on bump stocks because they make bump firing easier but they are not necessary for bump firing.

Bump firing any firearm brings the rate of fire up almost to full-auto M-16 rate, but they are more difficult to aim. That's why I'm sure the Las Vegas shooter choose a massive group of tightly packed people (outdoor concert goers) to shoot at.

[James48]

112. Note- the damage isn't just AR-15's-

It would be factually incorrect to say that the AR-15's wound is more serious than other types of rifles.

Muzzle velocity and bullet weight both play a part in the amount of energy that ends up in a body. Yes, the AR-15 causes more damage than a 9mm round does.

ANY rifle round is going to cause more damage than a 9mm does.

A 9mm round has about 200 foot pounds of energy when it strikes a body.

A .223 AR-15 round has about 1025 foot punds of energy.

But a .30-06 has much more- it has about 2310 foot pounds of energy- twice what the AR-15 does. And would do the same or greater damage if it struck a liver.

It is important to be accurate- it's NOT just AR-15's that can cause fatal damage. ANY bullet can, and ANY rifle bullet is going to do more damage than a handgun can.

[aikoaiko]

121. google "hunting with AR15" and you'll see a ton of pictures of game killed with ARs

And, generally, they were not torn to shreds.

Don't click this link if you're not OK with images of animals recently killed with a rifle.
https://www.google.com/search?q=hunting+with+AR15&rlz=1C1GCEA_enUS781US781&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiy18ehrLrZAhVEzVMKHSUXCXgQ_AUICygC&biw=1920&bih=1094

[Kaleva]

127. A single shot rifle chambered for the .223 round does the exact same thing

You are actually talking about the .223 cartridge and not the AR15 itself. Your fundamental error leads me to believe you are not the expert you claim to be. The AR15 platform can fire dozens of different calibers and not all behave as you describe. You should know that.

[erpowers]

150. All Assault Rifles?

I thought I heard that was true of all assault rifles. I thought someone had said that was the danger of assault rifles. That the bullets did not just go into the body and come out; they went into the body and broke into multiple pieces. That was why assault rifles were so deadly. You could kill a person with one properly placed bullet, because one bullet was like shrapnel in the body.

[yagotme]

169. An "assault rifle", by definition,

is a generally short/medium length rifle, detachable magazine, firing an intermediary round, capable of full auto fire. I didn't include bayonet lug, which the bayonet takes some practice to master.

[Capperdan]

181. Ban Them

I'm also an exArmy guy with many medals and trophys as a sharpshooter. The M14 was my tool back then, but I see no use for private citizens to own the 15's. Pile em up and run a steam roller over 'em.

[tclambert]

185. AR-15s were banned from 1994 to 2004. That Ban was ruled Constitutional,

not a violation of the Holy 2nd Amendment. Congress allowed the ban to expire.

[Kaleva]

187. Manufacturers changed the name which essentially unbanned the AR-15

The AWB legal AR-15 usually had a fixed stock

Below is pic of an AR-15 that was illegal during the AWB and one that was legal:



Some cosmetic differences but both killed equally as well as the other.

[eppur_se_muova]

190. Lawrence talked about this tonight, read some quotes from shock/trauma specialists ...

... who had experience dealing with multiple gunshot wounds. BIG difference between typical handgun wounds and high-velocity wounds. Some of those quotes have been posted here already.

[raven mad]

191. In the 70's, even the "girls" in the service trained on them.

Scary what they'll do.

[duforsure]

194. Politicians that support AR-15's in our society

Should be banned too. Vote them out if they won't reinstate the assault weapons ban, which is the republican majority in office refusing to do anything. Trump claiming a teacher is a match for someone entering with an AR-15 shows how desperate he is to protecting the NRA, Putin, and his cash cow he's getting from them. His suggestion doing this is telling of his mindset. He was a coward when he had the chance to use a gun when we were at war, but he wants others to use them for him now.