Let's talk about why the gun control debate is about to change....

It's also mostly an unnecessary law.

But that might involve some actual THOUGHT for you to think about.

 

I don't at all - but I can't think of where anyone would use an automatic rifle except at the range. And how would you know how enjoyable it is to shoot unless at a range?

 

I assume I do - its just not a conversation I get into with people IRL.

 

Most of my shooting experience derives from running around in the woods growing up. My Dad taught me the 4 rules of gun safety and how to shoot when I was 11. I'm 55 now.

I got familiar with the M16 in the Army back in the 80's and I've had a couple AR's since then. The platform is comfortable for me and the recoil is not a problem for my wife or daughters should they ever need to use it.

I enjoy them, but they are not toys.

 

Unfortunately, not everyone has a dad like you do and not everyone lives close to wooded areas. For those who didn't and don't, where else would they fire one?

 

That's their problem to solve, point is whether you enjoy them at the range or hunting or whatever, guns are not toys.

My Dad would have knocked me in the head if he heard me call a firearm a toy.

 

"The AR isn't a high powered rifle." The 'AR' is available chambered in any caliber from shotshell and pistol calibers (which are indeed not 'high powered rifle') to .308/7.62NATO (which is the most common sniper round used by law enforcement) and even 7mm (which is one of the preferred rounds for hunting grizzly bear and moose), and those are about as high powered as rifles get outside of anti-material rounds like the .50BMG. Granted, ARs are most commonly chambered in 5.56NATO which was originally designed around the 'attrition' strategy of maiming the enemy more often than killing the enemy back during the cold war. But the .308 AR is popular enough to have its own nickname- 'reaper.'

Its true that the 5.56NATO is generally considered underpowered. It actually has a pretty high chamber pressure and muzzle velocity, but the relatively low bullet weight still translates to a medium effective range and a low energy transfer at the target. Way higher than most pistols, but lower than most other rifle rounds. I think thats prolly what hes trying to say.

The reason people like .223/5.56ARs is not 'because thats what the army uses.' Its because it has the best recoil vs stopping power profile. Thats why the army chose it over the conventional heavier military rounds of the day, and thats why civilians enjoy shooting it recreationally. Its low powered enough that its fun to practice with and high powered enough to be reliably lethal.

Unless the new 6.8 has figured out how to break physics, its double muzzle energy is going to transfer to double recoil, and most people that prefer to shoot 5.56 ARs will keep shooting their 5.56 ARs because they like how it doesnt hurt their shoulder after a few hours at the range. People that like shooting semi-auti with more recoil will already something like an AR in .308, which is comparable in destructive power to the 6.8 the army is adopting, and has been readily available enough that a mass shooter couldve used one by now if they were going to. Given they tend to be frail looking incels, they prolly didn't like the recoil of a 'high power' caliber.

To summarize, this guy does indeed seem to know what he's talking about from a technical standpoint, but his premise about why people like the AR is flawed. The AR is just the cheapest and most easy to find platform that utilizes the .223/5.56 round, and its the round that people find attractive to shoot.

 

I assume you're including semiautomatic rifles in "automatic rifles". No problem. I would venture that most legal shooting happens at some form of range or the other, from elaborate complexes to simply pulling off the road in a national forest.

Semiautomatic rifles, and there are more styles than the AR type, are commonly used for hunting. The very first semiautomatic rifle in the US was invented for hunting in 1905.

 

Why would anyone buy that rifle when you could rebarrel an AR-10 in .277 Fury for less than 300 dollars?

 

What rifle? The XM5?

Personally, I don't like having to hunt around for ammo. I've never seen .277 Fury. .223/5.56 is available anywhere that sells ammo. If .277 Fury was on the shelf at every sporting goods store, country hardware and pawn shop across the nation, I might switch to it. Til then, no thx. Same for 6.8, 6.5Grendel, .50Beowulf, .300Blackout and all those other weird rounds people claim are 'superior.' They might perform better, but if I cant find any, its no good.

 

Your answer is an excellent example of what we call 'gun culture' in the US. I'm not demonizing it or criticizing you for your knowledge and enthusiasm for guns, just pointing out that there is a great many Americans who truly enjoy guns. Hence, gun culture.

 

When the 6.5 Creedmoor is already readily available and has sufficient ballistics for anything the XM5 would be used by a civilian for, there's no need for the XM5. The ergonomics look terrible, too.

 

No worries. It's when that particular culture gets conflated with the people who are the primary causes of violence in the country that we find ourselves at odds with the terms.

 

Places around here (rural WA) don't sell 6.5Creedmore either. I don't know much about the XM5, other than just because the military has adopted it doesn't it mean its wonderful. The M16A1s by all accounts were awful. The military suffered their awfulness for a long time before they worked out the kinks and made it into a good weapon. I expect it will be a similar process with the (X)M5.

 

A Fudd.

 

I couldn't agree more. All gun owners are not crazy/sick/violent. But it is because of our gun culture - backed by 2A - that crazies/sickos/violent people can legally purchase guns. I can't speak for all liberals, so I won't. I don't believe in the current interpretation of 2A. I don't like that the country has more guns than people. I don't like that organizations like the NRA can buy politicians. I don't like that states are lessening restrictions rather than tightening them. I am not calling for an outright 'ban' - I simply want tighter restrictions that will reduce the possibility of guns landing in the wrong hands (ie crazy/sick/violent).

 

It's already against the law for crazy people to purchase firearms as stated on Form 4473. It's as though you aren't even aware of that fact.

 

luckygunner has ammo, just bought some 5.56 and 12ga from them.

 

And if they aren't diagnosed?

 

Then they have the same right to bear arms as everyone else. If you don't like it, the constitution clearly lays out how to amend the constitution.

 

.

 

Can you elaborate?

There isn't much to be done about this.

Bloomberg is the number one donor for political donations over the last 20 years. Is it okay that he funds election campaigns for pro-gun control politicians?

Interesting results, there, too, in those states who have pass Constitutional Carry laws.

The question is would those laws actually be Constitutional, effective and enforceable.

 

I don't believe that something written hundreds of years ago should guide us, without appropriate alteration today. As for Bloomberg and any other organization that 'own' politicians - they go in the same barrel. I don't like it, no matter what side they support. It should be abandoned so that the people - not corporations - own our government.

 

I wish I could read what you wrote but the government censored it. Seems computers weren't around hundreds of years ago.

 

We, (i.e. Americans) also do not have affordable and easily accessible Mental Health care like the countries that have lower homicide rates than the US. That, I feel is the reason for America's higher homicide rate, not more draconian and unconstitutional gun laws.

Additionally, there are too many differences between America and the other "developed" countries to which America is compared to draw any meaningful conclusions:

"The Mistake of Only Comparing US Murder Rates to "Developed" Countries"
https://mises.org/wire/mistake-only-...oped-countries

EXCERPT " Note, however, that these comparisons always employ a carefully selected list of countries, most of which are very unlike the United States.

They are countries that were settled long ago by the dominant ethnic group, they are ethnically non-diverse today, they are frequently very small countries (such as Norway, with a population of 5 million) with very locally based democracies (again, unlike the US with an immense population and far fewer representatives in government per voter).

Politically, historically, and demographically, the US has little in common with Europe or Japan.

The US has the highest murder rate in the "developed world" — presumably because of its lax guns laws —we are told again and again.

Few people who repeat this mantra have any standard in their heads of what exactly is the "developed" world. They just repeat the phrase because they have learned to do so." CONTINUED

------------------------------------

Please consider reading the entire article.

Thanks,