Why the AR-15 is DIFFERENT

[_Markk]

I just don't think you understand that an AR-15 is not the issue. It is like banning Coke, and not Pepsi to curb obesity.

No one here is suggesting that we should only ban the AR-15.

Did you read the op...?

[_Brackite]

No one here is suggesting that we should only ban the AR-15.

Did you read the opening post...?

I wouldn't really have a problem with banning the AR-15. At the very least, I believe that an individual must be at least 21 years of age along with having to wait a few days (about a 5-day waiting period) for someone to purchase an AR-15.

[_Bret Ripley]

No one here is suggesting that we should only ban the AR-15.

Did you read the op...?

Here's part of the OP (bolding added):

It’s clear to me that AR-15 or other high-velocity weapons, especially when outfitted with a high-capacity magazine, have no place in a civilian’s gun cabinet.

[_honorentheos]

I wonder what it means that the idea of banning purchase of AR-15's has created such a vocal and wide ranging response. It strikes me that the "black, mean, scary, military" aesthetic may be of concern to those who advocate for not banning that particular model of firearm.

[_Markk]

It’s clear to me that AR-15 or other high-velocity weapons, especially when outfitted with a high-capacity magazine, have no place in a civilian’s gun cabinet.

The title to the thread says it all.

See what I wrote in my op to the thread...it is the rounds, not so much the weapons...AR's come in "low velocity" rounds also. I also stated that there are plenty of lower velocity rounds, that can do just as much or more damage. The AR-15 argument is a straw-man argument in all reality.

[Guest]

I think Jersey Girl and I are pretty much in agreement on this topic.

No, I'm not in favor of a total ban. I would be in favor of:

1. A health care system that doesn't reduce Medicaid to the point where it compromises mental health services.

2. An increase in SRO's per school, though I don't know what would consitute adequate coverage.

3. Metal detectors and more secure entry ways, including improved identification measures in schools (colleges included) and early childhood programs.

4. A reinstatement back of the 1994 AWB for starters. Leave it there and evaluate moving forward.

5. Eliminate existing gaps in background checks.

6. LE* and FBI** doing their jobs.

*Sheriff in this case had 39 calls on this kid.
**FBI failed to follow through on a Jan/2018 tip on him.

If I think of anything else I'll make additional comment.

[_RockSlider]

I don't see a reason not to do it--other than that it denies Smith & Wesson the chance to make money off of selling a certain military-grade weapon to civilians. There are many more positives than negatives here.

One reason I can think of. It might be a good move by the NRA/Gun lovers to "compromise" on this, allowing all the "scary guns" to be banned.

Doing so with the thinking that in the future, when the problem does not subside, they already made their compromise and a second round of more general banning would have a much harder time.

It would be wiser from the anti-NRA/guns standpoint to push for full bans, not just on those guns the media has educated them on, i.e. the scary ones.

Here is one of my funnest guns in my collection to shoot, which would not be affected:

Springfield 308

Remember my ballistics mentions up thread? This gun annihilates watermelons.

[_Kevin Graham]

I also stated that there are plenty of lower velocity rounds, that can do just as much or more damage. The AR-15 argument is a straw-man argument in all reality.

So not only are you a surgeon first first hand knowledge of AR15 damage, but you also don't know what straw-man means.

[_RockSlider]

So all you ar-15 banner fans. Are you in favor of full buyback plans where the full cost of weapons/clips/accessors for the outlawed guns are offered to the responsible gun owners whom would turn their guns/accessors in?

Or should these gun fanatics take it in the shorts for their investments in these items?

[_RockSlider]

So not only are you a surgeon first first hand knowledge of AR15 damage

Note in my ballistics example upthread those were for "Full Metal Jacket" (FMJ) bullets. In military service, the Geneva Convention makes it a war crime to use other than FMJ. The reason, FMJ bullets do not expand on impact doing FAR less tissue damage than "hollow point" bullets which mushroom upon impact.

The state of Utah (and likely any state) it is illegal to hunt big game animals with FMJ bullets for the very same reason, there is a much higher single shot kill probability with the hollow point bullets than with the FMJ's.

Sure, make the military stuff illegal, and leave the more 'humane' single shot stop ammo and hunting weapons available. Your "surgeon" has not seen anything yet.