Why the AR-15 is DIFFERENT

[_Kevin Graham]

Rock, do you think you're being productive by intentionally misrepresenting? The only people I see referring to "scary guns" are folks like you trying to make a mockery of a serious issue.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

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?

q1- No.

q2- Yes.

#thoughtsandprayers

- Doc

[_Jersey Girl]

Opinion on buy backs of AR-15 only. If you were in a financial position to purchase it to begin with, you're in a position to sacrifice it.

[_DrW]

Markkkk I plan for this to be my last post to you on the topic. I don't dislike you at all. I find it more than difficult to discuss this issue with you. Just for the record (and anyone who has followed my posts over time knows this) as I said, I have responsible gun owners in my family, members of the NRA, I also have family members who are ACOA's (adult children of alcoholics), one recovering alcoholic, one suicide by gunshot wound to the head, mentally ill persons, and three recovering heroin addicts. None of those are me, though I did suffer depression years and years ago. Yep, those are all some of my people and I would describe all of them as good folks.

I have no doubt that substance and alcohol abuse has the potential to wreck families through generations into the future. I've seen it in the lives of my family members.

But we're talking about the mechanics of a mass shooting in Florida with a mental illness component that involved an AR-15.

I can tell you without question, that some of those student survivors are suffering from PTSD right this second. They'll suffer from it for years into the future and it will impact the trajectory of their lives. And while they are suffering, some of their parents will develop a type of post traumatic stress of their own on account of the roller coaster ride and constant state of high alert that will be their lives so long as their kids are suffering.

Mark, I lived through such a situation myself. In the case of the Florida shooting, we're talking about hundreds of young people and their parents.

I'll leave you with that and also leave you to discuss this topic with others. Someone has to be willing to embrace change, Mark.

I also have many if not most the above in my family, including heroin addicts, alcoholics, pot heads, TBM's, atheists, depression, and a suicide by gun shot (with my fathers ww2 gun). I have two brothers that are DAV..and one on permanent disability with PTSD. I understand all of that, I really do.

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.

This is not an assault weapon, yet fires the same round, at the same rate of speed (as fast as you can pull the trigger)... it can receive accessories just the same as a AR-15. This a mini-14 after accessories.

Even though I disagree...Doc...is the one with a valid argument...ban all guns. He understands that the AR-15 ban is nothing but a straw-man, maybe a start, but non the less it won't detour anyone that wants to do such a terrible thing.

Markk,

Sounds to me as if you don't know the mini-14 is a civilian version of the M-14 that was used by the US Military in the 1960s - or that it was the military forerunner of the M-16 and M-4.

The M-14 chambered to the 7.62 mm NATO round was the standard issue rifle in the Marine Corps for many years. It was an exceedingly accurate weapon. I carried one. There are lots of examples of semi automatic rifles that are not variants of military issue weapons. What little credibility you have here would be enhanced if you chose such weapons as examples of weapons that were not designed specifically to kill humans.

I am aware of no mass shootings carried out with a 7.62 mm mini-14. They aren't sexy, don't look cool, and don't attract the gun culture crowd like a weapon would that looks like a modern M-4 or an M-16 - the ones depicted in war themed first person shooter video games, or seen on TV.

[_Markk]

]
Markk,

Sounds to me as if you don't know the mini-14 is a civilian version of the M-14 that was used by the US Military in the 1960s - or that it was the military forerunner of the M-16 and M-4.

The M-14 chambered to the 7.62 mm NATO round was the standard issue rifle in the Marine Corps for many years. It was an exceedingly accurate weapon. I carried one. There are lots of examples of semi automatic rifles that are not variants of military issue weapons. What little credibility you have here would be enhanced if you chose such weapons as examples of weapons that were not designed specifically to kill humans.

I am aware of no mass shootings carried out with a 7.62 mm mini-14. They aren't sexy, don't look cool, and don't attract the gun culture crowd like a weapon would that looks like a modern M-4 or an M-16 - the ones depicted in war themed first person shooter video games, or seen on TV.

I am well aware the evolution of the mini 14, which mostly shoots a 223/5.56 (not a 7.62 as you wrote, that is a mini 30 I believe) as do most AR-15's. And it has several models, the tactical can be very "sexy" as you put it, and you can put a bump stock on it also.

https://ruger.com/products/mini14Tactic ... /5846.html

The mini 14 vs the AR-15 is like Ford and Chevy...you have those that like one and others that like the other. A basic mini ranch, which was used in the Norway mass shooting of 77 dead, can be bought for $1000.00 and upgraded with accessories to be as "sexy" as you want it to be.

As an example the M14 was preferred by many in Vietnam over the M-16...and many like the mini and claim it is more dependable than the AR-15.

Again, The Norway mass shooting, which 77 were killed, was carried out by a standard mini 14, with 223 rounds just like AR-15 used in Florida.

I cut and pasted this from a quick google search on other mass shootings by the Mini 14.

Founded in 1949, the “corporate motto” of Sturm, Ruger & Co. is “Arms Makers for Responsible Citizens.” But Sturm, Ruger firearms are also often found in the hands of mass shooters: last year’s attack at a Connecticut beer distributor, leaving eight victims dead and two wounded; the 1999 shooting at Wedgewood Baptist Church in Texas, leaving seven victims dead and seven wounded; Oregon’s Thurston High School in 1998, leaving four dead and 22 wounded; the 1993 Long Island Railroad shooting, leaving six dead and 19 wounded; the 1991 Luby’s massacre, leaving 23 victims dead and 20 wounded; and, a 1987 shootout at a Florida shopping center, leaving six dead, including two police officers.

This is why I say many just do not understand what they are arguing.

[_Jersey Girl]

Markkkkk which gun would you be in favor of banning in the US that might contribute to a reduction in mass shootings?

Name one.

[Guest]

Rock, do you think you're being productive by intentionally misrepresenting? The only people I see referring to "scary guns" are folks like you trying to make a mockery of a serious issue.

OP - article - AR-15's cause organs to explode like watermelons, no other wounds I've seen in my career match what I just saw with this ar-15.

Have I misrepresented the message of that article?

eta:
the article is a scare tactic against the ar-15. In reality it only reveals this is the first high-power rifle wound the surgeon had ever worked on.

[_RockSlider]

So, we expand the ban to all guns, including those that Jersey Girl's family members own. Same question on buy back. Do you still feel that that legal owners of all guns should take the investment hit? No buy back?

Opinion on buy backs of AR-15 only. If you were in a financial position to purchase it to begin with, you're in a position to sacrifice it.

q1- No. (to any buy back)
q2- Yes. (sucks for you gun owners)

eta:

I think if the solution is to be banning, then a total banning of all guns is the only thing that would work. In addition to this, having disarmed responsible individuals, the penalties for being caught with an illegal weapons would need to be very severe. Do you suppose the legal costs to the taxpayers for prosecuting/jailing lawbreakers will be less than the buyback costs?

Telling people to turn in their guns at 100% loss is going to generate a lot of new criminals.

Jersey Girl, how many members of your family might be likely to hide them away verses turning them in?

[_Morley]

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.

I'm fine with banning the AR-15. I'm fine with banning some other weapons, too. I'm fine with limiting magazines. The list goes on about all the glorious things I'm fine with, today.

As I said before, I don't think anyone has said that they only want to ban the AR-15. Stop implying that's all anyone wants to do.

You say something else is just as bad as the AR-15? I'm going say thank you very much, let's get rid of that s.o.b., too.

[_Morley]

Like you, I come from a gun culture, Markk. Taught by grandfather at age eight; rifle as Christmas gift at twelve; small-arms combat in a war zone; hunting with father; built my own blackpower; children and siblings in military and police jobs; the whole ball of wax. I'd give up my nine firearms in a New York minute for a chance that the life of a kid gets saved.