“That’s the potential of the rifle. There’s nothing out there that’ll compare to it as to doing what it was designed to do, and that’s kill people.” – Jerrol Jensen quoted in ‘It’s One of the Greatest Rifles’: Fans of the AR-15 Explain the Gun’s Appeal [via nytimes.com]
Or go hunting… or go target shooting… or…. you know, just about any other freaking thing else. What an asshole.
Which is not what the AR-15 was designed for. If you really wanted a hunting rifle, you would choose something that fires an adequate round for ethical kills. If you really wanted a target rifle, you would choose a target rifle. The AR-15 was designed as a military weapon, and given the nature of the Vietnam War, its one singular purpose was to kill as many NVA and Viet Cong as possible. Own it. You don’t have to defend the weapon; you just have to defend the law as it stands. I don’t care for the AR platform, but I’m not going to malign those who do.
Erm.. no. The initial iteration of the m16 was rather poor for its desired role. It has been very significantly improved since then. But the AK47 was the superior weapon until at least the the late War iterations of the M16 A1. I personally would say the AK74 was the superior weapon until the last 20 years when the AR series really advanced to an amazing level of reliability compared to its Vietnam era version.
This discussion is hollow without acknowledging that the AR15 has intoxicating effects on certain individuals. Other semi autos of more classic or traditional design (yea, I know the AR15 profile is 50+ years old) don’t seem to have the same effect on people.
And yes there are many variants and similar but different versions of .223 semi autos with plenty of features and plastic, but again, they are not finding their way into school shootings.
So for the same reason idiot open carriers force their AR15s upon restaurant patrons, the AR15 is the goto school shooting gun. The same reason pickup truck owners swap out the cannon for the AR15 on their come and take it banners and stickers. And the same reason the silhouette of the AR15 is forced upon the public as the universal sign of gun rights.
Even more to consider, the AR15 is the single most popular first gun purchase yet it is far from a good idea as the first gun.
Now keep your shirts on. I have a safe full of ARs but still cringe at the gun store when Jose and Hose-B slink in and fondle the display ARs as if the gun will somehow change their life.
It is not about the gun. It is about the AR15.
The AR15 is a tool, it has no magical effect on those who use it. It is important to understand that the 2nd amendment provides for both collective and individual protection to include a check on our Government. Hunting, target shooting, collecting are not a part of that right. With our rights we all have responsibilities. The improvements to the AR came not from the military, but from competitive shooters. We must keep a,sharp eye out for th o see among us who are mentally ill and finished n dad way to keep them from killing.
Intoxicating effects!?!? 😂😂😂 holy Shit you are a special kind of moron. Wow. You think an object made of plastic and metal able to intoxicate someone who touches it. You liberals get dumber by the day. The AR is owned and used more because it’s the most produced and best for the cost of purchase and manufacture. Go smoke some more weed.
I don’t see anything wrong with the AR-15 being someone’s first firearm. It IS the first firearm many people ever handle, after all. Not everyone who joins the military has prior firearm experience.
It’s soft recoiling, light, accurate, easy to shoot—all qualities which benefit the new shooter.
Can you imagine how scary an M1 Garand must have been to some skinny kid from Brooklyn who’d never even touched a gun before?
“the AR15 is the goto school shooting gun.” Prove it. Media figures saying so isn’t proof. I know it isn’t used in a majority of mass shootings. I would assume that is also the case of school shootings. Especially if we count all school shootings and not just mass school shootings.
“Intoxicating effects”
You obviously didn’t grow up watching the A-Team, with all their Mini-14s, did you?
Ah yes… The old “it’s dangerous for cosmetic reasons” correlation without causation argument. Perhaps maybe because it’s the most common rifle in a America?
Why isn’t it a good first/introductory gun? It’s not a .22, and it is rather loud, but it’s accuraye, lightweight, soft shooting, long (I’m generally leery of starting new shooters in a handgun or anything too compact, simply because it’s easier to forget where the muzzle is pointing with a smaller gun), has great ergonomics and generally a pretty high level of adjustability… so what’s your problem?
Isn’t weird that more people in American are murdered by hands and feet than are murdered by rifles/shotguns?
While I get the spirit of what you are saying, I do n ot agree with you. We do have to defend the weapon, because it is specifically being targeted.
Also, the nature of the AR is makes it adept at hog hunting.
The nature of the AR platform makes it adept at ANY hunting. Don’t like the diminutive .223/5.56 cartridge? swap out barrel and bolt. Want to use a longer round? Move to the AR10 platform. Short barrels for moving through heavy brush; long barrels for accuracy at longer ranges. DIY built to suit without expensive gunsmithing.
E. Stoner’s invention is a potent hunting platform. Its adaptability and flexibility are what attracted many of its followers. Attacks on the AR platform (and other semi-automatic systems) are attacks on the natural evolution of firearms. Attacks on magazine capacity are attacks on the 2A.
Versatility without having to learn an entirely new system or having to buy an entirely new gun. Dave’s got it.
I don’t think the AR platform is the best at any one thing, but it just might be the best at everything.
—The AR-15 was designed as a military weapon—
The Flintlock was designed as a Military Weapon.
The Falling block action was designed as a Military Weapon.
The Lever action was designed as a Military Weapon. (Saw widespread use in the US Civil War).
The Bolt Action was designed as a Military weapon, specifically to address the shortcomings of the lever action. (taking cover and lying in the dirt make it harder to run the lever, so the bolt action was developed, and is still used by our modern military.
an AR-15 is no different then any other semi-automatic rifle.
If you use a rifle for hunting, it’s a hunting rifle.
People use semi-automatics for hunting all the time. People use AR-15’s for hunting all the time.
The AR-15 platform is available in many different calibers, and can quickly and easily be converted to one appropriate for whatever game you’re taking. From ground hogs up to at least Elk with a .450 bushmaster, .458 SOCOM, or .50 Beowulf.
Mostly correct, except that the Henry did NOT see widespread action in the Civil War because its .40 rimfire cartridge was under powered and had only a short effective range. Although there were some foreign military sales, the Winchester was never adopted as a US military arm.
Mark N.,
Don’t forget the Spencer too.
Ok, perhaps “widespread” was a bit generous of a term.
My girlfriend wants me to take Viagra, I said no, its original use was intended to treat hypertension and angina. sorry can’t do it.
The AR15 was designed for the civilian market in the late 50’s . The military caught interest in the early 60’s and ordered some select fire models for testing. They were introduced to the troops in 1967 in Vietnam. That was the first year my Dad served there. He trained on the M14. It always was a civilian rifle first. The military wanted a smaller caliber for many reasons including cost, weight, and wounding the enemy was considered more effective than killing at that time.
VerendusAudeo – are you not aware that the AR15 is merely a platform and not tied to a particular caliber?
It can fire rounds that are very suitable for hunting, such as the .300 Blackout, .458 HAMR, and the.50 Beowulf to name but just three.
I guess you are not very versed in what the AR platform is or isn’t, so I’ll let it slide and just mark you down as someone who is used to shotguns and bolt-action rifles (ie: a Fudd).
Verendus – You state the AR-15 is derived from the M-16. You could not be more wrong. The AR-15 was sold on the civilian market for five years before the military adopted it.
There is such a thing as “service rifle” competition. Ever heard of Camp Perry? Even I have in my part of the world.
Cuz before the AR15 there was no hunting or target shooting? Seriously, we need to drop the BS line that we need an AR to hunt boar (or whatever) and acknowledge that we just *want* one because they’re friggin cool.
Nope. We *need* one for the day we ever have to fight a war on our home soil as the original and only intent of the second amendment. Owning an AR isn’t about looking cool and having fun. If that’s the only reason you have one then you’re not taking it seriously. You can have safe fun with firearms all day long but if you don’t realize the actual importance behind owning weaponry then your apart of the problem. Owning an AR is about aknowleding you live in a dangerous and unpredictable world, and accepting the government isn’t responsible for your survival.
“the original and only intent of the second amendment.” I’d say primary, but not only intent.
Please stop the need versus want conversation. It is a distraction pure and simple.
My needs and wants have absolutely no bearing on my rights and refuse to have a useless conversation that distracts from the subject.
We want one because they’re freaking cool. We want one because they’re light and convenient with literally endless accessory options, and are easy to clean and maintain.
We need one because it, same as any other semi-automatic rifle in existence, has an invaluable place in personal and civil defense.
I wouldn’t say “easy”. I recently cleaned out the back of my bolt carrier. 30 minutes with a dental pick, but that’s because I had previously ignored it for 2000 rds. Other than that one little spot, I love the AR platform. Semper Vigilans, brother.
No, DaveR, that’s not true at all. I’ve hunted pigs with a lever action rifle. I’ve hunted pigs with a bolt action rifle. I did that for a lot of years before I bought my first AR15, which I bought specifically for hunting. Because it did a better job at it than all of those other platforms, based on my actual experience hunting for years with those platforms.
I shot 39 pigs and one white tail doe yesterday with a suppressed AR. In about 6 hours. It is an exceptional, maybe even perfect, platform for pig hunting.
“I shot 39 pigs and one white tail doe yesterday with a suppressed AR. In about 6 hours.” I hate you. Purely out of jealousy.
Wow, where is deer hunting still in season? I guess Texas. Or it was self defense, maybe?
I’ve moved from hunting to management mode in Tennessee. We don’t have hogs yet, and I’ve yet to outsmart the coyotes here.
Probably a depredation thing.
Ridge Runner – Yes, we have wild boars in Tennessee. Not as many as Texas or Arkansas but we have them. A man in Fayette County (TN) noticed a wild boar walking down his dead end road. Realizing his neighbor was mowing the backyard the man grabbed his gun and went over to the house, rounded the corner and saw the hog circling a picnic table. Why? Well, because the home owner was on top of the picnic table. Boom. Problem solved. Very grateful neighbor.
So what, exactly, is wrong with “just wanting one?” What other rights do we have to defend based on someone else’s perceived “need?” You want a Ferrari and have the money, go for it. Got room in your back yard? Put in a pool. More people die in vehicle accidents and swimming pools than homicides, gun related or not. But I’ve never heard of having to justify either of those
Nobody needs to say things that are going to offend people. We need common sense speech control. /s
I checked in late and this thread is too long by now but here goes anyway:
Why do spree killers and terrorists often use the AR15?
Because it is effective, inexpensive, easy to use and readily available.
Why do many law abiding citizens use the AR15 for hunting, sport shooting and self-defense?
Because it is effective, inexpensive, easy to use and readily available.
Why do bigots like to focus their hatred on the AR15 and those who own them?
Because it is effective, inexpensive, easy to use and readily available.
🤠
^^^
Winner winner, chicken dinner! Best summary I’ve ever seen.
Hahaha, nice one
Sorry to hijack this thread.
Trump just published the following tweet:
In return for this we must get national reciprocity, concealed carry in schools, and Hearing Protection Act.
Here is a link to Trump’s tweet:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/966662241977360384
TTaG admins: feel free to delete this comment after you create a dedicated post.
Nope to Trump on this.
Are all mental health professionals’ offices now going to be de facto Gestapo offices? What’s the standard? Does a vet with PTSD lose his 2A rights? How about someone diagnosed with depression? How about a person with a history of ADD and Adderall use as a child?
The only people who should be denied the right to own a firearm due to “mental health” issues are people who have been found to be insane.Clinically insane. Unable to determine right from wrong.
Otherwise, we are rushing headlong towards punishing people for “future crimes”.
As for the raising the age to buy ANY firearm to 21, do we then raise the voting age to 21? The age to join the military?
“In return for this we must get national reciprocity, concealed carry in schools, and Hearing Protection Act.” I’ll believe it when I see it. We have never won when a compromise took place, you know, the one time it was a compromise instead of simply being a mitigated defeat.
Raise age to 21 is a throwaway. Gets the progs CCW teachers (which they didn’t know was their objective) but they have to give up on the rest of the BS.
So an AR is no good for any of the things I’ve been using it for and other rifles are no good for killing people. Seeing as how rifles are used in a small fraction of all homicides I suppose the author may be correct.
As I explained to my sole libtard friend (who I did manage to get out to the range and have him shoot an A R15 and a .308), the 5.56 round was designed to kill coyotes, not humans. It was employed as a battle rif le because they thought it was advantageous to wound enemy soldiers instead of killing them.
Baloney. They were employed since it was found 5.56 was just as effective at ending soldiers, and was far more practical otherwise.
Ending soldiers?
barnbwt,
I have heard both claims that the U.S. military adopted the 5.56x45mm round because they expected it to:
(1) wound enemy soldiers and take three men off the battle field
(2) tumble and be more deadly than traditional spitzer bullets
We know two things for a FACT about the 5.56 x 45mm cartridge:
(1) It is a varmint cartridge.
(2) It allows soldiers to carry more ammunition.
Since the cartridge is optimum for varmints, it is NOT optimum for killing humans. Can it be lethal to humans? Of course, especially inside of 50 meters. Is it guaranteed to cause fairly serious wounds in humans? Of course, especially inside of 300 meters. Does it allow a soldier to carry something like 50% more ammunition than the same weight of .30 caliber rifle ammunition? Absolutely.
When you combine all of those FACTS above, they describe a potentially optimum cartridge for warfare. What those FACTS do not describe is a highly lethal round for killing humans.
Caveat: having said all that, if you load heavy-for-caliber cartridges with expanding bullets and shoot out of a 20-inch barrel, I would argue that 5.56 x 45mm is a highly lethal round for killing humans inside of 50 meters.
Let the flaming begin!
Obviously the adaptation of the 5.56 round and the M16 rif le were based on a variety of goals. Bear in mind that this was the cold war era and that since the late 19th century countries had voluntarily agreed to limit the lethality of their battle ri fles by banning the use of expanding bul lets. The vast majority of soldiers in that era were conscripted by their despotic overlords and had little skin in the game other than the fact that if they deserted they’d be shot by their own side. Although the spirit of these rules were often skirted by designing bull ets that would tumble and break up in flesh. The M193 was one of these, however to have sufficient velocity for this to happen the range needs to be limited to 250 yards or so. Beyond that the 5.56 produces very small ice pick wounds. At school shooting ranges the weapon is essentially about as powerful as a .44magnum handgun.
The original M16 had a 1:12 twist and not even a chrome lined barrel. This was too slow of a twist for the 55gr. bullet which caused it to lose stability when hitting a human flesh. And the rifle constantly jammed. After changing the barrel to a 1:9 twist and chrome lining the barrel, reliability was greatly improved.
As best I can recall.
Barn bat you don’t know anything about war a wounded soldier needs two men to carry him a medical unit to take care of them, supplies Logistics and money so it pays to wound your enemy and not kill
ISIS (and various other non-European poop-holes) do not retrieve their wounded. The Hague Convention (i.e. FMJ-only) was never ratified by the US Senate. The M855 produces ice-pick wounds that may allow the enemy to shoot back. Personally, I prefer to solve a problem once, and one time only. As a taxpayer, I defer that option to our guys behind the trigger.
Repeating urban legends? That’s okay, I’m sure a person who refers to their “friend” as a “libtard” is quite a formidable thinker…but you might want to think just a little deeper regarding the veracity of your claim.
Urban legend? Both the 5.56 and the .223 were adapted from the .222 Rem, a varmint round. Both increased capacity and max pressure slightly, but to this day there’s only a couple of states where .223/5.56 are legal for deer because it’s considered inhumane to wound an animal and let it get away. However when it comes to conscripted soldiers it’s considered more humane to wound them than to kill them.
And as far as taking offense to the term ‘libtard’, you either are one or you just don’t have any liberal friends and don’t know what they’re like.
Gov Faubus your ignorance of the present is superceeded only by your historical ignorance:
“The vast majority of soldiers in that era (late 19th century)… had little skin in the game other than the fact that if they deserted they’d be shot by their own side.”
NATIONALISM will be the subheading in any European History survey text and cover the rise of nationalism during the Napoleanic invasions which permitted mass conscription, and the peak of nationalism in the late 19th and early 20th century which likewise inspired the masses to fight in the military.
You cant craft a post without advertising your glaring ignorance
Youre welcome, Im happy to help you remedy your shocking ignorance : D
A “libtard” is an offensive designation for anyone who corrects the delusions of retrograde ignoramuses like Gov Faubus, and a “LIBTARD” is one who accompanies those corrections with indisputable documentation.
So I am relegated to “LIBTARD” status by the dunces here on TTAG who cant tolerate documented corrections to their fetardation.
If you cant argue with the indisputably documented correction to your delusion, simply call your opponent a childish name like you learned to do on am radio and ignore that reality which is out of sync with your delusion!
Don’t you have some Tide pods to go eat?
BTW, in WWI Great Britain managed to avoid resorting to the draft for 18 months (before the Somme). Everybody else started it on day one.
No, no, dont mention it Gov Faubus, youre welcome, Im happy to bring you up to speed with the average junior high schooler…
Next we can bring you up to par with an 8th grader in Earth Science and learn yous sumptin bout dat dere glerbal wermin ifN you wants…
SHEETFIRE we could even school yas to take yer GED, the skys the limit : D
OK, you really should stop at 3 Tide pods. Otherwise people might think you’re on jenkem or something.
The one huge advantage with the .556 round is it is just barely good enough for the job, but you can carry twice the amount of ammo than .762 The biggest issue is the range, thus in the desert they are going back to 762.
^ This. Binder said in far fewer words what I was trying to say.
Actually, the weight savings between the rif les and am mo were enough to increase the number or rounds a foot soldier could carry from 280 to 600.
Another big advantage of the 5.56 is that the M14s were extremely hard to handle in full auto.
The standard load for most of the M16s life was 6mags in pouchs and 1 in the rifle. Initially 20rd ea Later 30rd
Read that somewhere. I believe that was a 20kg load. I would think that load would be variable due to the mission though. That said, I’m too young to have any actual ‘back in ‘Nam’ stories (heard a few of them though). 6 mags sounds good for about a 3 minute firefight at best though.
I’ve fired three military rifles in Full Automatic: the M16, the M14, and the Thompson 1927A1 “Tommy Gun”. It is my experience that any ANY hand-held shoulder-fired weapon is difficult to shoot “accurately” on Full Automatic.
correction: the M60 on a bipod is a sweetheart to shoot (but it’s also an “area weapon” at best).
Good post but it’s 7.62, not .762 (the needler!)
.762 would definitely put someone down!
Of course no comment section on the NYT story page. I think they know what they’ll get.
If antis really believed that we would kill them for doing what they have planned for us, they would make banning such effective resistance devices a top policy priority.
If they (gov’t) raise the legal age to purchase a firearm to 21 years of age, then let the lawsuits begin. Becoming an adult at 18, but not allowing a adult citizen their constitutional right to own a firearm is a clear violation of the 2nd amendment. Only way to do this is also to raise the voting age and age of adulthood to 21. This opens a large can of worms.
Why are we listening to teenagers that can’t even be told not to eat TIDE pods?
They can be told, but they’ll eat them anyway.
The big winner these days would appear to be Tide.
“clear violation of the 2a” HAHAHA! You think the courts would care? (Not that I don’t agree with you). That’s been, at best, a second class right for decades. Nevermind that “shall not be infringed” is some of the clearest language in the Bill of Rights, and that the courts have somehow found a constitutional right to both marriage and abortion and yet have managed to insist that the CLEARLY STATED 2A doesn’t actually mean what it says. If this law passes (and it’s Florida, home of the RINOs, so it probably will), don’t expect any serious legal challenge to it
The complete lie is that it was actually designed to LESS LETHAL and to kill FEWER PEOPLE. The military asked that the AR-10 (chambered for the 7.62×54) be redesigned to be chambered for the 5.56.
So many words, so few facts. Thanks NYT.
How about this: reliable, durable, ergonomic, long-lived, lightweight, adaptable, adjustable, inexpensive, utilitarian, cheap to shoot, accurate. The AR is a unique package in that it combines so many desirable attributes. It’s not perfect for all tasks–no one firearm is. However, it is unique in that it optimizes more attributes than so many of its competitors.
Of course, without help, not many NYT writers could understand this.
I have found the AR platform to be ideal for me and my boys – type of hunting.. I use the 6.8 with 85 grain bullets and it does a good job on medium white tail deer and hogs. As it’s light weight, adjustable, low recoil, rugged, and field servicable.. I prefer it over my other bolt or semi auto rifles…
Personally I don’t like the .223/5.56 round for self defense and don’t own an AR-15. They are fun to shoot and are accurate at much farther distance than my preferred round 7.62×39. But for <100 yards that is what I prefer. If I need to reach out and touch beyond that I go to .308.
And again:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHKm51XIHuE
The trolls come out of the woodwork.
It’s amazing how many AR-15 owners don’t use their rifles for it’s intended purpose….. according to the people who couldn’t explain the difference between an AR15 and a Mini14 if their life depended on it.
These school shootings are done by immature people that are obsessed with power. It is all the same thing. Cost of a new muscle car or bike is out of range for most first time drivers, but we have learned that they will try the max power. This is the same with firearms, which is a good reason to teach you children gun safety with a mild weapon, maybe a single shot and work up from there.
Allowing an obsessed child with max power can just create a monster. He needs some oversight.
Actually, the kids that commit these mass shootings are narcissists looking for attention. That, and they may harbor grudges for being bullied because they are wimps. I’m in northern VA and on this morning’s news I heard a story of a couple of teens on the school bus in southern Maryland talking about how they could do a school shooting better and not get caught, and one kid said he had access to weapons. Naturally, that got reported and the cops scooped them up immediately. The cops also visited the one kid’s father, who was an FFL, and charged him for not securing his 50-60 weapons properly. I guess that’s the way it’s going to be in the current atmosphere. I guess that we can now get busted just for thinking or talking about something – no need to actually do it (or intend to do it) – so be careful what you say and who you say it around. You never know when you’ll get swatted.
That’s not SWATTING.
The kids voiced a credible threat. Such should never be ignored. Especially after we learned that ignoring such threats DOES lead to mass murder.
Our precious children need to learn personal responsibility. Better they learn it after only making threats than after becoming murderers.
Yeah, Cruz was never arrested for his threats. Had he been arrested, he would never have been able to buy the gun he used! Law enforcement, local and the FBI, failed.
Assuming, David, he was convicted of a felony, and that conviction was reported to the FBI and entered into NICS.
Tex,
Or, assuming he was found to be a danger to himself or others (I have no idea how hard that would be to prove in a legal manner, but the evidence was there) and placed in an institution by court order.
We often forget that part. Yet, especially in this case, the perp gave more than ample warning.
The standard is less than beyond a reasonable doubt.
Once I saw that the article came from Pravda-on-the-Hudson, I disregarded it. The Times and the other liberal big-city news media have been doing all they can to convince the uneducated and naive that the AR15 is the embodiment of evil. We can try to counter that, but it is hard, but it will die off in a week or two. So hunker down and enjoy your AR15 and variants while you can, or hide them. Molon Labe! Although my tastes run to replica 19th c. rifles and revolvers, I have an AK in 7.62x39mm (as well as a couple of riot guns and pistols) for when TSHTF or the zombies come. When I was in Vietnam (USMC infantry), my experiences with the M16A1 caused me to form the opinion that it was a POS made by Mattel, whereas the AK was reliable and didn’t require the extraordinary amount of cleaning just to function. And it killed the enemy just as dead. Beyond 300 meters, I wanted something in 7.62x54mm or equivalent. As a result, I managed to swap my M16A1 for an M-14 and eight magazines (my unit was not much for weapons accountability), which I was very happy with. I still think that way.
“my unit was not much for weapons accountability.”
Cracks me up.
I was too young for Viet Nam, but my older brother served in “Nam on a Navy destroyer. I’m merely Air Guard, and my younger brother Navy Reserve.
I’m glad that you found the right tool for the job. Indeed, the 5.56 is more of a varmint round – 4 or 2-legged. Anything over 300 yds requires a longer barrel or more stable bullet.
Semper Fi, and Semper Vigilans, brother. I’d include “thank you for your service”, but it’s a cliche. I’m too old now to put up much of a fight, but I still train at the range.
Yeah the AR 15 is cool. I don’t have one. I’m in my mid 60’s and I ain’t cool…anymore. Every gun I buy is just a tool to me. Meh…
You’ve got to get one for the children. By buying one you’ll prevent at least one AR-15 from falling in the hands of a child. Do it for the children! 😀
Grab em by the former water walker you confused “cool” and “tool”, clearly you ARE A TOOL (and a fool obviously)
And never forget you admire the Misogynist-in-Chief, the Hump who brags about using his power to get away with serial sexual assaults:
“You know, I’m automatically attracted to beautiful — I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything… Grab ’em by the former water walker. You can do anything.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/08/us/donald-trump-tape-transcript.html
The AR 15 has become “The Poster Child for US Domestic Terror”. It’s not about “feelz”. It’s not about “knowz”, or “don’t knowz”. It is about optics. Not the kind you mount on a firearm, but the kind where people see what can be done with these rifles. Piles of dead people, hospital wards full of wounded people. Grieving parents, spouses, siblings, children, relatives and friends paraded before them.
This is what fuels the NYT to end an article trying to explain the AR 15’s appeal by saying, “That’s the potential of the rifle. There’s nothing out there that’ll compare to it as to doing what it was designed to do, and that’s kill people.” – Jerrol Jensen quoted in ‘It’s One of the Greatest Rifles’: Fans of the AR-15 Explain the Gun’s Appeal [via nytimes.com] Not because it is especially accurate or true, but because people want to believe it.
The challenge for us POTG is how do we defend this platform against these fundamentally gut-wrenching optics created by mentally imbalanced, just plain evil, politically motivated, or any other way you describe them, mass murderers? To the fear-filled, angry hoplophobe the simple answer is “Ban them!” We need to critically and impassively examine what we say and what we do because these terrifying images keep winning new support for those opposing all American’s natural, civil and constitutionally protected right to keep and bear Arms.
“It’s not about “feelz”. It’s not about “knowz”, or “don’t knowz”. It is about optics.” Optics are “feelz.” It’s about perception and not reality. That’s feelz.
Optics are the source of “feelz”. “Feelz” generate “knowz”. “Don’t knowz” strengthen or weaken the validity of the connection between perception and reality. “Knowz” based on previous events can bias the “feelz” -> “knowz” results of subsequent events thereby weakening the connection between perception and reality. Additional valid information gathered and, most importantly, accepted can mitigate the effect of “don’t knowz” thereby strengthening the validity of the connection between perception and reality.
Imagine if the Florida event had been mitigated by a secure perimeter, multiple armed security personnel augmented by a few armed administrators and teachers, the suspect was stopped and captured alive and no one was killed or hurt. There would be a National Celebration rather than a national firestorm of anger and senseless cries for “more gun control”. Why? Because the optics generated “good feelz”.
Actually, it would only be on Laura Ingraham’s show on Fox. How do I know? I don’t, I’m just assuming that the story I saw on her show tonight about a deputy who stopped a school shooting wasn’t covered on any other show.
Absolutely! The Media’s pervasive determination to advance an anti-firearms agenda is a huge bias, as we already know. The problem the hoplophobes* and gun muggles have that is their “don’t knowz” are being intentionally fed by the information sources they use and trust for their “knowz”. People cannot build a valid connection between perception and reality when their perception is being fed disinformation and outright lies.
So, had that imaginary scenario been the reality in Florida few people would have gotten that information.
*Hoplophobes may not respond to any information, no matter how valid, because their phobia prevents objective analysis in the first place.
And I think we are agreed that would be a PR victory, but not of the magnitude that it should be.
Yes, we agree on the PR issue. Insofar as the analytical model we may not agree. It is one I developed for myself and found useful. Others may prefer a different model. That works just fine for me.
For close quarters combat, I’d say a 12 gauge shotgun is superior to an AR-15 if your goal really is to kill as many people as possible. Right off the shelf at the sporting goods store, you’re looking at a weapon with a 5+1 shell capacity, each shell containing nine 00 buck shot about .33″ im diameter. Each blast deliver nine projectiles roughly the size of a 9mm, but at much higher velocity that would rip through anything in its path.
With practice, your can even reload three shells at a time. Such a gun can be made to feature slam fire functionality, too, meaning you just hold the trigger and the pumping of the action will fire another shell. This was used to devastating effect by U.S. troops in WWI.
When the Germans, the first people to unleash unrestricted submarine warfare, poisonous gas and the flammenwerfer, a one-man flamethrower, on their enemies, files a mid-war diplomatic protest that the use of shotguns was illegal and constituted a war crime, you know you’re on to something.
By the way, think about that the next time the liberals claim they don’t want to ban all guns, just the especially lethal “weapons of war.” Once you get down to that point, the liberals will suddenly remember that shotguns were formerly called trench guns and sweepers and were indeed weapons of war, too.
It actually doesn’t matter much. Charles Whitman used a bolt action hunting rifle and equalled the number of Parkland. Ho killed 32 at Virginia Tech using primarily a Glock 19. I’d still contend that the biggest factors are luck (what precisely the bullet hits) and time to medical assistance. In the Orlando case the killed v wounded ratio was very high. People with minor wounds perished because the time for medical assistance was hours.
The left’s mob leaders shout “AR15” so the mobs want to ban AR15s. It’s not a lot more complicated than that. Emotion. Mob action. A CNN town hall led by Tapper, who used to work for the Brady Campaign.
Columbine shooters used a HighPoint carbine, Tec-9, and sawed off shotguns. No AR15 at all. Lot of good the NFA did stopping them from sawing off shotguns.
The New York Times is absolutely wrong about what they said about the AR-15 platform. The AR-15 / M16 was designed as a force multiplier. That’s why Eugene Stoner went with the 223 Remington cartridge to begin with. In the past 30 caliber rifles were used with full battle rifle cartridges. These tend to straight up kill the enemy soldier. If you kill an enemy soldier there’s no need for anyone to come and help him or try to end they’re suffering. This type of weapons system will cause one person to be injured and require one or more soldiers to remove that injured person from the battlefield and then treat him medically and so on. This requires the enemy combatants to put out much more money and Manpower on their side of the battlefield. So you see in fact the AR-15 was designed to maim and wound not kill. If you look at how many people were shot in Florida and killed compared to how many were shot and wounded requiring medical attention immediately it’s not even close comparison. And as usual the New York Times and its liberal Progressive globalist socialist Marxist BS is going to give you a whole big helping scoop of BS!
That target looks lije scumbag steve ha ha
We have to defend the Armalite Rifle 15 (AR-15) because banning it is the nose under the tent for banning guns piecemeal. Next time some Nut-case uses a bolt action rifle with a scope from a hundred yards away the hue and cry will be we have to ban “Sniper Rifles” after all nobody needs a Sniper Rifle. Or a Shotgun like the DP12 or kel -tek now in 25 shot configuration after all federal law say only “need” 3 rounds for hunting. anything more than that is made to only kill humans.
I am SO getting tired of all the talk of banning certain types of firearms, bump stocks and other accessories.
I have 3 AR15s in 5.56 and 1 in 300BLK, also an AR10 in .308 Win.
I have 2 Slide Fire stocks which I haven’t even tried yet.
And a collection of WWI and WWII battle rifles. Including a M1 Garand.
The anti-gunners keep this crap up and I will buy an AR18, a REAL machine gun.
Try to ban that, the one I’m looking at is NFA registered and transferable, C&R eligible and is $15,000.
(I have a FFL03)
Or how a bout a Harrington and Richardson Reising M50 .45 ACP MG for $7000? The poor man’s Thompson. Also C&R eligible.
Check it out if you ever wanted to own a machine gun and can pass the FBI background check and you have the money.
https://dealernfa.com/product-category/machine-guns/all-transferable-machine-guns/?orderby=price
The Country is headed down the wrong direction because of the Liberals and Democrats.
Be prepared.
Veteran USAF
FFL03
Concealed Carry Permit
Life Member NRA
Geoff is so heavily indoctrinated he brags about being in the most terroristic and cowardly branch of the US military.
To knowingly give away your life to complete the mision, as Al Qaeda did, now that is courage
Okay, you’re safe here. Now show us on the doll where your uncle touched you…
@ USAF
Tell us what shit hole you’re from so we can limit immigration from there even more.
Today I was FINALLY able to order a Ruger PC Carbine in 9mm. That’s the one that takes Glock mags as well as Ruger ones. Since 33-round magazines are still legal here in Texas, how long do you think it will be before this gun gets lumped in with all the other “assault rifles”?
“That’s the potential of the rifle. There’s nothing out there that’ll compare to it as to doing what it was designed to do, and that’s kill people.”
I seem to remember something about, what was it now? Oh yeah, ALL guns are dangerous and can kill. That’s why we have the four rules. And yeah, the camel’s nose analogy fits, since ALL guns are designed to kill. They wouldn’t be terribly useful (or so popular for so many years) unless they did. Doh.
My first semi automatic Rifle was an AR, because a 50cal was too expensive to buy, to expensive to shoot and too damn heavy to carry
AR are good at their job? I want 5 !
F the NYT
They’re about as bankrupt as CNN. Hopefully we can stop talking about both of them soon.
The NYT is a branch of the anti-gun agit-prop machine. These folks hate ARs, along with AKs, MAC-10s, TEC-9s, or any other firearm that the current AWB movement is focusing on in the press. In the 1980s the NYT launched screeds, along with the swimmer Ted Kennedy, condemning .30-30 caliber ammunition as “COP-KILLER” bullets. Tomorrow it will be something else, it really doesn’t matter to them whether it’s .177 BBs or .50BMG ammo. The NYT wants a ban on all firearms or any item that might resemble a firearm.
This is the problem with the gun community. Arguing over stupid sh*t. It doesn’t matter if some people don’t understand the AR platform. The issue is that our rights are being eroded and we are arguing amongst ourselves instead of fighting back the wave of anti-gun rhetoric.
Comments are closed.