Well in a home defense situation you have to compromise. I would want something that is easy to maneuver with, accurate, can hold a light, limits over penetration, not shockingly loud (hence the suppressor), and dependable. I think that the AR is a very capable weapon but it certainly has its flaws. If you read that gawker article you would think that it is some magical killing machine when it won't make that round any deadlier than a mini 14 or any similar gun.

6/14/2016 3:48:24 PM

A Ruger mini 14 with a modified barrel could do just as much harm. I've never seen one of those in gun control ads.

^beat me to it.



[Edited on June 14, 2016 at 4:01 PM. Reason : asd]

6/14/2016 4:01:08 PM

Maybe that's because there are estimated to be ~5 million ARs in the US but only around ~1 million Mini variants.

I already admitted that disingenuous scare mongering of specific gun types is stupid.

[Edited on June 14, 2016 at 4:24 PM. Reason : Literally the most common rifle in the US]

6/14/2016 4:16:26 PM

the gun in the gawker link is too long to be a good option in the home IMO

6/14/2016 4:17:33 PM

Mateen didn't use an AR-15. Sig Sauer apparently.

6/14/2016 4:49:49 PM

The Sig MCX is just a piston driven AR with the recoil springs contained within the upper instead of in the buffer tube.

6/14/2016 5:06:30 PM

Sig Sauer MCX - which apparently uses a lot of AR parts. not sure we know the caliber yet.

[Edited on June 14, 2016 at 5:07 PM. Reason : ^^]

6/14/2016 5:07:22 PM

I think it's only available in 5.56 and 300 blackout. You can probably get some kind of custom job, but I doubt he did that.

6/14/2016 5:10:19 PM

the police are "well regulated civilian militias". Each local municipality bears arms through their local police department. Its the more specialized, modern world day's expression of the 2nd ammendment. Thanks for playing.

6/14/2016 5:14:47 PM

I mean, virtually all modern military derived semi automatic rifles operate in very similar manner (except bull pup configurations I guess). The particular model of rifle is relatively unimportant. Point is, the AR isn't uniquely bad, dangerous, etc.

The kind of thinking demonizing the AR is the same thinking that brought us all the pointless cosmetic bans in the assault weapons law.

If we want to have an actual discussion about what should be legal for civilian carry, what a background check should be, when one is performed, etc. the "more poorly thought out emotional gun laws" now crowd needs to educate themselves a bit. It's like the anti-abortion people who have no idea about fetal development. Be passionate but try to at least know a bit about what it is you're passionate about.

6/14/2016 5:23:26 PM

Seems like making the background checks more thorough, and mandatory waiting periods might help thwart the crazies more than anything else.

6/14/2016 5:44:00 PM

^^Similarly gun folks need to stop devolving every single conversation into a technical discussion on ballistics, semantics on what constitutes an assault rifle, and how a clip isn't a magazine, blah blah blah

[Edited on June 14, 2016 at 5:45 PM. Reason : Blah]

6/14/2016 5:44:43 PM

I guess, but when it comes to things like writing laws semantics and specifics are massively important. If you have concerns about lethality things like muzzle velocity, size and composition of the round, ballistic characteristics, rounds per sec rate, etc. matter. In fact they're really the only things that matter.

Laws drafted off of feelings and as a reaction to specific events are almost ways poorly written, ineffective, and come with a raft if unintended consequences.

6/14/2016 6:20:19 PM

Of those, only rate of fire should matter IMO(semi vs Auto) and I'll add length/ease of concealment (handguns/Sbr vs long gun) Basically how our laws currently differentiate small arms (with the exception of assault weapon bans which I do not support). Muzzle velocity, bullet energy, blah blah are pretty Meaningless to me in regards to regulation since all are very easily potentially lethal.

But I'm more talking about general discussions among normal non-politician people. How many god damn times have we seen an exchange ITT or in the media generally that goes something along the lines of:

Concerned citizen: why would anyone need a 30 round clip?

Gun folks: YOU DUMB MOTHERFUCKER, ITS CALLED A MAGAZINE, GET A FUCKING CLUE MORAN!!!!!

Concerned citizen: FUCK YOU GUN NUT WE SHOULD BAN EVERYTHING THE 2ND AMENDMENT IS FOR MILTITIAS IN THE 1800s

etc etc etc.

Where a better response would be : well there are already 10s of millions of 30 round mags in circulation, what good would banning them now do? Plinking with 30 rounds is a true joy that everyone should be so lucky to experience, in a self-defense situation many rounds may be needed to defend against multiple targets, the second amendment says my right to own guns shall not be infringed, that includes the magazines etc etc etc.

The semantics shit is just an avoidance mechanism.

6/14/2016 6:41:41 PM

^^^^ hell no.

[Edited on June 14, 2016 at 9:26 PM. Reason : no idea WTF happened on this post. Wasn't meaning to reference that at all. ]

oh yeah, this is what I was referring to:

Quote :

"For home defense, you can't get much better than a Taurus Judge full of OOO buckshot"

hell no. that's absurd.

[Edited on June 14, 2016 at 9:28 PM. Reason : ]

6/14/2016 7:47:46 PM

One last thing I forgot about historical meaning is that you gotta have the guns for when the slaves get restless.

6/14/2016 7:59:47 PM

Quote :

"^^Similarly gun folks need to stop devolving every single conversation into a technical discussion on ballistics, semantics on what constitutes an assault rifle, and how a clip isn't a magazine, blah blah blah"

but silly semantics are exactly the metrics used to come up with stuff like the assault weapons ban, so its important to stop the confusion

6/14/2016 8:22:01 PM

Yup. I mean, I'm not a big "appeal to authority" type or a fan of "top men" style of governance, but it is important that the laws are written by people informed on the subject. I mean, this is the same congress that has members who think the internet is a series of tubes and are concerned about guns with the shoulder part that goes up.

We're nominally governed by people who understand politics but very little else. Our laws are largely written by special interest groups of one kind or another and then voted on by people who receive contributions from those groups.

I've seen a lot of people talking about using the terror watch list or the no fly list to deny people their constitutionally protected rights. The ACLU doesn't like this idea, neither do pro gun folks, neither do muslim groups. If you're willing to shit all over this amendment, how soon before we start saying that if you're on a terror watch list you don't have 5th amendment protections, or 6th, or 8th. It's not slippery slope either, this has already happened with the 4th amendment.

6/14/2016 9:01:56 PM

Quote :

"I've seen a lot of people talking about using the terror watch list or the no fly list to deny people their constitutionally protected rights. "

Yeah I can't get get behind that either. Not a high enough bar to meet. And the fact that Obama etc make that their go-to action for gun control is dumb.

But if I can be allowed to quibble with your language, we already deny felons, domestic abusers, "mentally defective"/involuntary committees, druggies, those with warrants for their arrest, dishonorable dischargees etc their "constitutionally protected rights" via federal law.

[Edited on June 14, 2016 at 9:29 PM. Reason : I can only imagine/hope you're not in support of removing all those restrictions bc of constitutionally protected rights]

6/14/2016 9:27:45 PM

Yes, but those people have been afforded some form of due process. We restrict felons from voting, and even ex felons. I disagree with that for ex felons, but it's been upheld legally. I sort of feel that way about guns too although a good logical argument could be made for guns in that same way or perhaps differentiate violent felony from non violent.

Anyway, your name can end up on that list for no reason, or for politically motivated reasons. I mean, Ted Kennedy was on the no fly list for a while. Stripping people of their rights absolutely must not be Don extra-judicially. Like in said, the feds have been trying and in some cases succeeding on that front for a while now. Don't give them more reason to keep at it.

6/14/2016 9:44:20 PM

Quote :

"Yes, but those people have been afforded some form of due process."

In some cases, but not in the cases of:

1 - Those with arrest warrants/charged with felonies
2 - Druggies
3 - Involuntary committees
4 - Subjects of restraining orders

I don't know what you mean by ex-felon too. Anyone convicted of a felony is a felon for life...unless that person wins the appeal or is pardoned. Is that what you mean?

Lastly you don't have to sell me on the stupidity of using the no-fly list to restrict gun buying. I'm all aboard

6/14/2016 9:55:00 PM

^ those are more like an "injunction" though where if they got the issue cleared up they can own guns again.

For felons, seems sensible to have a time period where they can get their rights back.

Im against OBama and Trumps idea to use the no fly list to ban gun sales, unless they can make the no fly list something with accountability and an appeals process.

I know when I applied for my previous job, eVerify wrongly flagged me as being ineligible to work (i was a naturalized citizen for a few years at the time) and I had to jump through some hoops to clear my name-- and I only had 7 days to do it or the employment offer was voided.

A list for gun purchases would likely flag a lot of people who are eligible, but at least they have some recourse to clear their name, and buying a gun isn't as important as having a job.

This could be a slippery slope though where someone on the no fly list gets scrutinized for everything else (get pulled over, name is flagged; apply for school, apply for job, etc.), which would be an unreasonable search and seizure, if they can't be removed from the list immediately.

6/14/2016 10:02:51 PM

Quote :

"buying a gun isn't as important as having a job."

Hey buddy you don't have a constitutionally protected right to have a job! [/sarcasm]

Quote :

"those are more like an "injunction" though where if they got the issue cleared up they can own guns again."

Are you talking about "ex-felons"...can you provide a link?

6/14/2016 10:05:56 PM

felons were the exception, they pretty much are screwed now.

But there's been a renewed push to "ban the box" and I think it's reasonable to give felons back all their rights as long as theyve served their time and hit certain milestones.

6/14/2016 10:37:35 PM

Quote :

"I don't know what you mean by ex-felon too. Anyone convicted of a felony is a felon for life...unless that person wins the appeal or is pardoned. Is that what you mean?"

Sorry, wrong wording. I was talking mostly about people who have been released, served their time, etc.

Most of the stuff you referred to can be considered part of the due process procedure.

Arrest warrants require a judge or magistrate to sign off on them and the police must present a valid reason for them. It's pretty easy to get one issued, but again there's a system of checks in place there.

Involuntary commitments can be expunged (and rightfully so btw), dishonorable discharges are usually, not always, but usually because you've been found guilty of something in a military court.

Not sure what you mean about druggies.

Restraining orders are temporary or are issued as part of a court process, require a judge or magistrate to issue them, and can be challenged.

6/14/2016 10:42:40 PM

Quote :

"Arrest warrants require a judge or magistrate to sign off on them and the police must present a valid reason for them. It's pretty easy to get one issued, but again there's a system of checks in place there."

You just have to be charged "for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year". No judge/due process needed there. And I'm not sure I'd call a judge sign-off on an arrest warrant due process with respect to depriving someone of their 2nd amendment rights.

Quote :

"Involuntary commitments can be expunged (and rightfully so btw)"

After the fact, sure. And "can," it's not guaranteed. Plus until it is, you're still denied your constitutionally protected rights.

Quote :

"Not sure what you mean about druggies."

Quote :

" Federal law also says that any person "who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance" is barred from possessing guns. 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3)."

Quote :

"Restraining orders are temporary or are issued as part of a court process, require a judge or magistrate to issue them, and can be challenged."

Temporary, sure, but it's still a temporary denial of your 2nd amendment rights without you being afforded an immediate opportunity to defend yourself before that happens.

[Edited on June 14, 2016 at 11:21 PM. Reason : Point being this particular constitutionally protected right is not absolute]

[Edited on June 14, 2016 at 11:31 PM. Reason : V I think you mean wary, and if you wanna use the "but what about x" argument there are way better candidates]

6/14/2016 11:16:23 PM

What do you call the kind of trigger that fires on the pull as well as the release? Apparently those are completely legal, and a coworker of mine just bought one for his AR.

IDK, even I'd be kind of weary to mess with one of those.

But that could double the rate of fire, yet I don't hear any of the gun control crazies mentioning that.

6/14/2016 11:24:18 PM

"Friend of mine" purchased a modified (caliber was .45 and not .223, that's the only modification) AR in 2 separate pieces at a gun show roughly 15 years ago. Modified .45 Uzi mags with an AR-receiver-sized piece of metal welded near the top. Friend had plenty of .45 ammo so seemed like a cool thing. Safety and Semi Auto were the only 2 options for firing, obviously no fully automatic mode since that's illegal for 99% of people. So during a test to see how well the receiver would accept the .45 cartridges from the modified Uzi mag, the mag was inserted with the slide locked back, and the slide was released forward (or perhaps the slide was forward and after the mag was inserted, the slide was pulled back and allowed to go forward, friend can't remember), it fired a 3 round burst that went through my friend's stereo speaker then out the window. The friend had proper firearms training safety so he or she obviously didn't point it at anyone while testing the magazine loading, but he or she never used that weapon again. My hunch was that the receiver had possibly been modified, or something was just damaged.

Moral of the story is I wouldn't trust any of ^that stuff either

[Edited on June 15, 2016 at 12:02 AM. Reason : .]

6/14/2016 11:56:25 PM

I swear to god, every single civil liberty Americans have can be systematically stripped away from them, one by one, and not one goddamn peep comes out of the gun-lovin' 'murica crowd. But bring up the need for gun restriction and it's "herp derp derp muh liberties" this and "herp derp, don't tread on me" that.


Fuckin' useless.

6/15/2016 1:29:17 AM

^ hell, many of them are the same ones behind all the other transgressions.

However, the reverse is also true...the left hardly has clean hands on civil liberties, although I guess they're less bad on balance.

^^^ no such thing, and that would be insane. Maybe you mean a bump-fire stock? They make it easier to bump fire, which is more of a stupid party-trick novelty than anything else. I've never actually seen one in the flesh, because they're dumb.

[Edited on June 15, 2016 at 8:35 AM. Reason : ]

6/15/2016 8:33:28 AM

they're called binary triggers and it's somehow been deemed legal by the ATF. one trigger action, two shots. even has a selector with "binary" where those who have used military weapons would recgonize the auto selector.

watch this guy empty the better part of a 60 round magazine in about 4 seconds

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVJHVqgXRVI&t=3m2s

good job gun nuts

[Edited on June 15, 2016 at 9:44 AM. Reason : .]

6/15/2016 9:39:37 AM

Wow, I stand corrected. Hadn't seen that yet.

Still more of a novelty than anything useful. The idea of it firing upon trigger release would make me uneasy. At least it's select-fire selectable.

6/15/2016 11:05:00 AM

^^That's it. Binary trigger.

Scary.

If people would put some thought into gun control, rather than use knee-jerk reactions and attempting to tug on heartstrings, then maybe we can get something meaningful put through.

For instance, for me, I'm all for suppressors being legal. In practice, they really aren't going to give these mass shooters an edge. These mass shooters want to be heard. Popular media however has made them out to be the go-to firearm companion for assassins, so we just think suppressor=bad.

[Edited on June 15, 2016 at 11:16 AM. Reason : asdfa]

6/15/2016 11:16:26 AM

I'm surprised that binary trigger is legal but it also looks like a gimmick too and I doubt it will be very widespread.

^ Most people would be shocked to hear what a suppressor actually sounds like. On my AR it probably isn't even hearing safe, it's pretty damn loud. It's not too bad on my bolt 308 but it's a long way from being movie quiet.

6/15/2016 11:54:09 AM

Quote :

"Most people would be shocked to hear what a suppressor actually sounds like."

They're not all the same right? https://youtu.be/ZKTNMF_-zbc?t=2m35s

6/15/2016 1:00:56 PM

No they're not all the same. Many of them advise you dip them in water before you fire. And if they're wet and cool it's quieter than if they're dry and warm, for example. The "TV/movie" silencer sounds aren't very realistic though. I mean hell, the sound of the slide flying forward is louder than the little sound effects they use on TV.

6/15/2016 2:16:43 PM

http://sound.stackexchange.com/questions/29750/origin-of-the-traditional-hollywood-silencer-sound

[Edited on June 15, 2016 at 2:21 PM. Reason : so maybe it's not a complete fabrication]

6/15/2016 2:21:20 PM

Ah ok, that makes sense. But if you were right beside the gun, it wouldn't sound that way.

6/15/2016 2:25:21 PM

It also depends not just on the silencer but the round. If you are shooting a pistol that isn't a .22 LR it is not going to be that quiet. Also depends if you are shooting subsonic rounds or not. A subsonic .223 can be pretty quiet but it probably wouldn't cycle the bolt in an AR and the ballistics are going to be pretty bad. The closest non .22 LR I have heard to movie quiet is subsonic 300 BLK out of a bolt gun. It's pretty quiet out of an AR but the bolt itself makes a decent amount of noise.

6/15/2016 2:38:44 PM

Quote :

"A Ruger mini 14 with a modified barrel could do just as much harm. I've never seen one of those in gun control ads."

Breivik used one for his rampage through Norway.

6/15/2016 2:46:29 PM

^^A subsonic 5.56 might as well be a 22LR, as it's about the same weight and speed bullet and thus about the same ballistics. There's no reason to pay $1 a round for something a cheap box of 22LR will do just fine.

Regarding suppressed AR shooting - While it's true that the action cycling is louder than the suppressed gasses exiting the barrel, the sound of the bullet hitting its target is even louder than that as perceived from the shooter's end. It probably sounds like you hit something with a baseball bat at the receiving end.

6/15/2016 2:58:15 PM

https://twitter.com/Reuters/status/743124262010146816

Reuters reporting NRA changing their mind on no fly list and gun purchases.

Trump was meeting with them today about this:
https://www.rt.com/usa/346839-trump-gun-control-democrats/

Quote :

"Trump announced on Wednesday morning that he would meet with the National Rifle Association, “about not allowing people on the terrorist watch list, or the no fly list, to buy guns.” The NRA has endorsed Trump’s presidential bid."

Seems like they were going to make this change anyway, but i'm sure this won't stop Trump from claiming credit.

[Edited on June 15, 2016 at 3:55 PM. Reason : ]

6/15/2016 3:47:50 PM

As long as they provide some ways to challenge the list I'm all for it. Of course, if you are considered such a danger that we won't let you on a plane, why are you allowed to be in public at all?

6/15/2016 4:01:21 PM

How do you even get put on the list? How does that process actually work?

6/15/2016 4:11:17 PM

Without essentially neutering the watchlists, which might not be a bad thing, i don't see how this would work.

I guess we're just basically making the lists public? This is where the mandatory waiting period comes on, you don't know if youre on the list or not...

It'll be interesting to see the details of the legislation.

^ according to the RT link, it's basically secret. The FBI has some hunch you're a terrorist, you secretly get put on the list until you try to fly somewhere you won't know. There's a million-ish people on the various lists.

[Edited on June 15, 2016 at 4:13 PM. Reason : ]

[Edited on June 15, 2016 at 4:14 PM. Reason : ]

6/15/2016 4:12:02 PM

Blatant disregard for due process. Sad.

6/15/2016 4:17:10 PM

Quote :

"There's a million-ish people on the various lists."

Wiki says there were 47k on the no fly list in 2013.

Quote :

"The No Fly List is different from the Terrorist Watch List, a much longer list of people said to be suspected of some involvement with terrorism. The Terrorist Watch List contained around 1,000,000 names by March 2009. The Terrorist Screening Database or TSDB is the central terrorist watchlist consolidated by the FBI's Terrorist Screening Center and used by multiple agencies to compile their specific watchlists and for screening. The list consists of 400,000 unique names and over 1,000,000 records (some are alias or name variant) as of September 2008.[1] 1,600 nominations are suggested daily, 600 names are removed and 4,800 records are modified by the U.S. intelligence community. Approximately one out of twenty of the people on the list are U.S. citizens or legal permanent residents.[2]"

[Edited on June 15, 2016 at 4:18 PM. Reason : ^ you gotta do it Trump style. SAD!]

6/15/2016 4:17:55 PM

^^ yeah, they can't just say "on the list = no guns" without other changes, this is blatantly unconstitutional and I can't see the supreme court not shutting this down quick.

They have to add some due process, but as the FBI has commented, doing so could compromise some investigations.

[Edited on June 15, 2016 at 4:19 PM. Reason : ]

6/15/2016 4:18:43 PM

I'd venture to guess Donald Trump doesn't even know what due process is.

6/15/2016 4:21:25 PM

And Hillary knows but doesn't care.

Talking about just banning people from gun purchases for being on a secret list is blatantly unconstitutional, but that's what many lawmakers are clamoring to do because that's what the damn fool public is yelling for. Such a law would show total disregard for the Constitution and shouldn't be proposed let alone passed, but if you say that you're clearly just a gun nut.

6/15/2016 6:01:27 PM