re: Man Shoots AR-15 Against His Nose To Show How Little Kick It Has

quote:

---

There were people on here last week arguing that citizens have the right to own nukes, chemical weapons and any viral weapon available to the government and they were 100% serious!

---

give me a logical reason why governments should be able to own these and not private citizens

quote:

---

yes and they are able to disperse quickly, the same as a group of people out in the open

now put that pile of black birds in a box and see how many you can hit

---

It's harder to consistently hit a target in that short of environment than you might think. Flashing lights, loud music, jostling crowd, it's disorienting.

When you add in he's a nutjob shooting as fast as he can, you're gonna start seeing high shots. Really high shots.

I can stand on my range at 20 ft and put all 30 on a 6inch plate. If it's low light, cut that down to 25 for 30. If I move unsteadily while shooting, that cuts accuracy. I guarantee I shoot more on a weekly basis than he shot in a year.

And I can tell you, even if my shooting goals were to only hit the range while dumping rounds as quickly as possible, which is 6ft high and 30ft wide, I guarantee some rounds are flying over the rear berm.

It isn't as easy as point and shoot.

Also, do you think he was using his sights? I don't. Magpul flip ups are garbage in low light, much less strobe lights. That gun was being held low, and he was spraying and praying to allah.

The round count hasn't been realized, but I'll bet less than 30% accuracy for first time hits.

quote:

---

It takes < 1 second to drop a magazine and put another one in

---

Exactly. The magazine capacity argument is a moot point as far as I am concerned.

quote:

---

weaponized Anthrax I got only downvotes.

---

Get that shite out of here.

(no message)

quote:

---

No. I'm suggesting you should address what capabilities - be it the AR-15 or otherwise

---

Nothing you agitate for will address the "capabilities". You don't even know what that word means in the proper context here. Let me demonstrate with a picture and some explanation as to why "Assault Weapon" Bans and magazine capacity limits are completely idiotic with no foundation in real world application.



All three of these rifles could be classified as "assault weapons" using the two-feature cosmetic test of the 1994 - 2004 Federal Assault Weapons Ban. They are all semi-automatic, they all feed from an externally detachable box magazine and they all have at least one extra feature beyond the two allowed under the old AWB. The one on the far left has four features that would have qualified it, the one in the middle also has four, and the one of the far right has three. All of those rifles could easily, cheaply, and quickly made AWB "compliant" without affecting the accuracy, capacity, firing rate, or ease of handling (those would be considered "capabilities FYI). Basically absolutely nothing in any AWB has ever addressed capabilities. If you think a magazine capacity restriction would provide remedy I'll remind you that there are many millions more magazines that exceed the arbitrarily defines ten round limit (like rounds 11 - 15+ are going to kill you more dead than 1 - 10) than there are weapons that use them. The Virginia Tech shooter killed 37 people using handguns and carrying more than a dozen 10 rd magazines on his person. The Sandy Hook shooter used 30rd magazines but imitated "tactical" reloading techniques dropping magazines with many as 20 rounds still left in them to swap in new mags. Magazine capacity played absolutely zero role in how many were killed or injured. The Aurora CO shooter tried to use a 100 rd drum magazine that malfunctioned (not a rare issue with such magazines). The Arizona shooter used a 30 rd magazine in a Glock 9mm pistol that also malfunctioned. In both cases had the shooters used more reliable, lower capacity magazines they may have killed more people than they did.

quote:

---

ou ban the AR then whats next? There is a larger argument here and the 2nd amendment which I think most pro-gun advocates are really trying to protect. They arent just trying to protect the AR.

---

People how think that banning an AR in any way infringes on the 2nd Amendment need to go back to school. Nowhere in the 2nd amendment does it give you the right to an AR and no one has ever said that they were looking to ban guns. Its all the way far right wack jobs who say "Obama is going to take our guns" Please show me where that was ever proposed. Stricter gun laws are what they are calling for. Meaning making it harder for just anybody to get a gun. Is that really a bad thing? The argument of "well if you ban AR 15s they will just use something else" is so freaking retarded I can't even wrap my head around it. Lets just make murder legal because frick they are going to do it anyway. Lets not make sexual predators register, because they will just find a way to rape any way. Lets just sell sarin or VX gas at Walmart.

quote:

---

no one has ever said that they were looking to ban guns. 

---

What a load of bullshite. You and I both know there are PLENTY on the left who want to ban guns. Or maybe if they ban them all but muzzle-loaders that would be fine, since that's all they had in 1790, right?

quote:

---

People how think that banning an AR in any way infringes on the 2nd Amendment need to go back to school.

---

You think an Armalite Rifle doesn't meet the definition of arms in the text of the amendment?

quote:

---

Nowhere in the 2nd amendment does it give you the right to an AR and no one has ever said that they were looking to ban guns.

---

Nowhere in the 1st Amendment does it give you the right to operate a politically partisan blog.

See how that works?

quote:

---

no one has ever said that they were looking to ban guns.

---

Except lots and lots of Democrat politicians. Feinstein notably.

quote:

---

Stricter gun laws are what they are calling for.

---

Like the ones the SB got around or more background checks that Mateen passed? Or arbitrary magazine capacity limits that would have done nothing in Newtown or Virginia Tech, and likely increased the bodycount in Aurora and other places?

quote:

---

Meaning making it harder for just anybody to get a gun.

---

Despite it being a constitutionally protected right? You really mean the "wrong" people from getting a gun, right? (I'm trying to help you out here.)

quote:

---

The argument of "well if you ban AR 15s they will just use something else" is so freaking retarded I can't even wrap my head around it.

---

Except it's absolutely correct. Why is "correct" somehow "retarded" (your word - DSM says "intellectually disabled" is the preferred nomenclature now)?

quote:

---

Lets just make murder legal because frick they are going to do it anyway.

---

See, that is getting to my point. Nobody is arguing that literal murder and other criminal CONDUCT should be legalized because the laws won't stop it. Obviously, that is the purpose of laws - codify society's compact and outlining procedures for and nature of punishment for breaches.

But, some on the left tend to want to excuse behavior (troubled youth, societally disadvantaged, class/race/ethnic justifications), but then want to demonize the instrumentality. And that's nonsense. That's backward arse thinking and you want to argue that the logical and rational are somehow illogical and irrational.

quote:

---

Lets not make sexual predators register, because they will just find a way to rape any way.

---

This is where you guys fly off the rails of the crazy train. You're equating gun owners with sexual predators and small arms (rifles, in this case) with:

quote:

---

sarin or VX gas

---

Utter nonsense.

Probably has a nice recoil buffer in it. I put one in an AR-10/.308 and it was about the same.