Quote:
|
Originally Posted by !@#$%!
With pleasure! But first let me clarify that the AR15 isn't that large-caliber, certainly it's not an AK caliber. It's a .223 Remington unlike the russian stuff.
The .223 remington is MUCH SMALLER than the universally popular .30-06 hunting rifles
Nobody sez "oh your LARGE CALIBER HUNTING RIFLE". 30-06 rifles they are not part of the proposed ban. Yet they also shoot semi-auto.
This is the problem with media-induced ignorance: they show a scary looking picture and say "assault weapon"! In reality it's not that way. There is a lot of variation.
Now let me just say: I much prefer a revolver! It's simple, it doesn't jam, it's great in small spaces, easier to lock up.
But other people have different opinions and they have the right to their choice. I'm just repeating some of the pro-carbine arguments: THere's the ease of aiming with them, there's the maneuverability of a short barrel (vs. a regular rifle), there's the fact that if you pick the right kind of ammo (e.g. frangible) it penetrates less than a pistol, there's the deterrent look of the "scary gun" (what scares you and journalists also scares criminals), there's the fact that you can customize with scopes and flashlights and whatever you need at dark when some asshole breaks into your house, there's the great accuracy (better than a handgun or a shotgun) and there's the fact that when facing 3 home invaders you get 10 shots per criminal with a large mag which is pretty good considering.
Anyway why rewrite when people have already done it:
http://www.boatmanbooks.com/samplelwar15.html
(you gotta continue after the large blank space, it's a long article)
and here's one written by two women:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...-celia-bigelow
Opinions of course vary and some people prefer shotguns, pistols, etc.
"Carbine" simply means "rifle with a shorter barrel"! So you just said that carbines maybe are okay then? I agree man.
Preferably if using a rifle itshould be a rifle that's not large caliber or overly powerful like a .30-06 hunting rifle (where you're bound to kill your neighbors), with low recoil, and with a short barrel and stock that let you move comfortably indoors. That's the AR15. Thanks for choosing!
As for shotguns: sure, they are the "classic" home defense gun, but beware that they have a spray pattern [fun video] making them harder to shoot accurately, even at short range. If a criminal is holding a hostage, do you want to use a shotgun and kill both people?
You gotta make these decisions based on fact not propaganda. Here for example people discuss pros & cons:
http://www.defensivecarry.com/forum/...e-defense.html |
I am not being manipulated by the media, I am very literate in weapons, and assault style weapons are what they are, military assault weapons.
Its not the caliber which determines this, its the tactical design. This is what the
manufacturers designed them for, some have been adapted for public sale, but their design remains the same, for combat. You can call it propaganda all you'd like, but it is just the historical reality of the development of weapons like the AR-15 or the SKS..
We disagree. I don't see these rifles has being home or self defense, they were designed for rapid fire because of their lower velocity, and generally a .223 round while the same bore size as a small .22 tend to be high-power rounds extra packed, and the tips are of course longer. Getting shot by an AR-15 is not getting shot with a .22 hunting rifle. A carbine is smaller than a rifle, true, and has this tactical advantage as a defense weapon for those in chaotic combat situations, but for home defense, seems a bit exaggerated to me. If you are a drug dealer and a bunch of low-lives know how much cash you have I can see that, but for a family home?
I think it is a fair compromise that SOME weapons be readily allowed (albeit through background checks and legitimate dealers) for legal ownership and folks expression of Second Amendment rights, but in truth, we need to compromise here. Not EVERY weapon that the gun companies happen to manufacture. Since the 1950s carbine rifles like the SKS and the AR/M rifles were
designed and marketed to militaries around the world for military service. I think it is a fair and REASONABLE compromise to restrict access of these kinds of weapons.
It is not a media conspiracy, it is the kinds of laws we enacted from 1994-2004 which had a potential to work.
I am not afraid of guns homie, I am nervous about guns because people are inherently mistake prone, but when armed humans make these very human mistakes other humans can get seriously hurt or worse. When people are angry, they make bad decisions. Neighbors, friends, co-workers, tend to snap. Shit happens. Guns exaggerate this, so why give access to even more dangerous guns? If you are seriously suggesting that carbine weapons are no more dangerous than pistols, hunting rifles, and shotguns, than dude, we have to just stop this conversation here and now.
Compromise is mutual. Gun supporters EQUALLY half to take a loss here, why not pick something like assault style weapons and keep the rest of y'all guns? Why NO compromise on this issue? How is that fair to society? That is not exactly what the Second Amendment is about, the Constitution (when it does, which is rarely if ever) functions as a synchronicity, as all the rights working together. One person's rights to something do not overpower the collective rights of everybody. I respect gun owners, but they have to respect that a lot of Americans agree with these controls. That is why such laws HAVE ALREADY BE ENACTED in the past, and I am surely confident that most Americans will push for them to be reenacted. It is not a conspiracy, it is what many people want. No guns? No. No to SOME guns? Yes. How hard is that really?