Posts Made By: Greg Shaffer

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

Hmm, just wondering why it's so lethal in all of the mass shootings?...

Originally Posted by James Brown

Hi Rod, Mel, Greg, James, Rich and everyone.  This long discussion of the relative lethality of the AR-15 style rifles is interesting, but I think it misses the key point.  School shooters favor the "assault rifle" weapon not because it is particularly lethal.  They favor it because it looks bad-ass and they are almost universally copying previous school shooters who used this weapon, like Klebold and Harris at Columbine.  The magazines are nice too - how many movies feature a hero or villain dropping a spent magazine to the ground while clicking in in a fresh one?  The answer is virtually every action movie or shooter game ever made.  

Much of this was in the Secret Service report Rich posted a few weeks ago, which was really informative.

I would bet anything that not a single school shooter of all time knows a quarter as much as you guys do about guns, shooting range, stopping power, the lethality of various rounds and so on.  They don't care about that stuff at all.  These shooter want to extract revenge on their alleged oppressors, and they usually want to commit suicide and achieve infamy by taking out as many innocents as possible, in as dramatic a fashion as possible.  So they want bad-ass looking guns.  Again, see the secret service report.  So they copy the endless succession of school shootings featuring AR-15 style rifles.  These are the weapons that look menacing in the movies and video games, and these are the weapons chosen by Klebold and Harris.  The magazines clip in and out dramatically.  That is about it as far as weapon choice goes for the school shooter.

So, is it legit for society to regulate an otherwise fairly normal gun because it looks menacing, just because it is the gun favored by copy-cat school shooters?  I think this is a legitimate line of debate and I think both sides can make good points.  Arguing about the actual and objective lethality of the AR style rifles kind of misses the point, in my opinion.

Jim

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

Oh I understand now. I thought I read somewhere that the intent of the .223 caliber bullet was to wound and not actually kill so it supposedly ties up more soldiers trying to move their wounded comrade but I must have read that in some other forum.(Of course, in the Russian front with Ukraine, Russian officers reportedly kill their wounded to solve that problem.) I was wondering why AR15 purchasers who listed their reason for buying them as being for "home defense" after reading somewhere that the round wounds instead of kills and perhaps they were just being kind and responsible gun owners who value human life if they have to "clear their apartment" of an alleged assailant, particularly if they were armed... 

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

Well, that was the reason given by the gun instructor/ seller of the AR15 in a linked video. I was questioning that in an earlier post since he stated he would use the AR15 as his weapon of choice to "clear his apartment" of assailants. I'd be concerned more about the .223 caliber rounds flying through the drywall and into a neighbor's apartment. I thought that was the purpose of using a Glasser defense round and equivalent. But apparently, according the gun instructor/seller the AR15 is his choice for "apartment defense"...

Originally Posted by Mel Maki

You are a brat in 7th grade.

Originally Posted by James Brown

I don't have a gun for home defense.  But if I did, I might get a pump-action 12 gauge shotgun like my dad owns.  The "chick-chick" sound of the first shell being pumped into the chamber should be instantly recognized by an intruder, even in the dark.  That alone, with maybe a short "are you ready to die" type warning ought to send the intruder packing without even turning on the lights!  Also, me not being an experienced rifle or pistol user, I'd think my chances of hitting an intruder with  a shotgun would be somewhat higher.  I do expect it would be messy though.  

I actually don't think about home invaders much.   Virtually never.  I hope/suspect I'll never come to regret that.  

Originally Posted by Brian McFarland

Exactly. If you were tasked with walking into a public place and killing as many people as possible in the shortest amount of time, with a gun easily purchased at your local sporting goods store, would you chose something different? That's what it's designed for.

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

After listening to Republican senators, I thought its uses are for target practice, prairie dogs, home defense, and for sport. Nary a word or a worry from them about mass shootings, killing people, or any such thing...

Originally Posted by Russ Carroll

Jim,

You are way underestimating this feature in an AR-15. This isn't simply about looking cool. It puts 30-rounds of a high-velocity projectile in a gun and can be quickly swapped out. That is a major, major difference in killing power - just ask anyone in special forces or the infantry.

If you walk into one of these situations with any other type of gun, you are going to have a very hard time sustaining fire for any length of time.

Yes, it may look "badass", but that is not why AR's are so menacing. They are killing machines.

On a brighter note, the SF DA got his ass fired for being weak on crime:

https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/07/politics/primary-elections-june-7-california-iowa/index.html

Russ