Obsession to ban AR-15 or "weapons of war" when pistols can do serious damage as well?

Question

There's a strong push to ban the AR-15 of late which is a semi automatic because mass shooters tend to use this type of weapon but for those who are old enough the Virginia Tech mass shooter prick in 2007 who killed 27 people at school used only pistols to do all his killing.

You don't need a AR-15 to do a mass shooting.

2 pistols in each hand fully loaded and two more pistols in your pants can easily kill a dozen people or more.

Note: Soliders use the M4 fully automatic weapons to fight in war, not semi automatic AR-15

Lliam · Accepted Answer

The FBI's Supplemental Homicide Reports show that 3% were committed with rifles. AR-15s and so-called "assault rifles" are a subset of that.

Firearm related homicides hoovered below 16,000 per year until the covid fear campaign and "emergency mandates". They rose to around 20,200 in 2021. Any correlation?

3% of 20,200 = 600 deaths caused by rifles. And again, not all rifles are even semiautomatic. So what's the emergency? Over 40,000 people die each year from accidental poisonings, also accidental falls, for example. Are those deaths headline news? There are around 40,000 annual motor vehicle deaths. Is anyone talking about banning cars? Preventable medical error deaths are over 250,000. Death by rifle is insignificant when compared to other causes of death.

Out of a population of 316 million, the odds of being killed with a rifle are 1 out of 526,666.66. And since the FBI says that 80% of firearm homicides are gang related, the average person's odds of being shot are much much lower, maybe as low as 1 in 2,100,000. It's even lower for school children.

The effort to ban certain rifles is a canard. Those globalist elites who are behind the effort to disarm citizens know that very few Americans will support all out gun bans. They know that the Supreme Court won't support it, either.

It's interesting that, when Reagan and Jim Brady were shot with a.22 cal revolver, Brady began a campaign to ban certain rifles. Why not.22 cal revolvers? Some anti-gun operative even invented the dishonest term "military-style assault weapon". Sounds scary, right? The idea was to convince average people that "if it looks like a machine gun (military weapon), it must be a machine gun. I mean, just look how many bad guys in movies have access to machine guns. That must reflect reality, right? LOL

The propaganda was successful. Lots of people wound up believing that it was possible to buy machine guns at stores and gun shows. Morons repeated the mantra "nobody needs an assault weapon" without realizing that nobody did have any assault weapons and machine guns weren't used in crimes.

"Assault weapon" was already a defined term. It referred to a weapon that was capable of selective fire - it could fire on full-auto. The term "MILITARY-STYLE assault weapon" had no definition. It's not a thing. So the propagandists who invented it based the definition on cosmetic features. Black, composite (not wooden), ergonomically-designed stocks, barrel shrouds, flash suppressors, etc. magically turned common, semiautomatic rifles into dangerous, scary "assault weapons" even though the functionality - one shot per trigger pull - hadn't changed.

Keep in mind that semiautomatic firearms have been common for well over 100 years.

The purpose of using nonsensical scare tactics to turn public opinion against "certain" guns is to set a legal, constitutional precedent for banning guns. Once that has been accomplished, there is no reason not to continue to expand the definition of "assault weapon" and banning more and more types of guns.

The Gun Control Lobby has one mission - to restrict American citizens' access to guns to the greatest extent possible by hook or by crook. It's a gun ban agenda that has nothing to do with compassion for the lives of mere commoners. Claims of compassion are part of the scam. It's how the sucker gullible morons.

How much compassion do the elites show toward other forms of death and suffering?

BCA6010 · Accepted Answer

Technologically speaking, there is nothing special about the AR platform; it is pretty much completely unchanged since it was developed in the 1950s, and most firearms development since then has actually revolved about the ammunition itself. Semi-automatic weapons have been around for more than a century now too. The only reason it's front and center in the debate is because it and the dozens of clones made by other companies are the most common Semi-automatic rifles in the country. The only reason rifles themselves are being given so much attention is because the authoritarians in government want the public disarmed; when going off of statistical data, handguns and revolvers kill about 8x as many people per year in crimes as ALL rifles (to include bolt-actions) do.

Now if I were hypothetically planning a rampage, an AR is really not an ideal platform for it. Almost all of these shootings happen in indoor spaces where the advantages offered by a high velocity rifle cartridge are largely irrelevant, and nobody is wearing body armor (even then the significant majority of off the shelf ammunition is not going to penetrate ceramic or steel plates anyway). Pistols can be reloaded much faster, remedial action is faster, and you could fit more magazines a net more ammo in pockets and bags. Furthermore, the shortest off the shelf AR that isn't classified by the NFA as a "pistol" is going to be a minimum of 26 inches in length by law, though due to the design of the rifle and the 16 inch barrel minimum length, it would actually be about 32 inches with a fully collapsed stock. That's not impossible to manage, but speaking from personal experience with the M4 (which can retract down to 29.75 inches due to a shorter barrel), it can still be pretty unwieldy especially without training and practice. So really the only "advantage" it has is that in most states, someone between the age of 18 and 20 could buy one before they can legally buy a handgun, but they could just as easily buy another rifle that fires bigger bullets, or a subsonic.22LR.

Then when you take president dumbdumb's remarks about the 9mm pistol round into account, which is about as mundane of a bullet as it gets but more importantly it's by far the most common caliber used for both self defense and law enforcement, it's obvious that he/his handlers want to come after everything. If 9mm is really where they're drawing the line as "high powered" then that's pretty much everything other than.380ACP and maybe some niche cartridges that almost nobody uses. It's par for the course for the same moron who thought firing two shotgun blasts through the front door when there's a home invader is a good idea though.

CandiceK · Accepted Answer

Kool & the Gang,

I'm so proud of you. You're moving towards the light. Your biggest problem is that you're plagued with common sense. Nothing good comes from common sense. It's better to just join the lemmings. "Orange man bad, but I don't know why."

That asshole could have went into that elementary school in Texas with a machete.

Obsession to ban AR-15 or "weapons of war" when pistols can do serious damage as well?

Didn't the cops give him about an hour to kill? He could have killed 200 kids with a machete.
And few people on this site, the news, and certainly the government, know what an assault rifle is. IT'S A FUCKING MACHINE GUN. How is this so hard to understand? An AR-15 is NOT a machine gun!

People think that "AR" = assault rifle.

Colt owns the AR-15 trademark, the "AR" in AR-15 stands for "ArmaLite Rifle", not "assault rifle".

https://www.youtube.com/embed/7V2BHxtYRHU

Aerissa_Jade · Accepted Answer

Its what I keep saying, AR-15's are not weapons of war, or assault rifles or assault anything. They are just rifles that are modular with parts that are changeable.

Its a Lego gun, for the simple minded...

All the talk about outlawing assault weapons, like that's already been done... decades ago, existing full auto's were grand fathered in.

A few high powered hand guns, with a backpack full of loaded magazines could be quite deadly. Heck even a 9 mil with a pack full of loaded magazines could still be bad.

It is just a talking point to scare people, the media and liberals want people to imagine a person opening fire with a full auto machine gun on a school full of kids.

WhiteSteve · Answer

You definitely don’t need a specific kind of gun to do dirt, or even a gun at all, but it sure makes it a hell of a lot easier, plus it emboldens a shooter who hasn’t resigned himself to a suicide mission. Whatever that kid from Buffalo had, after seeing that kid’s video of his killings, I became even more aware of the killing power these things had. Seemed like no matter where he hit someone, they were down and finished. It doesn’t make me super comfortable just knowing anyone can have one of those, that’s pretty fucking crazy. If you used this thing to hunt ANIMALS I’d still think you were a sick fuck, let alone turning it on humans. And I’m sorry, just because someone likes to shoot it as a gun range doesn’t mean it should still be widely available. Not for nothing, some escaped convict just killed a family of five and then died later in a shootout with police, where he was using a pistol and an AR-15, AND GUESS WHERE HE GOT THEM? Whoops, got them from the family he murdered. But wait…. I thought that AR-15 was the home protection that family needed for situations JUST LIKE THIS? A “good guy with a gun”, and all that? What happened? Oh, weird, turns out the killer knew what he was going to do ahead of time, while the family is just frantically responding to an abrupt hostile situation, and are at a disadvantage even if they owned a damn tank. So these situations are where I’m just like “miss me by a mile with the ‘I need it to protect my family’ angle.” If you didn't have those weapons in your house, the intruder wouldn’t have been able to steal them and use them on you, regardless of what imaginary security you feel they give you. Maybe you just get your ass kicked, or maybe you get stabbed to death, but at least he had to earn that shit and couldn’t just mow your entire family down in a second with YOUR gun. An intruder at my house would have to get a lot more creative to kill me, and while I’d possibly have a harder time defending myself, I know that I, personally, would rather get killed with a gun someone else showed up with than get killed with my own gun. I’ll take my chances with my fists and whatever else I can get my hands on.

Exterminatore · Answer

Here’s the thing, almost all these mass shootings are at very close range (less than 50 yards). Ray Charles could take out 15 people at that range with ANY rifle.

Being a former Marine I can tell you for certain that we don’t even shoot targets on the range that are under 200 meters (218 yards). Anything less would be way too easy even with Iron sights for anyone that is even moderately trained.

Likewise, if you’re using a pistol you are probably 25 yards or less from your target. A pistol takes a little more skill, but with double stacked mags, even unskilled people wouldn’t have too much trouble shooting up a school.

All that said, if anyone thinks the AR is a killing machine, they should see what a shot gun with the choke adjusted for the widest spread will do up close. You won’t have holes in bodies, you’ll have heads and limbs missing. I think the only reason these turds don’t use shotguns for this type of thing is it is well know murderous cowards can’t handle the recoil in their precious little shoulders because they’re sissies who won’t even shoot at people who can shoot back.

Clearly there is an obsession with “assault rifles” and getting rid of them.

Fine then. The next mass shootings will be far more messy when 10 round shot guns and triple ought buck or slugs are used. You’ll still have the same number of dead bodies, just much more mangled. At least we’ll be rid of the scary black rifle though. No more scary black rifles and mean tweets. Yeaaaaaaa!!!

FYI human survivability with a slug is less than 1%. I’d rather face an AR up close than a shot gun.

WindAtMyBack · Answer

It's the current political climate. It's almost like a fad.

I've been watching this gun debate my entire life. In the 60s it was the opposite. The anti-gunners were going after pistols. They didn't care about rifles. In the 60s the news was full of "Saturday Night Specials" which meant cheap low quality handguns.

They claimed that banning or regulating Saturday Night Specials would decrease crime. Of course it didn't work. Over the decades the anti-gunners have targeted different things, always claiming it would decrease crime. It has never worked.

Now they are going after so-called "assault weapons" or some particular aspect of them. Again they make the same kind of claims they've made for the last 50+ years. Again, when the laws pass it doesn't do any good.

Sixgunsound · Answer

Cade Courtley, retired SEAL operator, has an anecdote about an operation he went on during wartime when one of the guys in his unit killed an enemy combatant with a toaster oven, scoring the first recorded wartime kill with a small kitchen appliance. Are federal commando raids going to flashbang grenade little girls rooms everywhere and storm in to seize their assault easy bake ovens? This whole ‘debate’ is to distract the right and fire up the base on the left in a midterm election where the Democrat party has not only shot itself in the foot but is raining tactical nuclear strikes on itself with regularity. “Look at the gunny gun gun issues, while we desperately scramble to find some reason to be allowed to keep our jobs. Did we mention guns? Scary ones? The same ones we arm police with to kill you if you misbehave? GUUUNNSSS!!!”

demonics · Answer

Oh they want to ban those too. Its just easier to go after AR's first because people are stupid like that. People who fly on private jets, air condition 10,000 sq ft mansions, and fill their swimming pools with imported water, wanted to ban the Hummer years ago, and the average lay person didn't give two shits about how hypocritical that was. "TV said bad thing bad, so bad thing bad! Equally bad thing I don't see because TV not tell me about it yet."

And besides most of the people calling for gun control are gun owners themselves (and won't be turning them in) or have ample access to guns in the form of private security or a gated community with their own police force.

normalice · Answer

Almost no one uses an M4 in the military. Standard issue is the m16a2 semi automatic with 3 round burst. Fully automatics were determined to result in a colossal waste of ammo for the vast majority of uses. Or at least so it was when I left.

Anyway, it isn't those trying to ban them that are obsessed with the ar15, it is the mass shooters who seem to be obsessed with them. Granted, if they are banned specifically, mass shooters will gravitate to something else. Whichnis why the proposed ban is on semi automatics in general. A bolt action gives greater range and accuracy and so is preferred for hunting anyway and a pump shotgun is fine for defense. Even handguns are kind of a gimmick, really, but whatever.

Кураж · Answer

Handguns and shotguns have an effective range of less than 50 meters (both in terms of accuracy and lethality), the effective range of 5.56x45 ammo typically chambered in AR rifles is 500+ meters.

Not only is such a weapon utterly unjustifiable for self-defense, it necessitates that whoever is defending from it NEEDS to be equipped with at least an equivalent or greater caliber.
Someone who only has a handgun or a shotgun will be dead 10 times before they even get in range of someone armed with 5.56x45.

You don't need a rifle to commit a mass shooting, no.
But at the same time, what exactly DO you need such a gun for?

ShadezMcgee · Answer

True, people seem to forget that. Handguns are also the most used in terms of gun violence. I would say the big reason is because people have been given hit with the belief that because of it looking similar to what is used by military and in movies that that is what they are capable of doing.

WhiteBoyChill · Answer

They’re simply uneducated. If you study the weapons used in mass shootings a good chunk of the time people were using Glocks

007kingifrit · Answer

yes it is utterly nonsense, more people die each year from being punched in the face than ar 15

DWornock · Answer

All mass shooters using AR-15 are false flag operations to get people to accept gun control. And, AR-15s are choosen to get them banned.

BillyBalls · Answer

On an annual basis what is the percent of murders/shootings committed with handguns. I would assume the vast majority of shootings in urban settings are committed with handguns.

Waldoe · Answer

it just "virtue signaling" when was the last time an AR 15 was used to commit Mass Murder

OddBeMe · Answer

Then why are mass shooters spending more on the AR 15?

jimmy2 · Answer

It's a slippery slope

Obsession to ban AR-15 or "weapons of war" when pistols can do serious damage as well?

Most Helpful Opinions

What Girls & Guys Said

Obsession to ban AR-15 or "weapons of war" when pistols can do serious damage as well?

Most Helpful Opinions

What Girls & Guys Said

We're glad to see you liked this post.