Political

"DC3 LS, Fuck Hyundai, now and forever" (eg6) 08/01/2018 at 15:24 • Filed to: None

3

36

After the jump.

One thing that frustrates me about the gun control debate. Is people’s obsession with assault rifles, or as people like to call them “weapons of war” and other (IMO) melodramatic nonsense.

I think this obsession with ARs, and seemingly ARs exclusively is bad. Because it seems to me handguns are often left out of the discussion. I sincerely believe that anything done to make ARs illegal, will ultimately have little to no affect on gun violence, even mass shootings.

The reason why the military uses ARs as opposed to pistols, is because of range, not damage. The military needs people to be able to shoot accurately out to 3 00 meters and somewhat accurate to 500+ . Rifles are excellent for this because the longer barrel and higher velocity stabilizes rounds better and makes them more accurate at these long ranges.

The thing is that in recent history, practically all mass shooting have happened in close range, at schools, churches, and clubs. Where it’s highly unlikely the shooter would ever be making shots over 100 yards.

Pistols were designed from the ground up to be good in close ranges. They’re small and easy to conceal, they shoot larger calibers than rifles to do more damage, and they can still hold almost 20 rounds of ammo in a mag, which isn’t as much as typical AR mags, but it’s really not much less.

Just look at the deadliest shootings that’ve happened in the US and how many didn’t use semi-automatic rifles at all.

And apart from the Las Vegas shootings, it’s highly unlikely that in most mass shootings there would have been significantly less loss of life if pistols were used instead of ARs. Because the extra energy from a rifle round typically doesn’t “deposit” as much as people think.

This is from an article written by a doctor. !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!!

Those with higher velocity may be expected, on this basis, to dissipate more energy into surrounding tissue as they slow and cause more tissue damage but this is only a very approximate guide. This ‘kinetic energy dump’ theory is controversial, since high-velocity injuries are frequently less extensive than would be predicted and fragmentation appears to be the most effective mechanism for wounding rather than yawing or other mechanisms for slowing high-velocity rounds quickly.

How this pertains to handguns, is that it’s very easy to get hollow point ammo for handguns. I’m not sure about now, but you used to be able to buy hollow point pistol ammo at Wal-Mart. Now while it’s not impossible to get hollow points for rifle rounds, it’s much harder. I don’t think I’ve ever seen hollow point rifle ammo at any sporting good stores, gun shops, or shows. However a quick google, does show that it’s a thing, at least for .223.

!!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!!

Something else I think is worth mentioning. Prior to the North Hollywood shoot out. The only weapons most police departments had were pistols and shotguns. If ARs were the ludicrous killing machines, compared to pistols, that people think they are. Why wouldn’t they have at least had some in car or in the station for when they really needed to merc someone? Again, the only reason police departments started carrying ARs was because of the North Hollywood shootout, where pistols couldn’t penetrate the robbers body armor.

!!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! and the part about the advantage rifles gave them.

the AR-15 enables a patrol officer to engage targets at a longer distance and its rounds penetrate most body armor. With the right ammunition, the 5.56mm projectile doesn’t over-penetrate as much as certain pistol rounds. And lastly, a semi-auto patrol rifle is much easier to operate than a 12-gauge police shotgun for most personnel.

Again, it was about body armor penetration and distance, not out right damage. Granted it does say with the right ammo it doesn’t over penetrate like certain pistol rounds. But a guarantee you hollow points were not those certain pistol rounds.

TL;DR- For things like mass shootings and murder. Pistols aren’t actually that less capable than ARs. I’m certain that we could confiscate all the ARs in the US, and if we did nothing about handguns, the overall effect on gun violence would be a drop in the bucket. Considering handguns are still very deadly in close range and very few mass shooting have been at a range to “properly” utilize a rifle. Mass shooters and other murders would just use pistols instead of ARs and would be able to cause the same or near loss of life with them.

Not to mention pistols are easier to conceal, and thus easier to sneak into a public places like a school, sporting events, etc. Plus smaller ammo and magazines mean that an individual can carry more pistol rounds on them, than they could rifle rounds.

Spanfeller is a twat > DC3 LS, Fuck Hyundai, now and forever 08/01/2018 at 15:30

3

If it was up to me all of them would be banned. But I can appreciate some people like them as a hobby. Just make buying guns a lot harder to criminals, people with a history of mental disorder, etc... and help fund “smart” guns too.

LOREM IPSUM > DC3 LS, Fuck Hyundai, now and forever 08/01/2018 at 15:36

5

I ’d like to point out the fact that had those weapons been banned decades ago, as many folks demanded, the police in California would never have been able to walk into a local gun shop and commandeer them to neutralize those men in full body armor. Had they been illegal to possess, more people would have died that day.

That's all I'm going to say though, because I know this place well enough when it comes to politics.

HammerheadFistpunch > DC3 LS, Fuck Hyundai, now and forever 08/01/2018 at 15:41

1

Just as a heads up, I bought .38 special and 357 mag ammo yesterday for some target shooting next week and not only is finding hallow point round easy in that caliber, you can also buy shotgun rounds. I almost did because I was curious, but at at $15 per dozen I took a pass. Also just as a heads up I own 2 handguns and no rifles and I too think that changes need to be made on the high level to gun safety. It’s too easy to get guns legally. It was WAY harder to get my HAM license than it was to get a gun. I came to mine through an interesting inheritance law that allowed my father to essentially sign over his guns to his kids. We were raised with guns as a hobby and for target practice and it was drilled into us pretty strongly the safe and responsible way to own guns...but...if we weren’t I would have still been the legal owner of a very powerful handgun with nothing more than a signed piece of paper that doesn’t really trace back to anywhere.

The fact that the laws currently benefit me is no excuse not to look at the situation reasonably at a broader level.

Wacko > DC3 LS, Fuck Hyundai, now and forever 08/01/2018 at 15:41

2

My thinking is if you want an AR then it should be kept in a shooting range. It should not be legal to take them out of a shooting range unless special permit...

don’t ban them completely , but regulate them.

I would do the same thing with hand guns, but that would piss off many americans.....maybe we start with ARs then go to handguns....

DC3 LS, Fuck Hyundai, now and forever > Spanfeller is a twat 08/01/2018 at 15:41

0

I think it’d be reasonable enough to say if you’re taking any kind of psychiatric meds, you can’t purchase or keep a gun in your home. Most of the shooter were on some kind of meds and mental issues. Not to mention make psychiatric care government provided, so more people can get help. 

BigBlock440 > DC3 LS, Fuck Hyundai, now and forever 08/01/2018 at 15:42

1

The reason why the military uses ARs as o pposed to pistols,

The military doesn’t use AR’s, they do use pistols on occasion.

I don’t think I’ve ever seen hollow point rifle ammo at any sporting good stores, gun shops, or shows.

I found hollow points for my hunting rifle at Cabela’s once, I wanted to buy them for the novelty, but they were twice the price of regular rounds so I didn’t. Haven’t seen them since.

Otherwise, agreed, banning scary black guns  won’t change a thing.  Just like the big hoopla about the 3D print files for the plastic “gun” that’ll blow up in your hand.  So many paranoid chicken littles concocting all kinds of scenarios.

Milky > DC3 LS, Fuck Hyundai, now and forever 08/01/2018 at 15:47

1

I think the fixation is because they’re not for self defense or hunting. They’re for shooting people or having fun.  Its an easy thing to look at and not see the justification for.  

DC3 LS, Fuck Hyundai, now and forever > BigBlock440 08/01/2018 at 15:48

0

The only people I ever saw with pistols in Afghanistan were high ranking sergeants and officers. Because everyone’s required to have a weapon, but since they’re unlikely to ever be in combat, they just get a pistol to carry around in a holster instead of having to carry around an M4.

Even the Infantry guys living next to us didn’t get issued pistols. Including the machine gunners, those poor bastards had to lug those things around with them everywhere they went.

I’m sure special forces and stuff carries pistols, because they go out and do high speed raids and shit. But for average schmucks, it’s just high ranking people who get them so they aren’t inconvenienced having to carry an M4.

HammerheadFistpunch > DC3 LS, Fuck Hyundai, now and forever 08/01/2018 at 15:48

0

Its tricky, about a 1/5th of the US population is or has been on anti depressants and most are still completely fit mentally to own and use firearms. I guess it depends on the medication and or care.

DC3 LS, Fuck Hyundai, now and forever > Wacko 08/01/2018 at 15:50

1

I would be more than okay with something like that. I found it ironic, that when I was in the Army, if you owned a firearm and lived on post. You couldn’t keep it in your house or the barracks. You had to store it in the unit armory and check it out when you wanted to use it. 

MasterMario - Keeper of the V8s > DC3 LS, Fuck Hyundai, now and forever 08/01/2018 at 15:51

3

I agree with you that the focus on military styled weapons is dumb and a result of ignorance and watching too many movies. I don’t think banning anything is where we should start, we should start with regulating gun purchases much better and making it harder to obtain them. 

Spanfeller is a twat > DC3 LS, Fuck Hyundai, now and forever 08/01/2018 at 15:52

2

I think the Canadian model is quite good, Vice made a video about how to get a license in Canada. 

HammerheadFistpunch > Wacko 08/01/2018 at 15:53

1

A handgun stuck at a shooting range isn’t much self defense in bear country. And before you say “but use bear spray” there are have 37 confirmed cases of handgun bear defense situations and many of those deploye d bear spray first without effect. its 97% effective. This is the exact reason my father bought the handgun I own now and its the reason I hip carry in bear country.

That being said, Im under no illusion  that I need a handgun to defend my home.

Ash78, voting early and often > DC3 LS, Fuck Hyundai, now and forever 08/01/2018 at 15:53

0

Great writeup —- but are you strawmanning us? Or is there seriously a limited discussion about AR’s going on right now? I haven’t been following that piece. If so, that’s like leaving the barn door open for 200 years and then trying to figure out which species of goat to round up.

“Assault rifles” are vilified far too much. It wasn’t until this recent shooting that I started seeing the stories about the tumbling/fragmentation damage from AR’s, since most gun enthusiasts I knew always praised the gun’s accuracy, diversity, and modularity above all. If you wanted serious concussive damage (is that the term?), you buy a .308 — b asically the rifles our servicepeople used in WWII (M1 Garand). But at some point we thought that the .308/30-06 was overkill and wanted something with smaller ammo so our people could carry more of it . At least that’s how I’ve always heard it. Very similar to the move from .45 ACL to 9mm as a sidearm.

InFierority Complex > Wacko 08/01/2018 at 15:54

0

I can already see the “First they came for your ARs” ads from the NRA.

Gerry197 > DC3 LS, Fuck Hyundai, now and forever 08/01/2018 at 15:54

0

There is a reason why California has not been able to outright ban the AR-15. It’s b ecause it’s just a semi-automatic rifle. The most common type of firearm in existence . California is one of the biggest buyers for firearms, and they aren’t about to ban the most common one. Plus more people work in the firearm industry in California than any other state, it’s big business there.

Everytime they come up with a ban on “evil” features, which are mostly cosmetic, the industry/owners come it up a loophole.

Was recently at a San Diego gun shop, their walls are full of AR-15s in featureless form. Which means removing the offending features, such as a flash hider and pistol grip. But in some cases, the featureless alternatives look even more aggressive than a standard AR-15 does.  I saw one featureless rifle, it looked like it came straight out of Halo video game. 

The reason why the military uses the AR-15 is because it’s easy to use, low kick, easy to fire, etc. Very vanilla of a firearm. It has the range of most rifles, though arguably too small a caliber and more complicated than AK-47 for example to clean and maintain.

wafflesnfalafel > DC3 LS, Fuck Hyundai, now and forever 08/01/2018 at 15:57

0

agree - not a gun person, can’t really say I’d ever own one, but I agree that the focus on semi auto rifles is more of a pr move and I understand gun enthusiasts negative reaction to that . I can say AR-15s are fun to shoot. But I sure as heck don’t want me or my family to be mowed down by some kid or dude off his meds that has access to one. At this point I really think of anything more than a basic personal defense pistol or hunting rifle just a super dangerous toy, not unlike fireworks, or a race car . They can be perfectly safe when handled and stored very carefully  - or a very bad situation waiting to happen.

Chan - Mid-engine with cabin fever > DC3 LS, Fuck Hyundai, now and forever 08/01/2018 at 15:58

1

As other countries have demonstrated , the regulations around gun ownership are the problem. Joe Secamendment is keeping one under his pillow or in an unlocked container, where his mentally unstable high school kid can easily find them or where he himself can easily grab them in a fit of rage. Also, he has no idea how to properly and safely discharge it because real men   don’t need training.

Chan - Mid-engine with cabin fever > DC3 LS, Fuck Hyundai, now and forever 08/01/2018 at 16:01

0

I would support a mandatory aptitude test as a condition of certification to own a gun.

BigBlock440 > DC3 LS, Fuck Hyundai, now and forever 08/01/2018 at 16:02

1

They did look into giving regular infantry pistols, it looks like the machine gunners will be getting them now though.

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/16623/the-us-army-is-issuing-its-new-m17-pistols-to-many-more-troops-than-its-predecessor

WRXforScience > DC3 LS, Fuck Hyundai, now and forever 08/01/2018 at 16:09

1

High velocity rounds do more damage. The wound channel from a .223 is huge. Limbs are ripped open and destroyed, torso shots eviscerate the victims, and the wounds are less survivable.

Full on rifle rounds often do less damage due to over-penetration and the stabilization of the round, the tumbling of supersonic intermediate rounds is horrifically efficient at killing and maiming. Rifle rounds have better ballistic characteristics at longer ranges (over 400m), which is one of the main reasons high caliber rifle rounds have always been the go to option for long range shooting (either hunting or sniping).

If normal handguns were so go at close combat, SOCOM wouldn’t have had to invent a new pistol for missions where the primary weapon had to be a pistol (they called it the “offensive” pistol competition and had to come up with reinforced pistols that could withstand higher load ammunition). For similar reasons, sub-machine guns have been replaced by carbine or bull-pup weapons.

Not to mention, rifles are easier to shoot and more accurate than pistols. I bet my 60 year old mom, who’s never fired a gun, could hit a target at 50ft with an AR in one magazine but I wouldn’t make the same bet with a high caliber handgun.

Your argument is like saying knives are more dangerous than swords. Knives kill far more people than swords, they are more concealable , and are effective at close range attacks.

If pistols were better, there are lots of conversion kit options for firing pistol rounds out of AR’s. You can greatly increase magazine capacity and reduce the weight of ammo (often costs less too). Conversely you can take the receiver and remove the stock and use short barrels to turn an AR into a ‘pistol’. Both of these options make the weapons less functional and worse as weapons.

Claiming that pistols are as dan gerou s as AR’s is at best misguided, often disingenuous, and usually an employment of logical fallacy as a means of propaganda .

TLDR: Your argument is bad and your conclusion is unfounded and not supported by the evidence (or even the argument) you’ve presented. 

Party-vi > DC3 LS, Fuck Hyundai, now and forever 08/01/2018 at 16:16

0

“they shoot larger calibers than rifles to do more damage”

This is not accurate. Just like .500 S&W Magnum is larger and more powerful than .22LR, so is 50 BMG compared to .45 ACP. Bad argument here.

“it’s highly unlikely that in most mass shootings there would have been significantly less loss of life if pistols were used instead of ARs.”

Out of the top 10 shootings on that list, three used only semiauto handguns. On average, the deaths for semiauto rifles vs semiauto pistols is 22.6 deaths during mass shooting events where semiauto rifles are used vs 15 deaths during mass shooting events where semiauto pistols are used. That’s a 50% increase in mass shooting deaths on average when a semiauto rifle is used vs handgun. I would call 50% significant. From the list you provided alone one can say there is significantly less loss of life from mass shooting events with semiauto handguns vs semiauto rifles.

I enjoy shooting as a recreational activity. I do not fear for my life inside of my own home, nor do I fear for my life going about my daily activities. I believe I have the constitutional right to bear arms, and that right shall not be infringed, but I also believe that stronger federal background checks and waiting periods for the purchase of semi-automatic rifles are not infringing on my rights. I think this type of legislation makes sense, and there is no reason not to do it.

DC3 LS, Fuck Hyundai, now and forever > WRXforScience 08/01/2018 at 16:31

0

I’m not saying pistols are better, but it’s not like rifles are 10x deadlier than pistols. Banning assault rifles and not doing anything about pistols would leave a near equally viable alternative for mass shootings and such. A pistol can still fuck you up almost as much as a rifle.

Not to mention the other benefits of a pistol, such as you can carry more ammo, it’s easier to conceal, all of that would be relevant to mass shootings since it would make the soon to be shooter much less conspicuous .

Rifle rounds have better ballistic characteristics at longer ranges (over 400m),

This is part of my point. How many mass shootings have taken place at over 400m? 

Wacko > HammerheadFistpunch 08/01/2018 at 16:32

1

well here in canada out of +/- 260 00000 only about 1000 canadians have a handgun permit for special reasons. (not talking about law enforcement here)

we are normally in the woods on our ATVs/SXS or snowmobiles any ways.

DC3 LS, Fuck Hyundai, now and forever > Party-vi 08/01/2018 at 16:43

0

That first part was worded bad. I didn’t mean they did more damage than rifles, I meant that they were larger calibers to do more damage for their size and velocity. The point is that pistols are no joke, you’re still gonna get really fucked up by a pistol, it’s not like the damage from it is minuscule compared to a rifle.

As for the list of shootings, there’s many more factors that go into how many people died than just pistol versus rifle. Plus in shootings like the Orlando one, although a rifle was used, he also used a pistol. I can’t find numbers as to how many people died by which, but a pistol was certainly used in it.

It’s highly likely the fact multiple weapons were used lead to the higher body count, rather than just the fact a rifle was used.

DC3 LS, Fuck Hyundai, now and forever > Ash78, voting early and often 08/01/2018 at 16:54

1

There’s differently plenty of people who want restrictions on all guns period. But it’s seems like a disproportionate amount of attention is placed on ARs. I just think most people are sleeping on just how capable pistols are for mass shootings and such.

You’re spot on about the switch to 5.56. They found since most ammo was fired for suppressing fire, it didn’t really matter how much damage it did.

Another thing, when I was talking with an infantrymen. He said the thing people always leave out when talking about 5.56 versus 7.62. Is that in the military when you shoot someone, it’s never just one guy shooting him. It’s 3 or 4 all putting rounds into them. So when people talk about ARs for civilian use, you can’t really use the military as an example. Because in civilian use of an AR, you’d probably only have one guy shooting at the target. 

WRXforScience > DC3 LS, Fuck Hyundai, now and forever 08/01/2018 at 16:55

1

I meant comparing an intermediate round (like the .223) to a full rifle round (like a .308 ).

The terminology is a mess.

Handguns are all but useless in war, they’re only marginally more effective than a bayonet /knife (many militaries tried to completely get rid of sidearms after studying their lack of effectiveness in WWII). So 2nd amendment arguments for needing handguns to overthrow the government are silly.  

They are even worse for self-defense. Having a handgun makes you more likely to be killed or seriously wounded, not less likely.

If anything, we should first ban handguns. They are really only useful for committing crimes.

AR’s have almost no practical use, they are almost exclusively used for target shooting or decoration (feral hog extermination is the only practical application I’ve heard of). They have no ‘sporting use’ and should be classified as destructive devices.

So, yes handguns are bad and should be heavily regulated and restricted; however, that doesn’t make AR’s less awful and any less deserving of being completely banned (I’d be willing to compromise and allow the weapons to be stored and used at licensed ranges).

nermal > DC3 LS, Fuck Hyundai, now and forever 08/01/2018 at 16:59

2

The best way to prevent gun violence is by not shooting yourself - Nearly 2/3 of gun deaths are suicides.

Despite the media coverage, mass shootings are still incredibly rare. I don’t think changing the availability of AR-15s will have a significant impact on mass shootings either.

jasmits > DC3 LS, Fuck Hyundai, now and forever 08/01/2018 at 16:59

0

TIL, I guess I always just assumed that infantrymen would generally have a sidearm.

Ash78, voting early and often > DC3 LS, Fuck Hyundai, now and forever 08/01/2018 at 17:05

1

Makes sense. I just think the media has glommed onto the “tumbling 5.56" story a little too closely. It wasn’t long ago all the focus was on dangerous pistol ammo (eg Rhino) and how much it could twist and fragment. As far as I’m concerned, pistols are still the far bigger concern here. It’s not like potential victims are all walking around with body armor to where a 9mm hollow point and a 5.56 FMJ are going to be appreciably different...as you mentioned, the LA police learned that hard lesson during your example above. That video will be burned in my brain forever.

DC3 LS, Fuck Hyundai, now and forever > jasmits 08/01/2018 at 17:16

0

I think it’s a combination of the Army not wanting to pay for that shit, and that I guess if your behind cover 100 yards away from someone, reloading isn’t much of an issue. 

jasmits > Ash78, voting early and often 08/01/2018 at 17:21

2

If you ever listen to a gun control activist who doesn’t know the first thing about guns talk about guns you almost always hear the villainous AR-15 or at least ‘assault weapons’ come up in some way, shape or form. As a gun-control supporter who does have a working knowledge of guns, I always cringe because they make their lack of knowledge blatantly obvious once they try to talk about specifics and leave the door wide open for pro-gun activists to rip their argument to shreds. The AR-15 makes an obvious target because they’re so common, easily attainable, relatively inexpensive and most of all look like a military weapon and have a name that sounds like a military weapon.

Gun control activists just need to stick to the very valid points they do know about(like the very obvious point that countries with more stringent gun laws literally 100% of the time have lower gun violence rates) and make their case that way. Because once they start talking about how dangerous the AR-15 is the red-hat contingent will start babbling about how a .308 packs more of a punch and can be had in similar looking and operating formats blah blah blah , leaving the activists preaching to the choir because they’ve blown the attention of the people whose opinions they’re working on swaying.

Ash78, voting early and often > jasmits 08/01/2018 at 17:26

0

Yep, it’s a delicate balance and I think the argument would be better to stick to just “guns in general” — because this whole idea of singling out shotguns with short barrels and pistol grips is just ridiculous. And like you said, it just makes the pro-gun crowd even more avid that the laws are arbitrary and ignorant in their application.

Dr. Zoidberg - RIP Oppo > HammerheadFistpunch 08/01/2018 at 18:34

4

Ice cold take: Americans are, as a whole, overperscribed in general.

Party-vi > DC3 LS, Fuck Hyundai, now and forever 08/02/2018 at 07:51

0

“they were larger calibers to do more damage for their size and velocity.”

T his still is not accurate . Common handgun calibers have a larger size but less velocity. Rifle rounds have a smaller size and higher velocity (2-3 times that of a handgun round) , and do more damage. Rifle rounds cause a cavitation effect as they pass through tissue, and they are designed to tumble through tissue instead of entering in a straight path. Handguns wounds are also typically more survivable, with damage coming from the initial crush mechanism and permanent cavity formed by the slug as it enters the body, instead of the cavitation and fragmenting/ tumbling of the round from a rifle.

gmporschenut also a fan of hondas > Ash78, voting early and often 08/04/2018 at 00:09

0

The .308 was really a holdover from bolt action rifles era. Nearly every nation during ww2 studied infantry engagements and came to the same conclusion that a rifle designed for 300yards is a hindrance when most engagements happen at less than 150. a number of US generals still wanted the .308 and BSed the m14 through testing by finding 6+foot 250 lb linebackers to demonstrate it. thats fine until you give it to a 5 10" 175 recruit.

in addition to being able to carry more rounds, the lower recoil gives the soldier a much better chance of hitting a target. yes the 7.62 is more powerful, but that means squat if the round doesn’t find its mark.