An Example Why AR-15s should be limited use

[discocrisco01]

Well, look another mass shooting involving an AR-15 as reported by ABC-13 in Houston

A terrifying shootout in west Houston left two people dead and six more injured. One of those deceased is a suspect and the other is a citizen.


According to Houston police, it started as a shooting in progress call at 13200 Memorial Drive at around 10:15am. When an officer arrived, at least one of the suspects began firing. More units and a SWAT team were called in and a perimeter was set up around the scene.

At some point, one of the suspects was shot and killed, apparently by the other suspect. That other suspect was then shot by a SWAT team. The second suspect was taken to the hospital in unknown condition.
You need Flash to watch this video.Sorry, your browser doesn't support Flash, needs a Flash update, or has Flash disabled.


During the shooting, one citizen was shot and killed and two Precinct 5 deputy constables were also shot. One of the deputy constables was saved by his vest. The other was shot in the hand and is expected to be O

Three other citizens were wounded in the shootout. At this point, we don't know any of their conditions.

According to HPD, one of the suspects had a high-powered weapon, believed to be an AR-15. Police say the suspect even fired at a police helicopter.

I do not believe that we should totally ban an AR-15 but we should think very strongly on who can own one and who has access to them. Private security guards and gun ranges should have the right to these weapons but each civilian should have not have the right to have these unless approved by law enforcement. People should still have the right to shoot these guns at private shooting ranges but individual ownership of guns should be restricted. That is just my opinion.

[DustyJoe]

1. how about

an AK or AK variant, an SKS etc etc lotsa scary looking gunz out there with a lot more firepower than the standard 5.56 AR.

[Old Codger]

2. Yes

And then there is the mini-14 basically as capable as the ar-15, same round same access to large capacity mags just looks a little less menacing.

[Eleanors38]

9. I know, it's the damned wood.

[Kang Colby]

51. I've always found that interesting.

In fact, in some of the state bans and Federal ban proposals I've read, they go out of their way to exempt the Mini-14 often referring to it by name in the exemption language. AWBs are just politics, not public safety.

[DustyJoe]

109. must be the word -mini-

Makes it sound like less than it is. The mini-14 is misnamed though, if you want to emulate an M-14, ruger manufactures the mini-30 in 7.62x39 for a rifle with M1 garand action in a usable caliber used by ak47s and numerous ak knockoffs.

[braddy]

3. How is an AR-15 a "high powered weapon", it is a weak small caliber, too weak for serious hunting.

[SCantiGOP]

4. But great for hunting humans

[braddy]

5. For 50 years soldiers in combat have complained at how lousy it is at killing humans.

That is why when they go deer hunting and hunting for other game, they use their true "high powered weapons" the old fashioned hunting rifles.

Many combat soldiers still long for the combat rifles of old that used the same high powered bullets that hunters use back home.

[aka-chmeee]

13. If you're not using FMJ ammunition, it's plenty capable of dealing death....nt

[braddy]

15. Do you consider the AR as the "high-powered weapon" compared to traditional deer and large game

hunting rifles?

[Rex]

24. Who cares, when we are talking about hunting people a velocity of 3,240 fps easily does it.

You guys are being slightly disingenuous comparing a high velocity round meant to kill people, with a 30-06 meant to bring down large game.

AR-15s are very dangerous when it comes to people hunting, the high velocity round is meant to punch and penetrate. You really think it matters when some crazy is shooting at you what caliber the rounds are?

[braddy]

27. Except that it doesn't do it, the soldiers have complained about it's weakness for 50 years.

For 50 years they have complained about having to shoot men over an over to kill them, and that is bad when the other man is trying to maneuver and kill you.

The AR-15 is NOT an exceptionally powerful rifle, but rather is on the weaker side of hunting rifles.

[Rex]

31. We are not talking about soldiers, we are talking about civilians.

They seem to work well at killing Americans, do you disagree?

[braddy]

34. Evidently not according to numbers, and you are ignoring my point.

These are not the "high powered" super rifles that the media tries to portray them as.

These are generally seen by civilians as target and varmint rifles, these are not the rifles that they choose for serious hunting, for that they prefer high powered rifles.

[Rex]

35. You are ignoring the point of the OP, where does it talk about hunting rifles?

They are high velocity weapons, you can pretend that doesn't matter all you want to when it comes to killing people.

[braddy]

36. I disagreed with the article, didn't you read it's description of the rifles?

How much time are you going to waste posting trivial responses.

[Act_of_Reparation]

45. No, you're doing what gun enthusiasts invariably do whenever this topic comes up:

...you nitpick.

"Clip" vs. "Magazine", "Bullet" vs. "Round", "High-power" vs. not high power... seriously, who gives a fuck? A person's failure to properly parse the ridiculously specific minutia of the shooting sports has little bearing on the thrust of the argument: the AR-15 is more dangerous in unskilled hands and at close range than your daddy's bolt action rifle.

[beevul]

47. It isn't nitpicking...

It isn't nitpicking, when it is a correction in response to a false portrayal of the firearm in question. Particularly when that false portrayal is done in an effort to make the firearm out to be something that it isn't, with the goal of changing perceptions in a way that supports a negative stance on them.

Claiming 'nitpicking' in the face of that, is just a cop out, for those with no other response in the face of being factually wrong in a purposeful way, and being called on it.

the AR-15 is more dangerous in unskilled hands and at close range than your daddy's bolt action rifle.

So is your daddy's pump shotgun loaded with buckshot.

That's no reason to ban them.

[braddy]

75. It isn't nitpicking to challenge a corrupt media creating a deliberate lie about a rifle.

You should support push back against such corporate media methods against the public.

[Angel Martin]

17. if you look at the ammo manufacturers recommendations

for hunting purposes, the 5.56 is for game 50 lbs and under

It's basically a varmit round.

[Locrian]

73. but it's great for "wounding"

ties up the other soldiers with wounded soldiers, the medics etc

[braddy]

76. Then why doesn't the media describe it as a weak rifle that leaves people alive? Rather than

try to persuade people that it is a high powered weapon" of super deadly killing power.

Remember how the media spent years brainwashing people to think that the rifle is the choice of gang members and killers rather than a pistol, and to this day they have most or much of the public convinced that these are fully automatic, military "assault rifles" and super power bullets.

[Locrian]

79. probably because

it's a convenient way to focus and direct public opinion: everyone has to have a "demon" to scare them.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

107. It's not exactly a "weak" rifle

not like the M1 Carbine or the Thompson. Those are low-power, short-range.

The .223 (or 5.56) bullet can be accurate and deadly at 300 yards or more.

[braddy]

108. The point is that the media is devoting decades to an Orwellian campaign to turn it into a uinque

super powered rifle, a super killing machine, for political reasons.

They have been at this for more than a generation, and nothing can stop them from doing it, they know what they are doing, but they do it anyway.

[MohRokTah]

20. The AR-15 wasn't designed to kill so much as to infict horrible wounds.

Wound a man on the field of battle and you take them out plus somebody to take care of them, maybe two somebody's.

Kill a man on the field of battle and you only take that man out.

War is a numbers game.

[Marengo]

72. I believe that is a persistent myth...

I've heard this many times, even in the Marines, but so far have been unable to locate any definitive documentation that suggests the round was designed primarily to incapacitate by wounding.

[Locrian]

74. pretty good info here

n my experience, the standard NATO combat round pokes 5.56mm holes in both bones and flesh, shattering nothing. It creates minimal bleeding. I know people say it tumbles and yaws, but that isn’t my experience at all. I saw it poke tiny holes in humans and rarely induced hemorrhaging sufficient to cause unconsciousness or uncompensated shock, which is the only result that matters.

On the flip side, having a patient who was shot by a 7.62X51 NATO or larger round was a rarity. Dead people aren’t patients, they are a supply issue. Patients hit with a ZSU aren’t patients either, they are an iron-like odor in the wind.

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/10/daniel-zimmerman/medics-advice-shoot-heaviest-rifle-round-shoot-can-hit-shoot/

[Marengo]

80. Interesting. The author doesn't specify which 5.56 round he is referring to...

Last edited Tue May 31, 2016, 12:27 AM - Edit history (1)

But I'm assuming it's the M855 judging from his description of its performance. Especially the "ice pick" effect. The M855A1 was designed to address these deficiencies if I understand correctly. I would image the vets of more recent vintage could offer information on the enhanced round, my experience is limited to the M855.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

18. It's one of the most popular hunting rifles in production.

[braddy]

19. It is a favorite sporting rifle and varmint rifle, I own one myself and used a real assault rifle in

the Army, the AR-15 is not among the big boys, from the Vietnam war to these desert wars many soldiers have longed for the old M-14, which used a high power bullet and had power similar to the old WWI battle rifles.

[linuxman]

6. What's that bring the ar15 death count to this year?

I'll keep my guns, thanks. Feel free to let the police decide what you should and shouldn't have if you want.

[Heeeeers Johnny]

7. I'll pass.

Civilians should be allowed to purchase and posses any firearm or piece of equipment or firearm
a police office or department is allowed to posses.

[SCantiGOP]

37. Like the Founding Fathers intended?

Think they would have been OK with private citizens owning cannon?

[Heeeeers Johnny]

39. Yes, they were called privateers

A privateer (sometimes called corsair or buccaneer) was a private person or ship authorized by a government by letters of marque to attack foreign vessels during wartime, and take them as prizes. Captured ships were subject to condemnation and sale under prize law, with the proceeds divided between the privateer shipowners and crew. Privateering was a way of mobilizing armed ships and sailors as naval auxiliaries.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privateer

During the American Revolutionary War, the Continental Congress, and some state governments (on their own initiative), issued privateering licenses, authorizing "legal piracy", to merchant captains in an effort to take prizes from the British Navy and Tory (Loyalist) privateers. This was done due to the relatively small number of commissioned American naval vessels and the pressing need for prisoner exchange.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privateer#United_States

What do you think those ships were armed with, spitballs and slingshots?

You can't get more "founding father" than that.

[SCantiGOP]

40. You refuted your own argument

First sentence: 'authorized by the government ', not a right to own a private war ship.

On edit, I don't engage in discussions on gun rights. The 2nd Amendment absolutists just do not seem reasonable to me. Don't mean to be rude, but I'll drop out of this thread.

[beevul]

43. It was the war making which was authorized, not the ownership of cannons.

Cannon ownership was available to any that wanted one and could afford it, back then.


And by the way, those that think 'arms' in the second amendment should be limited to single shot rifles, they're the absolutists, not the people fighting against them to prevent the banning of 100+ year old technology - the semi-auto firearm.

FWIW, I don't own an AR nor do I have any inclination to

[petronius]

46. They *were* privately-owned warships; the letter of marque didn't give permission

to own the ship, it gave permission to use the ship to capture certain others, and not get hanged as a pirate for your trouble. The supplies, armaments, etc., all came from the private market and were provided/obtained by the ship-owner. But if you weren't operating as a privateer it would have been legal to own a private 'warship,' as long as you didn't go around attacking people with it. (Not a particularly lucrative thing to own perhaps, absent the privateering, since guns take up space that could be used for cargo and require bigger crews. But for trading into more dangerous areas, or smuggling, a well-armed ship would have been wise.)

As for the general question of cannon ownership, it would not have been uncommon for a merchant ship to have cannons, albeit probably not those of a class to stand up against a modern warship. So the Founding Fathers would have have been completely familiar with cannon in private hands, and maybe owned some themselves.

Not to mention that those privately-owned cannons were probably rather important at the beginning of the conflict, given that the British weren't keen on sharing theirs. So, privately-held artillery would have been one early source for the Continental military, along with what could be privately purchased and what could be captured...

[Marengo]

64. Aren't you the one who stated the 2nd only allows possession of hunting rifles...

And that this was the intent of the authors? Interesting how you bailed when I challenged you on that.

[Kang Colby]

52. +1000, eom.

[Eleanors38]

8. Guns Discussion on again? OK, rifles account for -3% of all gun homicides...

...and semi-auto rifles of the type referenced are only one type of rifle within this small subset.

That said, I have a semi-auto 10-shot rifle which works fine. It was made in 1905. Don't think it has been involved with a Mass Shooting, even of squirrels.

To the OP: Get some major politician, or a unified MSM front, to loudly push for controls and bans, only let me know first so that I may purchase an arm of this class at a reasonable price. Because you know what's going to happen.

[ileus]

10. Thanks anyway, I'll keep my ARs

[Logical]

83. How adorable. nt

[beevul]

86. Spoken like theres something wrong about keeping ones own AR.

There isn't.

[hack89]

11. Because we know police are unbiased when it comes to civil rights. nt

[Skittles]

12. Texas, gun humping paradise

[braddy]

21. Chicago is only a city, and they have had 42 shootings since Friday.

[Skittles]

22. oh lookie here! A repuke meme!

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[braddy]

23. Actually it is this weekend's news for Chicago, and the weekend isn't over yet.

In case you missed the DU thread posted a few minutes ago.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027865529

[beevul]

48. As you can see...

As you can see, to the doctrinaire anti-gunner, the true believer, even the weekend news is a 'right wing talking point' if it says something...ahem...blasphemous.

[ileus]

54. and all by licensed conceal carriers and NRA members.

[TrappedInUtah]

14. AR15's kill almost nobody

compared to handguns.

[Hoyt]

26. Yeah, but they are the guns that get yahoo's all excited. If we restricted them, it would

dramatically reduce gun sales and maybe put some profiteers out of business.

[Kang Colby]

53. How do you figure, Hoyt?

People appreciate the AR platform rifles for a wide range of reasons. I'm not sure AR restrictions would dramatically reduce gun sales. Are you suggesting that an AR ban would cause sales of other firearms to drop?

[Hoyt]

60. Since most AR lovers are not hunters and are likely intimidaters, white wing racists, etc.

Yahoos lined up at gun show Saturday after Sandy Hook to buy a AR:

[Kang Colby]

63. Every segment of society has its issues...how many "white wing racist" AR owners were involved with

Last edited Mon May 30, 2016, 11:02 AM - Edit history (1)

the 52 shootings this weekend in Chicago's Gun Control Paradise? I'm guessing zero.

Now, gun control advocates will whine that the guns come from other states or locales....but they can never explain why those other places have lower homicide rates than the Gun Control Paradise.

For the record, I don't agree with open carrying a rifle into Chipotle. Those guys look like dorks. But I think that was your intent.

No mention of the Pink Pistols or anything like this in any of your posts: http://www.npr.org/2015/04/02/396869889/more-african-americans-support-carrying-legal-guns-for-self-defense

Now, I can't get you to change your opinion. But I would encourage you to think about your fellow Democrats, minorities, and LGBTQ gun owners. We do exist. Gun ownership isn't the sole domain of right wing whites.

[Hoyt]

65. Ah, Chicago. A favorite meme of NRA. Vast majority of shootings are in limited areas. Don't go there

if you are concerned. Instead, you and others use it as an excuse to arm up and promote gunz.

[Kang Colby]

69. That's not accurate, you ignored most of my post..which is your call.

I don't like Chicago, it's too cold and I'm not a fan of deep dish. I like NYC slices myself...but good pies can be had in Jersey, Connecticut, and New York in my opinion.

I don't use Chicago as an excuse to own guns, that's ridiculous and you know it. People can own guns for any reason they choose to. That's my opinion.

Years ago, you used to post sound arguments in favor of gun control, you know this topic. It seems like recently though you've picked up this "gun owners are racist" thing, which in my opinion, is kind of a shallow argument. Lots of black folks own guns, and every race, ethnicity, and sexual preference in between.

I think the "racist gun owners" talking point you use is just designed to get liberal gun owners' goats.

[Duckhunter935]

68. Am I a right wing racist?

I own a few AR pattern rifles. If course I own more antique bolt action weapons

[Duckhunter935]

55. I am glad I have an AR-10 now

Nice firearm. Nicely locked in my safe until I go to the range.

[Hoyt]

61. I'm glad your new lethal weapon excites you.

[Duckhunter935]

62. It does not excite me

Just another rifle that I enjoy shooting paper plates

[Hoyt]

66. Sure it does. Let's be honest.

[Duckhunter935]

67. Please do not tell me how I feel

That is just presumptuous and really mean. I think you are better than that.

[Rex]

25. It is real simple, 30 06 round are meant to kill large game. .223 and 5.56 rounds are meant to kill

people. The military did not design the M-16 and the M-4 to kill Bambi...let us be honest in this thread some of you are getting way off topic.

[sarisataka]

28. The 30-06 was designed

Originally for military use. Winchester first called it the 30 government 06, signifying the year it was adopted by the army.

It also happens to be an excellent medium to large game hunting round. Mini military rifles and calibers are used by hunters. Commonly it is because many hunters spend time in the Army and become familiar with a rifle. They then seek it out in a civilian version.

[Rex]

32. Again we are talking about killing people, not large game.

And not soldiers but civilians, are you saying the AR-15 is not good at killing Americans?

[sarisataka]

41. Do you know of any gun

that will only target soldiers (who are people too, last time I looked) or game but not civilians?

I made no claims about the AR. I was correcting your claim that the 30 06 was only a hunting round. The 30 06, like the 5.56, 7.62, 30-30 and many others were created for military use. It was later found they can be very effective hunting cartridges. I have one rifle chambered for 416 Remington. It was designed to be used on large, dangerous game but would be horribly effective if used on a person. Neither the gun, nor the bullet determines the target; the user does that.

[Duckhunter935]

57. I just built an AR-10

Nice weapon

[Waldorf]

29. .223 is a varmint round. It came from the commercial .222 Remington. The 5.56 is the NATO version

of the round. A lot of folks in the military would like to move up to a larger caliber because of its better stopping power.

[Rex]

33. And what about civilians walking down the street, you think it might be more then just an irritant?

The AR-15 is good at killing American civilians is kinda the point.

[Waldorf]

42. If it is so good at killing American civilians than why is it hardly used to achieve that?

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/expanded-homicide-data/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2010-2014.xls

See the rifles category? Looks like about 2% of murders are committed by all rifles. And that includes that scary AR-15.

[GulfCoast66]

38. Can't believe I am posting in a gun thread!

But the 5.56 was designed because soldiers could carry twice the ammo load and in FMJ they tended to wound not kill, which stated somewhere else in this thread is a cold hearted preference to killing on a battle field.

The irony is that we can buy 5.56 ammo here that would be considered a war crime if used in combat! And with that Ammo it is deadly. The gun I shoot deer with is way, way more deadly than the 5.56, but with game loads both are almost always lethal.

That said, I wish I had a solution to the problem and a way to make our society as safe as most European countries. But I just don't.

[Straw Man]

44. War crimes.

The irony is that we can buy 5.56 ammo here that would be considered a war crime if used in combat!

The Hague Convention of 1907 bound its signatories to a ban on ammunition designed to inflict "superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering." This was and is still interpreted to mean hollowpoint ammunition, by virtue of the fact that it creates a larger wound and greater blood loss. However, it is less likely to penetrate to vital organs, and therefore may cause incapacity without lethality if -- and that's a big if -- the wounded party gets prompt medical attention before he or she succumbs to blood loss.

It is also much less likely to pass through its intended target and hit something it's not supposed to hit. For this as well as the above reason, its use by police and hunters is virtually universal.

[Rex]

91. Well one way is to ban assault rifles and weapons.

But too many people only care about themselves and not the unintended consequences. My point is NOW, TODAY people use 30 06 to hunt large game and 5.56 and .223 to kill people. The Gun Warriors are just mad those are facts.

[Eleanors38]

110. Actually, the 5.56/.223 is used on varmints and feral hogs daily. Very, very few human victims.

Now, those are Facts.

[Kang Colby]

50. .30-06 served for fifty years in the military.

Ever heard of an M1 Garand?

Even in the context of civilian AR ownership, AR-10s are extremely popular, chambered in .308. AR platform rifles in .30-06 also exist.

[Eleanors38]

111. ...and the .308 was also designed as a NATO military round. Very popular on deer.

[Duckhunter935]

56. That would be incorrect

The 30.06 round was developed for the military

[Rex]

90. So they use 30 06 right now? Of course not.

Check your facts, but nice try anyway all you armchair rambos are funny people.

[Duckhunter935]

92. I guess 20 years of military service

And another 10 supporting the military as a civil servant make me an armchair Rambo, lol. I see you could not dispute my factual post. 7.62 is the NATO standard round if that caliber, and yes, it is widely used.

[lumberjack_jeff]

104. The point of combat is to create casualties, not necessarily deaths.

In fact, military strategists argue that less lethal is better because taking three people off the battlefield (one casualty and two to carry him away) is the ideal outcome.

That and load-out weight are the reasons for .223

[lumberjack_jeff]

30. Everything about an AR is esthetics.

there's nothing technically more dangerous about it than any other weapon. In fact, it's less lethal than most - the bullets it fires are not lethal enough to be considered a humane deer hunting round.

[Hoyt]

78. Yeah, but gun yahoos are attracted to those "esthetics." Makes them feel something special.

[beevul]

82. Even if theres a grain of truth to your characterization...

Even if theres a grain of truth to your characterization, so what?

It isn't illegal to be a 'yahoo' or to be anyone else that hoyt doesn't approve of.

Maybe you think that people who buy them " ought to be under surveillance -- 2nd, 1st or any other Amendment be damned."

[Hoyt]

84. I think gun marketers know their targets' motives, maybe better than gunners.

[beevul]

85. What you think...

When you're blocked from a group because you called other DUers 'Klansman'...

When you make claims that are obviously bullshit, such as claiming to able to spot a concealed carrier at 100 yards or field strip a handgun under water...

When you characterize a small isolated cabin and its accompanying ten by ten shed on a mountainside as a compound...

When you author contradictory statements, such as claiming that you're a former robber...then walk them back claiming that you yourself lied about it...

When you constantly and continuously point your finger at another poster, namely me, making statements about me carrying a gun, in spite of being informed over and over that I don't carry...

When you make nonsensical arguments about using a can of beans in self defense against another individual armed with a gun...

Well, lets just say that much less significance or weight is given to "what you think", by anyone that is paying attention.

I think gun marketers know their targets' motives, maybe better than gunners.

Uh, hoyt, I shouldn't need to point this out, but gun makers targets are gunners, not criminals or murderers or those who are suicidal.

Now, do be consistent and reply with something like "As a self-admitted gun toter, I doubt you will ever do the right thing with your gunz" or "you can't walk out the door without a gun strapped to your body".

[Hoyt]

88. Still keeping a diary of my posts. LMAO. Is your reference to "compound" about racist Randy Weaver?

Too many gunners get upset about that admitted Ayran Nation racist, who hid behind his kids while federal marshals gave him months to surrender peacefully. And not to mention, his kid and cabin mate murdered a federal agent during those months.

Add this one to your diary.

[beevul]

89. A 'diary'?

A 'diary'? Hardly.

I need no diary to remember posts that qualify as Major League stupid and/or deliberately factually wrong. That's something else I explained to you previously that you don't seem ready willing or able to remember.

This is my shocked face.

Is your reference to "compound" about racist Randy Weaver?

No, its a reference to the quality of your honesty and your behavior, like the rest of them were.

[Duckhunter935]

93. I like how it is a modular weapon

Easy to configure for different calibers and barrel lengths.

[Hoyt]

95. Yeah, ain't in nice, you can play urban warfare and train to shoot people at long distances or at

night, or carry around in your trunk. Just all kinds of possibilities to customize your lethal weapons.

[Duckhunter935]

97. I keep them in my safe

Transport them to the range and shoot paper plates at differing ranges. It can be very calming to hit the target, of course you could not understand that.

[Hoyt]

99. Lots of people keep their porn in safes. If training to kill is calming, seek help or use a BB gun.

[Duckhunter935]

101. I guess Olympic shooters are also training to kill, lol

And by guns are not accurate at all, but I would not expect you to know that. So are you saying I should leave my firearms unsecured? That's pretty idiotic even for you.

[lumberjack_jeff]

103. What if legislation required them to be painted pink?

Would that satisfy your desire to "do something"?

[beevul]

49. Not just no, Hell No.

And I neither own one nor have any inclination to.

[Duckhunter935]

58. I think not on this one

Look at the actual facts on how often they are used

[NickB79]

59. This shooting using an AR-15 had fewer dead and injured than a typical handgun/shotgun shooting

Hell, one of the two deaths in this shooting came from one of the suspects shooting HIS PARTNER IN CRIME!

Not saying you're wrong on your assessment, because AR-15's have been used to deadly effect in other shootings (Sandy Hook and the Colorado movie theater), but in this particular instance, the fact he used an AR-15 had pretty much no bearing on the outcome.

[Matrosov]

70. It's counterproductive

We need to stop wasting our time on subjects like assault rifles, when long guns in general are used in a negligible number of crimes compared to handguns. Focusing on handguns would be a much better course of action.

[hollowdweller]

71. Just put a 100 dollar tax going forward on any magazine holding more than 10 rounds.

[Hoyt]

77. +1.

[Duckhunter935]

81. Of course you can just 3D print them

It's a box with a spring

[beevul]

87. That would be a sticky first amendment issue.

This magazine holds more than ten, on the cover alone.

[ManiacJoe]

94. What makes the AR-15 special that it needs more restrictions than other rifles?

(This is not a trick question, but it has only one correct answer.)

[Kang Colby]

96. Nothing. n/t

[Duckhunter935]

98. Nothing at all

Especially as rifles are yours least often in crimes

[linuxman]

100. It's so dawn scaaawy.

[beevul]

102. Anti-gunners like it less than other rifles.

It is a symbol that represents losing their ass on the gun issue.

[lumberjack_jeff]

105. The color and lack of wood, it would seem. n/t

[ManiacJoe]

106. Well, obviously we gunnies know the right answer....

[Eleanors38]

112. It serves as a flag of the "enemy" in a culture war?

Amazing how mentioning ARs gets you a thread in GD. Damned .38s are so-o-o-o passe.