General Discussion

Eko

(9,868 posts)

85. There actually is something

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 10:21 PM

Jun 2016

magically unique about the AR15, besides the propensity of killers using them of course, its the idea that most people get when they purchase one, it is the closest you can get to getting a rifle the military uses minus the select fire (cough cough, I was wrong.) That means a lot to people, why? What makes this the gun of choice for people that want to kill a lot of people?

Click here to purchase valentine hearts!

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

129 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

AR-15s and other assault rifles should be illegal. Obviously. [View all] YouDig Jun 2016 OP

while we are sad and mourning some gun owners are enjoying all this - I have two of this crowd in msongs Jun 2016 #1

A lot of this down thread too. hunter Jun 2016 #127

No. beevul Jun 2016 #2

Yes. YouDig Jun 2016 #8

What about the AR-15 is "way over the line" compared to any other gun... PoliticAverse Jun 2016 #28

Other than Eko Jun 2016 #32

What is it about "made for the military" that makes it "over the top" compared to any other PoliticAverse Jun 2016 #40

I dont know. Eko Jun 2016 #46

No difference what so ever. ManiacJoe Jun 2016 #101

So a springfield M1A 7.62 garand Eko Jun 2016 #103

M1A or Garand? Straw Man Jun 2016 #109

Why would you think that? ManiacJoe Jun 2016 #112

Almost all new firearms designs were made for the military aikoaiko Jun 2016 #123

I don't know specifically where the line is. YouDig Jun 2016 #34

Well that's the issue then. If you want to ban all semi-automatic guns with detachable magazines... PoliticAverse Jun 2016 #75

That's an issue, sure. And, yeah, I'm in favor of much more extensive gun control YouDig Jun 2016 #81

Pretty sure the reason mass shooters keep using it is that it's the most popular rifle in America. Lord Magus Jun 2016 #92

It's no different functionally from any other semi-auto rifle with a detachable magazine. Adrahil Jun 2016 #93

Actually lancer78 Jun 2016 #105

Its amazing how many people Eko Jun 2016 #13

And it is not the same AR-15 Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #16

Yes there have been changes. Eko Jun 2016 #19

The big one is Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #21

The original AR15 Eko Jun 2016 #24

This message was self-deleted by its author Eko Jun 2016 #25

Not being able to fire fully automatic is a big difference. n/t PoliticAverse Jun 2016 #22

Nope Eko Jun 2016 #27

Yes it was. Please read that article carefully. Note the following line... PoliticAverse Jun 2016 #36

Somehow you missed this part. Eko Jun 2016 #38

Yes, that was the fully-automatic machine gun version. Armalite sold the design to Colt and... PoliticAverse Jun 2016 #51

No, the ar15 was not fully automatic. Eko Jun 2016 #57

Where does it state it was semi-automatic? Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #59

You would be incorrect sir Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #62

You know what? Eko Jun 2016 #66

We all are wrong at times Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #68

I did say "might" Eko Jun 2016 #74

It's ok. Kang Colby Jun 2016 #76

"Select fire" = full or semi, in this case by a lever...safe semi full. jmg257 Jun 2016 #67

"Select fire" is the key. Igel Jun 2016 #77

I agree. Eko Jun 2016 #80

Confusion is what happens when you reuse model numbers. PoliticAverse Jun 2016 #86

yeah if it was full auto that guy could have cut down 70 people instead of 50 Takket Jun 2016 #42

That's not the issue. The issue is that if you just ban AR-15s and their variants because you think PoliticAverse Jun 2016 #72

There actually is something Eko Jun 2016 #85

There's some truth to that. People that want to "play soldier" want the closest thing they can get PoliticAverse Jun 2016 #91

Probably. Eko Jun 2016 #95

Just my opinion, but Quackers Jun 2016 #108

Inventor of AR-15 Interviewed on HBO's Real Sports with Bryant Gumbel G_j Jun 2016 #124

What do you do about the 10 million plus of them already in civilian hands? Just reading posts Jun 2016 #3

One option is a buyback like in Australia. YouDig Jun 2016 #12

A mandatory buyback is confiscation Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #17

I don't care what word you use. I care about stopping people from being killed. YouDig Jun 2016 #29

You would do much better Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #33

Yeah handguns are bad too. The UK banned them, and there's barely any shootings there at all. YouDig Jun 2016 #37

True. The attacks are mostly stabbings there. ManiacJoe Jun 2016 #102

aaaaaaaaaand there it is. linuxman Jun 2016 #94

At $1000 per rifle, you're talking about over $10B Calista241 Jun 2016 #23

OK. $10B to save 500 lives a year. Over 10 years that's 5000 lives saved at a cost of YouDig Jun 2016 #30

That's just the cost of the buyback itself. Calista241 Jun 2016 #55

Now you're just making up numbers. Bottom line, the whole rest of the world YouDig Jun 2016 #60

The rest of the world never had a fraction of the guns we do. linuxman Jun 2016 #96

it's not only the US stock of guns Angel Martin Jun 2016 #111

Not 500 lives. Straw Man Jun 2016 #110

How much would they be worth with a ban? Figure kthe value would go jmg257 Jun 2016 #70

at $1000 per rifle, you will get very few turned in Amishman Jun 2016 #114

Those people have proven they're too paranoid... scscholar Jun 2016 #18

With sound logic like that, you'll get legislation in no time! linuxman Jun 2016 #97

When one is digging oneself into a hole, the first instinct should be to stop digging Major Nikon Jun 2016 #120

No, it's not obvious. Actually it's a stupid idea Recursion Jun 2016 #4

Obviously, I'm not saying ban a specific brand name. I said in the OP YouDig Jun 2016 #11

"The whole class" is semi-automatics with detachable magazines, or about 90% of guns sold today Recursion Jun 2016 #14

OK, that sounds good to me. YouDig Jun 2016 #26

No, the majority of mass shootings are with handguns Recursion Jun 2016 #35

A Glock with a 30 round clip is still a hand gun is it not? think Jun 2016 #39

Exactly. And in a lot of ways they're worse Recursion Jun 2016 #41

The Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1993 included a ban on magazines capable of holding more than ten think Jun 2016 #48

Sort of. It banned their import and manufacture. Which is a good thing Recursion Jun 2016 #52

I remember. There were obvious ways to modify those weapons from what I recall.... think Jun 2016 #54

The unintended consequence of the "Assault Weapon Ban" is it made those type of guns really popular. PoliticAverse Jun 2016 #79

We passed two important gun control laws in the 1990s: Brady and the AWB Recursion Jun 2016 #87

Handguns are very dangerous too. The UK banned them, and they have hardly any shootings. YouDig Jun 2016 #47

No, it hasn't Recursion Jun 2016 #49

Mexico? Come on. They are ravaged with drug wars. The government barely has control. YouDig Jun 2016 #58

Why wouldn't I compare us to Russia? Recursion Jun 2016 #65

I have fired them many times. Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #20

Semantics Dem2 Jun 2016 #53

No, we should never put ergonomic Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #56

So you're defending making mass-murder easier Dem2 Jun 2016 #69

I am for making firearms safer for the 99% Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #71

The AR-10 is an excellent hunting platform... Marengo Jun 2016 #115

Off-topic and strawman Dem2 Jun 2016 #116

Interesting, semantics become a strawman when you've been proven incorrect. Marengo Jun 2016 #117

Nice try Dem2 Jun 2016 #118

Um, no, you didn't as the AR-10 is a member of the AR family and to use your word, Marengo Jun 2016 #119

OK Dem2 Jun 2016 #121

You may wish to reconsider your argument against "semantics"... Marengo Jun 2016 #122

ARs may be popular with mass-casualty shooters, in part, because ARs are popular with everyone. aikoaiko Jun 2016 #125

Surely the versions best suited to "man-slaughter" should be looked at Dem2 Jun 2016 #126

Its not designed to kill people. Elmergantry Jun 2016 #5

lol Dem2 Jun 2016 #44

If we're going to get really macabre, the M-16 (on which the AR-15 is based) was designed to wound Recursion Jun 2016 #89

It's a 22 caliber which is just too high power for civilians to own scscholar Jun 2016 #6

LOL! NT Elmergantry Jun 2016 #7

. HooptieWagon Jun 2016 #10

lol Dem2 Jun 2016 #45

This is a joke, right? linuxman Jun 2016 #98

Well GulfCoast66 Jun 2016 #106

Quite the opposite HassleCat Jun 2016 #9

What if you buy a counter assault rifle? ileus Jun 2016 #15

The Bloody Hands Club will never abide. Darb Jun 2016 #31

their fear and paranoia trumps all Skittles Jun 2016 #61

Agreed. Darb Jun 2016 #64

Such high levels of discourse. linuxman Jun 2016 #99

I agree Dem2 Jun 2016 #43

even on DU you get nothing but apologists Takket Jun 2016 #50

gun humpers have won Skittles Jun 2016 #63

Or shot dead SwankyXomb Jun 2016 #73

I'm sure I would be considered a "gun humper". Kang Colby Jun 2016 #82

Why are you a member of the NRA? Cursive Jun 2016 #107

Back when I did competitive target shooting I was Recursion Jun 2016 #113

one of the reasons elected Democrats have such credibility problems Angel Martin Jun 2016 #78

ARs and other semi-auto rifles with detachable magazines aren't going anywhere. aikoaiko Jun 2016 #83

You are a Bernie Sanders supporter right? YouDig Jun 2016 #88

I hope Bernie would "evolve" on the futility of AWBs if he were elected. aikoaiko Jun 2016 #90

The second amendment was not written for self defense. kpola12 Jun 2016 #84

Making AR-15s illegal wouldn't change a thing Albertoo Jun 2016 #100

This message was self-deleted by its author Recursion Jun 2016 #104

You got to slow roll it. ncjustice80 Jun 2016 #128

This message was self-deleted by its author Matt_R Jun 2016 #129