No. Having a gun in each hand is, generally, a movie thing. You'd be more accurate and have a larger magazine with a rifle.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Why is the AR-15 Legal?
- Thread starter Nakosis
- Start date
Perhaps. I'm no expert. I'd expect I'd need to have a lot of practice with both to have a good opinion.
You are correct. Most non-gun enthusiast can't tell the difference though. As a gun enthusiast I consider the ar-15 as a child's toy or joke even. It's not much different than a Ruger 10/22 - Wikipedia which is a common entry level/small game semi-automatic rifle that has been under many Christmas trees as presents for 10 year olds. The ar-15 is just made to look like a real assault rifle for aesthetic purposes as you stated.
Now as to how this kid was legally able to legally purchase one is another matter.
Yes.
Yes.
He was 19, adult enough for the military. I'm assuming I could purchase one. Have it within 3-4 days according to the website.
Bolt action rifles?
I'm personally okay with hunting weapons (i.e. bolt/pump/lever action or breech-loading "long guns" - shotguns or rifles), provided that they're stored secure and unloaded.
I'm against guns that are intended for use on humans: no semi-auto anything and no pistols (with the possible exception of pistols for competition use that are securely stored at the range).
Skwim
Veteran Member
"Far more dangerous" my granny's dry farts.
"Bump fire stocks are gunstocks that are specially designed to make bumpfiring easier, which allows semi-automatic firearm to mimic the firing speed of fully automatic firearms. They can achieve rates of fire between 400 to 800 rounds per minute."
Source: Wikipedia
Source: Wikipedia
A firing rate of 400 to 800 rounds per minute translates into 6.6 to 13 rounds per second. This compares to
"Typical cyclic rates of fire are 600–900 RPM for assault rifles."
Source: Wikipedia
" The AR-15 was an air-cooled rifle system to which the operator risked overheating the barrel through much subsequent firing without a break. Listed rate-of-fire was approximately 800 rounds per minute on full-automatic.
source
.
Source: Wikipedia
" The AR-15 was an air-cooled rifle system to which the operator risked overheating the barrel through much subsequent firing without a break. Listed rate-of-fire was approximately 800 rounds per minute on full-automatic.
source
.
BSM1
What? Me worry?
What do we do about the 300 million =/- guns now in the hands of law abiding citizens?
The Australian approach: you have a grace period leading up to the date that the new law comes into effect. After that, possessing one (without a very restrictive and rare license) is a crime.
If you want to be really nice about it, have a buy-back program leading up to the ban and hand out warnings instead of citations in the period after the law is passed. Have occasional amenities where people can turn in illegal weapons without getting charged.
If you order one online you still have to have it shipped to someone with a federal firearms license (FFL). It is illegal to ship a gun otherwise. At that point you still have to do a background check and wait. Usually a 10% of the price of the gun fee is charged by the FFL holder for his services. The background check can be waived if you have a conceal carry permit (CCW) though. To which each state has it's own individual laws for that.
To get a CCW or FFL you have to do a federal criminal background check, fingerprints recorded and kept on file, and pay. CCW is roughly $100 every 4-5 years, and FFL is about $5,000 per year. The FFL is usually only for business owners (gun smith shops, pawn shops, anywhere guns are sold/shipped to).
Skwim
Veteran Member
And that's the enormous problem the NRA and its toady congressmen have left us with.
And if they ignore the problem, in a few years, people will be saying "what about the 600 million guns out there?"
It will never happen in the U.S. This would be an automatic civil war. So it's not even an option.
Then don't pretend to be upset by school shootings. It's part of the reality that you've created.
That's unfair to the AR15, which uses a military caliber (5.56 NATO).
Sure, it's been called a "mouse gun" by shooters favoring 30-06 & 308,
but the AR15 can successfully compete at 1000 yards. Can't do anything
like that with a 10/22.
Another option that's occured to me: increase manufacturers' liability for the impacts of gun violence. Make it easier for shooting victims or their estates - or the surviving family of gun suicide victims - to sue gun manufacturers... similar to the liability of tobacco manufacturers for their products.
Then, we just let market forces take their course. If gun and ammo manufacturers go bankrupt, so be it. If they voluntarily tighten up who they sell their product to - and who the retailers they supply sell their product to - so be it. Either way, the problem gets addressed.
I am upset at the loss of life needlessly. But I am not upset that a gun was used. The problem is in the what creates the monster that pulls the trigger. Not what the monster used. Chicago, Illinois is one of the most strict cities in the U.S as far as gun control laws. Gun laws in Illinois - Wikipedia
"Chicago has banned the possession of certain semi-automatic firearms that it defines as assault weapons. Chicago residents must "immediately" report a firearm that is stolen or lost, and must report the transfer of a firearm within 48 hours of such transfer. In a home where a person younger than 18 is present, all guns must be secured with a trigger lock, or stored in a locked container, or secured to the body of the legal owner."
And it has done nothing to reduce gun deaths in Chicago. As shown here https://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2017/02/daily-chart-3. Banning guns does nothing to stop gun violence.