Why is the AR-15 Legal?

[Rough Beast Sloucher]

A manic would/could have been caught by the mental evaluation required for gun registration and ownership within the Canadian system. A system you failed to mention and seem like never considered. No doubt as you didn't know about it.

Your scenario is a loaded one. A shooter could take more careful aim thus increase the chances of mortal wound; 1 shot, 1 kill, a marksman.

Changing a mag can be very fast and done with ease with some practice. Sure there will be a delay but that delay is of mere seconds.

America isn't Canada. America isn't the UK. Look at factors such as culture and history not merely gun laws. Canada has less shooting because it does not have the same cultural and historical issues America has.

The murders happened in the US, where it is easier to get a firearm. It was stated that the AR-15 is legal in Canada. My argument stated way back was that the big problem was magazine size, not the legality of the AR-15 itself. This is why I mentioned magazine size. It is not Canadian laws and practices that are under review but US ones. Talking about cultural and historic issues is not going to solve any problems. The guy in question was not a marksman. He came in pointing the easily aimed AR-15 at whoever he saw and kept squeezing the trigger and changing magazines every 30 rounds. He expended 150 rounds. If he had needed to change magazines 29 times instead of 4, fewer people would have died, One might even argue for the availability of 30 round magazines affecting his mental state and contributing to his decision to do this.

 

[Shad]

Just a quick note that I rarely ever get into these gun discussions since they almost always end up emotionally, so I'm just going to bug out. I haven't read the last series of posts because I really don't want to be tempted to continue, so sorry for ignoring them.

I thought the posts between us were fine and not emotion based. If you felt otherwise I apologies for anything unintentional communicated. My points were more about having multiple changes than merely focusing on one. Hence the use of Canada's NHS and gun regulations for ownership. I have zero issues with the mental evaluations being a requirement.

 

[Shad]

The murders happened in the US, where it is easier to get a firearm. It was stated that the AR-15 is legal in Canada. My argument stated way back was that the big problem was magazine size, not the legality of the AR-15 itself.

Thanks for the clarification

This is why I mentioned magazine size. It is not Canadian laws and practices that are under review but US ones. Talking about cultural and historic issues is not going to solve any problems.

Sure but when you use laws from another nation you must review why/why not each works within that nation. You must compare the difference in those nations which include cultures and the history of each. Those difference matter. For example why is the American inner city a far greater issues than it is in Canada. We can look at LA for example. We can look at the city development plans over decades. We can see how various developers and city officers rigged city planning to divide people first on race then ethnicity. We can see how low class whites were separated by low class non-white. A part of the problem is found in history.

Having a NHS is a major factor as well. Something the USA does not have.

The guy in question was not a marksman.

I didn't think you were referring to the Parkland shooter specifically. If so your citation of the magazine capacity is irrelevant as he would have never passed the mental health check required by Canadian law nor the RCMP's criminal checks given how often he and his house were involved in police calls to service. He may well have been institutionalized if he was under the Canadian system.

You mention other nation's systems but do not seem to know a lot about those systems.

He came in pointing the easily aimed AR-15 at whoever he saw and kept squeezing the trigger and changing magazines every 30 rounds.
He expended 150 rounds. If he had needed to change magazines 29 times instead of 4, fewer people would have died, One might even argue for the availability of 30 round magazines affecting his mental state and contributing to his decision to do this.

Perhaps, however you are speculating. I can easily speculate that a reduced capacity could have led to increased training by the shooter due to not being able to expend the same amount of ammo. He could have carried multiple weapons and/or mags to compensate.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The murders happened in the US, where it is easier to get a firearm. It was stated that the AR-15 is legal in Canada. My argument stated way back was that the big problem was magazine size, not the legality of the AR-15 itself. This is why I mentioned magazine size. It is not Canadian laws and practices that are under review but US ones. Talking about cultural and historic issues is not going to solve any problems. The guy in question was not a marksman. He came in pointing the easily aimed AR-15 at whoever he saw and kept squeezing the trigger and changing magazines every 30 rounds. He expended 150 rounds. If he had needed to change magazines 29 times instead of 4, fewer people would have died, One might even argue for the availability of 30 round magazines affecting his mental state and contributing to his decision to do this.

I would have no problem with making large magazines illegal. Defenders of large clips would be hard pressed to find one case where a large magazine would be necessary for self defense. It certainly has no use in hunting. Gun makers could still make artificial long magazines. It is argued that the AR-15 is not an "assault rifle". It merely is designed to look like one. With a faux large magazine one could still have it look like an assault rifle and would not hamper its legitimate use.

 

[Rough Beast Sloucher]

I would have no problem with making large magazines illegal. Defenders of large clips would be hard pressed to find one case where a large magazine would be necessary for self defense. It certainly has no use in hunting. Gun makers could still make artificial long magazines. It is argued that the AR-15 is not an "assault rifle". It merely is designed to look like one. With a faux large magazine one could still have it look like an assault rifle and would not hamper its legitimate use.

The AR-15 was designed from the beginning as an assault rifle. Although originally equipped with selective full auto fire, this was almost never used in combat because it mostly just wasted ammo. The easy aimability of the weapon from the hip and the rapid semi-auto fire allowed by the pistol grip made it a very effective killing tool without full auto.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The AR-15 was designed from the beginning as an assault rifle. Although originally equipped with selective full auto fire, this was almost never used in combat because it mostly just wasted ammo. The easy aimability of the weapon from the hip and the rapid semi-auto fire allowed by the pistol grip made it a very effective killing tool without full auto.

Actually that was the M16 you are describing, the military predecessor of the AR-15.

Colt AR-15 - Wikipedia

The original AR-15 had only a five round magazine. The thirty round magazines that are sometimes abused seem to be just a modern version of the codpiece. I would have faux thirty round magazines legal if people want to go walking around looking like this:

that is fine with me.

Let people pretend that they are as big of a ****** as they want to. Just make the real thirty round magazine illegal.

ETA: baddonkey, more or less, was not allowed.

 

[Valjean]

I would have no problem with making large magazines illegal. Defenders of large clips would be hard pressed to find one case where a large magazine would be necessary for self defense. It certainly has no use in hunting. Gun makers could still make artificial long magazines. It is argued that the AR-15 is not an "assault rifle". It merely is designed to look like one. With a faux large magazine one could still have it look like an assault rifle and would not hamper its legitimate use.

Outlawing large magazines is all well and good, but I don't think it'll be as effective as people hope. With a little practice, you can eject an eight or ten shot magazine and slap in a new one in less than a second, with most guns.

As for "legitimate use," the military design looks menacing, it's very macho and makes insecure people feel formidable, but aside from a psychological crutch, what is it good for? It was designed as a battlefield weapon: light, easily carried, able to cover-fire from concealment. It had a large magazine, the rounds were small and light so a lot of ammo could be carried in the field. The bullets are jacketed and designed to wound, not kill. In many jurisdictions they are illegal for hunting large game like boar or deer, because of their poor stopping power. Myths of military full metal jacket ammunition.
They're not really good for anything off the battlefield.

One wonders what would happen if these "mouse guns" were outlawed. Would people substitute semi-auto hunting weapons? That would be problematic. Your average deer rifle is much more deadly than an AR/M-16.

The AR-15 was designed from the beginning as an assault rifle. Although originally equipped with selective full auto fire, this was almost never used in combat because it mostly just wasted ammo. The easy aimability of the weapon from the hip and the rapid semi-auto fire allowed by the pistol grip made it a very effective killing tool without full auto.

The military versions have single, treble and full auto positions.
Because the .223 or NATO ammo is jacketed -- and tiny -- the bullets have high penetration but do relatively little damage.

 

[Rough Beast Sloucher]

Actually that was the M16 you are describing, the military predecessor of the AR-15.

Colt AR-15 - Wikipedia

The original AR-15 had only a five round magazine. The thirty round magazines that are sometimes abused seem to be just a modern version of the codpiece. I would have faux thirty round magazines legal if people want to go walking around looking like this:

that is fine with me.

Let people pretend that they are as big of a ****** as they want to. Just make the real thirty round magazine illegal.


ETA: baddonkey, more or less, was not allowed.

Incorrect on several points. The AR-15 was originally developed by ArmaLite corporation as a military weapon. It was developed from the AR-10, a proposed replacement for the M-1 Garand. It lost the competition to the M-14. ArmaLite was in financial trouble and sold the AR-10 and AR-15 rights to Colt. ArmaLite AR-15 - Wikipedia

The Colt manufactured AR-15 was used in military trials (with a 25 round magazine BTW) and in combat with the US Special forces in Vietnam before it was adopted as the standard as the M16. Not until after this did Colt begin to make a semi-auto only version for the civilian market. The AR-15 started life as a military weapon and only later became a civilian rifle.

The M16 was originally equipped with a 15 round magazine, By about 1967 a 30 round magazine began to be issued. The civilian 5 round magazine was for use in states and locales where that was the limit for a hunting rifle. New York State where I grew up was/is one such place. But prior to 1968 it was possible to mail order a civilian AR-15 with a 15 round magazine, same as the military. I remember the ads in Guns & Ammo magazine. Compliance with state and local laws was the buyer’s responsibility in those days.

 

[Rough Beast Sloucher]

Outlawing large magazines is all well and good, but I don't think it'll be as effective as people hope. With a little practice, you can eject an eight or ten shot magazine and slap in a new one in less than a second, with most guns.

As for "legitimate use," the military design looks menacing, it's very macho and makes insecure people feel formidable, but aside from a psychological crutch, what is it good for? It was designed as a battlefield weapon: light, easily carried, able to cover-fire from concealment. It had a large magazine, the rounds were small and light so a lot of ammo could be carried in the field. The bullets are jacketed and designed to wound, not kill. In many jurisdictions they are illegal for hunting large game like boar or deer, because of their poor stopping power. Myths of military full metal jacket ammunition.
They're not really good for anything off the battlefield.

One wonders what would happen if these "mouse guns" were outlawed. Would people substitute semi-auto hunting weapons? That would be problematic. Your average deer rifle is much more deadly than an AR/M-16.
The military versions have single, treble and full auto positions.
Because the .223 or NATO ammo is jacketed -- and tiny -- the bullets have high penetration but do relatively little damage.

So all those people at the Florida school were only hurt a little bit?

Having killed more people with an M16 in semi-auto mode than I care to think about, I can assure you that it is about killing. The truth is that the 'small' .223 almost always expends all of its energy inside a soft target whereas the M14 round is more likely to penetrate all the way through leaving some kinetic energy unused. The long slim bullet likes to fragment despite being FMJ. Of course if you want to cause even more damage, civilian .223 ammo is available in jacketed hollow point, which mushrooms.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Your information is correct. Although I still hold a dislike toward guns as a whole. I am still supportive of people who wish to own an AR-15 or HK416 but at the end of the day I would not bother.