In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Options
Why the AR-15 shouldn't be banned.
Mr. Perfect
Member, Moderator Posts: 66,334 ******
Posted without further comment than to say: well said, Mr. Tuohy!
https://www.omahaoutdoors.com/blog/ar15-shouldnt-banned/
Posted February 26, 2018 in Editorials by Andrew Tuohy with 0 comments Tags: AR-15, AR15, Rifles
In the wake of another mass shooting, this time taking the lives of 17 students and teachers, we are seeing renewed calls for the banning of the AR15. We are told that it is exceptionally lethal, too much so; that it is so powerful that we should not expect police officers with handguns to face a mass shooter; that it is too close to military weapons and thus has no place in American society; that it is used in too many mass shootings.
I intend to address each of these issues in turn and explain in practical terms why the AR-15 should not be banned.
The AR15 Is Too Powerful
Photo Credit: AllOutdoors.com
Ardent readers of internet gun blogs and forums will no doubt be scratching their heads at the comment that a 5.56mm AR-15 is too powerful for civilians to own. After all, aren?t we told by some that 5.56 is too weak? That it?s not even legal for hunting deer in some states because it?s so weak? That the military is looking to move away from 5.56 because it doesn?t kill well enough? And yet, according to a piece in the Atlantic written by a radiologist, the AR-15 in 5.56 causes devastating wounds compared to those from a 9mm pistol and thus should be banned ? wounds so devastating that, the author claimed, an ER physician with trauma experience could do nothing about them, wounds caused by a weapon so powerful the shooter didn?t even need to aim.
I should note that the military trained me to treat a wide variety of injuries, including those from rifle cartridges. I have successfully treated injuries caused by rifles and machine guns on human torsos and extremities, and I provided medical care to injured Iraqi children on more than one occasion. While I detest the thought of innocent children being shot by any type of cartridge, it is fallacious to say that nothing can be done for a victim shot by a 5.56mm bullet from an AR15.
This is a case of a little knowledge being a dangerous thing. Spend some time here and there looking at handgun wounds and suddenly see a rifle wound and you?re likely to be amazed at the difference, but it doesn?t matter if that?s 5.56 or 30-06 ? a rifle is much more powerful than a pistol. It sounds impressive to tweet that a bullet comes out of an AR three times faster than a bullet from a 9mm handgun, but what does that mean, exactly? All it means is that it?s a rifle.
Practically every rifle cartridge offers velocity numbers approximately three times that of several handgun cartridges. We might as well say ?This specific brand of vodka has THREE TIMES the alcohol content of red wine! It should be banned!? This, of course, ignores that many other types of vodka have similar alcohol contents, and other types of alcohol have even higher alcohol contents. But it sounds impressive when a physician says it, doesn?t it?
If you want to ban 5.56 because it causes more devastating injuries than a pistol bullet, you?ll need to ban anything that can humanely kill a deer, including the classic 30-30 and 30-06 rifles.
The AR15 is Too Dangerous for Cops to Face
Photo Credit : The Blaze
Some anti-gun folks unwittingly made the case for civilian ownership of the AR-15 when they said that it was understandable for Scot Peterson, the sheriff?s deputy who hid outside while children were being slaughtered, to have not gone in the building ? because he had a 9mm pistol and the shooter had an AR-15.
While I do not believe Scot Peterson was able to tell what weapon was being used from outside the building, it is for this exact reason that civilians should be allowed to own AR-15s.
There is no such thing as a fair gunfight ? it is a fight to live, and good people should have the advantage. By taking away AR-15s, anti-gun people would leave law abiding citizens at a disadvantage in a home defense situation ? and many of them acknowledge this by supporting the notion that Scot Peterson should have stayed outside because he had a pistol and the shooter had a rifle.
With that said, despite the mismatch in terms of weaponry, it was very possible for Deputy Peterson to have stopped the attack. As mentioned before, it is unlikely he was aware of the exact type of weapon the shooter was using. He had the opportunity and ability to hunt down the shooter and surprise him as he attacked innocent people. Even by distracting the shooter or pinning him down briefly, Scot Peterson could have significantly reduced the bloodshed. He chose not to.
The AR15 is a Military Style Weapon
Photo Credit: Military.com
We are told that because the AR15 is too close to the military M4 or M16 carried by troops overseas, it is a military style weapon, and should be banned. But what firearm isn?t derived from one used by the military? Which weapon isn?t ?military style?? There are precious few ? even my 22LR bolt action rifle, purchased for $40 when I was in my early teens, was used as an Eastern Bloc military training rifle.
The Beretta M9, sidearm of the US Military for the last 30 years and presumably the most lethal weapon anti-gun folks think civilians should have, is available in absolutely identical form to American civilians, as are shotguns like the Mossberg 590A1 and Benelli M4 (a completely different type of weapon than the M4 carbine).
Although the 590A1 and M4 are given a more menacing appearance, there is no functional difference between a pump action military shotgun and a pump action clay pigeon shotgun. Are we to believe that a more menacing appearance translates to greater lethality and thus a weapon which should not be available to civilians?
Even a hunting rifle is derived from military weapons. A significant portion of the hunting rifles used in America in the first half of the 20th century were ?sporterized? surplus military rifles that had their stocks modified for easier carry in the woods. The remainder were lever action rifles essentially identical to those used previously by the American military.
In the latter half of the 20th century on to the present day, we saw purpose built ?civilian? bolt action rifles such as the Winchester Model 70 and the Remington 700, but they too have military ties, as the Model 70 was widely preferred by American snipers in Vietnam and many of the current sniper rifles used by the American military are either very close to factory Remington 700 models or based on the same action and essentially identical in terms of their legal description.
If we are to ban ?military style weapons,? we must ban essentially all firearms.
The AR15 Is Used in Too Many Mass Shootings
Photo Credit: The Roanoke Times
One mass shooting is too many, but too often the use of an AR15 is seized upon by the media and anti-gun folks as a reason to ban the lot. We are told that the frequency of the AR?s use in mass shootings is a good reason for a ban.
This argument, that the AR is the weapon of choice of mass shooters, also ignores the fact that the AR15 has been available to civilians since the early 1960s. It was available in full-auto form at effectively the same price as a semi-auto for over two of those decades. And yet, despite this availability and, for much of this time, the complete lack of background checks and paperwork for gun sales, it has not been used in mass shootings with any regularity until the last few years.
If we are going to ban every gun that has been used in mass shootings, then we need to ban all guns.
The AR15 Should Not Be Banned
Photo Credit: BG Defense
That the AR15 is a very effective weapon is not contested by either side. Where the conflict arises is that one side feels its effectiveness should relegate it to being crushed, while the other side pretends it has a different kind of effectiveness, a sporting purposes kind, and hems and haws about how it could also be used for hunting. The willful failure of the gun industry to produce a coherent and honest message about the AR15 could eventually lead to it being banned ? and that would be a crime.
The ?sporting purposes? defense is too often used in regard to the AR-15, and I believe that the gun industry has not done us any long-term favors with the ?Modern Sporting Rifle? moniker. The AR-15 needs to be defended as the ideal home defense weapon, not as something that can be repurposed into a hunting rifle by some percentage of the population.
It is in fact this relative power ? greater than handgun bullets, yes, but also less than that of the 30-06 or other rifles ? that makes 5.56 and similar calibers ideal for use by civilians in home defense situations. Light recoiling carbines are easy to shoot and the 5.56mm bullet has been demonstrated time and time again to penetrate around the same, or less, through both human and non-human things found in homes than even pistol or shotgun projectiles.
How does a cartridge moving so fast penetrate less through soft objects? Because a high velocity, lightly constructed 5.56mm rifle bullet starts to come apart when it hits something, or at the very least tumble and lose efficiency. The pistol and shotgun projectiles do not come apart and instead continue to penetrate straight through interior and exterior walls. There is a powerful myth among law enforcement officials with limited terminal ballistics expertise that 5.56 will overpenetrate indoors; it is just that, a myth, at least when the proper 5.56 ammunition is selected.
The other options for home defense are pistols and shotguns, and they are neither as effective in putting rounds exactly where they need to be nor as safe in terms of reducing overpenetration as high velocity projectiles from a carbine. ?Accidents,? also known as negligent discharges and the unauthorized access to firearms by young children, are also less likely with a carbine than a pistol (although you really should secure your firearms if you have kids in the house).
This is because the muzzle of the rifle or carbine is kept away from the holder of the firearm due to its size, unlike a pistol, and its weight and mildly increased complexity, in addition to its general bulk, makes it more difficult for a toddler to pick up. But again, you really should secure your firearms if you have kids in the house.
It is this very effectiveness that should keep the AR15 on gun store shelves and in the safes of gun owners. As mentioned above, it is the best choice for home defense. I don?t hunt. I don?t want to kill things unless I have to. But I own AR15s because they are the superior choice for personal defense. Viewed objectively, they reduce the risks associated with firing, storing, and owning other types of weapons in a home.
The safest and most superior home defense weapon available to American civilians is and should remain the AR-15, because we should not be punished for the abject failure of local, state, and federal law enforcement to stop a known threat. There is some problem other than the availability of the AR which has led to mass shootings, and American society has yet to figure it out.
https://www.omahaoutdoors.com/blog/ar15-shouldnt-banned/
Posted February 26, 2018 in Editorials by Andrew Tuohy with 0 comments Tags: AR-15, AR15, Rifles
In the wake of another mass shooting, this time taking the lives of 17 students and teachers, we are seeing renewed calls for the banning of the AR15. We are told that it is exceptionally lethal, too much so; that it is so powerful that we should not expect police officers with handguns to face a mass shooter; that it is too close to military weapons and thus has no place in American society; that it is used in too many mass shootings.
I intend to address each of these issues in turn and explain in practical terms why the AR-15 should not be banned.
The AR15 Is Too Powerful
Photo Credit: AllOutdoors.com
Ardent readers of internet gun blogs and forums will no doubt be scratching their heads at the comment that a 5.56mm AR-15 is too powerful for civilians to own. After all, aren?t we told by some that 5.56 is too weak? That it?s not even legal for hunting deer in some states because it?s so weak? That the military is looking to move away from 5.56 because it doesn?t kill well enough? And yet, according to a piece in the Atlantic written by a radiologist, the AR-15 in 5.56 causes devastating wounds compared to those from a 9mm pistol and thus should be banned ? wounds so devastating that, the author claimed, an ER physician with trauma experience could do nothing about them, wounds caused by a weapon so powerful the shooter didn?t even need to aim.
I should note that the military trained me to treat a wide variety of injuries, including those from rifle cartridges. I have successfully treated injuries caused by rifles and machine guns on human torsos and extremities, and I provided medical care to injured Iraqi children on more than one occasion. While I detest the thought of innocent children being shot by any type of cartridge, it is fallacious to say that nothing can be done for a victim shot by a 5.56mm bullet from an AR15.
This is a case of a little knowledge being a dangerous thing. Spend some time here and there looking at handgun wounds and suddenly see a rifle wound and you?re likely to be amazed at the difference, but it doesn?t matter if that?s 5.56 or 30-06 ? a rifle is much more powerful than a pistol. It sounds impressive to tweet that a bullet comes out of an AR three times faster than a bullet from a 9mm handgun, but what does that mean, exactly? All it means is that it?s a rifle.
Practically every rifle cartridge offers velocity numbers approximately three times that of several handgun cartridges. We might as well say ?This specific brand of vodka has THREE TIMES the alcohol content of red wine! It should be banned!? This, of course, ignores that many other types of vodka have similar alcohol contents, and other types of alcohol have even higher alcohol contents. But it sounds impressive when a physician says it, doesn?t it?
If you want to ban 5.56 because it causes more devastating injuries than a pistol bullet, you?ll need to ban anything that can humanely kill a deer, including the classic 30-30 and 30-06 rifles.
The AR15 is Too Dangerous for Cops to Face
Photo Credit : The Blaze
Some anti-gun folks unwittingly made the case for civilian ownership of the AR-15 when they said that it was understandable for Scot Peterson, the sheriff?s deputy who hid outside while children were being slaughtered, to have not gone in the building ? because he had a 9mm pistol and the shooter had an AR-15.
While I do not believe Scot Peterson was able to tell what weapon was being used from outside the building, it is for this exact reason that civilians should be allowed to own AR-15s.
There is no such thing as a fair gunfight ? it is a fight to live, and good people should have the advantage. By taking away AR-15s, anti-gun people would leave law abiding citizens at a disadvantage in a home defense situation ? and many of them acknowledge this by supporting the notion that Scot Peterson should have stayed outside because he had a pistol and the shooter had a rifle.
With that said, despite the mismatch in terms of weaponry, it was very possible for Deputy Peterson to have stopped the attack. As mentioned before, it is unlikely he was aware of the exact type of weapon the shooter was using. He had the opportunity and ability to hunt down the shooter and surprise him as he attacked innocent people. Even by distracting the shooter or pinning him down briefly, Scot Peterson could have significantly reduced the bloodshed. He chose not to.
The AR15 is a Military Style Weapon
Photo Credit: Military.com
We are told that because the AR15 is too close to the military M4 or M16 carried by troops overseas, it is a military style weapon, and should be banned. But what firearm isn?t derived from one used by the military? Which weapon isn?t ?military style?? There are precious few ? even my 22LR bolt action rifle, purchased for $40 when I was in my early teens, was used as an Eastern Bloc military training rifle.
The Beretta M9, sidearm of the US Military for the last 30 years and presumably the most lethal weapon anti-gun folks think civilians should have, is available in absolutely identical form to American civilians, as are shotguns like the Mossberg 590A1 and Benelli M4 (a completely different type of weapon than the M4 carbine).
Although the 590A1 and M4 are given a more menacing appearance, there is no functional difference between a pump action military shotgun and a pump action clay pigeon shotgun. Are we to believe that a more menacing appearance translates to greater lethality and thus a weapon which should not be available to civilians?
Even a hunting rifle is derived from military weapons. A significant portion of the hunting rifles used in America in the first half of the 20th century were ?sporterized? surplus military rifles that had their stocks modified for easier carry in the woods. The remainder were lever action rifles essentially identical to those used previously by the American military.
In the latter half of the 20th century on to the present day, we saw purpose built ?civilian? bolt action rifles such as the Winchester Model 70 and the Remington 700, but they too have military ties, as the Model 70 was widely preferred by American snipers in Vietnam and many of the current sniper rifles used by the American military are either very close to factory Remington 700 models or based on the same action and essentially identical in terms of their legal description.
If we are to ban ?military style weapons,? we must ban essentially all firearms.
The AR15 Is Used in Too Many Mass Shootings
Photo Credit: The Roanoke Times
One mass shooting is too many, but too often the use of an AR15 is seized upon by the media and anti-gun folks as a reason to ban the lot. We are told that the frequency of the AR?s use in mass shootings is a good reason for a ban.
This argument, that the AR is the weapon of choice of mass shooters, also ignores the fact that the AR15 has been available to civilians since the early 1960s. It was available in full-auto form at effectively the same price as a semi-auto for over two of those decades. And yet, despite this availability and, for much of this time, the complete lack of background checks and paperwork for gun sales, it has not been used in mass shootings with any regularity until the last few years.
If we are going to ban every gun that has been used in mass shootings, then we need to ban all guns.
The AR15 Should Not Be Banned
Photo Credit: BG Defense
That the AR15 is a very effective weapon is not contested by either side. Where the conflict arises is that one side feels its effectiveness should relegate it to being crushed, while the other side pretends it has a different kind of effectiveness, a sporting purposes kind, and hems and haws about how it could also be used for hunting. The willful failure of the gun industry to produce a coherent and honest message about the AR15 could eventually lead to it being banned ? and that would be a crime.
The ?sporting purposes? defense is too often used in regard to the AR-15, and I believe that the gun industry has not done us any long-term favors with the ?Modern Sporting Rifle? moniker. The AR-15 needs to be defended as the ideal home defense weapon, not as something that can be repurposed into a hunting rifle by some percentage of the population.
It is in fact this relative power ? greater than handgun bullets, yes, but also less than that of the 30-06 or other rifles ? that makes 5.56 and similar calibers ideal for use by civilians in home defense situations. Light recoiling carbines are easy to shoot and the 5.56mm bullet has been demonstrated time and time again to penetrate around the same, or less, through both human and non-human things found in homes than even pistol or shotgun projectiles.
How does a cartridge moving so fast penetrate less through soft objects? Because a high velocity, lightly constructed 5.56mm rifle bullet starts to come apart when it hits something, or at the very least tumble and lose efficiency. The pistol and shotgun projectiles do not come apart and instead continue to penetrate straight through interior and exterior walls. There is a powerful myth among law enforcement officials with limited terminal ballistics expertise that 5.56 will overpenetrate indoors; it is just that, a myth, at least when the proper 5.56 ammunition is selected.
The other options for home defense are pistols and shotguns, and they are neither as effective in putting rounds exactly where they need to be nor as safe in terms of reducing overpenetration as high velocity projectiles from a carbine. ?Accidents,? also known as negligent discharges and the unauthorized access to firearms by young children, are also less likely with a carbine than a pistol (although you really should secure your firearms if you have kids in the house).
This is because the muzzle of the rifle or carbine is kept away from the holder of the firearm due to its size, unlike a pistol, and its weight and mildly increased complexity, in addition to its general bulk, makes it more difficult for a toddler to pick up. But again, you really should secure your firearms if you have kids in the house.
It is this very effectiveness that should keep the AR15 on gun store shelves and in the safes of gun owners. As mentioned above, it is the best choice for home defense. I don?t hunt. I don?t want to kill things unless I have to. But I own AR15s because they are the superior choice for personal defense. Viewed objectively, they reduce the risks associated with firing, storing, and owning other types of weapons in a home.
The safest and most superior home defense weapon available to American civilians is and should remain the AR-15, because we should not be punished for the abject failure of local, state, and federal law enforcement to stop a known threat. There is some problem other than the availability of the AR which has led to mass shootings, and American society has yet to figure it out.
Some will die in hot pursuit
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
Comments
The AR15 is a viable home defense gun. Especially with enforcers failure to control gangs, drug dealers, and many other prohibited persons from obtaining superior fire power.
I predict that this article will sway exactly ZERO antis. We aren't dealing with a group of people that embrace facts (for the most part).
I doubt if less then 1 % anti-gunners ever read or listen to anything positive about a gun [:(!]
quote:Originally posted by iceracerx
Who is he preaching to?
I predict that this article will sway exactly ZERO antis. We aren't dealing with a group of people that embrace facts (for the most part).