"Assault Rifles" - Scary?
 

TO MY ANTI-GUN FRIENDS... a little visual assistance to put things in perspective.

In this photo, the rifle on top is a hunting rifle. The rifle below it is labeled an ?Assault rifle.?

A .30-06 hunting rifle fires the bullet labeled 30-06 in the 2nd part of the photo. The ?assault rifle? fires the bullet labeled .223/5.56 . A 30-06 round will go through at least 3 people, or an engine block (seriously). The .223 probably won?t pass through a single person.

Both of these semi-automatic rifles fire as fast as the trigger is pulled. One just looks ?scarier.? Politicians play on your emotions in an attempt to get your permission to take away rights. They aren't trying to take away hunting rifles - yet - because they don't think you'll fall for that. Instead, they use scary words like "assault rifle" in the hopes that you'll go along with them as they take away our second amendment rights. That assault rifle sure looks scary, after all, even though a .30-06 hunting rifle is far more powerful.

Politicians just want to scare you. Don?t fall for it.

http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphoto...10379464_o.jpg

Maybe you can pull the trigger just as fast, but you'll be out of control with the 30-06 and maybe on your ass. Any 30-06 I've ever shot I remember kicking like a 12 Guage shotgun.

I can pull an AR15 trigger pretty fast and empty a clip in a few seconds, and the grouping will be tighter because its great for getting a lot of rounds out of the barrel accurately. Even a 7.62 kicks pretty wildly firing super fast semi.

Also, the hunting rifle doesn't hold nearly as many rounds.

So the .223 is no big deal because it "won't go through a person"? You just show a basic ignorance of ammunition effectiveness. The .223 is know as one the most devastating rounds to human tissue.

You are getting desperate.


Most 30.06 clips hold 4 rounds. Most AR clips hold 30 rounds and you can easily get clips that hold 60 or more rounds.

Sure, if you have skill you can do some real damage with the 30.06, but you can do a hell of a lot more with a AR.

I'm not advocating that assault rifles should be banned, just pointing out that your argument holds now water.

You really don't realize that 10 and 20 round magazines are available for .30-06 rifles?

The point is not whether or not a .223 is dangerous to human life, but how politicians feed on fear. They KNOW nobody will support banning hunting rifles. But call something an "assault rifle" because it looks scary, and then the ignorant part of the public might go along.

The term "assault weapon" didn't exist until 1989, and some would argue was coined to blur the distinction between "real" military weapons (to this point known as "assault rifles") and civilian models that only LOOKED like military weapons. Military rifles with full-automatic fire (pulling & holding trigger equals continuous fire) or selective-fire (three-rounds per pull/hold) are not available to civilians. The purchase & possession of any full-auto weapon manufactured before 1986 requires approval of the US Attorney General, registration of the owner and the weapon with the BATFE, and a gauntlet of background checks that would make a colonoscopy seem easy. There is a massive tax on top of the purchase (just to make sure you mean it, I guess).

The semi-automatic (one trigger pull generates a single shot and chambers another round, which will not fire until the trigger is pulled again) mechanically operates in the EXACT same manner for both guns in the picture I posted. This design has existed since the late 1800's!

What you are being inspired to fear are *cosmetic* differences. That's it! The bottom gun looks "scary". They are mechanically IDENTICAL.

Have you fired a 30.06? They kick like a horse. You could get a bigger magazine, but it would be hard to shoot it fast and be accurate.

Like I said, if you are skilled you can do a lot of damage with a 30.06. Any jerkoff with some motivation can do a lot of damage with an AR style rifle. There is a reason soldiers carry them and not 30.06's with 20 round clips.

Of course I've fired them. I owned one until just a few months ago, when I gave it to my best friend's son on his 18th birthday (a hunting rifle can be legally owned, even in California, at age 18).

Banning rifles because of the way they look is ridiculous, but that's exactly what your politicians are trying to do.

First, they aren't just my politicians they are all ours.

Second, I guess we will have to agree to disagree. If you can see that the function of an AR style rifle and a 30.06 are different you are allowing the trees to blind you from seeing the forest.

You've also got to get three people lined up to maximize the efficacy of the 30-06 killing power, as stated by Donny.

By the way, you just illustrated why we have such a gun problem--- with dickheads like you giving away a rifle to an 18 year old kid like its an Xbox.

All of their arguments are rooted in false equivalency.

Image a mad man who starts spraying 30-06 bullets in one classroom, where they go through not just the students in that class but also pass through the walls into the adjacent two classes (and any students in those classes that are in the way).

The point is this: politicians want to scare you into giving up rights. "Assault rifles" look scary, so that's where they attack, meanwhile leaving far more powerful rifles legal because they know the public wouldn't put up with outlawing hunting rifles.

Idiot. Tell someone who they are, and that's what they become. Show a child how to be responsible, and expect that from him from the day he is born, and he'll grow up to be responsible. Our grandfathers had powerful rifles from the time they were 12. They weren't killing people with them (unless, of course, they were in some war). Kids now days are raised to be pathetic because their parents have become pathetic.

Your fear is showing.

Look...a hunting rifle is made for hunting. An assault rifle is made to be lighter, less recoil, more portable, hold more ammo and maximize killing power on multiple targets quickly. Come at us with something other than emotionally biased opinions with shitty photoshop diagrams that you probably think are brilliant.

Again, you mostly show an ignorance of firearms that you DON't see a difference between the two classes of rifle. The delivery system of chaos is more efficient with an AR15. That pic you posted would probably work on some sheep who doesn't know shit about guns, but I'm here to tell you that it looks like you don't know shit.

Simple and true illustrations that help remove fear SHOULD just be common sense. They're not intended to be "brilliant."

Yep. They say it over and over again that a gun is just a tool like any other. If you want to dig a hole you use a shovel. If you want to gather leaves you use a rake. If you want to kill one person from a distance you use a 30.06. If you want to kill a lot of people at closer range you use an AR type rifle.

But its not true to act like the .223 is no big deal, which is the entire point of that pic.

That is NOT the point of the pic. I made the pic. I think that gives me inside info on what the "point of the pic" happens to be, no?

I know you made the pic, and it appears that all of that talk of bullets was leading to the final point in the paragraph. It was to say that .223 is a small round and no big deal. How can you even deny that? Can someone else back me up that this guy is full of horseshit?

Stick to preaching and believing in your religious fairy tales. :2 cents:

No, idiot... perhaps I need to type slower, as I've clearly made the point above but you seem to have missed it:

Politicians go after less powerful "assault rifles" because they look scary and have a scary name, because the ignorant part of the public are willing to allow them to outlaw such guns. Politicians do NOT go after far more powerful hunting rifles because they know that the overwhelming majority of the public would not allow "hunting rifles" to be outlawed. Yet. Politicians work the public, and the public lets itself be worked.

Do I need to type even slower?

But you're saying something is not scary because it fires a smaller round, when it could easily be argued that the Ar15 will kill more people than a hunting rifle in shorter period of time, especially in a "stalking from room to room" situation. Of course politicians should say it's scarier, because it is. The AR15 actually is a more fearsome weapon, and it's not just because of its looks. I owned a CAR15, and while I never shot anyone with it, I also never fooled myself into thinking its just another gun. The AK47, Mp5, Galil, m4 or whatever. They're made to turn people into ground meat in a combat situation, so they should be classified that way.

I'm talking about simple concepts that you will not be able to grasp.

No, I am NOT saying the AR15 isn't scary. I'm saying it should not be MORE scary than a .30-06, and politicians are not very honest trying to use the looks of a gun to scare people into laws that take away their freedoms. Period. That's it. No further discussion necessary.

.223 fired thru 20% ballistic gel, which closely simulates the soft tissue mass of the human body.



Huge internal wound cavity and massive hydrostatic shock. The round does exactly what it was designed for.

and thank you very much.

That 18 year old kid has probably been driving a car for more than 2 years. Going past you just a few feet away at 60 mph and you are worried about his hunting rifle?

.

Any gun is scary unfortunately

See post number 12.

Shove the fucking guns up your asses and pull the trigger.

I've never had a "fucking gun"... is that something similar to a vibrator, but instead of an on/off switch, you pull a trigger? I bet there'd be quite the market for those right about now. If I was still in adult I might run ads on my sites for them. I bet they'd sell like hot cakes.

I wonder why we don't equip our troops with the hunting rifle??? Oh because you are a moron.

A good shooter will be better off with any semi auto rifle than a auto

Talking to an American friend of mine they get upset when people talk about assault rifles and hunting saying it's BS. The concept is that the freedom to own it and protecting their families is what is at stake. Why an assault rifle? Simply because more damage can be done and it's over not to mention that the invader to your home likely will have one (they said).

Point is that now people are talking about their "rights" and that if that is taken away criminals will still have access and get to the rifles anyways since police don't catch them so it's fighting fire with fire.

People who do not live in the USA have a hard time understanding this since their country has strong regulations in place already to avoid people from possessing stronger weapons and the police work hard on stopping them from getting on the streets. Much less other countries such as Canada we really don't have a need to carry weapons of any kind unless it's for hunting - so we don't fully appreciate the need to have a gun in the house and even if we did - there are strong background checks - safety training an storage of guns before we would consider it. Those out in the country in the US where police do not respond within 5min's of a call feel they need stronger guns - while countries such as Canada - we honestly leave our doors unlocked in the country because crime simply isn't the same as our neighbors to the south.

You seem to be intentionally misconstruing the point of the two weapons. The clue is right there in their names: a hunting rifle is intended for HUNTING, and an assault rifle is intended for ASSAULT. Of course the weapons will fire different ammunition with different results.

Since a hunting rifle is intended to bring down large game at range as humanely as possible, the rounds are designed to cross mid- to long-range distances with accuracy as well as enter and exit cleanly. Responsible hunters know this and therefore know not to fire unless they are absolutely certain of what lies beyond their target.

Assault rifles are intended for real-world combat situations - often at close- to mid-range. As such, the ammunition is intended to bring the target down quickly and decisively with minimal collateral damage. Imagine a SWAT style approach on a building with a front and rear entrance. Team A enters the front while Team B enters simultaneously from the rear. If either team needs to respond to a threat, they need to do so immediately without hesitation - ergo, without fear of rounds piercing the target and any interceding walls between them and their compatriots.

As to the point that extended clips can be obtained for hunting rifles as well, I see no problem with outlawing said clips. Every real hunting rifle I own holds 1-3 rounds (4 after you chamber one; I'm not counting my .22 rifle here), which is more than enough.
By necessity hunters need to patiently time their first shot. If they miss, it would be irresponsible to hastily attempt to fire again while the animal is fleeing. Like sawed off shotguns, it makes little sense to outlaw the unmodified weapon which has it's uses as intended. Instead, once modified the weapon becomes illegal. The same with semi to full auto modifications.

1) Assault Rifles are for assaults (massive suppressive fire)
2) Hunting riffles are for hunting (one bullet - one target)

Very easy to understand. Isn't it?

Donny, from a responsible gun owner who keeps his weapons locked in a safe. Please stop posting this bullshit. It's people like you who give us a bad name.

The information in your post is a desperate attempt to make the AR look like it is not as dangerous as a hunting rifle. If that were the case the military would give their soldiers "hunting rifles"

Also, the .223 round does go through people, it is traveling at 3100fps. It just doesn't tumble like a larger round.

I don't want any new gun laws but seriously do some research before you post this shit. At least sit back and think about it for a few minutes before you copy and paste it from some other site.

They travel at speeds from 2750 fps to 3750 fps.

Here's more of that copy/paste for ya:

FBI Ballistic Tests
As a result of renewed law enforcement interest in the .223 round and in the newer weapons systems developed around it, the FBI recently subjected several various .223 caliber projectiles to 13 different ballistic tests and compared their performance to that of SMG-fired hollow point pistol bullets in 9mm, 10mm, and .40 S&W calibers.

Bottom Line: In every test, with the exception of soft body armor, which none of the SMG fired rounds defeated, the .223 penetrated less on average than any of the pistol bullets.

Something that has made me laugh about the gun laws and whats going on with the politicians wanting stronger laws is that the Neighbor Mexico has those same laws and restrictions. Get caught with a weapon with no license, of ANY sort of gun .38 to a AK and you get 25 years in jail.

More gun deaths in Mexico in the last 3 years than in most places involved in WAR.

I am for some sort of change in the US as something clearly needs to be done. But Banning the sale etc is not the answer.

Logic won't help with this psycho. The guy is as ignorant and dense as dvtimes.