Mass Shootings in Texas (Austin, Uvalde: credit, price, safest)

[James Austen]

Originally Posted by Ralph_Kirk

Eighteen-year-old soldiers have been given weeks of indoctrination into a highly regimented and regulated way of life, and taught obedience and discipline. Then, they're trained and certified in the safe and legal use of the weapon. Even then, they do not have constant possession of the weapons--the weapons are kept locked in an armory until authorized for use. And while under arms, those 18-year-old soldiers are still under supervision.

That is a vastly different situation from a kid just walking into a gun store on his 18th birthday and walking out with several firearms and hundreds of rounds of ammunition.

My point is that the ambiguity of what is allowed and what is not allowed is just plain stupid.

Just think. Your trained soldier with combat experience would not be allowed to sit at the bar and have a beer on his return home. He would have to sit somewhere at a table and drink a 7-Up or a Shirley Temple if he were still under 21. Completely senseless. If he were posted to Europe he could go into any bar at 19 and get three sheets to the wind if he wanted to.

In short he can be fully trusted with a lethal killing machine after training but not trusted or mature enough to drink a can of Bud. There are a lot of stupid laws around and I suspect that the influence of Bible Thumping Evangelical Christians has created this adult/not an adult situation. More likely the great grandkids of those who managed to push through the Volstad Act.

[James Austen]

Originally Posted by EDS_

Absurd. No modern warrior would go into combat with a civilian AR-15 or anything similar by choice ergo the AR-15 and similar firearms are only assault weapons to small l liberals.

I've never fired an AR-15. Back in the day we were using NATO standard rifles, 20 round magazine capacity, 7.62 calibre semi automatic. if the AR-15 bears any resemblance to that weapon then I say it's still not suitable for civilian use. As a home defence weapon it's overkill. As a hunting weapon it's useless. I used to know a female psychologist whose theory was that it was a symbol of male penile extension.

[James Austen]

Originally Posted by ainsley1999

I apologize, I shouldn’t have insulted lions’ intelligence and culinary taste. I love all felines.

LIkewise

[Ralph_Kirk]

Originally Posted by James Austen

I've never fired an AR-15. Back in the day we were using NATO standard rifles, 20 round magazine capacity, 7.62 calibre semi automatic. if the AR-15 bears any resemblance to that weapon then I say it's still not suitable for civilian use. As a home defence weapon it's overkill. As a hunting weapon it's useless. I used to know a female psychologist whose theory was that it was a symbol of male penile extension.

The only thing the AR-15 lacks is fully automatic mode...which isn't used in combat very often anyway. But it is maximized otherwise as a tactical offensive weapon, not a defensive weapon.

I'd want a semi-automatic to hunt feral pig, but not in a .223. I'd rather have a semi-auto .308.

[EDS_]

Originally Posted by James Austen

I've never fired an AR-15. Back in the day we were using NATO standard rifles, 20 round magazine capacity, 7.62 calibre semi automatic. if the AR-15 bears any resemblance to that weapon then I say it's still not suitable for civilian use. As a home defence weapon it's overkill. As a hunting weapon it's useless. I used to know a female psychologist whose theory was that it was a symbol of male penile extension.

You are indeed very confused.

The AR-15 is chambered in 5.56 NATO and or .223.

It's not my preference but the AR-15 is the home defense choice of many. Using the proper round it's certainly not overkill.

The AR-15 is one of the best varmint hunting platforms available, IMO the best and in no universe useless.

[Ralph_Kirk]

Originally Posted by James Austen

My point is that the ambiguity of what is allowed and what is not allowed is just plain stupid.

Just think. Your trained soldier with combat experience would not be allowed to sit at the bar and have a beer on his return home. He would have to sit somewhere at a table and drink a 7-Up or a Shirley Temple if he were still under 21. Completely senseless. If he were posted to Europe he could go into any bar at 19 and get three sheets to the wind if he wanted to.

In short he can be fully trusted with a lethal killing machine after training but not trusted or mature enough to drink a can of Bud. There are a lot of stupid laws around and I suspect that the influence of Bible Thumping Evangelical Christians has created this adult/not an adult situation. More likely the great grandkids of those who managed to push through the Volstad Act.

That makes 21 a stupid drinking age, not a stupid gun purchase age. No, there isn't any real reason the two should be aligned, just as we don't align the driving age with either one.

But then, back when I was that young kid in the military, we were allowed to drink on base at 18 even though the drinking age off base was 21.

So, while we were on base and under supervision, we could drink. And when we were on base and under supervision, we could be armed.

[EDS_]

Originally Posted by Ralph_Kirk

The only thing the AR-15 lacks is fully automatic mode...which isn't used in combat very often anyway. But it is maximized otherwise as a tactical offensive weapon, not a defensive weapon.

I'd want a semi-automatic to hunt feral pig, but not in a .223. I'd rather have a semi-auto .308.

I've killed literally hundreds of wild hogs with ARs in .223....like I said above the AR is my favorite varmint rifle.

Could you explain the offensive vs. defensive bit a little?

[WRM20]

Originally Posted by James Austen

I've never fired an AR-15. Back in the day we were using NATO standard rifles, 20 round magazine capacity, 7.62 calibre semi automatic. if the AR-15 bears any resemblance to that weapon then I say it's still not suitable for civilian use. As a home defence weapon it's overkill. As a hunting weapon it's useless. I used to know a female psychologist whose theory was that it was a symbol of male penile extension.

What makes you think an AR-15 is useless as a hunting firearm? In 30 AAC Blackout with a silencer and a thermal scope, they are very useful for night time feral hog control. In .223/5.56 they are great for coyotes that are harassing cows and other livestock and for hunting fur bearing animals. In Texas, many ranches use AR-15s for culling deer herds, using head shots.

AR-15 type rifles are inherently very accurate and are essentially impervious to weather(a great attribute for a rifle that is carried in an ATV all over a ranch). At large rifle competitions, you will see hundreds of competitors shooting AR-15 based rifles, because they are much better for that purpose than the older M-14 clones like the M1-A.

Ar-15 based rifles are tools for a variety of tasks. Nothing more, nothing less.

[WRM20]

Originally Posted by Ralph_Kirk

The only thing the AR-15 lacks is fully automatic mode...which isn't used in combat very often anyway. But it is maximized otherwise as a tactical offensive weapon, not a defensive weapon.

I'd want a semi-automatic to hunt feral pig, but not in a .223. I'd rather have a semi-auto .308.

AR-15 in 30 AAC Blackout or one of the 6mm cartridges would work. For .308, you would be looking at an AR-10 or similar type. The inherent accuracy of the AR-15 platform makes them useful for a variety of purposes.

[ZuluShakur]

Originally Posted by Need4Camaro

Is that a fact? Then tell me, why didn’t you bring this up?

https://chicago.suntimes.com/crime/2...al-day-weekend

Just happened this weekend, twice as many people murdered, twice as much gun control, and no one seems to be talking about it. Infact you probably never would have heard about it in your lifetime had I not pointed it out to you.

Yeah most of the guns found in Chicago come from other states though. Just like you can traffic drugs from other parts of the country so can you do the same with firearms.

It is estimated that 60% of the guns recovered in Chicago were originally purchased out of state, with Indiana, Mississippi and Wisconsin among the top suppliers

https://wgntv.com/news/wgn-investiga...exing-problem/

And who don't know about gun violence in Chicago, conservatives remind people every week. We know it exist. I live in Houston btw, you think I'm concerned about Chicago gun violence when I have to worry about the idiots down here? And mind you I own a gun but the gun culture down here is a little obsessive.