Not intended to be funny. F*cking assault rifles.
You forgot to add human hand/foot, & things with no other purpose add landmines, explosive vests, crossbow, bow/arrows, slingshots for things that can be used for murder only. Lets pray for the near million getting slaughtered every other week in the underdeveloped world with no lowered flags or donations. No ones tweeting about the lives or lost experiences of the Afghans blown to bits or shot up constantly.
maybe one could open a beer with that gun? Or use it as a helmet stand. But yea.. nothing really useful :/
The assault rifle has many legitimate uses that do not constitute murder; intimidating and killing terrorists, for instance. See http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/peter_van_uhm_why_i_chose_a_gun.html
Fair enough Howard — this could better be titled “Alternate Uses Outside of War, Civil Defense and Police”…but that’s pretty wordy. I have zero objection to use of weapons by trained servicepeople…but when did we decide that the tools of professionals should be the toys of amateurs?
You know you can hunt with an AR or an AK right?
You can fish with dynamite also. These are military weapons, designed for a tactical advantage against an armed opponent. That situation does not apply to hunting, unless you hunt people.
“Nothing”. Whomever made this didn’t think very far along…just far enough until they reached the conclusion they wanted eh?
Discriminating against a gun simply because it looks “scary” is foolish. The AR-15 pattern rifle is quite popular with hunters of all types. There are also sports based around guns of this type, such as 3-gun (racing through a course of fire with pistol, rifle, and shotgun).
Unfortunately we live in a world filled with PEOPLE who are out to do harm to others. Banning the objects they use does nothing to stop the person from being who they are. If they’re already out to kill somebody, which is already illegal, saying “You can’t use this specific thing” isn’t going to stop them from either getting that thing and using it anyway (see: the war on drugs), or using a totally different thing as your infographic suggests.
To say that an AR-pattern rifle is useful only for killing undermines your credibility and displays extremely limited thinking.
Still thinking about it. Talk me through this: do you think we should draw a line anywhere as to what weapons can be privately owned? If so, why are assault rifles on the “reasonable” side of the line? Genuinely asking. All of us grow up with things we’re attached to, doesn’t mean we have a right to use them anywhere at any time. I love a campfire, but I know why I’m not allowed to have one in Utah right now – if one fire in a thousand gets out of control, it’s going to cause a ridiculous amount of damage, so we prohibit that.
Hi Bryson — I can think of all kinds of ways to use any object, but don’t tell me the AR was designed for anything but military use. We restrict substances that can cause mass damage even though the majority of people are normal and sane. The issue is that these highly potent tools massively increase the power of a disturbed individual to destroy others. I can’t privately possess the ebola virus, even if I’m a qualified biologist who enjoys studying rare diseases in my private time. The risk of it in the wrong hands outweighs the enjoyment of the individual. But I agree with your point in the middle: these people will just find another weapon. My contention is that most other weapons are a lot less effective at mass death.
Thanks for commenting.
I don’t want to stir up the fire, I just want to raise a point. First off- I agree, “firearms” of that sort of killing power should not be in the hands of civilians. If they are going to be purchased, the person buying it needs severe background checks. This whole situation got me thinking back to the incident in LA, when 2 bank robbers had modified high powered rifles (AR 15, AKM) and and took over a residential neighborhood in a bloody gun battle with the cops. Anyone familiar with this story knows, the robbers had head to toe body armor, and the police were only equipped with 9mm pistols and 12 gauge shotguns… not much they could do. So your friendly neighborhood gun shop sold guns to the LA police dept. Rifles capable of stopping a fully protected armed criminal. Now while some can say “if it was illegal, the cops couldn’t have bought the rifles from a neighborhood gun store”.. etc. But the real issue is this: Why are weapons designed to penetrate BODY ARMOR being sold to civilians at all. I’ve shot bows before, even hand guns, but I can’t even imagine what would cause you to want to walk out in the woods and unload 50 rounds into a deer, is that even a challenge? These weapons were DESIGNED for combat situations like I described, not for your casual nighttime game hunting.
I agree, guns don’t belong in the hands of civilians, especially Syrian civilians; only that country’s army is responsible enough to possess them.
This is not Syria — we have an elected government that, however imperfect, has little history or likelihood of using it’s military to oppress it’s citizenry (unless you’re a devotee of David Koresh). And none of our civilian weapons are sufficient to counteract our military anyway.
1) The rifles the cops bought were legal; the rifles that Phillips and Mătăsăreanu had were not. Phillips had a felony record that prevented him from purchasing firearms and the Colt and Kalashnikov rifles had been illegally modified to fire full auto.
2) Those rifles aren’t “designed” to penetrate body armor; they fire the same cartridges as many other semi-auto, bolt-action and even single-shot rifles. The .225/5.56 that the AR-15 uses is commonly used by bolt-action rifles as well due to it’s high velocity (making it ideal for hunting, since the goal is to put holes in the animal’s vital organs without the bullet messing up the muscle meat the way a pistol round would) and relatively low recoil.
3) Most rifle rounds will penetrate body armor, since body armor usually only provides reliable protection against smaller, lower velocity rounds like those used in pistols. Military grade armor might be able to reduce the effectiveness of a 7.62×39mm, but even that would be a matter of luck.
4) No one “unloads 50 rounds” into a deer, even if they’re using an AR-15. An AR-15 makes for a good hunting rifle because it’s modular, allowing the hunter to add or remove accessories and switch stocks/grips/handguards without a lot of effort. The removable box magazines also make it easier to carry multiple kinds of rounds for various kinds of game and switch between them far easier than they could with a rifle with an internal magazine as well as to clear a feed jam.
I have a semi-automatic rifle chambered in .30-06 that looks like that hunting rifle. It fires a round that is more powerful, by far, than that which an AR pattern rifle fires. Since it’s not black I can use it for hunting, right?
removing tyrant/kebab/home intruders and scaring people
removing tyrants/kebab/home invaders/revealing stress in a healthy manner. Honestly its a joke having one hunting and other not since they are the same thing. One just looks ’scary’.
I’ve stated this elsewhere but my feelings on this are pretty simple: because the AR pattern is equally or even less powerful than many traditional semi-automatic hunting rifles, why is it so popular? It is popular because it looks and feels like a military rifle. It conveys a professionalism that many users do not have. This happens in any number of products, brands sell on the basis of aspirational purchasing: because you have something that looks professional, therefore you must have the skills that necessitate it. Half of the idiots in the world who buy DSLR cameras don’t need anything more than a point and shoot; same with many 4×4 owners. We don’t need the power, but we like what we think it says about us — that we’re a great photographer, or an outstandingly adventurous person, who requires exceptional tools. With most products that’s simply how a fool and his money are parted, by convincing him to buy something because it looks cool, no matter if he needs it (H2 would be the prime example here). But when we design hunting rifles to look like anti-personnel military weapons, what that says to the user is “you can feel like someone who’s job it is to kill people”. And very few of us have the credentials to be that person.
So in short, I don’t buy the NRA argument that the differences are just cosmetic. Or rather, the implied argument that cosmetic differences don’t matter — clearly they matter, because they sell a whole lot more.
I shall now display unlimited thinking: we can use tanks for parade floats. We can use F-15s for skywriting lovely things to our friends and family. We can use rocket launchers to celebrate when the Cubs win two home games in a row. The fact that an alternate use can be concocted does not void the original intent of the tool. But I congratulate you on your logical acrobatics to think otherwise.