Gun 'style' in the media

Ballah06

Well-known member
Jan 21, 2007
5,638
16
Savannah, GA
Just saw an article in NY Times describing effects of "assault-style weapons." My question is, does it really matter what platform a round is fired from? How about the media focuses on a specific caliber/round, if they are trying to make a point? Of course, they do not want to look into this in depth and just keep using generalizations...
 

fishEH

Well-known member
Jan 26, 2009
6,929
203
Lake Villa, IL
Its complete foolishness. These libs don't even realize how ignorant they sound.
Basically if they think it looks scary they want to ban it.
 

SCSL

Well-known member
Apr 27, 2005
4,144
152
Just saw an article in NY Times describing effects of "assault-style weapons." My question is, does it really matter what platform a round is fired from? How about the media focuses on a specific caliber/round, if they are trying to make a point? Of course, they do not want to look into this in depth and just keep using generalizations...

You are confusing rhetoric with dialectic. The phrase ?Assault weapons? is one of the greatest and most effective pieces of rhetoric in the ?gun control? debate. We have yet to come up with an effective rhetorical response. So facts fall largely on deaf ears.
 

Ballah06

Well-known member
Jan 21, 2007
5,638
16
Savannah, GA
You are confusing rhetoric with dialectic. The phrase ?Assault weapons? is one of the greatest and most effective pieces of rhetoric in the ?gun control? debate. We have yet to come up with an effective rhetorical response. So facts fall largely on deaf ears.

No, I do understand the big old 'assault weapons' term and how effective it has been in scaring those who do not know any better. Articles like the one I mentioned just make it sound as if the writers did zero research and lack the utmost basic understanding of firearms. Just a bit funny, in my opinion at least, that someone would consider a certain platform more deadly, just because it looks more scary.
 

Ballah06

Well-known member
Jan 21, 2007
5,638
16
Savannah, GA
Come to think of it, wtf is an assault weapon anyway? You can assault someone with just about anything, i.e. knife, piece of pipe, fork, hatchet, etc. let's just 'outlaw' all sharp and projectile emitting tools and stick with hugs and plasticware.
 

seventyfive

Well-known member
Jan 3, 2010
4,280
100
over there
Come to think of it, wtf is an assault weapon anyway? You can assault someone with just about anything, i.e. knife, piece of pipe, fork, hatchet, etc. let's just 'outlaw' all sharp and projectile emitting tools and stick with hugs and plasticware.

like i have posted numerous times. ask clint.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/4WwT2aFlSy8" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>

it is not a hunting rifle. if you need a high round capacity semi auto rifle, hunting is not your bag. or you need to practice a lot more. 'what is an assault rifle' isright up there with 'if we evolved why are there still monkeys?'
 

AbnMike

Well-known member
Apr 6, 2016
1,218
117
Western Slope, CO
if you need a high round capacity semi auto rifle, hunting is not your bag. or you need to practice a lot more. 'what is an assault rifle' isright up there with 'if we evolved why are there still monkeys?'

Why is it that people always resort to the most simplistic argument i.e., if you carry a "scary black rifle with 30 rounds" you must suck at hunting (unsaid being you must therefore be shooting 30 rounds when you hunt).

What if people simply -want- to carry an AR or similar style rifle when hunting? Why does a hunting rifle have to be brown and non-scary? I've hunted with people who carry AR style rifles, at no point did any of them, ever, fire more than one round at a target, anymore than anyone with a 30-30, .270 Winchester, or 30-06 or any other "traditional" looking hunting rifle that carried more than one round shot more than one round - even though in both cases they could.

I mean shit, why not just take it to its logical conclusion: if you hunt with anything more than a round lead bullet you crafted yourself, in a black powder rifle you loaded yourself, you must suck as a hunter, any good hunter only needs one round, or, even better - all you need to hunt with is a recurve bow, preferably one you carved yourself, anything more means you suck at hunting and need to buy your food from your grocer's freezer.

It's a completely stupid and defeating argument: I don't like this thing, therefore anyone who uses this thing (sucks, is incompetent, is stupid, is _______________).

The argument that : "this caliber bullet that comes out of this semi-automatic rifle is ok, but this same caliber bullet that comes out of this other semi-automatic rifle is not ok because that semi automatic rifle that shoots the same caliber round every time the trigger is pulled is black and looks like something someone in the Army would carry is bad and hunting rifles need to be brown and wood with only a bit of black showing because that's the proper image of a hunting rifle"

is dumb.
 

SGaynor

Well-known member
Dec 6, 2006
7,148
162
52
Bristol, TN
The argument that : "this caliber bullet that comes out of this semi-automatic rifle is ok, but this same caliber bullet that comes out of this other semi-automatic rifle is not ok because that semi automatic rifle that shoots the same caliber round every time the trigger is pulled is black and looks like something someone in the Army would carry is bad and hunting rifles need to be brown and wood with only a bit of black showing because that's the proper image of a hunting rifle"

is dumb.

I agree. That said, people (the uniformed) believe that a pistol grip, or a flash suppressor or a collapsible stock, or a detachable magazine, all make the gun "more lethal," more able to kill more people.

No, seriously, people believe that. If the consequences of their ignorance wasn't so scary, it would be funny.
 

Ballah06

Well-known member
Jan 21, 2007
5,638
16
Savannah, GA
Like Mike said above, I really don't get why people are so scared about certain weapon platforms. Oh no! Here comes the scary 'high capacity' assault rifle. Suppose maybe we just need to ship all those folks to Canada...
 

seventyfive

Well-known member
Jan 3, 2010
4,280
100
over there
Why is it that people always resort to the most simplistic argument i.e., if you carry a "scary black rifle with 30 rounds" you must suck at hunting (unsaid being you must therefore be shooting 30 rounds when you hunt).

What if people simply -want- to carry an AR or similar style rifle when hunting? Why does a hunting rifle have to be brown and non-scary? I've hunted with people who carry AR style rifles, at no point did any of them, ever, fire more than one round at a target, anymore than anyone with a 30-30, .270 Winchester, or 30-06 or any other "traditional" looking hunting rifle that carried more than one round shot more than one round - even though in both cases they could.

I mean shit, why not just take it to its logical conclusion: if you hunt with anything more than a round lead bullet you crafted yourself, in a black powder rifle you loaded yourself, you must suck as a hunter, any good hunter only needs one round, or, even better - all you need to hunt with is a recurve bow, preferably one you carved yourself, anything more means you suck at hunting and need to buy your food from your grocer's freezer.

It's a completely stupid and defeating argument: I don't like this thing, therefore anyone who uses this thing (sucks, is incompetent, is stupid, is _______________).

The argument that : "this caliber bullet that comes out of this semi-automatic rifle is ok, but this same caliber bullet that comes out of this other semi-automatic rifle is not ok because that semi automatic rifle that shoots the same caliber round every time the trigger is pulled is black and looks like something someone in the Army would carry is bad and hunting rifles need to be brown and wood with only a bit of black showing because that's the proper image of a hunting rifle"

is dumb.

just going by what my grandfather and father taught me as a child. you practice so when you do shoot an animal you put it down the first shot.

my grandfather was a marine during korea. i have always listened to Marines, regarding firearms, even in the navy.

i have never posted here i do not li,ke ar's or they are scary so they must be banned.

i have never posted all the barbie type add on's make them more lethal.

assumption you infer because you and i disagree on this topic.

and i stand by my statement. if you need more than 2 rounds to put an animal down you need to practice more.


edit: take Daniel, for example. he is one of the best shots i have seen. he openly admits he likes .22's because they are fun. he does not go on and on and on defending why he likes ar's. im sure a semi is handy when you're hunting varmint.
 

AbnMike

Well-known member
Apr 6, 2016
1,218
117
Western Slope, CO
just going by what my grandfather and father taught me as a child. you practice so when you do shoot an animal you put it down the first shot.

And I wholeheartedly agree. In fact I hate people who use tree stands for hunting, that's not hunting, that's fucking waiting.

But regardless - if they choose an AR to hunt with who is to say they can't put iwhatever down with 1 round? Just because the gun may carry more than one round doesn't mean they are using more than one round. It just means that's the gun they like to hunt with.

and i stand by my statement. if you need more than 2 rounds to put an animal down you need to practice more.
Again, I agree, but just because someone carries a gun that 1: doesn't look like a traditional hunting rifle and 2: carries more than 2 rounds, doesn't mean that they are a bad shooter or need 15 rounds to kill a deer.

It simply means that's the rifle they prefer to carry when they go hunting. Maybe they can only afford one rifle and they like to hunt and go target shooting. Maybe they just like the AR style rifle like some people like a shotgun with intricate carvings.

edit: take Daniel, for example. he is one of the best shots i have seen. he openly admits he likes .22's because they are fun. he does not go on and on and on defending why he likes ar's. im sure a semi is handy when you're hunting varmint.
I could care less about an AR particularly. I fall into the "I like guns that are brown" category. I've never owned an AR. The closest thing to an AR I've shot is my old M-16. I don't hunt with an AR, wouldn't buy one, but I guess I'd take one if it was given to me. I prefer old bolt action and lever action rifles. I think they're a lot cooler than any civilian version of a military weapon.

But singling out the AR as a "non-hunting" rifle and making the leap that if they carry 20 rounds the person hunting with one must suck as a hunter and need 20 rounds is a fallacy.

That's all I'm pointing out. If people who hunt and use guns are giving ammunition in the way of "you don't neeeeeeeeeed that" to the anti-gun crowd it's not doing people who don't piddle their pants when they see a gun any favors. My stance on tree stands isn't gun specific, I was taught tree stands were for lazy people who like to wait for things.

I'm a good shot too. I go camping with a lot of friends, former military, former SOF, former cops, etc, and we will plink away at targets with air rifles (where we do this camping is family friendly so we don't go out there blasting). Some of these guys have some bad assed air rifles - competition shit. To keep it simple we keep our targets at 15 - 25 yards and they increase in complexity from willy-nilly "everyone gets a shot" at this target to, as people miss and lose, to "hit the O in "Cola" on this can" type stuff, until there's a winner.


Three years in a row now I've won using a spring action Daisy Red Ryder bb gun from Wal-Mart. The first year I won I fired my final shot one handed, with my arm extended.
 

seventyfive

Well-known member
Jan 3, 2010
4,280
100
over there
my point is, the only way to convince anti-gun people is convince them we agree with them. an ar' is different than a traditional hunting rifle. but here are the reasons we feel they should be legal AND this is how we intend to only let responsible people own them.

like that john grisham story. matthew mconahey's speech to win the trial. somehow be so fucking empathetic to the protagonist then flip it. yeah it's fiction but you get my point?

you get more flies with honey or whatever the saying is.

you have to admit people like this hurt the cause...
tactical-sht-300250b1.jpg
 

seventyfive

Well-known member
Jan 3, 2010
4,280
100
over there
my paternal grandfather was my hero.

west vriginia hillbilly. he would pack up his marine ruck sack with food and ammo. drive down to some place in west virginia, deep in the mountains. park the truck and hike out. he took a rifle and a .357 (for bears). he didn't come back until he got a deer or time ran out. no sniper gear, no tactical gear, etc. nowadays guys are decked out in sniper ghillies, full camo, electronic tracking, etc. not really a sport at that point. to each their own, but when you look like a recon sniper i am going to laugh at you!
 

gimebakmybulits

Well-known member
Dec 11, 2013
1,067
85
Pasadena
like i have posted numerous times. ask clint.

it is not a hunting rifle. if you need a high round capacity semi auto rifle, hunting is not your bag.
Says who? I'm sure you believe what you say ....but that doesn't make it so. If one moderately priced rifle was all one could afford to cover all bases (hunting, plinking and personal defense etc) then an AR makes perfect sense. It's accurate, weather resistant, highly modular with a wide variety of available calibers. Since most states have magazine capacity limits when hunting big game your capacity worries fly right out the window. As to caliber, 6.5 Grendel will easily take any of the deer species in North America (one shot). Your lack of experience or willingness to research a particular platform does not negate its effectiveness or appropriateness.
 

seventyfive

Well-known member
Jan 3, 2010
4,280
100
over there
Says who? I'm sure you believe what you say ....but that doesn't make it so. If one moderately priced rifle was all one could afford to cover all bases (hunting, plinking and personal defense etc) then an AR makes perfect sense. It's accurate, weather resistant, highly modular with a wide variety of available calibers. Since most states have magazine capacity limits when hunting big game your capacity worries fly right out the window. As to caliber, 6.5 Grendel will easily take any of the deer species in North America (one shot). Your lack of experience or willingness to research a particular platform does not negate its effectiveness or appropriateness.


we can agree to disagree.
 

coop74

Well-known member
Dec 10, 2015
287
7
Alcoa TN
like i have posted numerous times. ask clint.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/4WwT2aFlSy8" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>

it is not a hunting rifle. if you need a high round capacity semi auto rifle, hunting is not your bag. or you need to practice a lot more. 'what is an assault rifle' isright up there with 'if we evolved why are there still monkeys?'
and that weapon shown is fully automatic rifle and is not what is sold just as the AR-15 only looks like an M-16
 

gimebakmybulits

Well-known member
Dec 11, 2013
1,067
85
Pasadena
we can agree to disagree.

Actually we can't, you are a huge part of the problem. MW, the poster child for the left....."Former military and gun owner agrees that evil black rifles are BAAADD!!" Your opinion based on nothing factual, just your "feelings" is all those ass clowns need to add fuel to the fire that's currently raging out of control and in favor of the left. Thanks for nothing.