Does he not know the functional design intent behind things like pistol grips and collapsible stocks? He thinks they're just aesthetic differences? Weird, I thought he said he knew things about guns.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Angry Joe defends AR-15s against those who want to "take guns from everyone"
- Thread starter ZeoVGM
- Start date
Does he not know the functional design intent behind things like pistol grips and collapsible stocks? He thinks they're just aesthetic differences? Weird, I thought he said he knew things about guns.
These silly arguments really just show they know so little about guns, while pretending they're owing some imaginary lib that knows little about guns.
Yikes.
Stop pretending you don't know the difference between the two, just because it's lawful doesn't mean it's good, some things used to be lawful but then we determined they shouldn't be.
Yikes.
Stop pretending you don't know the difference between the two, just because it's lawful doesn't mean it's good, some things used to be lawful but then we determined they shouldn't be.
I feel like this tweet also makes a reverse argument. If an AR-15 and a more common rifle are the same, then what is the problem if someone bans the AR-15? It seems a little silly to use that as reasoning for being anti-regulation, because it means there really isn't any loss towards getting rid of them, lol.
I will never fully understand guns as a hobby.
I will never fully understand guns as a hobby.
They can help in circumstances, but if you know your weapon it really doesnt matter. Anders Breivik didnt have an adjustable stock or pistol grip (or a front grip like he posed with) on his mini-14 and he still killed 69 people with it. And even then the mini14 can still have all of those features too.
It opens up the question that just because you dont like something, should it be banned?
Its the usual bullshit deflection technique.
The AR-15 from the date of its creation was fully intended as a Military Weapon. The AR-15 however proved lackluster to the Military and it never got widespread adoption so then they angled it as a Law Enforcement/Civilian Weapon. The M-16 developed out of the AR-15 but do not let gun nuts bullshit you with the idea that the AR-15 is a civilian Rifle. Its only civilian because it did not live up to the Military Demands at the time.
The other rifle he pictures the Mini-14 is based on the M14 Rifle. The M14 was yet again a Military Rifle that reached the end of its Primary usefulness and was replaced by the M16. Not to let a production line die they then declared that this once Military Rifle was now a Civilian weapon though they have kept Military variants going even today.
So what you can easily notice is a trend where Weapons of War are quickly packaged as Civilian guns when they are either replaced by a more efficient killing gun or when they fail to get adopted by the Military
The AR-15 from the date of its creation was fully intended as a Military Weapon. The AR-15 however proved lackluster to the Military and it never got widespread adoption so then they angled it as a Law Enforcement/Civilian Weapon. The M-16 developed out of the AR-15 but do not let gun nuts bullshit you with the idea that the AR-15 is a civilian Rifle. Its only civilian because it did not live up to the Military Demands at the time.
The other rifle he pictures the Mini-14 is based on the M14 Rifle. The M14 was yet again a Military Rifle that reached the end of its Primary usefulness and was replaced by the M16. Not to let a production line die they then declared that this once Military Rifle was now a Civilian weapon though they have kept Military variants going even today.
So what you can easily notice is a trend where Weapons of War are quickly packaged as Civilian guns when they are either replaced by a more efficient killing gun or when they fail to get adopted by the Military
Last edited:
If it weren't so sad I could only laugh at the lax gun laws in the US, all the killings they enable and gun lovers like this guy, who want to own military rifles. I loved all my times I stayed in the US but that is one of the prime reasons why I would never want to live there permanently and raise my kid - so unsafe.
The Armalite AR-15 is entirely different from the civilian "AR-15-style" rifle. The Military AR-15 (proto-M-16 basically) had select fire functionality. The AR-15 most people are thinking of only fires in semi-automatic and is borderline impossible to convert to full-auto without very heavy modification. (Which both opens up a whole can of legal problems and practical problems, since most upper receivers for the AR-15 will overheat very rapidly fired that fast.)
NO Military uses AR-15 style rifles.
Yes it is confusing but I just wanted to try and clear that up that AR-15 could be the ArmaLite AR-15, which is pretty much illegal under the National FIrearms Act since it is an actual machine gun, and it also is used to refer to "AR-15 style rifles" which are semi-automatic.
Don't forget hands, fists, and feet kill on average more people per year than rifles. ANY type of rifle, from an AR-15 to lever action. A vast majority of homicides by firearm are via handguns.
i wonder how many hand guns are in USA too, a gun buy back like Australia, while seriously needed, might be difficult.
So because gun control wouldn't solve all homicides, it's not worth it? Not even just to reduce the number of them?
If guns were an effective deterrent, why are the homicide rates so high in the first place? I thought guns were supposed to protect people's lives and homes. If the threat of getting shot by someone with a handgun beneath their waistband isn't deterring people from committing assault, rape, theft or murder, as reflected by US crime statistics, then maybe it's time to consider that guns just aren't an effective deterrent. They're a placebo for people's anxieties and a hobby, one that also empowers criminality by providing an easy source of firepower.
The hunting permits are way easier to obtain and maintain than the sport shooting permits. The rationale being that hunting permits don't give you access to concealable guns (handguns and shortened weapons). But even then it seems like it's enough hassle to keep guns out of the mainstream. So why not start with that?
Also, the allowed magazine size for weapons allowed under the hunting permit is restricted, it isn't under the sport shooting permit. Another reason for the more stringent requirements.
Furthermore the requirements today are stronger than the requirements 20 years ago. They include a larger body of laws to study, and 20 years ago you might not even have needed proof of installation of an armored storage box for the weapons.
I wish these debates didn't myopically focus on guns that look scary. Banning "military style" (a cosmetic classification at best) rifles won't solve shit. A holistic approach on controlling how people obtain and retain guns (handguns being the most important from a "what kills people the most" perspective) would have a much bigger impact than banning scary looking guns.
We very clearly need something to happen. If what we achieve after years of clawing and fighting is a cosmetic spooky gun bad, we'll have failed miserably and nothing will improve.
We very clearly need something to happen. If what we achieve after years of clawing and fighting is a cosmetic spooky gun bad, we'll have failed miserably and nothing will improve.
I actually don't. Proper licencing would stop most would-be shooters.Are you suggesting you SHOULDN'T have a robust and strict licence program?
We don't decide to not have laws or licencing systems because there are people out there who break them, jeesus.
There is literally no good argument against a proper licencing program. None. It is the most basic thing, they work.
Last edited:
To be fair, guns are very difficult to develop and when a design has been refined by decades of active military duty there is no reason to reinvent a gun for civilian use when they can easily modify the weapon to become legal.
I am certainly not a gun expert, but I do know one thing about what AR-15s can do:
As per Wikipedia:
As per Wikipedia:
So this is what they can do. Can they also do that in another shell? Yes, but just because someone may mistake an AR-15 in the shell of a less popular mass murder weapon shell for the latter does not make it less dangerous.
I don't think people should negotiate with terrorists ;)
Sure, but it's bigger than a pistol, if not as big as an AK? So still a worse thing to have in people's hands right?
(I don't really know, I'm from a gun-free country.)
This is basically the case for most firearms though when you trace back their roots. Most guns started out as military contracts in order to get enough capital and recognition for production which eventually moved onto the civilian markets. Muzzleloaders, single actions of all types, semi-auto and eventually full auto all mainly had their starts as military weapons. This goes for a lot of differnt ammunitions and handguns too. It wasnt until around the 70's where the gun pull was large enough that more and more companys could get by in the civilian markets. This brings into question the term "weapons of war" which when you get down to it can be thrown at all firearms. Is the 590a1 pump shotgun a weapon of war? Its used by the marines (and was specifically designed around military function). Is the 1911 a weapon of war? That 100 year old design is still used by special forces teams today. Is a bolt action rifle a weapon of war? M40's are still widely used by sniper teams and bolt actions in general were still the primary battle rifle up to WW2 for most countries. And the list goes on.
That people who don't own guns don't care?
That average people should be allowed to carry dangerous, lethal, volatile weapons just because they want to?
Except these debates don't focus on just banning assault rifles. The biggest focus is on universal background checks and closing thr gunshow loopholes, among others. Banning assault rifles is just another important step. It's not just "spooky" looking, which is an incredibly stupid take. It's because it's an incredibly efficient weapon designed for mass murder. See the Christchurch shooting and how he killed 4 dozen people with one in a matter of two minutes.
Seems a bit disingenuous to not specify what the second gun is so people can fact check you.
At first I thought it was a m14 which is still an assault rifle, but it doesn't seem to be.
I think the presumption that people are judging it on its look is a bit flawed as well.
At first I thought it was a m14 which is still an assault rifle, but it doesn't seem to be.
I think the presumption that people are judging it on its look is a bit flawed as well.
Right. The AR-15 for all intents and purposes is the main identifier people use for an assault weapon even if they're wrong. The same way parents used to call every video game system "Nintendo".
With that said, the AR-15 and it's availability really needs to be put in check. We also need to look at large capacity magazines and the amount of billets people are allowed to buy.
Nobody goes hunting with an AR15. I heard a guy on the radio say it was a varmint rifle. Lol. Wtf kind of varmints does he have? These rifles and other assault weapons need to be banned. Either that or every minority needs to go out and buy one. These old ass second amendment assholes will change their tune quick if that happens.
Last edited:
I say this ad nauseam but countries like Australia which people love to invoke, and Canada, and European countries like Germany, Spain, France, Norway and wherever still allow gun ownership. In fact the handguns are more restricted than the rifles because you can conceal them. This rabid ban all guns stuff coming from many people on this forum will never happen. Dream on. Having said this I support a robust firearm licensing system and there needs to be far more restrictions on owning them. US gun laws are insane. I live in the UK and there are legal ways in which I can legally obtain a firearm for a specified use. I would require a thorough background check and mental health checks, and I must have a good reason for having one like being a sports shooter or hunter if I wanted one.
His twitt is dumb and I consider Joe a complete moron, but do you need people to agree with you in every single topic?
Does a 23 pages of thread about one opinion of one guy that usually, even if dumb, is not right wing or anything too bad, really look necessary to you?
I am confused sometimes by this forum
Does a 23 pages of thread about one opinion of one guy that usually, even if dumb, is not right wing or anything too bad, really look necessary to you?
I am confused sometimes by this forum
This forum does love it's multi page dogpiling, even if the target of said dogpiling is probably a Democrat voter and is pretty liberal in most aspects. He's not an extreme right wing dude or something, come on.
So his tweet does help the argument that just a ban won't work because other guns do the same damn thing. So you cannot just ban AR-15s you need a whole new system in place. I doubt that is what he wanted to argue though.
Also, not everyone has to agree on everything, unless someone can prove he is some alt-right fanatic, I will chalk this up to him having a different opinion then most. The guy seems pretty left.
Also, not everyone has to agree on everything, unless someone can prove he is some alt-right fanatic, I will chalk this up to him having a different opinion then most. The guy seems pretty left.
Please enlighten us how you know that he is a "Democrat" and a "liberal". And no I don't believe he is a right wing nutjob but he is a dumbass who parrots gamergater and alt-right language and at some point it will go from aping the language to espousing said views:
He celebrated JonTron's return post-racism. This is just his latest ass-showing.
I don't know why you're confused, this isn't hard. And it's not about "different opinions".
The OP clearly states how this is dangerous propaganda.
Joe has a platform and influence over his viewers.
Simple maths.
Last edited:
He justifiably shits on US cops and their conduct for one. And he was a Bernie supporter and absolutely hates the wealth inequality that the US allows.
But it's not? What he said is correct. it's dumb, since all weapons should be banned, but what he said is incorrect.
Misinformation does not mean what you think it means.
That was the wrong word, I meant propaganda. Which this is.
Quite a lot of people do actually especially with them being as cheap as they are now. The AR platform is more than the carbine 5.56 variants. The platform supports over 70 different calibers and can be customized to any shooter and any situation. Its largely why its so popular. The machining and tech behind firearms has also improved enough that semi-auto's have become extremely reliable and barrel designs have made them just as accurate as a bolt actions in most cases. Manual action firearms in general are getting phased out as far as a utlity function firearm. I personally know two people who hunt with an AR10. As far as the standard AR they do come in handy for faster moving animals that tend to be in packs like coyotes, wolves, hogs and even smaller animals like prairie dogs. Animals that for the most part probably isnt good to get within shotgun range.
