I re: #146 Unshaken Defiance

How does one argue a military service design gun is not a weapon of war? Not well at all apparently.

If it doesn’t do burst fire or fully automatic fire.

I spent a little time last night, reading up in the AR15 and the .223 Remington round. And arguing with an old schoolmate on FB. Here’s what I learned:

AR15s are fun. LOTS of fun!

Light, easy to carry, accurate. Almost no kick, so you can stay on target for follow up shots, and shoot all day without ruining your shoulder. Way more accurate than a handgun. Less danger of overpenetration in a home defense situation, because all the energy is expended in the target. Ammunition is relatively cheap. AR15s are infinitely accessorizable. You can add scopes, laser sights, holographic sights, flashlights, a crapload of different options for the stock, etc.

Every single reason why gun enthusiasts like the AR15 is a reason why mass shooters like them. It’s like the AR15 was designed with them in mind.

When you get into discussions with gun enthusiasts about doing anything about the AR15, they always fall back on “.223 is less powerful than most rife calibers!”, which is true, but misleading. The comparison to make isn’t to other rifle calibers, but rather to pistol calibers. .223 is WAY more damaging than any standard pistol caliber.

The AR15 and the .223 sit in a sweet spot between handguns and high powered rifles. Light and easy to handle like a handgun, but accurate and powerful like a larger rifle. And easier to just keep pointing and shooting than either.

I honestly don’t know what the answer is, but I know that the AR15 seems uniquely problematic. Short of total confiscation, I don’t see how we rid ourselves of them, so we’re down to determining what features we can proscribe to make them less deadly in mass shootings.