615
this post was submitted on 09 May 2024
615 points (94.0% liked)
News
23397 readers
3818 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Which, as usual, goes a long way towards illustrating how effective propaganda and manipulation of people's opinions can be. Not just on this specific topic either, but in this case I guess that's what we're talking about. Despite its scientific dressings, what this study is exploring isn't actually any mechanical factor, it is measuring people's perceptions which are not guaranteed to be reflected by reality. (And again, this is true of many other topics as well...)
The AR-15 platform does the same damn thing and shoots the same damn bullet in the same damn way as numerous other firearms, and yet just the name itself has a bad rap from being incessantly repeated in the news and social media.
Here's this old chestnut. It's still true.
Why's the one on top "scarier?"
Tl;dr: Own, store, and handle your gun responsibly. Don't be a paranoid loon. Don't believe in whatever boogeyman Fox News is pushing this week. Don't hyperventilate about fictional distinctions.
Partly because the AR-15 is lighter than the Mini 14, is easier to reload, and is generally designed to meet the modern needs of armies killin' humans better. Then there's the incessant marketing, the huge number of manufacturers at multiple price points (the Mini 14 being a Ruger exclusive), the aftermarket of optics and tacticool accessories, and the general cultural impact. How many Mini 14s have actually been involved in mass shootings and gun-nerd intimidation exercises? It's almost like the least stable assholes are interested in a "badass" gun.
But okay, fine. There's a not-insignificant amount of truth to the graphic. By all means, the gun nerds should put it everywhere and inform the previously ignorant public. I don't think the result will be to convince people the AR-15 is actually useful, just that the Mini-14 is equally unnecessary as a civilian tool or hunting rifle, and they shouldn't assume a wooden-stock rifle is inherently less dangerous than a plastic one.
And, for the record, I am tediously, annoyingly aware of current second-amendment jurisprudence and the lack of sufficient political will to change the constitution, and while I don't think the former is well considered, the situation is what it is. It just sucks. It leaves America unique among stable democracies in having gun violence anywhere near the top of the list of causes of death.
The problem is how rude so many of them are about it.
Instead of "there is no such thing as an 'assault rifle' and here's how that myth got started," it's "define assault rifle." It's this weird assumption that everyone knows as much about guns as they do and it really doesn't help them. I get that it can be a knee-jerk reaction to people who have issues with guns (as is assuming anyone who has issues with guns wants a blanket ban on them), but it really does not help.
Not to go off on a tangent, but it's "assault weapon" that's the boogeyman term, meant to confuse the uninformed with assault rifles. Assault rifles are select fire, full auto and burst fire capable rifles. Assault weapons are semi-automatic rifles that have the same or similar cosmetics as assault rifles.
The trick is a person latches onto the adjective, not the noun, and a rifle is a kind of weapon, so it makes it seem like assault rifles fit under assault weapons, when I'm fact it's the opposite.
Thank you for correcting me politely! This is the sort of thing that needs to be done more! I did mean to write 'assault weapon,' my apologies.
You're good! In many ways that's exactly what the marketing people on the anti-gun side wanted to happen. They knew that psychologically the two terms would become synonymous with each other. Unfortunately the attitude problem you highlighted in the loud minority of gun owners only helped that advertising campaign.
Yeah, the level of gatekeeping is extraordinary. "Not only must you respect my political position, but your lack of nuanced technical information means you have literally no room to be part of the conversation!" I see similar attitudes about military matters, where not having served is viewed as a reason to completely dismiss concerns, rather than a valuable outside perspective to be considered.
I grew up in the gun culture, and we actually have a few guns locked up in a safe in my father-in law's garage, but I haven't been motivated at all to go get them in the last 5+ years, because WTF do I really need them for? I might grab the single-shot 12-gauge someday because casual skeet shooting is legitimately fun, but while I still have a sort of lingering "suburban white guy" interest, I just fell out of love with actually having guns over the years, and my fellow gun owners were a not insignificant part of that.
"Assault Rifle" is a bit of a boogeyman term, true, but part of the reason gun folks hate it so much is that while they don't personally intend to use their own toys that way (anytime soon), their favorite guns absolutely DO amount to semi-automatic versions of common military weapons. You know, the rifles one might need when assaulting an enemy position:
It's not hard at all to come up with an objective technical definition that has nothing to do with "scary looking or not". Find some numbers for the various criteria and make bright lines, such that weapons that are still legal will be more poorly suited to mass murder than the current crop of black rifles. There will absolutely be people pushing at the margins, but you can't let perfect be the enemy of good. But no... people like the feeling of power they get by having weapons that are virtually identical to the stuff that "warriors" have, so they're going to cling to them like their lives depend on it, even though statistically they very much do not.
I don't disagree but it's frustrating to somebody who cares and is knowledgeable about a topic to have people militantly try to outlaw and poorly regulate it while not having critical knowledge and understanding on the topic. There's a reason gun people tend to be very irritated by a lot of the anti-gun crowd.
Your image is confusing. How does a the rifle with no magazine have the same capacity to rapid fire as the one above it? The Ar-15 appears to have more bullets immediately available, which would mean it would fire them faster.
How is having a pistol grip that improves comfort and hip firing not make the weapon easier and more comfortable to use?
How is being less visible at night not make a black gun more dangerous than one with a bright wooden sheen?
Do both guns have the same exact default trigger pull, or is the ar-15's lighter and easier to fire?
These guns are different enough in actual use to make one more dangerous than the other. They both can kill you dead, but one literally is designed specifically to be deadiler in several ways. It's one of the reasons mass murders keep using it specifically to mas murder people.
Why is it surprising that it's considered deadiler?
This picture is often used to draw out all the points you've made, to demonstrate that many people are unfamiliar with many firearms. The Mini-14 in this picture is one available configuration of the rifle. The most basic, simple, low capacity version. However, the Mini-14 is fully capable of using 20 and 30 round magazines, a pistol grip, suppressor, bayonet, and even a folding stock (which the AR-15 can't do).
A better version of this picture uses two models of the Mini-14, illustrating how one is legal in California and the other isn't, even though they're functionally the same rifle. A firearm simply being black does not make it more dangerous. A pistol grip does not make it more dangerous or easier to hip fire for that matter. Any gun is easily hip fired, and I would suggest a non pistol grip rifle or shot gun is more ergonomic to fire from the hip as far as pulling the trigger is concerned.
The real argument should be whether semi auto rifles are more dangerous or not, not if specific semi auto rifles are more dangerous.
I asked the question because i honestly dont know the difference, but right off the bat youre saying the image is designed to show one gun in a "action ready" and the other in a "not ready" state. Leaving out the magazine for the second gun is especially misleading when trying to elict a "they are totally the same" reaction.
It's no wonder that people will think one is deadlier than the other shown these exact guns in these conditions, because one literally is from the magazine capacity alone.
Sorry for not being more clear in my response. There is a magazine in the second one. It is a 5 round magazine (The standard option for this particular model). However, for example, here are the readily available options for the mini 14: https://themagshack.com/product-category/rifle-magazines/ruger-mini-14-magazines/
As I said this picture points out that many people don't know the difference (as you acknowledged you yourself don't know the difference). My point is semi auto rifles as a category of firearm are more deadly. It doesn't matter what semi auto. The mini-14 vs AR-15 argument is used to illustrate the general ignorance many people have about various firearms. The mini-14 is very much as dangerous as an AR-15, but it doesn't get the same attention because it's a gun that can easily look innocuous. The photo used in this post is intentionally disingenuous to highlight this point.
For example, here are the "tactical" models of the Mini-14: https://ruger.com/products/mini14TacticalRifle/models.html
Ruger literally highlights the following benefits to the tactical models: Their short barrels and overall short length make them favorites in any application where maneuverability and ease of handling are priorities.
Many people argue one way or the other while fully acknowledging their own ignorance, and it makes it difficult to find a solution to an issue. As an owner of more than one semi auto rifle, it is frustrating when this particular argument comes up because of how ridiculous it can be. The AR-15 looks scarier, and is therefore deadlier to many people. There are numerous other semi autos that are just as deadly, but don't get demonized because they don't look scary. The AK and SKS are a similar example, though less hyperbolic. The argument to be made is to get rid of semi autos, not demonize particular ones.
You're right. We should regulate black paint just in case someone decides to turn their legitimate wooden rifle into a war machine.
So you ignored everything i asked about except the color?
Okay.
In aggregate, these differences between the two guns, especially the magazine shown on one gun and not the other, make the weapon more dangerous to others, so it's considered more dangerous to others. Seems pretty simple to me.
#BlackGunsMatter
In all of the PCSL, 2-gun, etc. matches I've been to, I've never seen anyone shooting from the hip.
A 'traditional' stock offers certain benefits that an AR-15 stock doesn't; you can sometimes get different comb heights (or an adjustable comb height) in order to make it easier to get a good sight picture. Since an AR-15 has a buffer tube in the stock, you can't really do much to move it up or down, and your charging handle limits your ability to have a stock with a comb that goes very far forward or up. Neither is "right", but is going to be at least partially preference and purpose of the firearm.
But fundamentally, a gun that is difficult and uncomfortable to shoot is a bad design, regardless of how the stock is designed.
So, it turns out that black isn't actually less visible at night. Nor are bright colors more visible at night. If you wear solid black at night in the woods, you're going to be more visible than if you were wearing camouflage. No joke. It has to do with the way that you perceive color.
They're both roughly the same out of the box. Both should be in the 5-6 pound range. An AR-15 trigger assembly can be replaced fairly easily by anyone that wants to spend the money ($200-500, depending); I replaced mine with a flat-faced 2.5# trigger since I use it for competitions. Ruger uses a lot of MIM parts, so you'd need to start by replacing the guts with something made from tool steel, and then go to a gunsmith to get the detailing done to safely reduce trigger pull weight. (Done incorrectly, you can end up with things like a gun that is no longer drop safe.)
Exactly how do you mean this? Both have the same rate of fire. Both use the same cartridge. They have the same overall length. You can change the furniture on the Mini-14 to black plastic if you want. It's literally the same bullet, at the same speed, and producing the same number of foot-pounds of force. How, exactly, is one deadlier than the other?
It's not. You're never going to get a non-disingenuous question to this answer. You can easily get a 30 round magazine for the Mini 14, too, so the notion that the Armalite platform is somehow inherently has more "rapid fire capacity" is nonsense, too.
FWIW you can get aftermarket stocks to go on an Armalite buffer tube with adjustable combs. I've seen them. Like, in catalogs. I've never actually seen anyone install one in real life, but at least they exist. You can even get a lower for a monte carlo style "sporting" stock for an Armalite upper receiver, if you really want to.
You're ultimately correct in that it's just cosmetics.
Sure, the Magpul PRS, for instance. But you can run into issues with LOP and the cheek riser interfering with the charging handle. It's not really an ideal solution. Mostly you just need to get used to a different cheek weld than you might otherwise have. (Specifically, you use something closer to a chin weld on an AR.) That type of stock is more often used by people that are trying to make an accuracy-focused rifle, with a 20-22" heavy barrel, etc.
Or run a slickside upper.
I suppose this illustrates another point, though, in that the Armalite platform is so popular because it's so easily customizable. And it's easily customizable because there are a ton of parts available because it's popular, so it's popular because there are a ton of parts available, and there are a ton of parts available because... etc.
Agreed, that image is misleading.
The magazine isn't in the second picture but it has one. Looks like a Ruger 5816 to me, so if you want to see what it looks like with the magazine in it, check out their webpage. Funny enough, it looks like a 10 round mag in the AR, and the 5816 comes with a 20.
You're talking about personal preferences here. I tend to find them both pretty comfortable, but you really want to keep the stock at your shoulder.
One of them is black metal, the other one is wood. Either could be painted if you wanted to I suppose, but if we're talking about night-time scenarios, using a light would make either relatively visible.
You could probably answer these questions in less time than it took you to write them out by looking them up. The 5816 has a pull of 13.50" the base model ruger AR (8500) is 10.25" - 13.50".
Clearly this is bullshit.
The image implies these guns have the same capabilities and fire rate, but one has a magazine and the other doesnt.
Given a circumstance where someone is shooting at you with either the top gun with a magazine and the bottom gun with no magazine, which would you prefer they have?
Yea, I see your point - no magazine at all has a capacity of 1.
Because of the type of people more likely to buy the one at the top.
I'm not sure why people like you don't understand that. It's not the gun, it's the sort of people buying it.
And if you are an AR-15 owner and don't like who the gun is associated with, I'm sorry. You don't get to choose how society judges things, whether or not it is fair.
The study only had 3 categories: no firearms, pistol(s), or an AR-15, so you're literally just ranting at bad survey design.
In 1986 someone used the bottom to basically single-handedly kill 2 FBI agents and wound 4 others in an active gunfight. In most other countries, both weapons are heavily regulated if not prohibited for civilian ownership.
Assault weapon bans are both a product of ignorant perception and the lack of political will to ban all self-loading firearms or subgroups thereof.
I've always wondered this. What's the fixation with adding "active" all the time? Is a "passive" gunfight an overweight Floridian on an oxygen tank, draped across a mobility scooter waiting for the targets to come to him?
I put that there to emphasize that it was a fairly even two-way exchange, "active," as opposed to something like him setting an ambush where the FBI got little or no shots off. Probably didn't serve that purpose but I tried.
Then why do people buy the top one over the bottom one?
I can't answer for "people," only for me. But I'm pretty sure you can't just slap an upper receiver for a different caliber on a Mini 14. The AR platform is inherently customizable and modular.
That doesn't make it shoot bullets any harder versus another gun in the same chambering, though. (Edited).
The short answer is that AR-15s are just better rifles. They're more accurate, they're more reliable, they're easier to clean and maintain, they're easier to repair, they have much better ergonomics, none of the parts are proprietary, and consequently there's an enormous aftermarket for parts, accessories, and customization. They also have a modular design that, with the exception of the barrel nut and castle nut which have torque specifications, can be almost completely disassembled with a single roll punch and an allen wrench or two. That means if something breaks or wears out you don't have to send it back to the manufacturer or pay out the nose for a gunsmith, you can just order the part and fix it yourself with basically just a pointy stick and a YouTube video. It also means you can start out with a really cheap rifle and upgrade it component by component until you have a high-end rifle if you want to.
That Mini-14 on the bottom is a fine rifle, and they're actually pretty popular, but the AR platform outclasses it on most crucial metrics. If you could only have one or the other, for most people it'd be the AR without question. A lot of people have spilled a lot of ink speculating about this reason or that reason as to why so many people want ARs, and usually manage to miss the fact that they're just fantastic rifles. Even with the amount of cringey fetishizing of the military that happens on the conservative side of the gun community, nobody would want one if they sucked.
Details like this are really just a distraction. Do you really think the average respondent understands these technical details, or have any good reason to memorize the specs of all rifles? The focus on the AR-15 is not because of any risk associated with that particular gun, but because most people understand that this is a semi-auto rifle. There is no other model of gun that will have that kind of widespread recognition.
Drawing up these very silly technical arguments is a willful ignorance of the underlying issue: What is the limit of deadly force we should allow one person to lawfully own? We don't let people own tactical nukes. We don't need to argue over thermonuclear or hydrogen nukes. We don't need to understand quantum mechanics to regulate these devices. The technical details do not matter. The potential body count is what matters. And so it is with guns, which happen to occupy that grey area where reasonable people disagree on an acceptable level of lethality. You do not need to know all the different models of gun to be killed by one, so we should not require such technical knowledge when engaging in discourse around their regulation.
Is that true about those guns though?