What makes the M4/M16 type rifles more deadly besides the select fire trigger?

[arakboss]

Please forgive me for rounding to the nearest whole numbers. I dislike fractional deaths, they are grammatically illogical, while still mathematically correct.

Can you mind meld over the net?

 

[uberguy]

Can you mind meld over the net?

No, it's a hands on, close quarters engagement.

 

[MichaelH]

Gun grabbers don't care about people who are murdered. They just don't like it that they can't control people who have guns.

[Edit: Looks like the post I was responding to somehow disappeared....it was a claim that gun grabbers don't care about murders, rather they care about control of gun owners.]

Disrespect not intended, but I think this statement is wildly inaccurate. It's a mistake to underestimate how effective fear is in getting bubblegumy policy put into action. For 95% (unscientific) of those who want to ban "assault" rifles it's all about the murders: particularly the mass random shootings. Perhaps those who do want an absence of firearms for societal stability (control) have an outsized influence on the media, but the simple fact is that the job of media is to deliver eyeballs to advertisers. Unfortunately telling people they need to be afraid keeps them paying attention and tuned in more than feel good news does.

As to the topic: the AR-15 seems pretty effective and seems almost as lethal as the M4/M16. I think it's disingenuous to argue that it's not. But so are the mini-14 and the M-1 which didn't get banned last time around presumably because wood seems less dangerous. The thing to point out is that standard commonly used firearms are permitted under the 2A per Heller, the standard cop pistol is a Glock 17 and most firearms related crime is committed by people using handguns (i.e. not assault weapons).

No what I really want...supressors to not be subject to the NFA. That regulation seriously defies logic.

 

[Hueco]

Disrespect not intended, but I think this statement is wildly inaccurate. It's a mistake to underestimate how effective fear is in getting bubblegumy policy put into action. For 95% (unscientific) of those who want to ban "assault" rifles it's all about the murders: particularly the mass random shootings. Perhaps those who do want an absence of firearms for societal stability (control) have an outsized influence on the media, but the simple fact is that the job of media is to deliver eyeballs to advertisers. Unfortunately telling people they need to be afraid keeps them paying attention and tuned in more than feel good news does.

As to the topic: the AR-15 seems pretty effective and seems almost as lethal as the M4/M16. I think it's disingenuous to argue that it's not. But so are the mini-14 and the M-1 which didn't get banned last time around. The thing to point out is that standard commonly used firearms are permitted under the 2A per Heller, the standard cop pistol is a Glock 17 and most firearms related crime is committed by people using handguns (i.e. not assault weapons).

When I'm not trying to have a legitimate discussion, I like to try to fluster the same folk you speak about by boxing them in as racists so as to see how they try to wrangle out of it.

The other guy says we need to ban assault weapons cause deadly and scary.

I ask about handguns and they're usually seen as acceptable by non gun owning people.

Throw in the stats about urban blacks being the primary victim of handgun violence and overwhelming victims of gun violence and then ask why they only seem to care about middle class and rich white kids being killed by "assault weapons."

And let the mental gymnastic games begin.