Not to make the story even darker, but...an AK-47 wouldn't have jammed.

AK-47 = Assault rifle
AR-15 = Semi-automatic rifle
R2-D2 = Droid from Star Wars

Well, they did use the "type" qualifier.

Mr. Coffee Nerves: Not to make the story even darker, but...an AK-47 wouldn't have jammed.

^ This.

There are only about a thousand third-world knock-off weapons 'like' the AK-47, not to mention all of the production variants, so it could have been exactly what was described.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ak-47#V ariants

Mr. Coffee Nerves: Not to make the story even darker, but...an AK-47 wouldn't have jammed.

He also wouldn't have been able to hit any one.

just another reason that Mavel is superior to DC

Mr. Coffee Nerves: Not to make the story even darker, but...an AK-47 wouldn't have jammed.

Sure it could have- it happened in the North Hollywood Shootout...

/of course it took at least 500 rounds to do so
//and had the perp's thumb not been shot he could have cleared it easily

Mr. Coffee Nerves: Not to make the story even darker, but...an AK-47 wouldn't have jammed.

It may have been a Saiga 12 shotgun. They do look like AKs.

It's a ploy to link the shooter to Communism.

/hot

Sid_6.7: There are only about a thousand third-world knock-off weapons 'like' the AK-47, not to mention all of the production variants, so it could have been exactly what was described.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ak-47#Va riants

It would be nice if they'd just use "Assault Rifle" then. Works whether or not it's full-auto, and has a 90% chance of being correct.

/other than assault shotguns that look like assault rifles
//and pistol conversions that also look like assault rifles
///though pistols are rifled...
////so what the hell is a carbine or a bullpup?

Journalist's Guide to the AK-47

AK-47



AK-47



AK-47



AK-47



AK-47

Calmamity: Mr. Coffee Nerves: Not to make the story even darker, but...an AK-47 wouldn't have jammed.

He also wouldn't have been able to hit any one.

Not everyone plays CoD MW3 and is a self proclaimed firearms expert? Gasp!

This means that nobody died and Charlton Heston is automatically president.

FTFA: One was an AK-47-type weapon that might have been covered under a now-expired assault rifle ban.

There wasn't an "assault rifle" ban but an "assault weapon" ban. And that ban would not have affected other semi-automatic weapons that would have been just as effective, but not as scary-looking.

The whole "assault rifle" vs. "assault weapon" terminology mix-up strikes me as just stupid, at this point.

On Friday, some airhead on MSNBC actually used the term "assault magazine clips".

Could someone please explain why a civilian would need to own a semi-automatic AR-15. I'm not looking for a "Because the 2nd Amendment says so." But an explanation as to what type of shooting that would be used for.

Uh, didn't we cover this in a fark thread last week?


Welcome to the party subby

Mr. Coffee Nerves:
Not to make the story even darker, but...an AK-47 wouldn't have jammed.

TWX:
Sure it could have- it happened in the North Hollywood Shootout...

...where the bad guy was using another one of those cheap, hang-prone 100 round drum magazines. Apparently, he had a feed problem he couldn't clear due to his injured hand.

That's why I want all sorts of "cool" hardware to be available to all of the lunatics. They keep buying the flashy, high-capacity magazines and the neat-looking guns, spending thousands of bucks on something that's less reliable and useful than a standard weapon.

Hell, Holmes managed, after thousands of dollars and months of planning, to kill about 1/7 the number of people killed by a single nutcase with a gallon of gasoline and a lighter. Just be thankful he used weapons instead of something really effective.

Don't quite get how "the right to bear arms" translates into "the right to bear the kind of arms that will allow you to injure/kill 60 people in 10 minutes". I get that people need to defend themselves or go hunting and so on, but you don't need assault rifles to do that.

FTFA:

One was an AK-47-type weapon that might have been covered under a now-expired assault rifle ban


Besides the obvious failure that we are all talking about, the author does not realize that the Clinton ban only banned importation and manufacture. "Pre-ban" models were still legal to own and buy during that 10 year period, so to pretend that a new/similar ban could have prevented this tragedy is idiotic.

mjohnson71: Could someone please explain why a civilian would need to own a semi-automatic AR-15. I'm not looking for a "Because the 2nd Amendment says so." But an explanation as to what type of shooting that would be used for.

How about because said civilian wants one? Need has nothing to do with it.

/Also, they're fun to collect, shoot, build, etc...

stevarooni: FTFA: One was an AK-47-type weapon that might have been covered under a now-expired assault rifle ban.

There wasn't an "assault rifle" ban but an "assault weapon" ban. And that ban would not have affected other semi-automatic weapons that would have been just as effective, but not as scary-looking.

The whole "assault rifle" vs. "assault weapon" terminology mix-up strikes me as just stupid, at this point.

From my experience in journalism, most of the reporters I've known are anti-gun so the terminology is just nerd talk as far as they are concerned.

ladyhawk: Don't quite get how "the right to bear arms" translates into "the right to bear the kind of arms that will allow you to injure/kill 60 people in 10 minutes". I get that people need to defend themselves or go hunting and so on, but you don't need assault rifles to do that.


Bless your heart.

Also clips:

mjohnson71: Could someone please explain why a civilian would need to own a semi-automatic AR-15. I'm not looking for a "Because the 2nd Amendment says so." But an explanation as to what type of shooting that would be used for.

Could someone please explain why any average person would need a monster truck and a turbine-propelled powerboat. I'm not looking for a "because it's a free country". I'm looking for an explanation of what on earth you could possibly need with that kind of extravagance.

/if you question a freedom, prepare to question all freedoms.

mjohnson71: Could someone please explain why a civilian would need to own a semi-automatic AR-15. I'm not looking for a "Because the 2nd Amendment says so." But an explanation as to what type of shooting that would be used for.

Hunting. Sometimes it takes 10 to 30 bullets to drop a deer - then there's the victorious volley of bullets fired straight-up for the video-taping over its mangled remains.

Sid_6.7: There are only about a thousand third-world knock-off weapons 'like' the AK-47, not to mention all of the production variants, so it could have been exactly what was described.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ak-47#Va riants

It's beside the point because IIRC the only time the news reported it as an "AK-47" or an "AK47-style weapon" was when it hadn't been pictures, and a WITNESS described it that way. What else are you going to go on? This would be a witness mistake, not the news'.

The_Sponge: On Friday, some airhead on MSNBC actually used the term "assault magazine clips".

Hahaha!

What a dummy, thinking drum magazines are used to mow down massive numbers of human beings. Silly media! Haven't they ever heard of extreme brush clearing?

AK-47

ladyhawk

Because the 2nd was put in place so the people could keep a check on government.

Mr. Coffee Nerves: Not to make the story even darker, but...an AK-47 wouldn't have jammed.

If you went full 'tard and used an aftermarket 100 round magazine in it, it most likely would too.

Sooner or later someone will put together a one-stop "how to do a mass shooting" page, with important tips such as:

1. How to change magazines fast.
2. How to practice fast clearing of a weapon jam
3. Proper transition fire techniques

After that we're screwed.

Calmamity: Mr. Coffee Nerves: Not to make the story even darker, but...an AK-47 wouldn't have jammed.

He also wouldn't have been able to hit any one.

Just thank your lucky stars he didn't have a Desert Eagle chambered in .50BMG

/derp

mjohnson71: But an explanation as to what type of shooting that would be used for.

Zombies.

Wendy's Chili: The_Sponge: On Friday, some airhead on MSNBC actually used the term "assault magazine clips".

Hahaha!

What a dummy, thinking drum magazines are used to mow down massive numbers of human beings. Silly media! Haven't they ever heard of extreme brush clearing?


Bless your heart.

Every major news organization and every elected official AND EVERYONE IN FAVOR OF MORE GUN CONTROL owes it to themselves to learn what they are talking about and discipline their speech accordingly. Most of the talking heads I saw this weekend should have just limited themselves to "gun."

The_Sponge: ladyhawk: Don't quite get how "the right to bear arms" translates into "the right to bear the kind of arms that will allow you to injure/kill 60 people in 10 minutes". I get that people need to defend themselves or go hunting and so on, but you don't need assault rifles to do that.


Bless your heart.

You can try but I bet you won't even make a dent.

Sid_6.7: There are only about a thousand third-world knock-off weapons 'like' the AK-47, not to mention all of the production variants, so it could have been exactly what was described.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ak-47#Va riants

It wasn't, though. It was an AR-15.

ladyhawk: Don't quite get how "the right to bear arms" translates into "the right to bear the kind of arms that will allow you to injure/kill 60 people in 10 minutes". I get that people need to defend themselves or go hunting and so on, but you don't need assault rifles to do that.

In gun threads it's usually hard to tell stupidity from trolling. This is one of those posts.

mjohnson71: Could someone please explain why a civilian would need to own a semi-automatic AR-15. I'm not looking for a "Because the 2nd Amendment says so." But an explanation as to what type of shooting that would be used for.

People buy them to collect them, shoot at targets, or just to have one because they think it's cool or fun to shoot. The reason would be similar to the reason for buying a supercar.

Wendy's Chili: What a dummy, thinking drum magazines are used to mow down massive numbers of human beings. Silly media! Haven't they ever heard of extreme brush clearing?

Or, alternatively, one could desire a large magazine so that one could spend more time at the shooting range, shooting, rather than reloading magazines. That might not seem an "adequate" purpose, but it is a legitimate one.

ladyhawk: Don't quite get how "the right to bear arms" translates into "the right to bear the kind of arms that will allow you to injure/kill 60 people in 10 minutes". I get that people need to defend themselves or go hunting and so on, but you don't need assault rifles to do that.

Should we make our laws with the hope to hinder this one-in-100,000,000 depraved, evil individual who obviously spent a great deal of time preparing for the massacre?

Do you seriously propose to restrain 300,000,000 people in the vain hope you'll be able to stop the rare guy like this?

This wasn't a 'tragedy'.It would have been a tragedy if a fault opened up below the theater and swallowed up 12 people. This was a massacre. It was a depraved, evil, intentional act, by a man who should be executed in the near future.
People like you blame objects for the willful acts of individuals.

mjohnson71: Could someone please explain why a civilian would need to own a semi-automatic AR-15. I'm not looking for a "Because the 2nd Amendment says so." But an explanation as to what type of shooting that would be used for.

I use mine for hunting coyotes and groundhogs.

After I save my pennies for a 6.8 SPC upper for it I'll use it for hogs, deer, and bear because where I hunt has a lot of coyotes and feral dogs around and I've seen them chasing deer in broad daylight. I like the notion of being able to take care of a pack of them while I'm out hunting, even if they're not the quarry I'm actively seeking.

I also enjoy target shooting with it. Yes, a bolt action rifle would be inherently more accurate but as with my 10/22 I enjoy the challenge and tinkering involved with getting a semi-automatic rifle to be as accurate as most bolt guns in the same caliber.

mjohnson71: Could someone please explain why a civilian would need to own a semi-automatic AR-15. I'm not looking for a "Because the 2nd Amendment says so." But an explanation as to what type of shooting that would be used for.

The same reasons anyone else has a gun. Perhaps to fight off a fascist government one day. To defend yourself form everyone else who has a gun.

Some bright people figured this out when they wrote this.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/char ters/declaration_transcript.html

perhaps you've heard of it?

More likely an expensive way to put holes in paper.

Do you even know what the hell an "assault rifle" is? The difference between a "deer rifle" and an "assault rifle" is the style and color mostly. The deer rifle has a hell of a lot more power and often just as many shots on an internal magazine.

mjohnson71: Could someone please explain why a civilian would need to own a semi-automatic AR-15. I'm not looking for a "Because the 2nd Amendment says so." But an explanation as to what type of shooting that would be used for.

Coyote hunting