Comment by tekknik | Hacker News Reader

Comment by tekknik | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> Most people buying AR-15s in the US are not buying them to keep pests off their farm.

Now, explain why you think an AR-15 is so dangerous? Tell me why you’re so focused on that gun when it’s both not the major gun used in mass shootings[1], and when more homicides are committed with pistols[2].

I know quite a lot about guns, and I can explain the obsession. AR-15’s are hopped up 22’s. Literally. They take a 55-ish grain bullet and stack a lot of powder behind it. For reference the “not at all dangerous” 22 rimfire the government wants everybody to move to has a 40-ish grain bullet. What this means is low recoil, with good power. Coupled with relatively cheap ammo, you can sport shoot, compete and defend your farm with a single gun. Further, the AR platform is highly modifiable. I can swap uppers and change the caliber entirely. I can have an upper used for sport shooting, and a different one for hunting.

1: https://www.newsweek.com/ar-15-rifles-were-used-26-percent-l...

2: https://abcnews.go.com/US/type-gun-us-homicides-ar-15/story?...

Not the GP but I read that sentence as an anecdote using the AR-15 as a well-known example of a common firearm that is seen by most non-gun-owners to be on the upper end of the scale between .22cal and RPG/50-cal machine gun in terms of power and/or risk of abuse. That is to say that I do not believe that the GP was actively making a point against the AR-15, just that they were using it as an example anecdotally to lace their statement with a touch of irony or euphemism.

I’ve just explained why, using your spectrum, it’s on the lower end.

I completely understand that guns are difficult to understand for non gun owners, they simply don't do any research. Couple that with the amount of research required to be knowledgeable takes weeks or even months for even the most competent of us. But imagine what you sound like to someone who is knowledgeable. It’s like someone challenging a PhD on knowledge. You should know what you’re talking about and if you don’t keep your mouth shut.

If you want actual visual proof that the AR-15 is on the lower end of the spectrum then watch this video, timestamped at multiple different locations:

AR-15: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5QNTnMO5xU&t=9m53s

M14 (bigger than AR-15): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5QNTnMO5xU&t=10m41s

Lever Action (still more power than an AR-15): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5QNTnMO5xU&t=11m25s

12 gauge shotgun (and still, more destructive power than an AR-15. Also comes recommended by President Biden!): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5QNTnMO5xU&t=11m53s

In fact, the AR is so underpowered in today's world it's being replaced by the military (this gun has 2x the power of an AR-15): https://www.sigsauer.com/blog/us-army-selects-sig-sauer-next...

FWIW the AR is fundamentally a platform, although in its pure form it does refer to the "underpowered" variant. Hunters might chamber 6.5 grendel, which is a nice intermediate cartridge commonly used to take down larger deer and elk. People who own firearms love the AR in part because it is so easy to change configuration and even caliber like legos. There are even AR chambered in .50 cal (but not that .50 cal).

I pointed that out one comment up yes. But the general argument is against that of the .223/5.56 configuration.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com