Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: Do You Really Know What You Are Talking About When you say "ban assault weapons" in particular the AR-15 Firearm"?

Posted 5 years ago on Jan. 23, 2013, 11:14 p.m. EST by Shayneh (-482)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

There are a lot of people not only on this site but on the news media that don't have a clue about firearms and their potential when it comes to "killing' someone.

American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten was on Fox today talking about firearms. She made the dumbest comment stating that people who own firearms can fire "10 rounds per second".

Talk about being ignorant when it comes to understanding firearms - and that brings me to my point - How many of you really know what your talking about when you make mention of "banning assault firearms" the AR-15 in particular?

First off most AR-15's owned by private individuals are of the .223 variety although you can get them in other calibers. The .223 is on the low end of the ballistic scale when it comes to knock down power or "kenotic energy" and is used primarily for "varmits.

There are several other firearms of similar caliber that have similar velocities and are also similar in grams but not all -

The great majority of subsequent centerfire .22's were designed or adapted for use as varmint and small game cartridges. This includes all of the commonly available North American .22's, including the .22 Hornet, .221 Fireball, .218 Bee, .222 Remington, .223 Remington (AR-15), .22-250 Remington, .224 Weatherby, and .220 Swift.

Educate yourself before you start talking about something you know nothing about - Here is an educational link to help you understand what the "Assault Weapon" you talk about really is.




Read the Rules
[-] 5 points by PeterKropotkin (1050) from Oakland, CA 5 years ago

It's true that the people that visit this site probably arent very versed in fire arms and niether are you. Most of your post is a bunch of horse shit. The .223 is as far as lead goes is the exact same as the 5.56mm round that the U.S military uses. The only difference is in the brass and the powder load. People use the AR 15 to hunt wild boar in Texas for gods sake and you are on here saying that its not a powerful rifle?

Well I'm from the south and I grew up around guns and I know better. From the sounds of your post I doubt you have ever even fired a gun. And by the way its Kinetic energy not "Kenotic"

[-] 1 points by Narley (272) 5 years ago

Oh hell no. If I'm hunting hogs I want a .308. I want to be several hundred yards away with good optics.

[-] 1 points by PeterKropotkin (1050) from Oakland, CA 5 years ago

30-30 for me

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33487) from Coon Rapids, MN 5 years ago

Good choice - very versatile hunting rifle. And OH YEAH you unknowing fakers - plenty to take down a Bear and never have it wonder. Nope no wondering cause if you hit it proper - it was interested in the fragrance of the beehive and never noticed that it had died.

[-] 1 points by Narley (272) 5 years ago

yea, 30-30's are a lot more common. That was my old deer rifle.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33487) from Coon Rapids, MN 5 years ago

Several hundred yards? Really? Well you did say good optics - still several hundred yards? I was hitting black on a man sized target at 500 yards - with open sights. You can't trust your self to make a certain kill at 100 yards or less on the 1st shot? Really?

[+] -4 points by Shayneh (-482) 5 years ago

For your information, the .223 does not use a lead bullet - it uses a steel core jacketed bullet. and it is not a 5.6 mm round - it is a 5.56 x 45 mm round. which is the NATO round but there is also the .223 Remington which is not a "NATO" round.

[-] 3 points by PeterKropotkin (1050) from Oakland, CA 5 years ago

Lead, projectile, whatever. You have no idea what you are talking about. The only difference in a civilian .223 AR and a 5.56 AR is that the throat on the rifle of the military AR is longer to deal with the greater pressure that the 5.56mm generates. Also some 5.56 rounds are slightly longer. Not to mention the fact that any civilian can buy a rifle chambered in 5.56 rendering your whole argument mute.

[-] -3 points by Shayneh (-482) 5 years ago

Oh so you say "lead projectile, whatever" which indicates you have no idea about the AR-15 Military weapon and the AR-15 civilian weapon.

Never did say anything about the "pressures" and never said the 5.56 X 45 was the same as the .223".

What I did say was:

The exterior (physical) dimensions of .223 and 5.56 ammunition are effectively identical and I did point out that the 5.56 X 40 mm is a NATO round and also stated that the .223 Remington is not a NATO" round.

As far as the "civilian being able to buy the rifle chambered in 5.56 X 45 it depends on who the manufacturer is - some are designed for the 5.56 X 45 and some are designed for the .223 Remington -

Do you know how to tell the difference? .

[-] 3 points by PeterKropotkin (1050) from Oakland, CA 5 years ago

The whole crux of your initial argument is that the .223 round isnt powerful and thats bullshit. If an AR 15 chambered in .223 will take down a 200lbs of raging Texas wild boar with one shot then yes it is a powerful weapon. For you to come on here and make the argument that the AR 15 isnt powerful and to equate it with .22lr says to me that either you don't know what you are talking about or that you are trying to convince people of something that isnt true.

[-] -3 points by Shayneh (-482) 5 years ago

You keep coming up with all the comments about things I never made mention of. For some reason you think the AR-15 can take down a 200 lb of raging Texas wild boar.

Well, I'll tell you if a "200 lb raging Texas wild boar" was charging me I wouldn't bet my life that the 223 knock would knock it down with one shot compared to firearms that are used for that purpose.

Maybe if you are a safe distance of 50 yards and have the opportunity to shoot seveal shots then yes - it will take it down - but I guarentee you it won't if it's at 25 feet and charging.

[-] 2 points by PeterKropotkin (1050) from Oakland, CA 5 years ago


Check out all his videos on youtube for the most part all he hunts with is the AR

If people arent using the AR to hunt hogs then why is Winchester specifically making hog rounds for the .223?


[-] -3 points by Shayneh (-482) 5 years ago

Look, we can go round and round on this subject - The AR-15 has it's uses and I never said otherwise.

With regard ot my post of comparison it can't be denied that several other firearms have the same bullet diameter - that was my point.

I never once commented on what game a AR-15 should be used on be it a cat, dog, fox, boar, deer, antalope, bear or buffalo - you started that discussion. However my feeling is that it is best used on "small game". If you want to use it for bigger game then so be it.

So, lets get off this subject - I presented my "facts" which are backed up with regard to different calibers of the .223 and there was no mention in any of my comments about the 5.56 X 45 until you brought it up.

Now if you want to get techincal about the 5.56 X 45 and the .223 as far as bullet grams, velocieties, powder charges, types of powders, burn rates of powders, types of primers, chronography of bullets, bullet ogive, barrel throat, or anytihing else related to those firearms chambered in either of those calibers, and have a intelligent discussion about it I have no problem with that.

[-] 1 points by Narley (272) 5 years ago

A .308 with good optics at 300 yards is as close as I want to get to them hogs. The're very fast and will charge you. Also have a strong back-up gun.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33487) from Coon Rapids, MN 5 years ago

45 cal pistol. But really 300 yards? Hope you are a sniper - I had a hell of a time hitting a target in the black at 500 yards - using a 50 caliber. I would much rather have a go at 100 yards or less.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33487) from Coon Rapids, MN 5 years ago

Honestly now - anyone on this forum ever fire a 50 caliber rifle? Yeah? Tell me about it. How old were you? How much did you weigh at the time? what posture did you take for firing? What did it feel like when you let that round go? Were you looking forward to repeating your 1st shot?

[-] 1 points by Narley (272) 5 years ago

I don't own a .50., Way too much gun for me. I don't even own a .308 anymore. My way of thinking is if a .308 won't do the job I'm out of my leauge. Good optics make a good sniper. I'm rifeless these days, don't hunt anymore. Just a couple a handguns, and I probably should also sell them.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33487) from Coon Rapids, MN 5 years ago

I am not looking to pick a fight - I am just curious as to how many who talk the game have ever done any actual shooting.

Mt favorite when growing up? 22 semi auto - 18 rounds at 100 yards inside of a 5 inch circle in less then 4 seconds.

[-] 1 points by Narley (272) 5 years ago

Well, I’m not a gun nut. I don’t live and breathe guns like some folks, if that’s what you’re getting at. But I have owned several types of gun for over fifty years. I was a big deer hunter at one time in my life. Used to do a little dove hunting. Don’t do either anymore.

Now I just have a few hand guns, but rarely shoot them. However, I am a crack shot with my old S&W J-frame. People seem to want these high capacity pistols these days (and I own a couple), but my old revolver will probably handle any problems I’d encounter.

Haven’t owned a .22 in probably 30 years. Although they’re probably one of the most versatile guns around. Maybe I need to sell one of my high cap pistils and get a .22. Hmmm, not a bad idea.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33487) from Coon Rapids, MN 5 years ago

Nope - not messin with ya. I just find it funny that some of these commentators find 22's to be rather UN-threatening. AS a round fired from a 22 can travel over a mile with killing velocity.

So - Really - It is not the caliber - it is the aim/accuracy of the shot.

[-] 1 points by Narley (272) 5 years ago

Well, I can’t entirely agree with you. Yes a .22LR will kill you as dead as a .45 would. But a .22 doesn’t have the level of stopping power as higher caliber ammo. My suggestion for anyone wanting a .22 would be to get a .22 mag rather a .22LR.

The holy grail of shot placement is almost a myth. When hunting that is probably true. You normally will have time to set up your shot and have good shot placement. But shooting for self defense is much harder. Your target will probably be moving, your adrenalin will be rushing and heart racing. You most likely won’t be able to set up the shot. More likely just pointing and shooting. In self defense good shot placement is extremely rare. At least that’s what I think. I’ve never been in a gun fight.

Having said all that, If I were in a gun fight I’d still take my .38spl revolver because I shoot it better than my two 17 and 14 round Berettas. I’ll probably sell the Berettas at some point. Oh wait, If the new ten round magazine restrictions kick in I may not be able to sell them. Guess I’d better hurry.

[-] 4 points by Sandy0621 (175) 5 years ago

Most people don't now what they're talking about. They are reacting emotionally. As long as there are guns of any type there will be intentional and accidental deaths from them.

That pretty much leaves two logical choices ban all guns or accept the deaths. Banning requires an amendment and few believe that's got any chance of success. Assault rifles sound especially bad so they get to be the target for this frustration.

[-] 1 points by conservatroll (187) 5 years ago

Assault rifles are as good as banned today. AR-15 is NOT an assault rife, as it is not a select fire rifle. It is a semi auomatic, same principle as a revolver. An AR-15 looks very similar to the military assault rife M16. It's the "cool factor" , as well as the Brady Bunch;s deliberately misleading statements that has everyone confused;

[-] 2 points by Sandy0621 (175) 5 years ago

Closest I've come to guns is a super soaker. I just responded with my opinion on why people are after an assault rifle ban.

If you wanted to actually do some good you'd go after the hand guns, those are involved in the most deaths, but that gets you back to dealing with the second amendment.

I'm not in favor of guns, but I'm willing to live by the constitution. A majority want handguns available, so we should focus our efforts on enforcing the laws we have on he books. Perhaps also place private sellers under the same requirements we hold shop owners to.

[-] 1 points by conservatroll (187) 5 years ago

You are quite correct. As Obama said in one of the debates this fall, it is not "assault weapons" that are the problem...it's the cheap handguns". But, I think everyone knows that totally disarming America is virtually impossible. We are awash in smuggled drugs and humans, how hard to add some guns to the pkg? And guess where most of those guns would end up in a "disarmed" America?

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 5 years ago

It is my understanding that
an "assult rifle" is a legally defined spec - different from state to state. Generally it means "semi-automatic" and requires one trigger pull per shot
The ar15 can shoot 800RPM if illegally converted to fully automatic
semi-automatic, probably around 200RPM

register all guns & license all owners & insure all owners - JUST LIKE CARS

and never, ever put wayne on tv again

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 5 years ago

Does it really matter whether anybody knows all of the specifications? Normal people intend to include semi automatic guns whose purpose is NOT hunting, or target shooting with a slow rates of fire. They shouldn't accommodate night vision, silencers, armor piercing ammunition or conversion kits (e.g. bump firing) to raise firing rates. I think most people would be satisfied by this description and they don't need calibers, muzzle velocities, rifling twists etc. Knowing these things may satisfy your ego but are really irrelevant.

[-] 1 points by conservatroll (187) 5 years ago

How true. The average non gun owning citizen isn't going to get into the details of why "assault weapon" is a propaganda term invented by the Brady Bunch and pounded into the public's head by the accomodating government bullhorn known as the MSM. They have had it drilled in their heads, and hey, an AR-15 LOOKS like something a soldier or swat team member would carry and it SCARES them into letting them chip out another brick in the BOR wall.

[-] 0 points by brightonsage (4494) 5 years ago

See, the public is right much of the time. If they really knew you can buy a kit that lets somebody dump 900 rounds per minute out of an AR-15. They would be screaming, "Let the confiscation begin." Hunting gun, Riiight!

[-] -1 points by Shayneh (-482) 5 years ago

Your question "does it really matter whether anybody knows all of the specifications" is another example of your "lack of knowledge" when it comes to "people who legally own firearms" and why they own them.

As such your vision of what should and should not be owned is completely different then those who are knowledgeable.

Maybe if you educate yourself as to what "firearm ownership" means to those who "leagally own them" then you may have a different outlook.

[-] 0 points by brightonsage (4494) 5 years ago

You mean the nutcases with the black helicopter fetishes and tin foil hats?

I have owned firearms for longer than you have been alive. Grew up feeding my family, with guns. Don't give me the condescension act. Knowledge of double set triggers doesn't mean a damn thing. What are you willing to do to stop 33,000 senseless deaths each year?

[-] 1 points by Anarcat (42) 5 years ago


[-] 0 points by Shayneh (-482) 5 years ago

Here is another youtube link that actually demonstrates using a 22 cal to prove the point just how far a "22 LR" can be lethal..


[-] 2 points by PeterKropotkin (1050) from Oakland, CA 5 years ago

The 22 LR and the .223 are completely different rounds. If you knew the first thing about firearms you would'nt have posted a video on the .22 while talking about .223

[-] -2 points by Shayneh (-482) 5 years ago

The one thing they have in common is the diameter - ,224 other than that the weight of the bullet and powder capacity determines the velocity and energy transmitted.

[-] 2 points by PeterKropotkin (1050) from Oakland, CA 5 years ago

Either way you are either ignorant of the facts or just being disengenuous. Regardless of the diameter of the round the lead fired out of the .223 is damn near as big as a .22 lr with the case included and has a hell of a lot more penetration and velocity than the .22. Don't try and argue I've been around guns my whole life and I hunt.

[-] 0 points by livingston9 (-154) 5 years ago

Very cool video. An S&W M&P 15-22 will most likely be my next acquisition. Provided I can find one.

22's are just a great gun from many perspective's and uses. Just a very useful tool in that tool box.

[-] 0 points by Shayneh (-482) 5 years ago

The purpose of this video is to point out the fact that a .223 is not the perferred method for "killing" when it comes to "violent people" killing other people.


[-] 0 points by livingston9 (-154) 5 years ago

Great post. Let's see if some of these empty suits will have the balls to actually gain an informed perspective for a change.

Most of these losers are so fully institutionalized in Leftist dogma that nothing gets through that supposed 'free thinking,tolerant and accepting,open mind".

[-] -1 points by bensdad (8977) 5 years ago

what - exactly do you mean by "ban" ?
Are there any proposals in congress or the White House about "taking" guns? Did the 1994 "ban" take anyone's guns?

I found this answer on the AR15 firing rate- The AR-15 rifle has a fire rate of 800 rounds per minute and a muzzle velocity of 3,200 feet per second. this is 13/second

do you have a source for better info?

NO - I have never fired an AR15 or even seen one
ditto ICBM

[-] 0 points by Shayneh (-482) 5 years ago

With regard to "ban" that's exactly what I mean - there are people out there who want to "ban" the production of the "semi-automatic" AR-15.

Does that mean that "Congress or the White House" is "taking guns"? Well there are state representatives out there who want to pass laws whereas a owner cannot hand down firearms to the next generations and have to turn them into the government or they will be "illegally owned".

What a lot of people don't realize is this is just the start to "take away personal firearms - 20 years from now you will understand what I am talking about.

Well I know of "no one" who owns a "legally owned AR-15" that has a fire rate of 800 rounds per munute. Now if you are talking about "Automatic weapons" used by the armed forces - that sheds a different light on "automatic weapons".

They also own weapons that have a 1 mile range and do kill at that range.

Now as far as muzzle velocity it can vary depending on the "grain" of the bullet. A 55 gr bullet can have a velocity of anywhere from 2700 fps to 3100 fps - and the velocity depends on the powder being used along with the "bullet type".

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 5 years ago

I found one source that had the firing speed answer - while I believe it, I am NOT sure of it. They quoted mv at 3200
You obviously know this stuff - thank you for sharing your knowledge
*. I do find the WORD "ban" very obfuscational (?) - I know they refer to manufacture or sale - but it is not clear.

[-] 0 points by Shayneh (-482) 5 years ago

If you want to learn about - firearms and firearms ownership go to youtube - there is a wealth of information there and there are very good informational videos by people who are "responsible firearms owners".

The one posted below is put up by a Iraq Vet and he has lots of informative videos if you want to learn abour firearms.



[-] -3 points by DKAtoday (33487) from Coon Rapids, MN 5 years ago

If the religious right supports the NRA we can be confident in our opposition, Right?

Fanatics are the bane of a peaceful and healthy society.


[-] -2 points by inclusionman (7064) 5 years ago

Yes. Yes they are. And Bane is a villain in the Batman universe so...I don't know what I'm talkin about. But I know I'm against religious fanatics and Bane. But not Batman fanatics.

[-] -3 points by DKAtoday (33487) from Coon Rapids, MN 5 years ago

Look at the definition of bane and then you will know why that comic book character got the name. Funny that mittens worked at bain - the name is more than coincidental - I think.

[-] -1 points by inclusionman (7064) 5 years ago

LOL.oh I understand, & Romneys Bain was just icing. It's a karmic thing.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (33487) from Coon Rapids, MN 5 years ago

I think it is a visible warning to those who will look/see.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 5 years ago

Ok, I'll buy that. Like a "Yield" or "beware rockslides possible" sign?

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (33487) from Coon Rapids, MN 5 years ago

Yeah - kinda - more of a subconscious oooops type warning from the business.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 5 years ago

Right. So anyone doing business with them (or a target of them) should know from the name/definition of bain/bane what to expect. Very good.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (33487) from Coon Rapids, MN 5 years ago

Well - I should think it would/should give one a reason to pause.

[-] -2 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 5 years ago

Pettifoggery will impress the "true believers" but will get you nowhere in the discussion of GUN CONTROL!

BE SCHOOLED: We've had enough of guns OUT OF CONTROL, and your ludicrous "Gun Rights," and now we are declaring our rights to not be shot: CONTROL 'em or LOSE THEM!! I prefer the latter! Not one of the prior millions of deaths, and certainly not one more single death, is worth the continuance of our current lax gun laws insanity!!

Seriously, what is wrong with you people? Are you that selfish??

[-] 0 points by Shayneh (-482) 5 years ago

It's not the "current lax gun law insanity" but the "current mental ill society".

Solve that problem and "gun ownership" won't be a problem. How many of these people "legally owned" the firearms they used? How many of these people were "sane" in killing these people?

Lets focus on where the real issues is - if a person wants to kill they will regardless of what they use - be it a 22 revolver, 380 pistol, 38 revolver, 9mm pistol, 40 S&W 44 mag - all illegally owned.

Do you really think more "laws on the books" will solve the problem when the 20,000 laws we already have on the books aren't being enforced?

These murders happened in the states with the "most stringent gun laws". So with that being the case - where did these individuals get the firearms they used - they weren't legal?

I laugh when you say "we need more gun control laws". The other day on a radio talk show a "gang banger" came on the show and basically "laughed in the face of the commentator" when he talked about "more firearms regulations".

You know what he said - he said he wasn't going to get his "firearm" by having a "background check". He said he would do it by "other means? meaning however he obtained that firearm it wasn't going to be by "legal means".

So get off this kick about "more firearms laws" and focus on where the problem really is - a young generation of violent people who are "ill equiped" to "deal with problems" and think "violence" is the way to solve their problems.

Have you looked at all the "worlds dumbest" that shows the vast majority of people on that program as being "violent and young".

Solve that problem first.

[-] 0 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 5 years ago
[-] 1 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 5 years ago

Your government is shipping assault rifles to mexico, south america, africa and the middle east.

Your government cant keep the drugs out of this country. They cant keep humans from crossing the border. They cant keep up. What makes you think this will be any different?

[-] 1 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 5 years ago

Bend over and blow ... it up your ass. WE THE PEOPLE are our government! Not a spectator sport!

[-] -1 points by Shayneh (-482) 5 years ago

How about focusing on "drug use". A person dies every 60 minutes from a drug overdose - why aren't you focusing on that issue - more people die on drugs then anyother method.

20,000 young adults were admitted to the emergency room in 2011 because of drugs - many died.

Drugs cause people to do strange things - including eating dead animals, biting people and killing people - and they are mostly done by young individuals.

[-] 1 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 5 years ago

LIke RW propaganda? Hell yeah!

Now, let's keep gun out of there hands!!

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33487) from Coon Rapids, MN 5 years ago

Yeah - Big Pharma sucks. Talk about side-effects being worse then the original illness.