patrick.net

From the article:

I own several “classic” firearms like the M-1 Garand and a Martini-Henry, though not an AR-platform, which I shoot enough at work, to be honest (something half-submerged in my mind makes me think that in my house I don’t need a weapon designed exclusively for combat, either for sport or home defense—my German Shepherd is a much better platform for both).

This guy contradicts himself already. The M-1 Garand that he owns is a weapon designed especially for combat. It shoots a bigger and deadlier bullet than does the AR-15, and both the AR-15 and the M-1 are semi-auto with the same fire (as fast as you can pull the trigger).

Funny how calling the more powerful M-1 a "classic" firearm some how makes this weapon moral for him to own while the "military grade" AR-15 is not needed by civilians. His argument only works if one mistakenly thinks the "AR Platform" AR-15 has full auto (machine gun) capability.

HeadSet says

either for sport or home defense—my German Shepherd is a much better platform for both

German Shepherd? Some home insurance companies will refuse coverage on your house if you have one of these. Doesn't happen when there is an M-1 or AR-15 in the house. Soo, which is more "dangerous" and "needs to be regulated more" again?

And, BTW, their purpose is to herd livestock, not be someone's couch ornament. So if you don't have any livestock you don't "need" a GSD.













How's my liberal logic?

my German Shepherd

Nazi dog!

Satoshi_Nakamoto says

How's my liberal logic?

Perfect.

HeadSet says

This guy contradicts himself already. The M-1 Garand that he owns is a weapon designed especially for combat. It shoots a bigger and deadlier bullet than does the AR-15, and both the AR-15 and the M-1 are semi-auto with the same fire (as fast as you can pull the trigger).

Pretty funny that the people are always saying that ar-15 is a good hunting rifle because the .223 remington round is as effective as a 30-6 springfield round. Unless you want to make the argument that the 30-6 is bigger and deadlier. I guess you can have it both ways.

The garand has an 8 round enbloc clip vs up to 100 round mag for the ar. You can get a lot more bullets out in the same amount of time with the ar since you would have to load a garand clip 13 times before you would have to change the mag on an ar.

Any gun with a fast change magazine (or clip in the case of the Garand) is a problem for mass shootings. The bigger the mag the bigger the potential since you have to change less often. Since no one is going back to 6 shooters and loading single bullets one at a time into a non mag rifle the whole argument about ar-15 is pretty meaningless. Any semi auto with a mag has the same potential for killing lots of people fast.

bob2356 says

Pretty funny that the people are always saying that ar-15 is a good hunting rifle because the .223 remington round is as effective as a 30-6 springfield round.

Strawman. Nobody in their right mind would equate .223 Rem with .30-06.