The Dumb Continues-The Atlantic (again)

[DaleA]

I've said it before that I am tired of all the things the media gets wrong about guns and ammunition when talking about gun control.

I think the mistakes they make should make it apparent to folk that they don't have the smarts or 'common sense' to be making decisions on gun control.

However maybe I'm wrong. Maybe we should let Ted Nugent be our guide and follow his lead when he says "I like it when people say stupid things, that way we know who the stupid people are."

The Atlantic has a whole slew of articles on gun control with many of the recent ones demonizing the AR-15. I suspect they are for an AR-15 ban. I would be against it since, IMhO it would not help solve the problem of gun violence. But hey, if I'm wrong, I'm wrong, wouldn't be the first time.

Here's a link to a March 25, 2018 article and some of the main points
*

That means the AR-15 round's kinetic energy is [much higher] than the M1’s.

* One of the unique features of the AR-15 is the much faster magazine changes than with an AK-47 or a Ruger Mini-14.

With the AR-15, a shooter can change magazines faster than the reaction time of victims. Not so with the AK or the Mini.

* The old issue of 'Teflon coated bullets' comes up again too. (They're bad.)

Anyway here's the link to one of the Atlantic articles and if someone were to go through them I suspect they might just find a couple more example that show those folks might not know too much about guns and ammunition.

https://www.theatlantic.com/notes/2...are-the-feasible-aims-for-gun-control/556460/

 

[doofus47]

It is amazing how so many of the arguments against the supporters of the 2nd A (not the amendment itself) are self-failing based on a basic knowledge of English.
For example, the people who create a straw man argument about how 2nd Amendment supporters all want to have a cruise missile in their garages is negated simply by the verb "bear." Can you carry a cruise missile with you anywhere? I think we're done with this topic.
mic drop.

Another classic is "we're not going to take away your hunting rifles." Um, where in the BoR or the Constitution does anyone discuss hunting?

Conversely, the argument "why stop with the AR15?" exactly summarizes the overshoot that many anti-gun people envision. That is a legitimate question for both sides and the people who declare that the 2nd A was only intended to cover muskets are squarely in this particular debate as are the pro-gun people who recognize that this first hurdle (semi-autos) is only the start of a distant finish line (no guns for you!). The 2nd Amendment is an 18th Century relic so "why stop?"

Education is hard. It's harder when people don't want to think.

Thanks for keeping us informed, DaleA.

 

[Marco Califo]

"Guns don't Kill People,
Husbands who come home from work early do."
Larry the Cable Guy

He actually is correct. Gun control will never work on the loose nuts behind the trigger.

If you remove the adolescent head cases who shoot people, school shootings wouldn't happen. Guns themselves are just a harmless implement, until a human decides violence should happen.

 

[44 AMP]

I read the linked article, and that's a few minutes of my life wasted...

Its not total crap, its just 99.99999999999999999995% crap.

And, its confusing. The problem (like Reagan and many others have said) isn't that our opponents don't know, the problem is that so much of what they know is WRONG!!!!

That means the AR-15 round's kinetic energy is [much higher] than the M1’s.

This shows 1) the author doesn't understand basic math, and 2) doesn't seem to care.

Kinetic Energy (calculated in ft/lbs) for the standard 5.56mm/.223 55gr bullet is in the 12-1300 ft/lb range. The 150gr .30-06 (M1 Garand) is in the 2900-3000ft/lb range.

ME for the M1 .30 Carbine round is about 950ft/lbs. But, since the author never mentioned the carbine, and DID mention the 150gr bullet of the M1 one must assume he's referring to the M1 Garand, and if he is, then he's talking out his butt when he states the AR-15's round has greater energy than the M1's round. This is what is known as .. a lie.

One of the unique features of the AR-15 is the much faster magazine changes than with an AK-47 or a Ruger Mini-14.

Ok, so the author does know the difference between the "slap in" and "rock and lock" styles of magazine catches. That's great. HOWEVER, "much" faster is a variable thing, depending on user skill, and the author doesn't have much, it seems, (or whom ever he was quoting as an example doesn't)

It was stated in the article that the author (or whomever he was quoting for effect, it was confusing to me who was who), they said it takes them 20-30 seconds to change the mag of their Mini-14 /AK, and that's not under pressure, and if they were in a shooting situation, they estimate it would take them considerably longer...(I swear they said it, its there, go read if...)

Based on that, then absolutely the AR with its 1-2 second mag change is a killing weapon....

If you take 20-30 seconds to replace a magazine, then you absolutely ARE the guy I want facing me in a firefight...

I'm sure the guy isn't lying when he says it takes him that long, but its rather stupid to imply that it takes everyone that long, because it simply doesn't.

and, he does also say, "no Teflon bullets, either" without even giving his reasoning. It is likely all he knows about Teflon coated bullets is that they are "cop killers" and nothing else.

The truth is quite different. The Teflon coating isn't there to aid penetration, its there to protect the bore. And, as far as I can find out, no cops have ever been killed with that kind of ammo. The original Teflon coated bullets that the media dubbed "cop killers" were never sold to the public. ONLY to the police. Just another example of BS from a source that wouldn't accept the truth, even if they knew it, and they aren't interested in knowing it.

Saying the author is under educated on the subject, biased, and anti gun agenda driven is like saying water is wet.


Thanks for the link, always interesting to see what they are up to, but I won't be wasting any more of my time on that bozo's articles or the magazine that prints them.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Thanks for the link, always interesting to see what they are up to, but I won't be wasting any more of my time on that bozo's articles or the magazine that prints them.

Unfortunately, it behooves us to continue reading their drivel. That's the only effective way to stay current on what they're up to and what misinformation (or disinformation) they're spewing at the moment.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

He actually is correct. Gun control will never work on the loose nuts behind the trigger.

If you remove the adolescent head cases who shoot people, school shootings wouldn't happen. Guns themselves are just a harmless implement, until a human decides violence should happen.

Whereas if you just remove the guns (as if that might realistically be possible), the head cases would just use bombs. Such as a week after Parkland, a student tried to blow up his high school in Utah. Fortunately, he was a lousy bomb maker and it didn't detonate. It was placed in the school cafeteria. I suspect that if it had gone off, the death toll would have been far greater than at Parkland.

But you don't see that incident being discussed in the media as part of the discussion on school safety, because the media isn't really interested in school safety -- the media is interested in gun control, and countering bomb attacks doesn't fit the narrative. So ... they ignore it. Nobody was killed, so they can pretend it never happened.

The media also don't like to be reminded that bombs were supposed to be the primary weapon at Columbine. Those two wanted to kill more people than Timoty McVeigh killed in Oklahoma. Again, the world is fortunate that the perps were lousy bomb makers. Their bombs didn't detonate, so they just used their guns. The original plan was to use the guns to finish off anyone who survived the bombs.

Those facts should be made known to people who aren't already firmly in the anti-gun camp.