If my memory serves me correctly, murder and unprovoked assaults have been illegal for a few years. However, that doesn’t seem to make a lot of difference to some. Why do we need more gun control laws and restrictions on law abiding citizens. We currently have “legislators” in congress who advocate violence and getting into people’s faces. It is sure to get worse and we all need to remain vigilant. We are living in unprecedented times in this country.
3 Likes
Those are the very people who will benefit if things get out of hand.
The more divided we become as a society the more force of gov’t that is required to prevent us from falling into anarchy.
4 Likes
And the Mossberg and Remington pump shotguns. Both are in current use by the military, and the exact versions the military use, can be bought by civilians.
4 Likes
I didn’t get my AR as a self-defense firearm. I got it because when I shot my first M16A2 back in 1972 I thought it was a heck of a lot of fun to shoot. They aren’t called “modern sporting rifles” for nothing. 
3 Likes
The 870 Remington is the most proven, versatile, and dependable firearm ever invented.
I started shooting one when I was 9 with only about five minutes instruction on where the safety and slide release where.
If I were to be restricted to one single firearm for home defense I’d take an 870 hands down over all other firearms.
2 Likes
I grew up shooting a converted M14. When I was first issued an M16A2 in basic I thought, “Are they kidding?”.
The platform has definitely improved since 72.
3 Likes
“The paper discussed in this post below has been withdrawn by the author Gary Kleck after Reason brought to his attention an important detail first pointed out by Robert VerBruggen of National Review: Kleck in the original paper treats the CDC’s surveys on defensive gun use as if they were national in scope, as Kleck’s original survey was, but they were not. From VerBruggen’s own looks at CDC’s raw data, it seems that over the course of the three years, the following 15 states were surveyed: Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Montana, Ohio, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. (Those states, from 2000 census data, contained around 27 percent of the U.S. population.) Kleck says he is working on a new version of the paper that recalculates the degree to which CDC’s survey work indeed matches or corroborates his, and we will publish a discussion of those fresh results when they are complete. But for now Kleck has pulled the original paper from the web pending his rethinking the data and his conclusions.”
if im comprehending this correctly, there may be more than the 2.5 million DGUs found, seeing as not the entire country was surveyed?
2 Likes
I"d say that’s a pretty good possibility but the states surveyed are a fairly broad representation of the nation.
It does however exclude the states with the highest violent crime rates.
There was another survey done by someone at Harvard that came up with 1.5-2 million DGU’s annually that made a whole lot of news when it was first released but it seems to have been pretty well buried by our anti gun friends at Yahoo and and Google.
I’ll keep digging though.
2 Likes
awesome thanks
1 Like
I might take a different tack with your friend about "AR labeled weapons.
I would first (just for fun) get them to agree that an AR is a Military style weapon (we will blow this up later).
I might then ask them about the history of the country, and point out to them that civilian weapons typically are introduced into the us society in style and usage based upon- the immediate prior war periods… During the period prior to the civil war, muskets were the rage, after the war muskets with scopes and turned(or octagonal) barrels
Prior to WWI we had rifles ( a lot of single shot rifles- 1700,s-1800’s) after WW1 we had bolt action rifles ( early 1900’s), WWII saw rifles like the springfieldrifle and the Garand coming forward,to wwII they were replaced with rifles like the M1c and M1D rifles (sniper rifles). Caliber of rounds and ammunition also advanced because of wars.
coming further forward you had rifles like the AR-10 developed in the 1950’s which was the original modeled platform for the AR-15 rifle. The Ar-10 not really doing well in sales inpart because it was originally chambered in 30-06 while military weapons were more generally in 308, note also you have the advancement to semi auto rifles in this area (1950’s) also at this time you have the ntroduction of the NATO 7.62 round.
Now we come to Vietnam, after many development hickups we finally get the AR15-A2 or (M16-A2)
as a short understanding in general of development.
The point is that after each generation of war the soldiers that came home, sought out weapons they were familiar with from war,if you examine the numbers of people that used weapons pre and post war the numbers balloon heavily post war.
Soldiers coming home from WWII sought out rifles like the Winchester 243 since it was similar to what they fought with in the service. Vietnam veterans by an large would not look for an inaccurate musket they never fired ,but would tend to go to something they knew (1st point-The weapons are moved into society for a number of reasons 1 reason being generations tend to move to what they know or have been exposed to)
Manufacturers also had something to do with the weapons uptake since ,no one wants a weapon of war in civilian hands but something less powerful and familiar will pay the bills and make me money. (nothing wrong here just being honest). 2nd point if is the continuation of a business. model also the civilian market takes on weapons learning at each war period also and becomes a good outlet with little manufacturing changes.
Finally we come to the AR-15
A couple of basic understandings, a AR-15 in 223 caliber is very different from an AR-15 in 5.56 caliber. A Piston driven AR is very different from a standard AR. In 223 the powder, damage and lethality are very different from a 5.56 (note a 5.56 rifle will fire a 223 but not the other way around in part based upon headspace ,gas pressures etc. 3)the point is if you now go full military 5.56 green ball, and pressurized powder loads as in the military the lethality and damage is very very different from a civilian weapon.
If you look at piston driven (self clearing when put under water) as opposed to a standard weapon that could blow up (operative word could based on handling) you have very different mechanics. so lets be clear a military weapon and a civilian weapon are very different.
The AR-15 was a platform that is highly accurate, in the 1980s Nato trials the 5.56 round was the most accurate out of those tested in fact they tested out of the box better than reworked hand built M14 rifles for the Army competition rifle teams. 4) from a reliability standpoint and accuracy standpoint and overall usage standpoint the rifle proved itself better than what had come before (in the end).
Now you have to ask why did we as a nation keep improving the weapons was it just folly or joy ,NO it was the fact that our enemies keep advancing the ball forward and as our soldiers go into battles we want them to win, not loose. 5) so the advancement is closely paralleling what it takes for civilians to defend themselves and our home soil (original constitutional militia ).
- If we look at our most recent wars we see a change in rifle because the AK47 (Chinese, Russian or other) is a 308 caliber round or a derivation of a 7.62 *39 etc) we found that these weapons could hit our troops in Afghanistan (as an example) and we could not hit them as easily. Vietnam strategy of return fire did not work well at all, Technology and bigger and better weapons prevailed. The ability to return fire precisely based on technology became the way of life, the strategy of mass troop return fire at elevation (Kentucky windage) etc. was originally used and deployed troops understood it . But unlike other countries the 5.56 round killed and wounded (theory being it takes more enemies out of a fight to work with the wounded). The countries using larger rounds were just trying to kill folks period. This forced a change in operational and weapons usage and understanding.
The point is now we have dynamic changes in weapons in the civilian market (the military is already uploading changes in their weapons use, why because our enemies came with some stuff that was hard to deal with. However the soldiers and civilians at home are comfortable with the AR style platform. The distinctions between semi auto and full auto are real, the way a man is taught to carry a weapon, the configurations, the size and weight, the ability to lengthen or shorten barrels etc. all make this a great platform for average home and personal defense (portability ) but it is a far cry from a military weapon.
additionally if for home defense you have a single shot deer rifle and you assailant has a ak47 and skills your toast. If some group drops in from somewhere to challenge the country -you and your single shot are toast.
Aside from the arguments of hunting, anything else says the platform, the inactive marines,the retired ArmyNavy etc will use what they know, and knowledge is by war and weapons advancement ,with cause due to enemy improvements…
For good measure after this I would add in facts like deaths vs lives saved.
FBI study showing violence going down1960-2010
studybshows highs in 90’s (incase jpg doesn’t come through
also the 1997 study showing where federal inmates get their guns
so in conclusion
The platform is valid for a host of reasons
reliability, portability, population familiar and trained on the weapon, protection in civil unrest and attempted takeovers of the country from foreign sources, lives saved vs deaths incurred, lack of being a military weapon while creating civilian safety net for the country. as well as other items mentioned above.
We aren’t in Kansas anymore and the thought that you can go back to an era that doesn’t exist (its just for hunters, weapons)s a lack of reality in where we live and what our world is all about.
This of course also ignores things like bias rporting on guns, the political football that guns are used as in order to garner votes, the fact that what people do not know about they tend to be afraid of etc.
8 Likes
@Dr_Richard Very good writeup. One correction, the AR-10 was developed for the then new 7.62x51 NATO round, as that was what was selected for the new rifle that the Army wanted. A .30-06 round will not fit in the receiver as it is too long by far.
Not a great resource, but decent: ArmaLite AR-10 - Wikipedia
2 Likes
Nicely done.
Regards.
1 Like
I don’t know where you live but here in Cook County which is Chicago and Cook Co suburbs the liberal judges throw out more gun charges than is almost possible. Bangers are in and out of jail and their case is expunged off their records before mother’s are on the evening news crying for the cameras. These are not NRA Members they are headed for a life long career criminal. Good people law abiding citizens they are not. If they’re some deterred someone in their lives that could make a difference I’m all for it. But again this could be decades before implementation Or never, probably our friends at the ACLU will get an injunction against such a thing as this.
3 Likes
This is the problem right there - People react to the “scary” factor, not to actual facts.
Human beings are essentially wired for this - you are FAR more likely to die in a car crash than in an airplane crash - 3000 times more likely - but car crashes do not get the high emotional reaction of of airplane crashes… people experience very little fear getting into a car, and far more getting into an airplane. You are 1200 times more likely to die of the flu than of ebola, but ebola is what makes people panic.
Risk management is a big part of what I do as a medical device engineer, and we struggle with this every single time we work on the task, even with well trained and well experienced engineers and medical people. Every Time. Human beings REACT with more alarm to some things than others, and that level of reactive alarm is NOT tied to actual risk. It is VERY hard to get people to let go of that instinctive gut reaction and respond using facts.
Given that is the normal nature of how humans process risk and experience fear, it is extremely easy to figure out what provokes the maximum fear reaction and use that to manipulate people’s experience. The anti-gun lobby has done this extremely well… so well that even people who believe themselves pro-gun are infected with the reaction to things that are not, in fact, true.
@Liam, your friend has been seduced by the anti-gun lobby taking advantage of his human chemistry.
He is pro-gun, except where he isn’t, and that means he isn’t. And he’s probably going to have a hard time seeing that because it flies in the face of him seeing himself as a rational, reasonable, right-thinking pro-gun guy.
Education and experience is the best antidote I know of… hands on with an AR to learn it’s capability. Things like doing your own penetration test comparison between handgun and AR rounds. Side-by-side use of a handgun and an AR to know, first hand, how they compare.
It may not change his mind on using an AR as his self-defense platform (it isn’t the one I choose) but it can greatly improve his ability to use his rational brain for understanding the issues. It can reduce his willingness to overlook his own inexperience in favor of embracing the bad press on the AR. It can help him become aware of his gut-reaction to “scary” being misappropriated by people who don’t want us to have any firearms, and who know they can use divide-and-conquer and 1-inch-at-a-time to remove our rights.
7 Likes
Larger capacity, more accurate, greater range, and it’s easier to control recoil for follow up shots with an AR, IMO. To each his own
3 Likes
OK, I hear ya…BUT, I look at the survivability of car crash vs plane crash. How many people walk away from a plane crash, or even suffer treat-and-release injuries? I like my odds on the ground. Plus, in my car, in know the condition of most all its systems because I have checked them myself. In a plane, I’m trusting a bunch of people I don’t know to do their jobs perfectly every time so that the vehicle is in tip-top shape. (Ever buy a used car?) I like my odds on the ground.
But seriously, I see a flaw in the comparison of air travel deaths compared to automobile deaths. These statistics are usually compiled and compared on a death-per-passenger-mile model which weights the conclusion very heavily in favor of the aircraft. The everage passenger capacity of a commercial aircraft ranges fro 300-500 people + crew. So a single 1000 mile trip on a commercial flight may count as 500,000 passenger miles or more, whereas taking a family vacay of similar distance might add up to 5000 miles. Trip for trip the numbers work out differently.
On a personal note, I have flown commercially 4 times in my life and one of those fights was involved in a very close near-miss incident over the Nashville airport. That’s a personal 3 out of 4 chance I’ll be OK on a plane. My last auto accident (with risk of injury) was over 40 years ago, despite spending 20 of those years driving over 25,000 miles per year just commuting for work. My wife’s last ROI accident was 30 years ago. Until recently we both drove separate vehicles every day. I STILL like my odds on the ground.
Regards.
1 Like
The difference is between mass casualty events that can number in the hundreds vs a handful of deaths in a car accident at most usually.
We also feel “in control” behind the wheel or if we’re a passenger connected to the driver closely.
In an airplane you have absolutely no control and have no idea how qualified the pilots are or what condition they are in.
It’s the same as the difference between how people react to a mass shooting vs someone killed in a domestic or robbery on the street or in a store.
The small casualty events are common and even though there are hundreds or thousand of times more of the small events and much higher totals, the large scale events always get huge coverage and generate a much stronger sense of outrage.
2 Likes
See? You get it!
You’re making my point for me.
Regards.
3 Likes
So would this handgun be ok for your friend?
Comes with a 10 rnd or 20 rnd magazine. Can get a 30 rnd CZ magazine, 35 rnd PSA magazine, or a 50 rnd CZ drum
CZ Scorpion EVO 3 S2 Pistol Micro w/ Brace
5 Likes
I agree the ref to the 762*39 was just bringing the ball forward on the Russian and Chinese AK47 type1 and 2 or type 56 variants since that is the more current caliber dumped or disseminated in countries like Africa, the 30-06 ref was the original caliber when the AR-10 was first created. Ref military history, and modern sniper rifles by Duncan blond to list a few ( or see online link below this picture)
here is a brief online reference to the 30 caliber version of the AR-10
this was before the military hub bub
One Response to “ARchaeology Lesson — The Original AR-10 That Started it All”
- Gene says:
I pulled this from:quote from http://bulletin.accurateshooter.com/2017/01/archaeology-lesson-the-original-ar-10-that-started-it-all/-- it just made me laugh
I would have traded all the M-16 , 5.56’s ever made for one of those AR-10’s in the “Nam”. When it absolutely , positively has to be KILLED ……Give me a .30 cal every time . “Never try to kill a large-caliber man with a small-caliber bullet”! Marcus Latrell
1 Like