Sandy Hook Shooting

[DogSong]

Interesting but as stated in the video clip ..... controversial.

My belief in hunting is a clean humane kill with one shot, a wounded animal suffers & is very dangerous in some cases.

But didn't you say an AR 15 is very high powered? An AR came come in more than the 15 series, it can come in the 10 or the 25 series, which are in .308 winchester, which are prime loads for feral hog hunting

 

[MMM]

But didn't you say an AR 15 is very high powered? An AR came come in more than the 15 series, it can come in the 10 or the 25 series, which are in .308 winchester, which are prime loads for feral hog hunting

Never stated any thing about the AR being high powered, your words not mine.

To use assault rifle for hunting is ludicrous as it was not designed for that purpose, if you want to hunt then learn to hunt with the correct weapon.

The above quote is what I stated !

In my view Assault Rifle was not designed for hunting but for military purpose only, not saying you cannot use it for such task but not ideal weapon of choice.
If you are a member of a gun club then I'm quite sure many hunters would explain to you the ethics of hunting & ideal choice of weapons & the associated safety that goes with hunting.

I emphasize the word SAFETY the real reason against using that type of weapon, especially in the company of other hunters.

Cheers.

 

[Celegorm]

Having been in a few I'm quite sure many members of gun clubs see nothing ethically wrong with using an AR-style rifle for hunting as no one's goal is to ever spend 30 rounds on 1 animal. Quite the opposite, most if not all pride themselves on the one shot, one kill motto. Most I've talked to own at least one AR for varmit/preditor (such as coyote or hog) hunting.

At any rate, why is hunting a big sticking point? Nothing says I need to justify owning a style of weapon (that is no more dangerous that other hunting rifles that look different) because of its hunting uses.

 

[root]

for me it's not the power that's the issue, nobody is talking about bringing down elephant in hails of gunfire.

The plan is still to take the animal down with a single bullet.

I guess it depends on your reason for hunting.

if you're hunting as a form of pest or population control then why not take an easy to use no matter if you miss weapon.

I just don't see it as a sporting choice.

 

[Celegorm]

for me it's not the power that's the issue, nobody is talking about bringing down elephant in hails of gunfire.

The plan is still to take the animal down with a single bullet.

I think no matter what you're hunting and what you're using to hunt with that's always the goal. Using the wrong caliber is inhumane and just out-right wrong no matter what platform is used to hunt with.

I guess it depends on your reason for hunting.

if you're hunting as a form of pest or population control then why not take an easy to use no matter if you miss weapon.

That's why people do choose an AR-style rifle. It's very simple to use, very easy to hit what you're aiming at. In cases like the video I posted, taking out 5-10 hogs while they are running (after the first shot anyways) is hard, you'll miss a few shots without a doubt an AR fits the build. Accurate, high capacity and because of the relatively small amount of felt recoil, very quick follow-up shots if you miss or need to quickly put one out of its misery before moving on to the next crop-destroyer.

 

[DogSong]

for me it's not the power that's the issue, nobody is talking about bringing down elephant in hails of gunfire.

The plan is still to take the animal down with a single bullet.

I guess it depends on your reason for hunting.

if you're hunting as a form of pest or population control then why not take an easy to use no matter if you miss weapon.

I just don't see it as a sporting choice.

An AR is considered a sporting rifle. It is NOT an assault rifle. I don't know even why they call it an AR, doesn't make sense. Don't only think hunting, but also think shooting sports, competition shooting, which I do. And MMM, I must have misread, my bad

---------- Post added at 04:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:33 PM ----------

Never stated any thing about the AR being high powered, your words not mine.


The above quote is what I stated !

In my view Assault Rifle was not designed for hunting but for military purpose only, not saying you cannot use it for such task but not ideal weapon of choice.
If you are a member of a gun club then I'm quite sure many hunters would explain to you the ethics of hunting & ideal choice of weapons & the associated safety that goes with hunting.

I emphasize the word SAFETY the real reason against using that type of weapon, especially in the company of other hunters.

Cheers.

The AR 15 is NOT an assault rifle. Do you have any idea what you're talking about? Do you even own a gun? And safety issues are the same with that firearm as any other. And it is an ideal weapon of choice. What's the difference between the Remington R25 and the Browning BAR in .308 Winchester? Not a thing

 

[Celegorm]

I don't know even why they call it an AR, doesn't make sense.

AR = Armalite Rifle. Is a fall back to the original design build by Armalite that would become the AR-15/16. All AR-15 means it's based off of the Armalite Rifle design/revision 15.

 

[DogSong]

AR = Armalite Rifle. Is a fall back to the original design build by Armalite that would become the AR-15/16. All AR-15 means it's based off of the Armalite Rifle design/revision 15.

Lol I knew the 15 was made by Armalite but I never made that connection with it's first two letters

 

[DogSong]

Okay, just read this article. Holy crap

Sandy Hook Game-Changer: Solid New Evidence of a Cover-Up Presented

 

[root]

for me it's not the power that's the issue, nobody is talking about bringing down elephant in hails of gunfire.

The plan is still to take the animal down with a single bullet.

I guess it depends on your reason for hunting.

if you're hunting as a form of pest or population control then why not take an easy to use no matter if you miss weapon.

I just don't see it as a sporting choice.

An AR is considered a sporting rifle. It is NOT an assault rifle. I don't know even why they call it an AR, doesn't make sense. Don't only think hunting, but also think shooting sports, competition shooting, which I do.

I looked through all my posts and I don't think I said that AR stood for assault riffle, I never mentioned the word assault...

However, the AR-15 does appear on this http://www.infohow.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Assault-Rifles-Carbines.jpg big poster of assault riffles.

this is where the confusion comes from.

the military version, is an assault riffle, it's got a selector for semi automatic, or fully automatic/burst fire.

Assault rifle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (see the first sentence of that article.)


so it's understandable that those who don't know, may say that an AR-15 is an assault riffle. on the other hand it's understandable that those who own one will say that they are not.

essentially there are two variants, military, - which IS an assault riffle, and civillian -which lacks automatic fire mode and therefore CANNOT be an assault riffle...

(that's a simple end to that argument, you're technically both right).

in this conversation it's pretty clear that we're talking about (legal) civilian ownership, - so only YoungIT is right, it's not an assault riffle...



however, just to re-muddy those waters.
the AR-15 is an assault weapon, as defined by the 1994 laws.
Federal Assault Weapons Ban - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

see the background -scarily like Sandy hook right, as well as the criteria for naming, of which the AR-15 fits pretty well. (though that particular gun did remain legal).


And when you want to get political about it, and say that it's the liberals who want to ban guns,
who banned the import of semi automatic riffles in 1989? (Bush Snr)
Who saw the bill going through during their last days of their presidents that banned "assault weapons" - (bush snr) -the bill was signed into law by Clinton on his first day.
you may want to think about who was president, in 94 (Bush snr) whilst that was getting drawn up, and who supported that ban with letters of support from ford, and regan. then check the colour of their party... it's not only the "liberals" who think that not all weapons are good weapons...



I'll meet you half way here.
If you want to use an ar-15 for target shooting -then sure go ahead, surely it's a great gun.

If you want to use an AR-15 for pest control -shooting rats in a corn field, then go ahead, that's not sport that's utilitarian pest control.

If you want to use an AR-15 for sport hunting/stalking prey then I don't consider it a sporting choice, a real old school riffle is a sporting choice, and the reason it is a sporting choice is that you get a single shot, you have to develop skill, you have to overcome nerves and adrenaline, you have to master the activity in a way that you just don't when there are 20 other rounds ready to go just in case you miss.

If you want to use an AR-15 for hunting elephants in the hope that you'll just shoot it a bunch of times, then that's not only not sporting but rather inhumane.



Regarding the stuff in that article you linked,
I'm still unconvinced, who is this guy? is he really the best authority? did he have authority to actually get information on this? even under freedom of information acts there are usually tests either of public interest, or whether you should be entitled to the information at all.

If YOU go request that information, -in the proper way, and then you receive a rejection to your FOI request, and you post that reason here then I'll be more convinced,

A rejection of application for information does not mean that there has definitely been a cover up.