Originally Posted by YoungIT
Originally Posted by 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/up...s-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.