Guns.

lastexitlondon

It really is so brainless 

mickeyrat

https://www.facebook.com/share/v/18e7G2raSp/ 

powerful.

mickeyrat

just fucking lovely....

https://ohiocapitaljournal.com/2026/04/21/ohio-gop-senators-pass-bill-to-punish-cities-for-gun-regulations/?utm_source=newsletters.ohiocapitaljournal.com&utm_medium=newsletter&utm_campaign=vivek-ramaswamy-may-have-stake-in-company-receiving-more-than-830-million-from-ohio&_bhlid=c50e32a0ebac2b3d46863e20ee6e72c50c77e4ea

seanwon

Disclaimer: The primary user of this account no longer posts personal opinions here. They post facts, tough questions, videos and provocative statements, sometimes controversial, meant for the purpose of gathering information for use in the upcoming midterm elections. Nothing is to be taken personally.

Kind of quiet here about this one. 8 kids slaughtered.  How come, where is the outrage?

Never mind, I think I figured it out.  

mickeyrat

seanwon said:

Disclaimer: The primary user of this account no longer posts personal opinions here. They post facts, tough questions, videos and provocative statements, sometimes controversial, meant for the purpose of gathering information for use in the upcoming midterm elections. Nothing is to be taken personally.

Kind of quiet here about this one. 8 kids slaughtered.  How come, where is the outrage?

Never mind, I think I figured it out.  

Did you then? did you figure out there has been far less traffic on amt for a month or more now? did you figure out this story is posted on the previous page? 

did you ?

did you?

gimmesometruth27

mickeyrat said:

seanwon said:

Disclaimer: The primary user of this account no longer posts personal opinions here. They post facts, tough questions, videos and provocative statements, sometimes controversial, meant for the purpose of gathering information for use in the upcoming midterm elections. Nothing is to be taken personally.

Kind of quiet here about this one. 8 kids slaughtered.  How come, where is the outrage?

Never mind, I think I figured it out.  

Did you then? did you figure out there has been far less traffic on amt for a month or more now? did you figure out this story is posted on the previous page? 

did you ?

did you?

as if we are supposed to post every single mass shooting on here and talk about how bad it sucks and how we need to do something about the guns or the mental health.

clowns come around trying to tell us what to be outraged about while supporting trump. 

seanwon should spare us the faux outrage on this one.

josevolution

seanwon said:

Disclaimer: The primary user of this account no longer posts personal opinions here. They post facts, tough questions, videos and provocative statements, sometimes controversial, meant for the purpose of gathering information for use in the upcoming midterm elections. Nothing is to be taken personally.

Kind of quiet here about this one. 8 kids slaughtered.  How come, where is the outrage?

Never mind, I think I figured it out.  

Pathetic post! Maybe just maybe we’re sick and tired of trying to express the same outrage most of us have expressed here for years! To me it doesn’t matter who the shooter is what color or gender they are. So go and gaslight somewhere else! Where’s your outrage about the bombing of the school in Iran that killed over 100 children? 

Gern Blansten

seanwon said:

Disclaimer: The primary user of this account no longer posts personal opinions here. They post facts, tough questions, videos and provocative statements, sometimes controversial, meant for the purpose of gathering information for use in the upcoming midterm elections. Nothing is to be taken personally.

Kind of quiet here about this one. 8 kids slaughtered.  How come, where is the outrage?

Never mind, I think I figured it out.  

you're just mad that it wasn't at a school...

mace1229

dudeman said:

mickeyrat said:

dudeman said:

PJ_Soul said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Tim Simmons said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Get_Right said:

josevolution said:

88% of Republicans support the NRA compared to 22% Democrats! 

Jose it has always been that way, but money is green. And people take it. I cannot blame them for that. But at some point anyone with brain knows we do not need AR-15s with large count magazines available for any mentally challenged douchebag that walks into a gun store.

 we the people should still be allowed to own AR-15's.

to do what with it?

Target practice. Hunting if your local laws allow it. They really are fun to plink with. Also if "ze Germans" ever start fussing about.

i've shot an ar-15 and can't imagine how anyone would hunt with it. unless they like their meat lookin like swiss cheese.

Hunting with an AR-15 seems totally disrespectful to me, you know? Like, why in the fuck would anyone do that unless their purpose is to just annihilate whatever they are hunting? The idea of hunting with that weapon seems ridiculous to me, no matter how well you think you use it. 

In the US, it depends on where you live and what you're hunting if you can use an AR. Also, a lot of states have limits on the number of rounds you can have in a gun to hunt with. Five rounds is the maximum here.

I think it would be unlikely for someone to dump like, 30 bullets into a deer or something, but that is the mental image that appears when someone says they "hunt with an AR".

Also, outside of pest or varmint control for farmers, it is illegal to use the rounds that most ARs fire to hunt with because, believe it or not, they are considered underpowered to humanely kill deer-sized game.

which is to say it causes undue suffering,  no?

I don't know if I would put it that way. The .223 Remington cartridge (which is the civilian chambering for the majority of non-military ARs) is a round commonly used for pest control. People have been using that round on wood chucks, prairie dogs, coyotes etc. for decades. It is a lightweight, fast moving round that makes it good for small animals. On larger animals, it causes wounds which will often become fatal, but not immediately. 

The military counterpart, the 5.56x45 mm (or 5.56 NATO) is a higher pressure round than the .223 Remington. I have read that it was initially chosen by world militaries because it had a tendency to wound or incapacitate rather than kill targets. That effectively took more people out of the battle since soldiers were occupied with taking care of their wounded rather than fighting back.

Those attributes don't make it particularly good for hunting anything other than varmints and small game.

FWIW, I am not a hunter, I don't own an AR and I don't plan on getting one. 

I know this comment is over a month old, just getting caught up on the last 2 pages.
I believe the M16 did originally use the .223 in Vietnam, it was upgraded to the 5.56 later. And I've heard the rumor for using a small round was it would incapacitate like you said, but I'm pretty sure the real reason was it has less recoil which leads to faster and more accurate follow-up shots or short bursts, also the light weight round means a soldier can carry more ammo and have larger capacity magazines. My dad has told me the story when he was in boot camp during Vietnam, they trained on the M1 because all the new rifles were going to combat, not training. The drill sergeant demonstrated the M16 and showed the reduced recoil by putting the butt of the gun on his nuts and pulling the trigger. 
I agree with Tempo when he said people picture someone hunting with an AR15 with large magazines and probably full auto. Thats just not how people hunt.  Those who use an AR to hunt will hunt smaller game like hogs or coyotes, not large game. And definitely not unload 30 rounds into an elk or something. 
When I see people upset or mocking the use of an AR for hunting, I just assume they aren't familiar with what people hunt and how they hunt. 
I don't own an AR15 either, and don't hunt. But I know several people who do.  I see nothing inherently wrong with what makes the AR an AR. It's some of the optional features that are found on many guns that make it more deadly. Like large capacity magazines mostly. Otherwise its just another rifle with a black synthetic stock.  Some states define or ban guns based on irrelevant features, like a pistol grip for example. That doesn't make a rifle any more deadly, but it makes it look a little military, so it's banned in California.

Gern Blansten

mace1229 said:

dudeman said:

mickeyrat said:

dudeman said:

PJ_Soul said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Tim Simmons said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Get_Right said:

josevolution said:

88% of Republicans support the NRA compared to 22% Democrats! 

Jose it has always been that way, but money is green. And people take it. I cannot blame them for that. But at some point anyone with brain knows we do not need AR-15s with large count magazines available for any mentally challenged douchebag that walks into a gun store.

 we the people should still be allowed to own AR-15's.

to do what with it?

Target practice. Hunting if your local laws allow it. They really are fun to plink with. Also if "ze Germans" ever start fussing about.

i've shot an ar-15 and can't imagine how anyone would hunt with it. unless they like their meat lookin like swiss cheese.

Hunting with an AR-15 seems totally disrespectful to me, you know? Like, why in the fuck would anyone do that unless their purpose is to just annihilate whatever they are hunting? The idea of hunting with that weapon seems ridiculous to me, no matter how well you think you use it. 

In the US, it depends on where you live and what you're hunting if you can use an AR. Also, a lot of states have limits on the number of rounds you can have in a gun to hunt with. Five rounds is the maximum here.

I think it would be unlikely for someone to dump like, 30 bullets into a deer or something, but that is the mental image that appears when someone says they "hunt with an AR".

Also, outside of pest or varmint control for farmers, it is illegal to use the rounds that most ARs fire to hunt with because, believe it or not, they are considered underpowered to humanely kill deer-sized game.

which is to say it causes undue suffering,  no?

I don't know if I would put it that way. The .223 Remington cartridge (which is the civilian chambering for the majority of non-military ARs) is a round commonly used for pest control. People have been using that round on wood chucks, prairie dogs, coyotes etc. for decades. It is a lightweight, fast moving round that makes it good for small animals. On larger animals, it causes wounds which will often become fatal, but not immediately. 

The military counterpart, the 5.56x45 mm (or 5.56 NATO) is a higher pressure round than the .223 Remington. I have read that it was initially chosen by world militaries because it had a tendency to wound or incapacitate rather than kill targets. That effectively took more people out of the battle since soldiers were occupied with taking care of their wounded rather than fighting back.

Those attributes don't make it particularly good for hunting anything other than varmints and small game.

FWIW, I am not a hunter, I don't own an AR and I don't plan on getting one. 

I know this comment is over a month old, just getting caught up on the last 2 pages.
I believe the M16 did originally use the .223 in Vietnam, it was upgraded to the 5.56 later. And I've heard the rumor for using a small round was it would incapacitate like you said, but I'm pretty sure the real reason was it has less recoil which leads to faster and more accurate follow-up shots or short bursts, also the light weight round means a soldier can carry more ammo and have larger capacity magazines. My dad has told me the story when he was in boot camp during Vietnam, they trained on the M1 because all the new rifles were going to combat, not training. The drill sergeant demonstrated the M16 and showed the reduced recoil by putting the butt of the gun on his nuts and pulling the trigger. 
I agree with Tempo when he said people picture someone hunting with an AR15 with large magazines and probably full auto. Thats just not how people hunt.  Those who use an AR to hunt will hunt smaller game like hogs or coyotes, not large game. And definitely not unload 30 rounds into an elk or something. 
When I see people upset or mocking the use of an AR for hunting, I just assume they aren't familiar with what people hunt and how they hunt. 
I don't own an AR15 either, and don't hunt. But I know several people who do.  I see nothing inherently wrong with what makes the AR an AR. It's some of the optional features that are found on many guns that make it more deadly. Like large capacity magazines mostly. Otherwise its just another rifle with a black synthetic stock.  Some states define or ban guns based on irrelevant features, like a pistol grip for example. That doesn't make a rifle any more deadly, but it makes it look a little military, so it's banned in California.

The issue is large magazines and semi/full auto. Easy to shoot up a school. Not necessary for hunting.

The hunting excuse is just that...an excuse to own a weapon that no one needs in real life.

mace1229

Gern Blansten said:

mace1229 said:

dudeman said:

mickeyrat said:

dudeman said:

PJ_Soul said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Tim Simmons said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Get_Right said:

josevolution said:

88% of Republicans support the NRA compared to 22% Democrats! 

Jose it has always been that way, but money is green. And people take it. I cannot blame them for that. But at some point anyone with brain knows we do not need AR-15s with large count magazines available for any mentally challenged douchebag that walks into a gun store.

 we the people should still be allowed to own AR-15's.

to do what with it?

Target practice. Hunting if your local laws allow it. They really are fun to plink with. Also if "ze Germans" ever start fussing about.

i've shot an ar-15 and can't imagine how anyone would hunt with it. unless they like their meat lookin like swiss cheese.

Hunting with an AR-15 seems totally disrespectful to me, you know? Like, why in the fuck would anyone do that unless their purpose is to just annihilate whatever they are hunting? The idea of hunting with that weapon seems ridiculous to me, no matter how well you think you use it. 

In the US, it depends on where you live and what you're hunting if you can use an AR. Also, a lot of states have limits on the number of rounds you can have in a gun to hunt with. Five rounds is the maximum here.

I think it would be unlikely for someone to dump like, 30 bullets into a deer or something, but that is the mental image that appears when someone says they "hunt with an AR".

Also, outside of pest or varmint control for farmers, it is illegal to use the rounds that most ARs fire to hunt with because, believe it or not, they are considered underpowered to humanely kill deer-sized game.

which is to say it causes undue suffering,  no?

I don't know if I would put it that way. The .223 Remington cartridge (which is the civilian chambering for the majority of non-military ARs) is a round commonly used for pest control. People have been using that round on wood chucks, prairie dogs, coyotes etc. for decades. It is a lightweight, fast moving round that makes it good for small animals. On larger animals, it causes wounds which will often become fatal, but not immediately. 

The military counterpart, the 5.56x45 mm (or 5.56 NATO) is a higher pressure round than the .223 Remington. I have read that it was initially chosen by world militaries because it had a tendency to wound or incapacitate rather than kill targets. That effectively took more people out of the battle since soldiers were occupied with taking care of their wounded rather than fighting back.

Those attributes don't make it particularly good for hunting anything other than varmints and small game.

FWIW, I am not a hunter, I don't own an AR and I don't plan on getting one. 

I know this comment is over a month old, just getting caught up on the last 2 pages.
I believe the M16 did originally use the .223 in Vietnam, it was upgraded to the 5.56 later. And I've heard the rumor for using a small round was it would incapacitate like you said, but I'm pretty sure the real reason was it has less recoil which leads to faster and more accurate follow-up shots or short bursts, also the light weight round means a soldier can carry more ammo and have larger capacity magazines. My dad has told me the story when he was in boot camp during Vietnam, they trained on the M1 because all the new rifles were going to combat, not training. The drill sergeant demonstrated the M16 and showed the reduced recoil by putting the butt of the gun on his nuts and pulling the trigger. 
I agree with Tempo when he said people picture someone hunting with an AR15 with large magazines and probably full auto. Thats just not how people hunt.  Those who use an AR to hunt will hunt smaller game like hogs or coyotes, not large game. And definitely not unload 30 rounds into an elk or something. 
When I see people upset or mocking the use of an AR for hunting, I just assume they aren't familiar with what people hunt and how they hunt. 
I don't own an AR15 either, and don't hunt. But I know several people who do.  I see nothing inherently wrong with what makes the AR an AR. It's some of the optional features that are found on many guns that make it more deadly. Like large capacity magazines mostly. Otherwise its just another rifle with a black synthetic stock.  Some states define or ban guns based on irrelevant features, like a pistol grip for example. That doesn't make a rifle any more deadly, but it makes it look a little military, so it's banned in California.

The issue is large magazines and semi/full auto. Easy to shoot up a school. Not nesessary for hunting.

The hunting excuse is just that...an excuse to own a weapon that no one needs in real life.

If you have an AR with a small capacity magazine because that is all that is legal in your state, and use it to hunt small game, how is that any different than using grandpa's hunting rifle?
I've said before I think large capacity magazines should be banned. And if they are, you take away the one thing that really gives the AR a bad rep.

Gern Blansten

mace1229 said:

Gern Blansten said:

mace1229 said:

dudeman said:

mickeyrat said:

dudeman said:

PJ_Soul said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Tim Simmons said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Get_Right said:

josevolution said:

88% of Republicans support the NRA compared to 22% Democrats! 

Jose it has always been that way, but money is green. And people take it. I cannot blame them for that. But at some point anyone with brain knows we do not need AR-15s with large count magazines available for any mentally challenged douchebag that walks into a gun store.

 we the people should still be allowed to own AR-15's.

to do what with it?

Target practice. Hunting if your local laws allow it. They really are fun to plink with. Also if "ze Germans" ever start fussing about.

i've shot an ar-15 and can't imagine how anyone would hunt with it. unless they like their meat lookin like swiss cheese.

Hunting with an AR-15 seems totally disrespectful to me, you know? Like, why in the fuck would anyone do that unless their purpose is to just annihilate whatever they are hunting? The idea of hunting with that weapon seems ridiculous to me, no matter how well you think you use it. 

In the US, it depends on where you live and what you're hunting if you can use an AR. Also, a lot of states have limits on the number of rounds you can have in a gun to hunt with. Five rounds is the maximum here.

I think it would be unlikely for someone to dump like, 30 bullets into a deer or something, but that is the mental image that appears when someone says they "hunt with an AR".

Also, outside of pest or varmint control for farmers, it is illegal to use the rounds that most ARs fire to hunt with because, believe it or not, they are considered underpowered to humanely kill deer-sized game.

which is to say it causes undue suffering,  no?

I don't know if I would put it that way. The .223 Remington cartridge (which is the civilian chambering for the majority of non-military ARs) is a round commonly used for pest control. People have been using that round on wood chucks, prairie dogs, coyotes etc. for decades. It is a lightweight, fast moving round that makes it good for small animals. On larger animals, it causes wounds which will often become fatal, but not immediately. 

The military counterpart, the 5.56x45 mm (or 5.56 NATO) is a higher pressure round than the .223 Remington. I have read that it was initially chosen by world militaries because it had a tendency to wound or incapacitate rather than kill targets. That effectively took more people out of the battle since soldiers were occupied with taking care of their wounded rather than fighting back.

Those attributes don't make it particularly good for hunting anything other than varmints and small game.

FWIW, I am not a hunter, I don't own an AR and I don't plan on getting one. 

I know this comment is over a month old, just getting caught up on the last 2 pages.
I believe the M16 did originally use the .223 in Vietnam, it was upgraded to the 5.56 later. And I've heard the rumor for using a small round was it would incapacitate like you said, but I'm pretty sure the real reason was it has less recoil which leads to faster and more accurate follow-up shots or short bursts, also the light weight round means a soldier can carry more ammo and have larger capacity magazines. My dad has told me the story when he was in boot camp during Vietnam, they trained on the M1 because all the new rifles were going to combat, not training. The drill sergeant demonstrated the M16 and showed the reduced recoil by putting the butt of the gun on his nuts and pulling the trigger. 
I agree with Tempo when he said people picture someone hunting with an AR15 with large magazines and probably full auto. Thats just not how people hunt.  Those who use an AR to hunt will hunt smaller game like hogs or coyotes, not large game. And definitely not unload 30 rounds into an elk or something. 
When I see people upset or mocking the use of an AR for hunting, I just assume they aren't familiar with what people hunt and how they hunt. 
I don't own an AR15 either, and don't hunt. But I know several people who do.  I see nothing inherently wrong with what makes the AR an AR. It's some of the optional features that are found on many guns that make it more deadly. Like large capacity magazines mostly. Otherwise its just another rifle with a black synthetic stock.  Some states define or ban guns based on irrelevant features, like a pistol grip for example. That doesn't make a rifle any more deadly, but it makes it look a little military, so it's banned in California.

The issue is large magazines and semi/full auto. Easy to shoot up a school. Not nesessary for hunting.

The hunting excuse is just that...an excuse to own a weapon that no one needs in real life.

If you have an AR with a small capacity magazine because that is all that is legal in your state, and use it to hunt small game, how is that any different than using grandpa's hunting rifle?
I've said before I think large capacity magazines should be banned. And if they are, you take away the one thing that really gives the AR a bad rep.

I don't disagree there....I do support licensing and registration though. 

gimmesometruth27

the issue is ya'll aren't sad or triggered enough, apparently.

dudeman

Gern Blansten said:

mace1229 said:

Gern Blansten said:

mace1229 said:

dudeman said:

mickeyrat said:

dudeman said:

PJ_Soul said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Tim Simmons said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Get_Right said:

josevolution said:

88% of Republicans support the NRA compared to 22% Democrats! 

Jose it has always been that way, but money is green. And people take it. I cannot blame them for that. But at some point anyone with brain knows we do not need AR-15s with large count magazines available for any mentally challenged douchebag that walks into a gun store.

 we the people should still be allowed to own AR-15's.

to do what with it?

Target practice. Hunting if your local laws allow it. They really are fun to plink with. Also if "ze Germans" ever start fussing about.

i've shot an ar-15 and can't imagine how anyone would hunt with it. unless they like their meat lookin like swiss cheese.

Hunting with an AR-15 seems totally disrespectful to me, you know? Like, why in the fuck would anyone do that unless their purpose is to just annihilate whatever they are hunting? The idea of hunting with that weapon seems ridiculous to me, no matter how well you think you use it. 

In the US, it depends on where you live and what you're hunting if you can use an AR. Also, a lot of states have limits on the number of rounds you can have in a gun to hunt with. Five rounds is the maximum here.

I think it would be unlikely for someone to dump like, 30 bullets into a deer or something, but that is the mental image that appears when someone says they "hunt with an AR".

Also, outside of pest or varmint control for farmers, it is illegal to use the rounds that most ARs fire to hunt with because, believe it or not, they are considered underpowered to humanely kill deer-sized game.

which is to say it causes undue suffering,  no?

I don't know if I would put it that way. The .223 Remington cartridge (which is the civilian chambering for the majority of non-military ARs) is a round commonly used for pest control. People have been using that round on wood chucks, prairie dogs, coyotes etc. for decades. It is a lightweight, fast moving round that makes it good for small animals. On larger animals, it causes wounds which will often become fatal, but not immediately. 

The military counterpart, the 5.56x45 mm (or 5.56 NATO) is a higher pressure round than the .223 Remington. I have read that it was initially chosen by world militaries because it had a tendency to wound or incapacitate rather than kill targets. That effectively took more people out of the battle since soldiers were occupied with taking care of their wounded rather than fighting back.

Those attributes don't make it particularly good for hunting anything other than varmints and small game.

FWIW, I am not a hunter, I don't own an AR and I don't plan on getting one. 

I know this comment is over a month old, just getting caught up on the last 2 pages.
I believe the M16 did originally use the .223 in Vietnam, it was upgraded to the 5.56 later. And I've heard the rumor for using a small round was it would incapacitate like you said, but I'm pretty sure the real reason was it has less recoil which leads to faster and more accurate follow-up shots or short bursts, also the light weight round means a soldier can carry more ammo and have larger capacity magazines. My dad has told me the story when he was in boot camp during Vietnam, they trained on the M1 because all the new rifles were going to combat, not training. The drill sergeant demonstrated the M16 and showed the reduced recoil by putting the butt of the gun on his nuts and pulling the trigger. 
I agree with Tempo when he said people picture someone hunting with an AR15 with large magazines and probably full auto. Thats just not how people hunt.  Those who use an AR to hunt will hunt smaller game like hogs or coyotes, not large game. And definitely not unload 30 rounds into an elk or something. 
When I see people upset or mocking the use of an AR for hunting, I just assume they aren't familiar with what people hunt and how they hunt. 
I don't own an AR15 either, and don't hunt. But I know several people who do.  I see nothing inherently wrong with what makes the AR an AR. It's some of the optional features that are found on many guns that make it more deadly. Like large capacity magazines mostly. Otherwise its just another rifle with a black synthetic stock.  Some states define or ban guns based on irrelevant features, like a pistol grip for example. That doesn't make a rifle any more deadly, but it makes it look a little military, so it's banned in California.

The issue is large magazines and semi/full auto. Easy to shoot up a school. Not nesessary for hunting.

The hunting excuse is just that...an excuse to own a weapon that no one needs in real life.

If you have an AR with a small capacity magazine because that is all that is legal in your state, and use it to hunt small game, how is that any different than using grandpa's hunting rifle?
I've said before I think large capacity magazines should be banned. And if they are, you take away the one thing that really gives the AR a bad rep.

I don't disagree there....I do support licensing and registration though. 

I don't want to be argumentative but I see this come up a lot in these discussions. What do you think licensing and registration would accomplish?

mace1229

dudeman said:

Gern Blansten said:

mace1229 said:

Gern Blansten said:

mace1229 said:

dudeman said:

mickeyrat said:

dudeman said:

PJ_Soul said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Tim Simmons said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Get_Right said:

josevolution said:

88% of Republicans support the NRA compared to 22% Democrats! 

Jose it has always been that way, but money is green. And people take it. I cannot blame them for that. But at some point anyone with brain knows we do not need AR-15s with large count magazines available for any mentally challenged douchebag that walks into a gun store.

 we the people should still be allowed to own AR-15's.

to do what with it?

Target practice. Hunting if your local laws allow it. They really are fun to plink with. Also if "ze Germans" ever start fussing about.

i've shot an ar-15 and can't imagine how anyone would hunt with it. unless they like their meat lookin like swiss cheese.

Hunting with an AR-15 seems totally disrespectful to me, you know? Like, why in the fuck would anyone do that unless their purpose is to just annihilate whatever they are hunting? The idea of hunting with that weapon seems ridiculous to me, no matter how well you think you use it. 

In the US, it depends on where you live and what you're hunting if you can use an AR. Also, a lot of states have limits on the number of rounds you can have in a gun to hunt with. Five rounds is the maximum here.

I think it would be unlikely for someone to dump like, 30 bullets into a deer or something, but that is the mental image that appears when someone says they "hunt with an AR".

Also, outside of pest or varmint control for farmers, it is illegal to use the rounds that most ARs fire to hunt with because, believe it or not, they are considered underpowered to humanely kill deer-sized game.

which is to say it causes undue suffering,  no?

I don't know if I would put it that way. The .223 Remington cartridge (which is the civilian chambering for the majority of non-military ARs) is a round commonly used for pest control. People have been using that round on wood chucks, prairie dogs, coyotes etc. for decades. It is a lightweight, fast moving round that makes it good for small animals. On larger animals, it causes wounds which will often become fatal, but not immediately. 

The military counterpart, the 5.56x45 mm (or 5.56 NATO) is a higher pressure round than the .223 Remington. I have read that it was initially chosen by world militaries because it had a tendency to wound or incapacitate rather than kill targets. That effectively took more people out of the battle since soldiers were occupied with taking care of their wounded rather than fighting back.

Those attributes don't make it particularly good for hunting anything other than varmints and small game.

FWIW, I am not a hunter, I don't own an AR and I don't plan on getting one. 

I know this comment is over a month old, just getting caught up on the last 2 pages.
I believe the M16 did originally use the .223 in Vietnam, it was upgraded to the 5.56 later. And I've heard the rumor for using a small round was it would incapacitate like you said, but I'm pretty sure the real reason was it has less recoil which leads to faster and more accurate follow-up shots or short bursts, also the light weight round means a soldier can carry more ammo and have larger capacity magazines. My dad has told me the story when he was in boot camp during Vietnam, they trained on the M1 because all the new rifles were going to combat, not training. The drill sergeant demonstrated the M16 and showed the reduced recoil by putting the butt of the gun on his nuts and pulling the trigger. 
I agree with Tempo when he said people picture someone hunting with an AR15 with large magazines and probably full auto. Thats just not how people hunt.  Those who use an AR to hunt will hunt smaller game like hogs or coyotes, not large game. And definitely not unload 30 rounds into an elk or something. 
When I see people upset or mocking the use of an AR for hunting, I just assume they aren't familiar with what people hunt and how they hunt. 
I don't own an AR15 either, and don't hunt. But I know several people who do.  I see nothing inherently wrong with what makes the AR an AR. It's some of the optional features that are found on many guns that make it more deadly. Like large capacity magazines mostly. Otherwise its just another rifle with a black synthetic stock.  Some states define or ban guns based on irrelevant features, like a pistol grip for example. That doesn't make a rifle any more deadly, but it makes it look a little military, so it's banned in California.

The issue is large magazines and semi/full auto. Easy to shoot up a school. Not nesessary for hunting.

The hunting excuse is just that...an excuse to own a weapon that no one needs in real life.

If you have an AR with a small capacity magazine because that is all that is legal in your state, and use it to hunt small game, how is that any different than using grandpa's hunting rifle?
I've said before I think large capacity magazines should be banned. And if they are, you take away the one thing that really gives the AR a bad rep.

I don't disagree there....I do support licensing and registration though. 

I don't want to be argumentative but I see this come up a lot in these discussions. What do you think licensing and registration would accomplish?

If you commit a certain crime, or are charged with stalking or domestic violence, they know you have a gun and can act appropriately. If you commit a felony and lose your right to have a gun, it will be easier to confiscate your guns as opposed to having no idea if you own any or not. 

Gern Blansten

Yeah cops will know houses that have guns. I know there will be exceptions.

But licensing to me means training. We have to pass a driving test we should also have to pass gun responsibility tests.

Get_Right

The people doing harm are not getting guns from proper channels. They are getting them from the street. It is not complicated. Just make them illegal to sell, buy or own. From my cold dead hands yeah, not yours Charlton. But maybe a 9 year old kid.

mickeyrat

Get_Right said:

The people doing harm are not getting guns from proper channels. They are getting them from the street. It is not complicated. Just make them illegal to sell, buy or own. From my cold dead hands yeah, not yours Charlton. But maybe a 9 year old kid.

which leads to the question of where many of these guns come from? surely all are not straw purchases from otherwise legal transactions. look to close gun show/private sale with no accoubting or background checks and from thefts from hones and businesses.

registration means we can hold those folks accoubtable for a. not reasonably securing weapons and b. for not reporting thefts. 

Now folks will complain that they are victims in a crime. That IS true however if you dont know where your deadly weapons are and do not regularly check there securement/location as the owner , then you're an irresponsible fuck who needs jailed.

Prosecute parents of children who kill themselves or others. sane reason, you're an irresponsible fuck who needs jailed. 

PJ_Soul

Get_Right said:

The people doing harm are not getting guns from proper channels. They are getting them from the street. It is not complicated. Just make them illegal to sell, buy or own. From my cold dead hands yeah, not yours Charlton. But maybe a 9 year old kid.

Well this is often not the case. Plenty of crimes, including mass shootings and lot of murders, especially domestic violence ones, are carried out by people using guns that they legally purchased, or that their parents legally purchased. 

Halifax2TheMax

*The following opinion is mine and mine alone and does not represent the views of my family, friends, government and/or my past, present or future employer. US Department of State: 1-888-407-4747.

Still having the “responsible” gun owners debate? Jeebus.