Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[gondrin]

If that's your "gun of choice" for that purpose, you're an absolute fuckin' buffoon who knows shit-all about guns in the first place. It's about stroking off to your ammosexual fantasies, not using the appropriate tools for the task.

It's like bragging that your choice of kitchen knife is the 6' claymore you keep hung in the kitchen.

Pfft. 6' claymore. I use a zweihander to cut up my veggies in the kitchen. Gotta go all Gutz from the anime BERZERK!!! on them. /s

[PhaelixWW]

If that's your "gun of choice" for that purpose, you're an absolute fuckin' buffoon who knows shit-all about guns in the first place.

This is not true at all.

You trying to declare that others "know shit-all about guns" is also laughable.

[Endus]

This is not true at all.

You trying to declare that others "know shit-all about guns" is also laughable.

It's higher-caliber than needed for taking out a fox or raccoon, and you don't have any need for a rapid-fire semi-auto for that purpose either. Did you have any actual argument or did you just want to be seen contradicting me?

[Mayhem]

This is not true at all.

You trying to declare that others "know shit-all about guns" is also laughable.

not at all? so then you can link us to sites that recommend ar-15 for killing critters, right? I mean, if it's the gun of choice it surely is wildly recommended.

[Gabriel]

Funny. The same people that swear you need semiauto for killing foxes are the same people that think .22lr is fine for killing deer.

[PhaelixWW]

It's higher-caliber than needed for taking out a fox or raccoon

A "minimum caliber" is not the same thing as an "ideal caliber". The last thing you want when hunting varmints is for them to drag themselves off before dying. In the case of a racoon, that could easily be underneath your house, or else in some other area where the carcass will attract more serious predators. Go search out list of recommended varmint rounds and .223 will pretty much be on all of them, in part because it works for everything from smaller varmints to medium-sized predators, like foxes, coyote, and even feral pigs.

I'd consider a .17 WSM more ideal for a single shot at a racoon than a .223, but it's a much newer (and more rare) caliber, and the difference isn't going to be huge, compared to the more versatile .223. The real place the .17 WSM shines is in long-range accuracy, so it's more ideal for things like gophers, which you can't get terribly close to, compared to twilight foragers like raccoons and foxes, which you'll never see that far away to begin with.

Plus:

and you don't have any need for a rapid-fire semi-auto for that purpose either.

You don't need "rapid-fire" so much as you need "more rapid than bolt-action" because raccoons, especially, like to travel in groups. After the first shot, it's going to be very difficult to get a good shot off on a second raccoon with a bolt-action rifle. Bolt-action rifles also generally force you to lose your sight profile through your scope when you cycle a round, which can further extend the time to a second shot, especially in the low light conditions of twilight or dawn, the most common times of activity for both raccoons and foxes.

And going back to the .17 WSM, there aren't exactly a lot of semi-automatic choices yet, which make it less idea for groups of varmints. And it definitely makes a poor choice against larger predators, so ranchers wanting one cover-all caliber have a fairly easy choice with a semi-automatic .223. For decades, the Ruger ranch rifle has been a popular choice for this very reason. And since the mini-14 is fundamentally the same thing as an AR-15, but typically with a more classic wooden stock, the migration over to an AR-15 for this purpose was a natural one.

Did you have any actual argument or did you just want to be seen contradicting me?

You didn't really have an "actual argument" to begin with, so the rebuttal didn't really call for one.

- - - Updated - - -

Funny. The same people that swear you need semiauto for killing foxes are the same people that think .22lr is fine for killing deer.

I, for one, said neither of those things.

[Endus]

A "minimum caliber" is not the same thing as an "ideal caliber".

That's a convenient straw man, since I used neither term.

The last thing you want when hunting varmints is for them to drag themselves off before dying. In the case of a racoon, that could easily be underneath your house, or else in some other area where the carcass will attract more serious predators. Go search out list of recommended varmint rounds and .223 will pretty much be on all of them, in part because it works for everything from smaller varmints to medium-sized predators, like foxes, coyote, and even feral pigs.

I'd consider a .17 WSM more ideal for a single shot at a racoon than a .223, but it's a much newer (and more rare) caliber, and the difference isn't going to be huge, compared to the more versatile .223. The real place the .17 WSM shines is in long-range accuracy, so it's more ideal for things like gophers, which you can't get terribly close to, compared to twilight foragers like raccoons and foxes, which you'll never see that far away to begin with.

Fair enough, but .223 and .22LR aren't the same rounds. I said "high-caliber", but I should've said the .223 fires with far more force than needed. It's about ammo velocity and impact force, and the difference between the two rounds there is pretty significant. .22LR is the typical round used for game this size, and taking time to double-check finds me loads of sites that confirm this.

If you're trying to sell me that these two rounds are essentially interchangeable in terms of efficacy and target use;



I'm gonna ask where the hell you're coming from.

You don't need "rapid-fire" so much as you need "more rapid than bolt-action" because raccoons, especially, like to travel in groups. After the first shot, it's going to be very difficult to get a good shot off on a second raccoon with a bolt-action rifle. Bolt-action rifles also generally force you to lose your sight profile through your scope when you cycle a round, which can further extend the time to a second shot, especially in the low light conditions of twilight or dawn, the most common times of activity for both raccoons and foxes.

Flat disagree that you "need" it at all. If you've got that big a raccoon problem, a rifle's probably not the best solution in the first place. If you're trying to eliminate a local population, trapping's far more effective, and you can even live-trap them for release.

In Canada, you'd be restricted to a 5-round magazine anyway, so if there's more than 5, you're still gonna have to take time to reload. This isn't the huge necessity you're trying to make it out to be.

[PhaelixWW]

That's a convenient straw man, since I used neither term.

Not really a straw man, because you used the word "need". And I used "caliber" because the term you used first. But sure, it's more accurate to say that "the cartridge with the minimum power needed" to take out a raccoon or fox is not the same thing as "the cartridge that is ideally suited" to taking out raccoons and foxes.

Fair enough, but .223 and .22LR aren't the same rounds.

I never mentioned .22LR at all, speaking of straw men.

I mentioned .17 WSM which, despite being a smaller caliber, is the more powerful round.

.22LR rifles are common, as is the ammo, and the rifles are mostly semi-automatic, but the caliber lacks ideal take-down power for even intermediate-sized varmints. .17 WSM is a good choice power-wise, but it's more rare and there aren't many semi-automatic choices (though Franklin Armory makes an AR platform to be legal in California, as they're a California company). .223 rifles are common, have adequate take-down power to deal with varmints of almost all sizes including pigs and have plenty of semi-automatic choices. This has made the caliber a common choice, as I said, for decades.

Flat disagree that you "need" it at all. If you've got that big a raccoon problem, a rifle's probably not the best solution in the first place. If you're trying to eliminate a local population, trapping's far more effective, and you can even live-trap them for release.

And yet... it's not just raccoons, is it? The point about the AR being a common choice is that it works well for the whole range of possible varmints and small/medium predators.

I suppose I should have said "You don't need "rapid-fire" so much as it's significantly more ideal to have "more rapid than bolt-action", but that didn't roll off the tongue as easily.

In Canada, you'd be restricted to a 5-round magazine anyway, so if there's more than 5, you're still gonna have to take time to reload. This isn't the huge necessity you're trying to make it out to be.

Just because it's semi-automatic doesn't mean that you somehow are forced to fire more than 5 rounds. You likely wouldn't need more than 5 rounds for a group of raccoons. This isn't like laying down indiscriminate covering fire. Semi-automatics reduce the time for consecutive aimed shots.

Just like you wouldn't somehow automatically spray off rounds if you used a semi-automatic rifle of higher-caliber for large game hunting; you'd still likely take no more than 1-3 shots at a time, but those potential second and third shots would be much more timely, while still being aimed accurately.

[Svifnymr]

AR15 varmint rifles were quite common, not sure of the current market. Main advantage of 223 over 22lr is distance and versatility. They were used for groundhogs at a few hundred yards (so you don't need to get close), but could also be used for coyote and other pests around the farm. Main thing with rodent control is that you're not worried about destroying the meat, you're not going to eat the raccoon or groundhog or what have you. Varminters were also generally heavy barrel, which helped a lot with scoped shooting and followup shots. Most of the 223 rounds were the light 40 and 45 gr stuff.

Of course, that gets into the discussion of "need". Demonstrate that a 22lr isn't good enough and a bolt action won't do what you need, or you don't deserve to have the tool you want. Always a wonderful attitude to have when dealing with your subjects. Always best to judge the 3million users by the actions of the dozen.

[Spectral]

not at all? so then you can link us to sites that recommend ar-15 for killing critters, right? I mean, if it's the gun of choice it surely is wildly recommended.

They're a common choice. Here's a guide on setting up AR platform rifles for hunting from RealTree. There are plenty of them, because it actually is a common and normal choice. The modular nature is particularly helpful in swapping to smaller calibers if appropriate for a given application.

The people insisting that these aren't a good choice for dealing with varmints are doing the thing where they demonstrate that they really don't have any business having an opinion on firearms regulation.

[Biglog]

The main purpose by far for 22LR for most gun owners I know is shooting practice because 22LR is much cheaper per rd. 22LR is about 1/4 the cost of .223. So it's a good way to practice without spending $100+ on ammo every trip to the range. which a lot of gun owners do fairly often to stay sharp. Most law enforcement require practice at a range at least once every 2 weeks, which is a guideline a lot of gun owners follow to maintain their skills. 22LR isn't going to be a first choice for home defense, so usually it's a 2nd or 3rd gun just for cheaper shooting during practice. That's where the market for the 22LR AR-15s is.

And 22LR is more than sufficient for any sort of varmint hunting. Shooting .223 at every raccoon or possum that comes in your yard would be very excessive for varmints, dangerous af, and is illegal even in some rural areas. Some regulations limit that at 22LR or pellet on varmints for those reasons. But .223 would be a more appropriate choice for someone living in an very rural place like Montana where you're 50 miles from another human and they deal with much larger predators than varmints like wolves and bears.

[Edge-]

Reminder, many Republicans love guns more than they care about kids being shot in schools.



https://twitter.com/FaceTheNation/st...60327924387840

Man, a lot of Republicans sure are perfectly fine with people, including kids, dying unnecessarily all the time so they can have their security blankets. Just as long as it's someone else's kids or family that's getting killed.

[Rasulis]

A "minimum caliber" is not the same thing as an "ideal caliber". The last thing you want when hunting varmints is for them to drag themselves off before dying. In the case of a racoon, that could easily be underneath your house, or else in some other area where the carcass will attract more serious predators. Go search out list of recommended varmint rounds and .223 will pretty much be on all of them, in part because it works for everything from smaller varmints to medium-sized predators, like foxes, coyote, and even feral pigs.

I'd consider a .17 WSM more ideal for a single shot at a racoon than a .223, but it's a much newer (and more rare) caliber, and the difference isn't going to be huge, compared to the more versatile .223. The real place the .17 WSM shines is in long-range accuracy, so it's more ideal for things like gophers, which you can't get terribly close to, compared to twilight foragers like raccoons and foxes, which you'll never see that far away to begin with.

Plus:

You don't need "rapid-fire" so much as you need "more rapid than bolt-action" because raccoons, especially, like to travel in groups. After the first shot, it's going to be very difficult to get a good shot off on a second raccoon with a bolt-action rifle. Bolt-action rifles also generally force you to lose your sight profile through your scope when you cycle a round, which can further extend the time to a second shot, especially in the low light conditions of twilight or dawn, the most common times of activity for both raccoons and foxes.

And going back to the .17 WSM, there aren't exactly a lot of semi-automatic choices yet, which make it less idea for groups of varmints. And it definitely makes a poor choice against larger predators, so ranchers wanting one cover-all caliber have a fairly easy choice with a semi-automatic .223. For decades, the Ruger ranch rifle has been a popular choice for this very reason. And since the mini-14 is fundamentally the same thing as an AR-15, but typically with a more classic wooden stock, the migration over to an AR-15 for this purpose was a natural one.



You didn't really have an "actual argument" to begin with, so the rebuttal didn't really call for one.

- - - Updated - - -


I, for one, said neither of those things.

Some people shoot racoons. Some people, for lack of a better word, recruit racoons.

[Draco-Onis]

Reminder, many Republicans love guns more than they care about kids being shot in schools.



https://twitter.com/FaceTheNation/st...60327924387840

Holy shit how many dead soul monsters are out there thinking "mass shootings are something we have to accept", they must think they are invulnerable to bullets.

[Svifnymr]

I really hope you guys are just being sarcastic and don't believe "we don't think mass shootings can be totally prevented" means "we're fine with kids dying", but odds are slim. You have no perception of what those that disagree with you think, so just easier to dismiss them out of hand as monsters.

It's really quite delusional, but I guess it does help divide folks even more.

As I've said before, if you want to reduce crime, it'd probably be easier to just do away with the 4th, 5th, 6th, those kind of things. Just get rid of rights entirely and stop pretending.

[Svifnymr]

That’s exactly what it means from these people. They think we have to accept school shootings as part of life so we can keep having assault rifles. The fact that you don’t understand that is a you thing. They’ve made it abundantly clear.

You have no concept of the discussion then, just continue on the path of ignoring what is actually being discussed in favor of dismissing others out of hand. It's always worked well and surely this time will just be another victory for Your Truth.

[Endus]

I really hope you guys are just being sarcastic and don't believe "we don't think mass shootings can be totally prevented" means "we're fine with kids dying", but odds are slim. You have no perception of what those that disagree with you think, so just easier to dismiss them out of hand as monsters.

Let's presume for a hot second that the anti-gun-control's side's position actually were "we don't think mass shootings can be largely prevented". Now, look at literally any other developed nation on the planet, which has vastly fewer mass shootings per capita than the USA. So, clearly, objectively, there can be far fewer mass shootings. So if someone were to actually believe that statement, they're an ignorant idiot who's completely lost touch with reality due to incessant propagandizing.

Are there idiots out there like that? Sure. But they're not the ones propagandizing.

Once you go to that level, those people do know it's possible to vastly reduce mass shootings, and they do not want to. They want mass shootings to continue at this rate, they want these body counts to continue. Why? There's a lot of potential reasons, but they're all evil as fuck, and I don't think it really matters. The least evil is that mass shootings tend to cause a bump in gun sales so mass shootings are good for business, and more dead kids selling more guns means more NRA/gun lobby money in their pockets.

See, the problem is your use of the word "monster". It implies something inhuman. This kind of evil is absolutely human. It's the same evil that saw a nation support the industrialized extermination of Jewish people. It's the same evil that led to unmarried women on the fringe of society being burned at the stake in Salem. It's the same evil that leads to Taliban extremists in Afghanistan trying to shoot a young girl in the head for wanting an education. This evil is always present, it's not some kind of fantastical external force of evil.

- - - Updated - - -

You have no concept of the discussion then, just continue on the path of ignoring what is actually being discussed in favor of dismissing others out of hand. It's always worked well and surely this time will just be another victory for Your Truth.

I know this wasn't directed at me, but I'll just note that Canada's taken action in the past to reduce access to guns, and just put another bill forward to further restrict mass-shooter weapons and handguns. And it has worked well, and our vastly lower gun violence and particularly mass shooter rates are proof positive of that.

Sure doesn't seem like I'm the one who has no concept of how things work.

[Linkedblade]

AR15 varmint rifles were quite common, not sure of the current market. Main advantage of 223 over 22lr is distance and versatility. They were used for groundhogs at a few hundred yards (so you don't need to get close), but could also be used for coyote and other pests around the farm. Main thing with rodent control is that you're not worried about destroying the meat, you're not going to eat the raccoon or groundhog or what have you. Varminters were also generally heavy barrel, which helped a lot with scoped shooting and followup shots. Most of the 223 rounds were the light 40 and 45 gr stuff.

Of course, that gets into the discussion of "need". Demonstrate that a 22lr isn't good enough and a bolt action won't do what you need, or you don't deserve to have the tool you want. Always a wonderful attitude to have when dealing with your subjects. Always best to judge the 3million users by the actions of the dozen.

Seems more people are interested in .300 blackout or 6.5 creedmoor.

- - - Updated - - -

Reminder, many Republicans love guns more than they care about kids being shot in schools.



https://twitter.com/FaceTheNation/st...60327924387840

Conflating "school shooting" with "mass shootings," that's a bit disingenuous.

- - - Updated - - -

I know this wasn't directed at me, but I'll just note that Canada's taken action in the past to reduce access to guns, and just put another bill forward to further restrict mass-shooter weapons and handguns. And it has worked well, and our vastly lower gun violence and particularly mass shooter rates are proof positive of that.

Sure doesn't seem like I'm the one who has no concept of how things work.

Canada lacks the demographic that causes the most gun violence in the US. Canada also has a tenth the population and more land area, leading to less urbanization and the problems hence.

- - - Updated - - -

<snip>

It's strange to say AR(-15) in this case. You're conflating a variety of calibers and platforms. Not exactly sure what determines unnecessary for varmint. Pesticide is pesticide. If you want to spend $1000s on traps or $100s on ammo, that's entirely your prerogative.

I think it's hilarious we're having this conversation about what is appropriate for varmint. The fact that we intentionally use 5.56 is because it's not the most lethal round. We use it because it balanced carried weight and the ability to penetrate that era of body armor, while also not completely maiming enemy forces. Less dead = more humane for humans. Fast dead = more humane for game. And overkill is fine for varmint.

[Endus]

Canada lacks the demographic that causes the most gun violence in the US. Canada also has a tenth the population and more land area, leading to less urbanization and the problems hence.

Canada's rural population is 17.8% of the total. The USA's is 14%. That's not a significant gap.

As for the "demographic", that just seems like you're playing coy to avoid admitting to pretty fuckin' egregious levels of outright bigotry.

[Linkedblade]

Canada's rural population is 17.8% of the total. The USA's is 14%. That's not a significant gap.

As for the "demographic", that just seems like you're playing coy to avoid admitting to pretty fuckin' egregious levels of outright bigotry.

It's proportional, but Canada has 10x the amount of space.

Not really the demographic is gang members, and that's a pretty diverse group both in the US and Canada. Sorry if I seem bigoted against criminals. Canada has members in the thousands and the US has well over a million, which is orders of magnitude more even after taken proportionally.

- - - Updated - - -

The main purpose by far for 22LR for most gun owners I know is shooting practice because 22LR is much cheaper per rd. 22LR is about 1/4 the cost of .223. So it's a good way to practice without spending $100+ on ammo every trip to the range. which a lot of gun owners do fairly often to stay sharp. Most law enforcement require practice at a range at least once every 2 weeks, which is a guideline a lot of gun owners follow to maintain their skills. 22LR isn't going to be a first choice for home defense, so usually it's a 2nd or 3rd gun just for cheaper shooting during practice. That's where the market for the 22LR AR-15s is.

And 22LR is more than sufficient for any sort of varmint hunting. Shooting .223 at every raccoon or possum that comes in your yard would be very excessive for varmints, dangerous af, and is illegal even in some rural areas. Some regulations limit that at 22LR or pellet on varmints for those reasons. But .223 would be a more appropriate choice for someone living in an very rural place like Montana where you're 50 miles from another human and they deal with much larger predators than varmints like wolves and bears.

Ar's chambered in .22lr are kinda junk. Maybe if you get a gun designed intentionally for .22lr like a 15/22 or 10/22 then those aren't nearly as bad. The difference being the ar you would swap out the bolt carrier and magazine, but both those parts are crap.

I don't see any problem using .223 for varmints. See the Ruger no 1. It's not like the cartridge is any more or less dangerous coming out of an M4.