I would eat an animal blown up into hundreds of pieces after getting shot with an assault rifle.

Presume that includes wild boars. Am not a hunter, so don't know if that's true.

The carcasses of those wild boars are hardly in a condition to eat--unless you like lead poisoning in your bits. "Hunting" ferral hogs is a testosterone-overload-driven, (usually) alcohol-fueled, killing spree--particularly favored by MAGATs. Their numbers can and should be controlled by more humane means, but where's the ugly fun in THAT?

In Texas feral hogs are a real problem for sure, but the management system, like so, so much in the Great State of Texas is a joke. There is zero regulation or limit, basically you can go slaughter as many as you want and leave them where you shot 'em, so yes a high powered, high magazine capacity killing machine is just the ticket for that kind of "hunting".

Deer you want to put in your freezer, not so much.

To help them sleep better at night, or just to obfuscate.

We all know that the AR-15 style weapon is popular with shooters because rightly or wrongly they think it's a great hunting weapon. Hunting for humans that is.

That’s such an idiotic statement. First of all our government is not going to go “tyrannical” on your dumb ass. It never has and never will. Second, for the sake of argument let’s say it DID decide to go after its own citizens. Do these military strategy geniuses really believe that they and the rabble they drink beer with are going to fend off a regiment of US Army soldiers with their AR-15s??? It’s just too absurd to think about.

Feral hogs run quick in packs through open areas looking for food - including rural yards and farmland - they're territorially short tempered; they've known to abruptly turn and attack people (especially kids), pets, and farm animals as they go through an area. The adults can get up to 500 lbs, so a pack can do a lot of potentially lethal damage.

Also the hide of a hog is tough; tougher than deer or cow hide. I don't know that the average AR 15 at distance can do much more damage to a feral hog than a BB gun will do to a large German Shepard.
It might hurt them enough to piss them off.
But I'm not sure there's enough caliber to kill outright before the boar or sow in charge of the pack turns and charges the shooter.
If I lived in a location with feral hogs - like my brother who lives in the rural outskirts of Texas Hill Country, I'd have a bolt action or standard Elk hunting rifle.

Haele

Last edited Thu Sep 5, 2024, 01:26 PM - Edit history (1)

That doesn't mean everyone should start planting them there.

There are some .30's that are good for hog. And don't ruin a lot of meat.

Speaking as a hunter, they are not a weapon used by hunters. Not accurate over long distance, tear up the game on entry and exit.
Everyone I know wants a single well placed shot with a long rifle such as a .308, 7mm or any other of the many choices.

Those who hunt with AR15s are the same ones you hear after dark shooting up the trees or whatever.
Every year I hear that noise from "hunters" camped 5 miles away. Sounds like a war zone.

existed. How did we survive?

I go in has AR15s prominently displayed and we have no feral pigs, so I don't know what they do with them in my area. SE Pa.

of feral house cats.

those pigs ran wild. (Sarcasm)

To control feral hogs, one has to shoot all of them. Rifles with higher-capacity magazines are ideal for the task.

Mind you, I don't think the ownership of such weapons should be easily gained. It should be bloody difficult to get one.

Rob Wittman, Republican, Virginia, First Congressional District.

Wittman has been in Congress 17 years and in that time he has introduced NOT ONE PIECE OF LEGISLATION except for an occasional naming a post office.

He votes 100% GOP party line.

In 2020 he joined the Texas suit against five other states to overturn the 2020 election and when that failed, he joined the rest of House Republicans in passing a resolution to reject the certified electoral votes from five states.

We never see him in the district unless it's six months before election, then, he is everywhere.

He voted against the Infrastructure Act, which poured millions into the district, however, when construction projects funded by the Act were underway, he showed up at construction sites, dressed in his squeaky clean hard hat and yellow vest, grinning like a mule eating briers, snap a few pics, and leave.

Problem is, he will continue to be re-elected because our district is reliably 65% MAGAt.

Yes, they can be used. No - AR-15’s are NOT a good caliber for ANY game species. AR-10’s are sufficient.

There are companies like Palmetto State Armory who have openly stated their goal is to put an AR in every American’s hands. They sell a good quality AR15 milspec carbine for less than $400. Composite 30-round magazines are $8. I know guys who have over 100 magazines loaded and ready in ammo boxes.

Spoke with them often. They really loved hunting. Hunting with semi-automatic rifles came up.

They HATED that!!! And hated anyone who would use an automatic rifle to hunt.

To increasing iron levels in your body.

And yes, i know you were being sarcastic.

I pose the same question.

Ever seen the remains of something shot by an AR-15? I have. Game animals are absolutely destroyed. I've seen a human at autopsy too... as bad as the worst roadkill one has ever seen.

To claim a mere "hunting rifle" is just about the most disingenuous thing I've ever heard.

Yes, .223mm rounds can kill and maim but nothing like what I hear being bandied about on this site. That’s an urban myth from the Vietnam era and doesn’t stand up to history scrutiny. The USAF selected the M16 to replace low power carbines and pistols, and they selected a round that was “just lethal enough”. Yes, it is lethal, but the damage done pales into significance to that done by the .30 caliber rifles it replaced, a caliber that is a very common deer round. This is why .223 round can’t be used to hunt large game in many states- it isn’t lethal enough.

I worked a summer for the county medical examiner in Denver. He has now (unfortunately) become the region's expert and did most of the autopsies post Columbine, Aurora theater shooting and others. So, I call BULLSHIT on your defense of the AR-15. It is the extensive damage that makes it unsuitable for hunting game prey, but that does not make it any less destructive.

And have a personal knowledge on the effects of different weapons. ALL weapons are designed to kill so they all do nasty things to a human body. That doesn’t change the fact that the a lot of what passes for facts on the AR on this site are not backed by history or physics.

Should they be more regulated? Absolutely

My issue with this fixation on the AR is that it distracts us from the greater killer in the US, which are pistols. Pistols were used in ~6,300 murders in 2019, while 340 were killed by rifles (of all types). If all ARs were magically removed it would have a minor effect on death rates because killers would just use handguns. Don’t forget that the deadliest school shooting in US history. (VA Tech) was carried out using handguns firing low velocity ammo.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8.xls

rifles were used--yet gun supporters just want to argue about whether it is more or less lethal than what they carried to war (most, not you, who have likely never been near a damned military base much less served), then something is waaay out of context and our priorities are badly skewed. It is damned well lethal ENOUGH!

My argument is that fixating on the AR means we are not dealing with the real problem, which is handguns.

For some reason, we view a single mass shooting of a half dozen people by a AR15 as a much worse tragedy than 200 people killed individually by handguns every weekend across the country. Their families and loved ones grieve just as much as the others.

By-by

I get so sick of seeing people try to justify these weapons.

I advocate for a "lethality specification" to be assigned to every weapon. In other words, create a scenario where you have an amateur shooter surrounded by numerous human targets. Which weapon will be most effective to him/her for killing the greatest number of human beings in the shortest amount of time? That weapon system no matter it's description or category should receive a high "lethality specification". And those weapons should be highly regulated.

But no one in this country will go there because by God we need to have our fucking guns. It's like we are still living on the frontier, in the backwoods.

First let me state I am a strong supporter of gun control and do not believe everyday people should be able to easily obtain an AR-15.

My response is about clarifying a couple points. I'm not a hunter, and my question is genuine. But I do have a little understanding of guns. Emphasis on "little", but more than a never-shooter. I was in the military and shot the military version of the AR-15 (M16). That was a long time ago, I don't recall if the M16 had an "automatic" mode - I am sure I only ever used semi-auto, which just means you can pop off several shots quickly, but is NOT a "machine gun" automatic mode where you hold the trigger and it keeps firing.

Regardless what the military version has - my understanding is that there is no full automatic weapon easily available to civilians in the U.S., and that the AR-15 (at least the kind that can be sold here) does not have a fully auto mode. So any reference to "automatic firing" is (hopefully) stating an inaccurate premise.

Next, as someone who had to do rifle qualification in the military and has basic cultural knowledge of hunting, I cannot imagine that any hunter who WANTED to hunt for food, would fire several shots in quick succession, which is what would "tear up the meat". One well-aimed shot is what a skilled hunter would intend, and if it is placed correctly the meat should be fine for consumption.

I guess I'm saying that might not be a good argument against the AR-15 as a hunting weapon. Sure, crap hunters will use it crappily, and the AR-15 makes that easier.

But, it should be sufficient that this is a highly dangerous weapon that too easily gets in the hands of people who will use it for bad ends, and that kids in schools, and other innocents, are getting shot by these weapons at a crazy rate. There are other tools to do the job, if the job is hunting for food. If the "job" is shooting for fun - how the F*CK does one person's "fun" outweigh the right to live?

Oh wait, the gun victims are already born and no longer have a "right to life". Sheesh, I keep forgetting.

length of barrel, and which is most lethal to kill humans and animals. It is damned ugly when we should be talking about saving human lives. ALL of these damned guns are LETHAL enough. These discussions meant to "teach the rest of us how much you know about the technicalities of various guns, magazines, guns stocks, bullets, or other" and thus how dumb the rest of us are, are beyond inappropriate. Take those ridiculous discussions to the gun forum. They are all lethal ENOUGH. Focusing on this immediately after yet another mass murder? Kindly some humanity, would you? Please.

it does not help to say things ostensibly in support of your argument, that don't make sense to even a relatively non-expert person who has merely been on the planet more than a couple decades. Such as the supposition that hunters fire AR-15s on automatic. No, not any "hunter" who is "hunting" in the legit meaning of the word. You just give the opponents of common sense a red herring to go after.

I don't think anyone's right to "hunt" OR to shoot for fun (especially that), outweighs the rights of others to LIVE.

So maybe just lead with that. Is all I'm saying.

I'm done. Uggh.

As far as I understand in my limited knowledge of hunting. I believe bear hunting, for example, needs a higher caliber rifle for humane / effective killing. You can still kill a bear with .223 bullets, but, less humanely and more of a chance of them either suffering or surviving.

.223 still has a lot of power, though. There’s probably calculations somewhere. 9mm, .223, or whatever, though, dead is dead.

which, quite rightly should carry with it the widespread blowback it deserves. (and karma)

wounds from the 5.56 can cause severe damage or simply a small hole. At close range any rifle wound will be massive. That is why the schoolings in schools are so awful, the range is mere feet.

I use the same round for varmint hunting, occasionally culling prairie dog towns on ranches. I have never seen one of them turn into a red mist, even at less than 50 yards.

You have no damned clue as to their role in maintaining a healthy ecosystem nor their historical role in keeping the western plains from turning into a dustbowl. Just another "varmint" to turn into red mist. What other animal species are worthless varmints to you? Uggh. Irredeemable.

When the towns get too large (due to humans eliminating their natural predators in the area) they overpopulate grazing lands. This results in the cattle breaking their legs because there are so many holes.

Many ranchers simply poison the towns en masse to solve their problem. Smarter ranchers however realize the impotence of the prairie dogs in keeping the grazing land healthy. The burrows aerate then land allowing healthier plant growth.

Their solution is to have people come in and survey the towns to get a population estimate and what size the population should be. That is done by environmental experts. Once is it determined how much the town should be reduced, the ranches will reach out to hunters who will ethically follow the guidelines and make sure then hunting does not endanger the cattle, people or other animals.

Further, the ones that are shot are left for two reasons. One is that plague has been found in prairie dogs. Seconds is the bodies attract the natural predators, hawks, badger, coyotes etc. to scavenge easy meals. Hopefully they stay in the area and then future hunts are unnecessary.

Maybe I have a little clue? {BTW I do not use an AR, nor even a semi auto. It just happens to use the same round}

I have never put anyone on ignore and will not do so now. Feel free to add me to your list.

prairie dog-hating (varmint shooting for enjoyment) friend, family member, or misguided and ill-informed farmer/rancher told you. The research shows the opposite. OF course, YOU will never be convinced. It is too amusing for you to kill them, apparently. Are your neighbor's dogs safe?

Do you think poisoning prairie dogs by the thousands is a better solution? Along with all the other animals that get exposed to the toxins?

I have researched. The best option is a naturally balanced ecosystem. Unfortunately, those are few and far between do to human mismanagement. Second best option is attempting to restore balance by monitored hunting and reintroduction of predators.

As for amusement, I haven't gone in since pre-covid. Last I heard the towns were naturally kept in balance through predator/prey relationships and moving the herds to avoid overgrazing.

What makes you think I would harm my neighbor's dogs? Or cats? Or chickens? I have a feeling you have made an assumption, closed your mind and will never be convinced.

Ironic.

In Colorado, we do everything possible to relocate, hormonally or surgically render them sterile. They were first relocated to allow for survival of the endangered (almost extinct) black-footed ferret--which has made amazing strides and requires the presence of prairie dogs to aid in their survival. I have been active for 10 years with this group so you can take your nasty assertions and just sit down to think about your joy of killing innocent animals. But, I am not part of your ugly excuses.

to do a lot of things in my life--including the immense amount of education I have had--not all in medicine.

So, no. I have had no problem finding areas to put my experience, education, and talents to work--both through work and my hobbies. Maybe you might think about doing likewise--something that does not include killing everything in sight.

No mirrors in your house apparently. Yeah, you do come off as Jed Clampett--I was wondering who you reminded me of. Thanks! At least you are self-aware enough to come up with that.

Bye now... "Well, doggie!" (Don't shoot it!)

Since it is clear you will never consider that which you assume true could be wrong I will wish you a happy National Cheese Pizza Day and be on my way

of folks laugh. So thanks on behalf of all of us! Happy National Cheese Pizza to you too!

7.62 mm (.30 caliber) - 3,500 joules of energy
5.56mm - ~ 1,800 joules

Bigger round means more striking energy.

Yes, 5.56 is lethal, but it’s not the death ray people make it out to be.

Just that it is no more lethal than other weapons that have been used in school shootings.

14 yr olds

I wish there were no need for such things as AR15s.

What’s that old saying? “if wishes were horses, then beggars would ride.”



Sigh…

We have plenty of people in this country who want to enjoy the "right" to have any weapon they choose, regardless of how many innocent people die due to the lack of regulation.

I know it's unpopular but I also believe that we are also a nation that loves violence. We have been desensitized for 50 years with scenes of death and blood and gore, we have it on every screen in the house. Hollywood and the gaming industry has made untold billions of dollars peddling this garbage to us.

Does not destroy game animals, unless we're talking about squirrels. It's an underpowered cartridge for deer and larger game where you generally need something more powerful like a .308.

They are not nearly as powerful as a standard deer rifle.



And no, that doesn't mean they are not a public safety threat. But we can at least be a little more factual.

as I have during the summer I spent working for Denver's medical examiner (the same one who autopsied the Columbine and Aurora theater shooting victims) then give me a holler. You don't know squat. I have seen it close upon and intimate--just as those poor children and adult humans experienced it.

Please put me on ignore. I want to hear no more of this bullshit from you.

And I've seen countless animals taken with all manner of rifles, including AR-15's.

The facts are still facts and the laws of physics are still in play. A .223 round will not destroy game animals like deer and is significantly less powerful than any traditional deer rifle.

We can all be upset about gun violence and we can all work to pass needed gun control without the need to distort the truth.

AR-15 have been the most used rifle the past 10 years for mass shootings--where rifles were used-- so they are clearly lethal ENOUGH and your obsession with arguing which gun "does a better job" is yet again, JUST OBSCENE!

I've made the factual statements that standard AR-15's are often used in hunting small game, that they are not powerful enough for most deer hunting applications and that they do not "destroy" game animals when used for that purpose.

I have also stated that they are a major threat to public safety.

You need to retract your slanderous statements against me. I have never once argued that they are appropriate for use against humans. That's sick and that you would suggest that I have made such claims is an outright lie.

But, apparently you don't like being called out on your obscene arguments. Tough. They ARE.

Of where I argued about the AR being "appropriate to use in mass human killings".

Or remove your slanderous post.

n/t

Probably not the only one.

Most semiauto rifle on the market equipped with a detachable magazine can shred a human.

Handguns kill far more people then do rifles

https://www.statista.com/statistics/195325/murder-victims-in-the-us-by-weapon-used/

Working for the Denver medical examiner, you must have seen many more victims who were killed by handguns then you did victims who were killed by a rifle .

Ruger (or other manufacturers) equivalents where rifles were used and thus THAT was the specific subject of this thread discussion. Nowhere have I suggested other guns are not likewise the problem with gun violence in this country--I have said quite the opposite if you read my posts. I was addressing the suggestion that AR-15s are not that lethal which is pure bullshit. Read the thread. Many of the so-called "experts" on this thread have made that claim--repeatedly.

along with being a semi auto .

An AR-15 chambered to fire shotgun shells and fitted with a 5 round magazine is nowhere as lethal, in mass shooting scenarios, then an AR-15 chambered to fire the .223 Remington and fitted with a 30 round magazine.

If one would ban the sale of high capacity magazines and mid powered cartridges such as the .223 Remington,the 5.56 mm and 7.63x39 to civilians, I think would have a greater impact on reducing mass shooting s.

What has been pointed out is that they are not as powerful as most hunting rifles and do not destroy game animals.

The AR-15 is capable of tremendous damage. The AR-15 is about 1/2 as powerful as a standard deer rifle. Both of these things can be and are in fact true.

You try to talk about the danger to human beings, others want to shift the discussion over to talking about firearm technicalities. Then comes the claim that your arguments are invalid because you are supposedly not sufficiently knowledgeable about firearm technicalities.

Notice that the apologists or the AR 15 don't talk about velocity. What makes the AR 15 so deadly is the speed of the bullet, not the caliber, as well as the rapid fire capability.

"Any bullet can kill, and instantly, when it hits a vital organ. The higher speed of a bullet from an AR-15 causes far more damage after it hits the body and drastically reduces a person’s chances of survival."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/interactive/2023/ar-15-damage-to-human-body/

A semi-automatic weapon like an AR-15-style one automatically reloads after each shot, and can hold around 30 bullets before the shooter needs to reload the gun. Besides its efficiency, what makes an AR-15-style rifle dangerous is that it has a higher muzzle velocity, meaning that a bullet travels nearly 3,000 feet per second. For comparison, a ​9-millimeter handgun's bullets travel at 1,200 feet per second.

Dr. Joseph Sakran, director of emergency general surgery at Johns Hopkins Hospital and a gun violence survivor, told Salon in an interview to think about the injuries sustained by an AR-15-style rifle as if there are two types of cavities created by the weapon.

"Depending upon the trajectory, if it goes through a named artery or a vital organ, you can imagine that trajectory of simply that bullet and that permanent cavity is going to cause life threatening damage," Sakran said. The second cavity he likened to when a big boat leaves behind a bumpy wake in a lake. ""You have bullets that are traveling at high speeds that result in a significant amount of energy distributed to the surrounding tissue, causing this temporary cavity that causes a significant blast injury that can be very, very deadly and cause significant injury."

https://www.salon.com/2022/07/12/ar-15-style-rifles-doctor-perspective/

The .223 round IS fast, but not a whole lot faster than a light bullet out of a .308. Or, about any bullet out of a .243. The over-100-year-old 6.5x55 can reach over 3,000 fps with a light bullet. Most modern hunting loads, non-magnum, usually run 2,700 fps or over. Magnums, generally 3,000 plus, easily. Bolt gun ammo, only? Nope. The G42 Swede was chambered in 6.5x55 in 1942. Semi automatic, magazine fed, 10 round capacity, loaded from 5 round stripper clips, direct gas impingement. Same gas system type as the AR.

Endless tech talk for the purpose of muddying the waters. Endless talk about the delivery end of the transaction (gun owners and their property) rather than the result (mutilated children).

Why?

Are you really going to nitpick that? OK, how about this? "Rarely talk about velocity." Or "very rarely talk about the effect of velocity on human tissue." Or, even more to the point "only talk about velocity in obscure and highly technical terms that could only be of interest to fellow gun hobbyists and that has no relevance to the social issue of gun violence."

But I asked you why. Why do you pursue this line of argument?

and if being "techie" about it bothers you, feel free to not read my posts. But, words DO mean things, and when someone talks in absolute, and they are incorrect, I feel it is necessary to correct that. Not everyone has experience with firearms, and the wrong education can give out wrong ideas. Since this IS a "discussion board", I really don't feel the need to provide my wants or needs to discuss a particular topic, that's my own personal decision. I have my reasons, you have yours. Have a nice day.

You are saying the people who are calling or an end to gun violence are spreading disinformation?

With your great knowledge help them stregthen their arguments - if you agree that there is a problem that needs to be addressed.

then, yes, they are spreading "disinformation". Incorrect information is incorrect information.

As far as " help them strengthen their arguments", that's kinda what I'm doing. An argument based on incorrect info, will fail in the end. By explaining technical differences, comparisons, etc., I'm hoping that they will see that a blanket ban on an ill-defined gun is foolhardy, and a proper definition is the only way to secure what they want. "Let's ban this thing" doesn't go over well, if the "thing" can be changed, or a close relationship with something else isn't covered. The 1994 ban is a good case study, in that it turned out to not be a ban at all, even though "ban" was in the name. A technicality, that could have been avoided, if the anti-gunners had had more knowledge of the subject, and weren't going on "feelings". In my personal opinion, a "gun ban" isn't really feasible, as we have the 2d Amendment (which isn't going to disappear anytime in the near future), the actual numbers of "assault weapons" and "high capacity" magazines that are out there, etc.. Useful energies could be directed elsewhere, to reduce overall deaths, including children's, which the lowly AR is but a fraction the cause of, but some people only see 1 thing in front of them, and blinders to all else.

What do you see as the problem and what would work to solve it?

You say "I'm hoping that they will see that a blanket ban on an ill-defined gun is foolhardy, and a proper definition is the only way to secure what they want. " Is it not what you also want?

Give us the proper definition so we can secure what we want. If I say "high velocity rapid fire" would that be an example of foolhardiness?

A society that sees death as inconsequential. Feelings of others as inconsequential. Over-use of drugs to "cure" mental problems, that only rebound to a higher level when the drugs are no longer taken. Criminals roaming the streets, being caught, over and over, and spending little to no time behind bars (know anyone high up like this??). The weapon is a tool, and banning one thing only leads to banning the next, as criminals will ALWAYS find a way.

You have a position on the issue. Guns are a neutral tool, misused by some. Whether or not a particular weapon is a more effective tool for killing or terrorizing people is not relevant. "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" sums it up, I think, yes? You are arguing that people don't understand the technical details related to firearms as a way to advance that position, not to inform them, but rather to ridicule and defeat them.

I see that you are also repeating the "soft on crime" argument against bail reform -
"criminals roaming the streets, being caught, over and over, and spending little to no time behind bars" and "drugs" and the "mental illness" explanations for gun violence. You are making the "good guys with a gun" argument, as well, and promoting the good guys versus bad guys supposition - "criminals will ALWAYS find a way" - as though "criminals" is some immutable and easily identified social category.

Your tech talk has nothing to do with your actual positions.You are making the same arguments that the Republicans make on this issue, so you shouldn't be surprised if you encounter opposition here. Make those arguments openly and honestly.

"I argue the point that someone shouldn't attempt to ban a particular item, without knowing the technical details that make that item, that item."

You don't think any guns should be blamed, do you? If you do, then what should be banned? If you don't think any guns should be banned, then the tech details are irrelevant.

I think people are saying that whatever it is that is easy to get and is being used to harm children should be taken off the street. That is the standard we use for food and toys.

"No one said bail reform, except you."

This is the Republican argument against bail reform: "criminals roaming the streets, being caught, over and over, and spending little to no time behind bars" You doubled down on that in this post.

I think that people are not refusing to acknowledge a technical detail, they are refusing to accept your premise that it is relevant to the topic, and are questioning whether or not you are arguing in good faith.

Two points you may want to consider. Crime is vastly exaggerated in popular media and by the press; the US has an absurdly high rate of incarceration.