Beaker wrote:
So let yours answer the question.

 rgio wrote:

LOL !  I've had conversations with smarter chatbots.  

 Beaker wrote:
Since these weapons are so similar, please explain to me the differences between bolt action and semi-automatic (ie AR-15), and be sure to include the fire rate.

 ScottFromWyoming wrote:
Yup.  That and an ignorant media, or worse, a biased agenda-driven media, are only fanning the flames.

 Beaker wrote:
Unfairly genericized is what's going on. All vaguely military-esque rifles are being referred to as AR-15s by people who don't really give a shit about the nomenclature, and this is used as a counterargument for no reason I can ascertain.  If someone says "do you have a Kleenex?" and you only have Scotties Soothing Aloe Facial Tissue, do you answer Yes or No?

Social media can be lumped with other familiar bugbears (video games!) in that they are omnipresent in other countries as well.

 Proclivities wrote:
That is an article from 2022 noting the trend. The story I cited is in today’s Washington Post and it examines how the firearms industry began manufacturing and marketing  the AR-15s for consumers, and how the weapon has come to have political and cultural significance.

Thanks.

 ScottFromWyoming wrote:
Good point.  If only AR-15's were the only consumer self-defense weapon capable of doing that - fire as fast as you can pull a trigger.

https://www.pewpewtactical.com...

AR-15s are being unfairly maligned, IMO.


Another good read from that Quora thread:
https://www.quora.com/Is-it-tr...

 Beaker wrote:

Variables though: The AR-15 can fire as fast as you can pull the trigger.  Just my speculation but to me that says a rank novice could get off 5–10x as many rounds with an AR-15 as an experienced shooter with a bolt action.

 kurtster wrote:

No, I am not suggesting social media has no impact.

Yes, as the Washington Post story states, overall gun sales had leveled off in the prior years. That is when the firearm industry discovered there was a consumer market for tactical weapons. It engaged in a marketing campaign that has resulted in the exponential rise of sales of AR-15s.  According to the story, one in 20 US adults, roughly 16 million, own at least one AR-15; the industry estimates there are at least 20 million AR-15s in the US;  more than 13.7 million of those 20 million were manufactured since 2012, with sales of those accounting for roughly $11 billion in revenue.

 rgio wrote:

I'm not a gun owner, but I'm not totally ignorant of the facts around how guns & rifles operate.  That story is propaganda.  And it's been going around since at least 2016.  

It took me less than a minute of Googling to find someone saying what I already suspected to be true.  I'm sure our resident gun experts could chime in and confirm, if they felt so inclined.

"Rifles can cause massive tissue damage and that is determined by the caliber, velocity and bullet type ( full metal jacket, hollow-point, soft-point , frangible, armor piercing ). Not the type of rifle , such as a bolt action rifle in .223 will do exactly the same damage as an AR15 in .223 using the same cartridge with the same barrel length .

This question is typical of an anti gun person with limited knowledge of firearms and ballistics ."

https://www.quora.com/Is-it-tr...

 rgio wrote:
That's tyranny right there!

There is a Washington Post story today Entitled  "The Blast Effect:  This is how bullets from anAR-15 blow the body apart"

It's one of those scrolling graphic stories, that is honestly difficult to read...it's a bit unnerving knowing what might come next.  I'm not sure if the paywall is up for this story.  If you can, reading it there is best.  Be sure to get to the end.

If not...the words are on archive... but the images fail.

You can't own a bazooka, a rocket launcher, or a tank...but you can buy as many of these as you like without delay, training, or oversight.

We have completely lost our way.

 kurtster wrote:
This may be the article Steeler was talking about, but I don't think he was suggesting that social media has no impact on the increase.

 steeler wrote: 
Are you suggesting that social media has had no impact in the increase of mass shooting events ?

I was talking about all gun sales, btw.  Sure there was an increase over the period, but not anything in the same order as in the growth of social media in the same time frame.

Couldn't find your article, but I did find this ...

Gun companies reckon with declining demand after pandemic surge

 Red_Dragon wrote:
It's not fake...it's because social media told them to.

Obama was the best thing to happen to gun sales in the US since Vietnam... When the black President says he wants "common sense" gun laws, what that really means is that he is going to take your guns... the ones you're gonna need to protect yourself from the immigrants and government that wants to strip you of all rights.  You know...the socialists.
 

 steeler wrote:

Gotta be fake news.

 kurtster wrote:

There is a very interesting article today in the Washington Post examining the exponential rise in sales and prominence  of the AR-15 — the rise beginning in 2005. 

a sweet savour unto the lord

 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote: 
Thanks.  Regarding your thought of a fix, I would rather see term limits imposed on Congress.  10 years in the House and 12 years in the Senate.  The person may serve in both for a total of 22 years.

This alone will break up the concentration of power.  The parties will survive but the dynasties within the parties will end and with that the iron grip they hold on their respective party that stifles change and reinforces and rewards for towing the position required by these dynastic groups.  It would go a long way to help restore trust in the legislative body.  That people with bad ideas will only be around for so long as opposed to forever.

A current example of these dynastic forces at work is over Tik Tok.  Not sure if you have followed all the brouhaha over here about it.  In this instance all the dynasties on both sides have joined forces to take advantage of the situation to come up with a law to deal with it that makes the Patriot Act look harmless.  They have inserted all kinds of things that transfers power and authority over to the bureaucracy including making up their own rules and definitions of what they are able to do.  The premises for investigating individuals for suspect activities are vague and dubious, primed for political abuses of power.  More freedoms are lost in the pursuit of "security" and "safety" with no redress.

This ties into the way guns and gun laws are in play over here.  There is very little trust in those who have the power and ability to come up with a reasonable solution.  And here we are.

And to one of Beaker's  points, the Mother Jones article added another dimension to this conversation that is being ignored here, at least in this thread, is the role of social media in these mass shootings.   I do not as a rule like MJ but this is a well thought out article.

The media faces a growing challenge in how its content is spread and recycled. When I asked various law enforcement and forensic psychology experts what might explain America’s rising tide of gun rampages, I heard the same two words over and over: social media. Although there is no definitive research yet, widespread anecdotal evidence suggests that the speed at which social media bombards us with memes and images exacerbates the copycat effect.

The map that was posted below regarding the assault rifles ban looks different when you apply the above premise.  The ban took effect in 1994 and lasted until 2004.  Incidents still increased during the ban, showing little effect.  Using the premise above regarding social media, the use of which grew exponentially since 2004, a much more meaningful correlation is applied.  Guns as far as I know did not increase exponentially in the same time period.  Who is in control of the social media in general ?  It's a rhetorical question.  It sure isn't the right.

.
 islander wrote: