• Man shoots random shots at Texas airport, then shoots self when confronted by security.
    94 replies, posted
So would this be a prime example of an hero?
I think it would.
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;40507747]Hell, the Lee-Enfield is well over 100 years old, and still in active use by the Canadian Military, as well as police forces in Jamaica and Bangladesh, and that's not including the rebels and/or terrorists in the middle-east who still use them. The AR-15 is also over 50 years old.[/QUOTE] Again, completely missing the point. And again, [I][B]we fucking get it[/B][/I], you like guns, you talk about it constantly, you have an obsession with it which causes paranoid delusions about your government and the media. Stop illustrating how much irrelevant bullshit you know about guns. The point isn't that technically most guns were used in some form at some time in the military so they are military styled. Nobody is saying that this isn't technically wrong. It's just that saying "military style" is a good way to communicate what a gun looks like in 2013. Most people who read that article thought of a gun that looks like an AR-15, which is good because it was an AR-15, which looks like a military weapon. Outside of your specific bubble it's an entirely reasonable comparison.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;40507818]Again, completely missing the point. And again, [I][B]we fucking get it[/B][/I], you like guns, you talk about it constantly, you have an obsession with it which causes paranoid delusions about your government and the media. Stop illustrating how much irrelevant bullshit you know about guns. The point isn't that technically most guns were used in some form at some time in the military so they are military styled. Nobody is saying that this isn't technically wrong. It's just that saying "military style" is a good way to communicate what a gun looks like in 2013. Most people who read that article thought of a gun that looks like an AR-15, which is good because it was an AR-15, which looks like a military weapon. Outside of your specific bubble it's an entirely reasonable comparison.[/QUOTE] You still haven't said what military styled is.
I have. I'd recommend you go back and read the thread. I even included pictures.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;40507818]Again, completely missing the point. And again, [I][B]we fucking get it[/B][/I], you like guns, you talk about it constantly, you have an obsession with it which causes paranoid delusions about your government and the media. Stop illustrating how much irrelevant bullshit you know about guns. [/quote] Considering there's 2 parties running here on gun control, one of which is actively campaigning to prohibit and confiscate [I]all[/I] semi-automatic rifles, shotguns, and all handguns, it's neither paranoid nor delusional for me to show concern about how the media portrays firearms to the general, voting public when it's something I'm invested in. [quote]The point isn't that technically most guns were used in some form at some time in the military so they are military styled. Nobody is saying that this isn't technically wrong. It's just that saying "military style" is a good way to communicate what a gun looks like in 2013. Most people who read that article thought of a gun that looks like an AR-15, which is good because it was an AR-15, which looks like a military weapon. Outside of your specific bubble it's an entirely reasonable comparison.[/QUOTE] Except it's still not necessarily a valid statement, as it can be, and has been, used to describe guns that have actually never been accepted into military service in any variation/capacity, but just look aesthetically similar to something that [i]might[/i] be used by a military. No matter which way it's used it's still overly broad, either covering guns that aren't used by the military but look like they are, or covering guns that are/were used by the military but look like they aren't.
How is CNN calling a gun that looks like a military weapon and is semi-automatic a "military-style semi-automatic rifle" portraying firearms in a bad light? [editline]2nd May 2013[/editline] Also the general voting public would already consider an AR-15 military style so you have already lost that fight sorry. The article doesn't call it military styled to scare people into wanting to ban AR-15's, it says it because in general most people think's it is styled like a military rifle These perceptions aren't exactly helped by the fact that companies like Bushmaster, Barret, and Colt advertise their AR-15 derivitives being handled by dudes in military fatigues and helmets.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;40508001]How is CNN calling a gun that looks like a military weapon and is semi-automatic a "military-style semi-automatic rifle" portraying firearms in a bad light.[/quote] Because the implication is that only the military should have/need a gun that looks like that. [quote]Also the general voting public would already consider an AR-15 military style so you have already lost that fight sorry.[/QUOTE] There are many in the general voting public who consider the AR-15 nothing more than a hunting/sporting rifle, and many more who see nothing wrong with civilian ownership of "military-style" firearms. And the "fight" around public opinion on these issues is never over.
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;40508073]Because the implication is that only the military should have/need a gun that looks like that.[/QUOTE] There is no implication. It looks like something the military uses. So it is military styled. This is a very simple concept. [QUOTE]There are many in the general voting public who consider the AR-15 nothing more than a hunting/sporting rifle, and many more who see nothing wrong with civilian ownership of "military-style" firearms. And the "fight" around public opinion on these issues is never over. [/QUOTE] Nobody is saying that the AR-15 can't be used for hunting or sporting, and I have no problem with civilians owning military-style firearms because I understand that the aesthetic qualities of a gun have nothing to do with it's purpose. That said, I see absolutely no problem with calling a gun that looks like a piece of military equipment, especially one that is advertised and pushed as a civilian analogue to said military equipment, as military styled. It's an entirely valid visual description.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;40507963]I have. I'd recommend you go back and read the thread. I even included pictures.[/QUOTE] Yes, of a tricked out rifle and a bolt action rifle, both kinds are used in even the US military still. [B]If you can't tell, I'm saying that both can be called military style.[/B] [QUOTE=Raidyr;40508001]How is CNN calling a gun that looks like a military weapon and is semi-automatic a "military-style semi-automatic rifle" portraying firearms in a bad light? [editline]2nd May 2013[/editline] Also the general voting public would already consider an AR-15 military style so you have already lost that fight sorry. The article doesn't call it military styled to scare people into wanting to ban AR-15's, it says it because in general most people think's it is styled like a military rifle These perceptions aren't exactly helped by the fact that companies like Bushmaster, Barret, and Colt advertise their AR-15 derivitives being handled by dudes in military fatigues and helmets.[/QUOTE] Never said it wasn't military style, did I? I was saying that every gun by definition is military style. AR was designed as a military weapon, the original weapon which became the m16, was called the AR15, and before that the Ar10 in 7.62X 51 nato. It is just an example. Just like the Colt 1911, SAA, the nagant(s), the ak, the mauser and, a massive number of other guns, common for civilian use, formerly military, or in come cases still is in use by both.
[QUOTE=deadoon;40508160]Yes, of a tricked out rifle and a bolt action rifle, both kinds are used in even the US military still. [B]If you can't tell, I'm saying that both can be called military style.[/B][/QUOTE] Nobody will call the bottom one military style except pedantic gun nerds. The general populace would call the top one military style because it looks like guns the military uses.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;40508234]Nobody will call the bottom one military style except pedantic gun nerds. The general populace would call the top one military style because it [B]looks like guns the military uses.[/B][/QUOTE] You really don't think very much about what you say...
[QUOTE=deadoon;40508257]You really don't think very much about what you say...[/QUOTE] What an entirely useful reply. What, did you run out of meaningless gun trivia to school us with?
[QUOTE=Raidyr;40508273]What an entirely useful reply. What, did you run out of meaningless gun trivia to school us with?[/QUOTE] M24 , already discussed, and for that matter the Lee enfield, which has been brought to my attention as still in use by the Canadian forces. Both bolt action rifles used by militaries that the rifle you posted could easily be mistaken for.
[QUOTE=deadoon;40508309]M24 , already discussed, and for that matter the Lee enfield, which has been brought to my attention as still in use by the Canadian forces. Both bolt action rifles used by militaries that the rifle you posted could easily be mistaken for.[/QUOTE] This story wasn't about M24's or Lee Enfields though it was about an AR-15.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;40508144]There is no implication. It looks like something the military uses. So it is military styled. This is a very simple concept. [/QUOTE] At this point arguing about the implications is pointless, because different people will see such implications, or lack thereof, in a different way. [QUOTE=deadoon;40508160]Yes, of a tricked out rifle and a bolt action rifle, both kinds are used in even the US military still. [B]If you can't tell, I'm saying that both can be called military style.[/B] [/QUOTE] Dude, the Olympic target gun isn't "military-styled" in the slightest. It doesn't look like a military gun, it's not derived from a military gun, it's never been used in military service in any capacity, and it's not even chambered in a military round. Modern Olympic guns, they're the exception. You also realize he's technically conceded the point you've re-made too, right? And you've also conceded his.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;40508356]This story wasn't about M24's or Lee Enfields though it was about an AR-15.[/QUOTE] The argument is that every gun is military styled, the thread got derailed by you making the false claim that many guns are not. [QUOTE=DaCommie1;40508407]At this point arguing about the implications is pointless, because different people will see such implications, or lack thereof, in a different way. Dude, the Olympic target gun isn't "military-styled" in the slightest. It doesn't look like a military gun, it's not derived from a military gun, it's never been used in military service in any capacity, and it's not even chambered in a military round. Modern Olympic guns, they're the exception. You also realize he's technically conceded the point you've re-made too, right? And you've also conceded his.[/QUOTE] The only guns he posted are at the top of this page, the other guns were by someone else. The latter part is mostly due to he still claims that a bolt action rifle is not military styled, despite that being the whole reason for it's existence.
I wouldn't necessarily call it conceded but yes, in a very technical, very specific fashion I could see all guns being called military style because at some point they were used in the military, or are used in a very narrow field currently. That said, the way "military-style" was used in the article is entirely a visual descriptor made by people at the scene of an AR-15, which looks a lot like a rifle used in modern day military service by the United States. It's not about what technically could be considered military style in the way it looks or functions or how it's used, but how it's perceived by the general public. Nobody is going to look at the Ruger I linked and think "military style" because they know the M24 SWS is a derivative of that design. They are going to think it's for hunting or whatever. If they look at an AR-15 they are almost immediately going to draw parallels between it and a military rifle. This will be my last post on the subject because it's pretty clear that this is going nowhere with both sides posting the exact same arguments and them just not getting through.
[QUOTE=deadoon;40508309]M24 , already discussed, and for that matter the Lee enfield, which has been brought to my attention as still in use by the Canadian forces. Both bolt action rifles used by militaries that the rifle you posted could easily be mistaken for.[/QUOTE] The only people still using the einfield is the Canadian rangers (a small arctic patrol force), and the point isn't that the rifles are styled like a gun used by a military. The point is that it looks like what the general public (the audience for this thing) thinks of as a military gun. The point is not exactitude or technical correctness, the point is communicating easily what the gun actually looks like to their audience.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;40508504]Nobody is going to look at the Ruger I linked and think "military style" because they know the M24 SWS is a derivative of that design.[/QUOTE] No, they're going to call it a military-style assault weapon because it was used in a shooting and [url=http://guncontrol.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Not_just_duck_guns.pdf]they want it banned, so they have to try and dissociate it from hunting.[/url]
[IMG]http://i1339.photobucket.com/albums/o707/ToumaniSquirrel/Locogamers/Private/Capture_zpsfcef5892.png[/IMG] Seriously.
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;40506866]what are you talking about it's a military style semi-automatic rifle there is literally nothing wrong with this description[/QUOTE] semi-automatic would have sufficed adding "military-style" does nothing but make it sensationalist the term is very nebulous anyway, anything can be "military style". shit, most hunting rifles are military style because they're all derived from wartime designs, just like how ar-15s are derived from m16s and semi-auto AKs from the AKM
I remember a time in which the AR-15 represented good, not evil. [editline]2nd May 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Neat!;40510351]semi-automatic would have sufficed adding "military-style" does nothing but make it sensationalist the term is very nebulous anyway, anything can be "military style". shit, most hunting rifles are military style because they're all derived from wartime designs, just like how ar-15s are derived from m16s and semi-auto AKs from the AKM[/QUOTE] Ahem M16 came after AR-15.
[QUOTE=Apache249;40510379]I remember a time in which the AR-15 represented good, not evil. [editline]2nd May 2013[/editline] Ahem M16 came after AR-15.[/QUOTE] ar-10>ar-15>m16>ar-15 again when colt's patent expired people started making a new generation of ar-15 i think it was pretty obvious i was talking about that ar-15, and not the prototype that was used only during military trials
Don't you think it'd be fair to say that the AR-15 was derived from the AR-15 and not the M16, then?
inspiration came from the m16 were it not for the people who wanted an m16, companies would not have made the commercial ar-15 let's get back on topic
If the guy was carrying the gun openly how was he even let into the terminal...
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;40507050]What about it makes it "military style"?[/QUOTE] I'm taking a stab in the dark in saying it was probably an AR-15 which is basically the US military's main small arm, but rather than saying "military style" like it's a car or a piece of clothing, they could say what it actually was.
The AR-15 was designed for civilian use... [editline]3rd May 2013[/editline] Hence it's not an "M16 derivative." M16 derives from AR15 which was developed for civilians. [editline]3rd May 2013[/editline] And it wasn't "military style" then either
Newspapers just like to use names like "assault weapon" and "Military style" to scare the shit out of people, and when people are scared of all these baby-killing-cop-murdering-orphanage-burning assault weapons they want to read about how terrible they are and how scary scary they look.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.