News

This picture is often used to draw out all the points you've made, to demonstrate that many people are unfamiliar with many firearms. The Mini-14 in this picture is one available configuration of the rifle. The most basic, simple, low capacity version. However, the Mini-14 is fully capable of using 20 and 30 round magazines, a pistol grip, suppressor, bayonet, and even a folding stock (which the AR-15 can't do).

A better version of this picture uses two models of the Mini-14, illustrating how one is legal in California and the other isn't, even though they're functionally the same rifle. A firearm simply being black does not make it more dangerous. A pistol grip does not make it more dangerous or easier to hip fire for that matter. Any gun is easily hip fired, and I would suggest a non pistol grip rifle or shot gun is more ergonomic to fire from the hip as far as pulling the trigger is concerned.

The real argument should be whether semi auto rifles are more dangerous or not, not if specific semi auto rifles are more dangerous.

How is being less visible at night not make a black gun more dangerous than one with a bright wooden sheen?

You're right. We should regulate black paint just in case someone decides to turn their legitimate wooden rifle into a war machine.

How is having a pistol grip that improves comfort and hip firing not make the weapon easier and more comfortable to use?

In all of the PCSL, 2-gun, etc. matches I've been to, I've never seen anyone shooting from the hip.

A 'traditional' stock offers certain benefits that an AR-15 stock doesn't; you can sometimes get different comb heights (or an adjustable comb height) in order to make it easier to get a good sight picture. Since an AR-15 has a buffer tube in the stock, you can't really do much to move it up or down, and your charging handle limits your ability to have a stock with a comb that goes very far forward or up. Neither is "right", but is going to be at least partially preference and purpose of the firearm.

But fundamentally, a gun that is difficult and uncomfortable to shoot is a bad design, regardless of how the stock is designed.

How is being less visible at night not make a black gun more dangerous than one with a bright wooden sheen?

So, it turns out that black isn't actually less visible at night. Nor are bright colors more visible at night. If you wear solid black at night in the woods, you're going to be more visible than if you were wearing camouflage. No joke. It has to do with the way that you perceive color.

Do both guns have the same exact default trigger pull, or is the ar-15’s lighter and easier to fire?

They're both roughly the same out of the box. Both should be in the 5-6 pound range. An AR-15 trigger assembly can be replaced fairly easily by anyone that wants to spend the money ($200-500, depending); I replaced mine with a flat-faced 2.5# trigger since I use it for competitions. Ruger uses a lot of MIM parts, so you'd need to start by replacing the guts with something made from tool steel, and then go to a gunsmith to get the detailing done to safely reduce trigger pull weight. (Done incorrectly, you can end up with things like a gun that is no longer drop safe.)

These guns are different enough in actual use to make one more dangerous than the other. They both can kill you dead, but one literally is designed specifically to be deadiler in several ways. [emphasis added] It’s one of the reasons mass murders keep using it specifically to mas murder people.

Exactly how do you mean this? Both have the same rate of fire. Both use the same cartridge. They have the same overall length. You can change the furniture on the Mini-14 to black plastic if you want. It's literally the same bullet, at the same speed, and producing the same number of foot-pounds of force. How, exactly, is one deadlier than the other?

Your image is confusing. How does a the rifle with no magazine have the same capacity to rapid fire as the one above it? The Ar-15 appears to have more bullets immediately available, which would mean it would fire them faster.

The magazine isn't in the second picture but it has one. Looks like a Ruger 5816 to me, so if you want to see what it looks like with the magazine in it, check out their webpage. Funny enough, it looks like a 10 round mag in the AR, and the 5816 comes with a 20.

How is having a pistol grip that improves comfort and hip firing not make the weapon easier and more comfortable to use?

You're talking about personal preferences here. I tend to find them both pretty comfortable, but you really want to keep the stock at your shoulder.

How is being less visible at night not make a black gun more dangerous than one with a bright wooden sheen?

One of them is black metal, the other one is wood. Either could be painted if you wanted to I suppose, but if we're talking about night-time scenarios, using a light would make either relatively visible.

Do both guns have the same exact default trigger pull, or is the ar-15’s lighter and easier to fire?

You could probably answer these questions in less time than it took you to write them out by looking them up. The 5816 has a pull of 13.50" the base model ruger AR (8500) is 10.25" - 13.50".

These guns are different enough in actual use to make one more dangerous than the other. They both can kill you dead, but one literally is designed specifically to be deadiler in several ways. It’s one of the reasons mass murders keep using it specifically to mas murder people.

Clearly this is bullshit.

Agreed, that image is misleading.

These are all differences without distinction, both of these rifles are capable of the same amount of harm.

Magazine capacity is the same, the Ruger just doesn't have it's magazine in the picture. Higher cap mags can be found for either rifle.

Pistol grip and color might make a difference in a video game, but no so much in reality.

Trigger pull difference is negligible, and could be lighter on either of the two rifles. There is no such thing as default trigger pull..

These guns are different enough in actual use to make one more dangerous than the other. They both can kill you dead, but one literally is designed specifically to be deadiler in several ways. It's one of the reasons mass murders keep using it specifically to mas murder people.

Others have already explained how they're both equally lethal, but to your point about mass murderers using the one over the other: The top rifle can be had for ~$400 & looks like the one all the soldiers and video game guys use. The bottom is closer to $1000 and does not look as cool (to the young adult male demographic that commits most mass shootings, at least). I would argue those two factors account more for their difference in mass shooting use than anything else.

Okay, so? Does that make it less bullshit somehow?

active gunfight

I've always wondered this. What's the fixation with adding "active" all the time? Is a "passive" gunfight an overweight Floridian on an oxygen tank, draped across a mobility scooter waiting for the targets to come to him?

I can't answer for "people," only for me. But I'm pretty sure you can't just slap an upper receiver for a different caliber on a Mini 14. The AR platform is inherently customizable and modular.

That doesn't make it shoot bullets any harder versus another gun in the same chambering, though. (Edited).

The short answer is that AR-15s are just better rifles. They're more accurate, they're more reliable, they're easier to clean and maintain, they're easier to repair, they have much better ergonomics, none of the parts are proprietary, and consequently there's an enormous aftermarket for parts, accessories, and customization. They also have a modular design that, with the exception of the barrel nut and castle nut which have torque specifications, can be almost completely disassembled with a single roll punch and an allen wrench or two. That means if something breaks or wears out you don't have to send it back to the manufacturer or pay out the nose for a gunsmith, you can just order the part and fix it yourself with basically just a pointy stick and a YouTube video. It also means you can start out with a really cheap rifle and upgrade it component by component until you have a high-end rifle if you want to.

That Mini-14 on the bottom is a fine rifle, and they're actually pretty popular, but the AR platform outclasses it on most crucial metrics. If you could only have one or the other, for most people it'd be the AR without question. A lot of people have spilled a lot of ink speculating about this reason or that reason as to why so many people want ARs, and usually manage to miss the fact that they're just fantastic rifles. Even with the amount of cringey fetishizing of the military that happens on the conservative side of the gun community, nobody would want one if they sucked.

Gun owners who demand that you have a favorite brand of gun oil before you are allowed to have an opinion will, as a group, gladly make profoundly ignorant statements about regulating other people's religions, medical conditions, sexual preferences...

There's nothing physically preventing anyone from putting a readily available 30+ round magazine into a Mini 14.

It even says "same capacity" right there in the picture. Although to be fair, the Mini 14 in that picture either has a flush fit low capacity magazine installed in it or is unloaded.