AR-15 as our national gun? That's a poor choice for shooting dogs, they should select something with a shorter barrel and laser sights. Pink camo for the lady of the house.

People who advertise the presence of guns in their home are really hoping you break in.

Really depends on the ammo

I'm not a firearms expert, but I do know that the AR style rifles come in at least a dozen different calibers, and a plethora of configurations, soft point, hollow point, pellet loads, etc. At work, our rifles were loaded with .223 varmint rounds, deliberately selected so they would NOT penetrate walls. I've got a .22 cal AR style rifle my Dad left me that is not much good for anything other than plinking cans or shooting rats in the barn.

I would venture to say that many people who purchase an AR-15 don't know much about them. they choose it because it looks badass.

Sure. They sell everything down here. Bolt actions are pretty standard for hunting. I don't know anyone who would hunt with an AR.

Good points above. I chose "AR style"because most people call anything in that category an AR-15, and they are not. Most people also think AR stands for "assault rifle" and it doesn't. Most people think AR-15s are used in most mass shootings and they are not. (The pedantics can argue the meaning of "most")

The entire premise of the "study" appears flawed on first glance, as the respondents were asked about their neighbor's gun ownership. "It had three levels: not an owner, owns a pistol, or owns an AR-15"

Huh? Pistol: very broad category , AR-15: Very specific firearm. Very strange way to do a "study".

If they run it again and use "handgun" and "assault rifle" the results would probably be the same, because people equate those terms but the study would be more accurate and valid.

#27 interesting. I wasn't familiar with the more obscure AR models. so "AR style" isn't technically a correct description either. What do you think is a good term to describe the category of weapons people are actually talking about when they say AR-15?

#35 Exactly,

#38 The problem with the study is that the text repeatedly conflates AR-15 with other guns and categories of guns that are not AR-15's. If you read it (link in article) it is clear that the people who did the study don't really even know what an AR-15 is. That makes the study a but flawed, dontcha think?

However, most of he respondents to the study probably don't know what an AR-15 is either, so if they correct the language, the results wouldn't likely change. But That doesn't make the study valid.

#19, #39 it turns out I actually do know someone how hunts with an AR-15 and he was here for dinner and schooled . They aren't good for deer or bigger game. The AR-15 is capable of higher velocity, but a lighter load, so it doesn't have the stopping power you would get from a more suitable deer rifle.

The AR is very good for varmint hunting, which can include rats, squirrel, ground hogs, rabbits, raccoons, possum, and coyote (not to mention dogs named Cricket)

#44 "There's nothing wrong with this conflation.
The average person doesn't know the difference."

Yeah, I've hated those Chinese, ever since they bombed Pearl Harbor, and their little fat dictator Kim is gonna unleash nuclear weapons on us any day now. We shoulda just blew up all those Chinese after what they did to our boys in Hanoi.

There's nothing wrong with this conflation, the average person doesn't know the difference.

Exactly ... ..if I recall, the reason the AR-15 isn't legal for hunting deer in some states is because it isn't lethal enough. Just wounding game is inhumane.

Neither the glamorization nor the demonization of the AR-15 is rational. It has become a symbol for both sides, a prop in the political wedge issue game.

I need to clarify #54. The AR-15 is definitely lethal against humans. ALL guns are lethal against humans. The singling out of the AR-15 as if it is the most dangerous weapon in production is not supported by evidence at all

#58 you have a link for that? Because that just isn't true. the focus on this ONE gun model distracts from actually solving the problem.

Here is a fact for you. Most mass shootings are done with black guns. So why don't we just ban black guns? Problem solved. Except people would just start using silver guns, so then we ban silver guns. Problem solved. Then they start using Realrree camo guns, so we ban those until the massshooters are using pink guns, Ssee how ridiculous that strategy is?

Banning the AR 15 would have a similar effect. Most the guns the media calls AR-15 are "AR STYLE guns, and there are dozens of them, with very different capabilities. So ban them all, because they look scary? If that doesn't work, ban "modern sport rifles" even though they arent functionally much different from hunting rifles, because they look scary. If that doesn't work, ban all long guns. When shooters turn to shotguns, ban all long guns and they they will carry handguns, which is what most mass shooters already use in the first place. Seems like banning black guns would get us there faster, as stupid as that sounds.

Any bans should function on specific capabilities, like bump stocks, magazine capacity, ammo design. Banning specific model numbers is pointless.

I don't know much about Canadas policy. I would guess that they first set defined objective criteria based on capabilities, then generated the long list from that criterion as an appendix. . That is the right way to go about creating effective legislation. That is not the kind of discourse that is going on in America.

I'll take your word for it. The important point, IMO is that whatever restrictions are proposed need to be evidence based to correlate with a foreseeable reduction in shootings or deaths.