Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Missouri Car Dealer To Give Away AK-47 With New Truck

samzenpus posted about 5 years ago | from the forget-the-carfax dept.

Idle 66

Frizbie writes "Max Motors in Butler, Missouri is giving away free AK-47 assault rifles with the purchase of a new truck. The promotion starts in the beginning of August. The video of CNN's coverage of the promotion shows Mark Muller being interviewed by a woman who was taking a very strong stand against what Muller had to say; however, it seems to have backfired pretty heavily."

cancel ×

66 comments

awsoem (1)

ickleberry (864871) | about 5 years ago | (#28748321)

Do want!

Paddle faster... I still hear banjo music! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28748485)

Buy now and they'll include a big Johnny Reb flag and a six-pack of Old Style.

Fucking hillbillies.

Re:Paddle faster... I still hear banjo music! (1)

palegray.net (1195047) | more than 4 years ago | (#28907227)

Heh. I find your perspective amusing. My girl just answered the interviewer's key question regarding the mix of "God" and "guns" in the dealership slogan.

"Because he believes in God to save his soul, guns to save his home, and guts to actually use them."

Only in Kansas. (0, Troll)

Ouchie (1386333) | about 5 years ago | (#28748533)

I was going to comment but this kind of stupidity really inflames me and I honestly don't have the time to explain all the ways I see this as wrong. Thank god it's not in my state.

Re:Only in Kansas. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28749787)

I was going to comment but this kind of stupidity really inflames me and I honestly don't have the time to explain all the ways I see this as wrong. Thank god it's not in my state.

In case you didn't know, Kansas is a state. Missouri is also a state. They are not the same state. Hint: read the title of the article.

Re:Only in Kansas. (1)

Nutria (679911) | about 5 years ago | (#28754963)

In case you didn't know, Kansas is a state. Missouri is also a state.

He's a blue state (ignorant, the "best" kind) elitist bastard, who I started ignoring ASA I saw that stupid comment of his.

Re:Only in Kansas. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28807463)

In case you didn't know, Kansas is a state. Missouri is also a state.

He's a blue state (ignorant, the "best" kind) elitist bastard, who I started ignoring ASA I saw that stupid comment of his.

Yeah, and making ridiculous generalizations about entire states isn't ignorant at all...

Re:Only in Kansas. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28837063)

Kansas is a state. Missouri is also a state. They are not the same state.

Well, that's debatable.

Re:Only in Kansas. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28749953)

How about explain a couple of ways you see this as wrong.

Re:Only in Kansas. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28750127)

watch the video, he does a fine job of explaining the promotion.

Re:Only in Kansas. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28759749)

Selling an AK for self/home defense is kind of misguided. The slug from an AK will cut through interior walls with relative ease and remain intact even after several trajectory altering contacts. Not a caliber of choice for indoor use.

If you are outside, shooting in, it's great though.

Re:Only in Kansas. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28776547)

I on the other hand would hope that if I had to shoot some asshole that's breaking into my house, that my gun would fire the bullets at a high enough velocity to puncture body armor.

Re:Only in Kansas. (2, Informative)

JWSmythe (446288) | about 5 years ago | (#28778623)

You're looking for more of something like a 12 gauge slug. You don't need to sling a small round a long range, you're looking for the short range stopping power. If the body armor does stop it, they'll be flat on their backs regardless. Then again, any decent bullet hitting any body armor is going to really hurt, so it's only really good for saving their lives, not pretending that they weren't shot at.

Here's some approximate effective ranges of various ammunition.

9mm pistol - 50 yards

45 cal pistol - 100 yards

12 gauge slug - 100 yards

AK-47 (7.26x39mm) - 400 yards

AR-15/M-16 (5.56x45mm) - 600 yards

30-06 (7.62x33mm) - 800+ yards

These vary by the weapon, ammunition, shooter, and conditions.

Any of these weapons are going to go straight through a standard interior wall with no problems. Don't take my word on it, There's a much better resource available [theboxotruth.com] .

  They have an interesting page where they show shooting through 4 interior walls. Pistols all do a fine job of going straight through them. The AR-15 (civilian M-16) actually has a problem with accuracy through the walls.

    Pretty much, if anyone decides to just start shooting at an intruder, if the bullet doesn't stop in the intruder, it will very likely continue to travel through the structure until it hits something hard. That could be a family member or neighbor.

    Most houses in neighborhoods are oriented so the front and back doors face another house. Just because an intruder breaks into your house is not a reason to spray the doorway and possibly kill your neighbor in the process. Gun control is a very important thing. I'm not talking about limiting access to weapons. I'm talking about proper application of the tool. TV has shown that you just shoot and hopefully one will hit. In real life, you have to take shots very carefully, because it's not just your target who may be in your line of fire. Using a firearm is an absolute last resort, and as such must be used with extreme caution. Will you be able to live with yourself because you shot at an intruder, and killed a neighbors kid?

    Back to the video, it's terrible. Anti-guns versus gun nuts. I've heard these arguments, and when you get extremes on both sides talking, it never comes to a friendly compromise.

Re:Only in Kansas. (1)

Kokuyo (549451) | about 5 years ago | (#28793453)

American walls or European ones? ;)

Re:Only in Kansas. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28901939)

I'n Europe you're probably fucked anyways because they don't allow guns to their citizens.

Re:Only in Kansas. (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 4 years ago | (#28797251)

My front door faces a hill. ;)

Re:watched too many movies? (2, Interesting)

Dare nMc (468959) | more than 4 years ago | (#28828293)

If the body armor does stop it, they'll be flat on their backs regardless.

conservation of energy does mean that it won't gain energy in flight, so it will not impact with any more energy than what the gun put into the shooter first (except for a recoiless, or mounted gun.) With a person running at you, unless they are too light to shoot the same load without being knocked on their ass, the bullet wont either. So yeah unleash a double barrel 10 gauge and you will both be sitting on you asses, assuming both hit the target. Your going to want something with penetration (small caliber) if worried about body armored entry.
My choice would be something like a hollow point [wikipedia.org] , specifically designed to prevent a second hit, it may go through the wall, but not likely a person, and will likely be non lethal at that point.
A ballistic tip, or a black talon load should be better at getting through the jacket, and not having any next room, or next person issues either.

Re:watched too many movies? (1)

eth1 (94901) | more than 4 years ago | (#28870231)

You're missing the fact that the shooter of the slug is accelerating it over the 2ft length of the shotgun barrel, and the body armor is stopping it in a few inches.

A shotgun can easily put an unwary shooter off-balance, so it would do worse to the target. Knocking them down might be marginal, but they'll be severely hurting and knocked around.

Re:watched too many movies? (1)

Dare nMc (468959) | more than 4 years ago | (#28873073)

Myth busters did bust this myth twice as well [mythbustersresults.com]
The difference in 2 feet vs 3in would be 12 milliseconds instead of 1.5 ms. Since it is still the same amount of energy hitting both the gun holder, and the thief. So barring a outside force they would each reach the same speed, the only difference is the shooter would have 1/8th of the acceleration rate, but for 8 times as long of period of time, with both eventually reaching the same final velocity change.
So the shooter has a extra 11 milliseconds to counteract the force than the target would have. With the average reaction of a human being @ ~215 ms, their is no way that you have had any muscle reactions to make any counter force during that extra 11ms.
>A shotgun can easily put an unwary shooter off-balance, so it would do worse to the target.
only if the target was either hit at a higher location in the body than the shooter, or if the target had less momentum (IE running away, not towards the shooter. kinda defeats the purpose of knocking them down if they are running away already.)
>they'll be severely hurting and knocked around.
The question was more about hitting a bullet proof vest that stops the bullet, compared to say a 22-250 rifle that has more kick than a shotgun slug, and a much smaller projectile, it will lose less energy getting to the target, thus have more knockdown momentum, and more penetration power if a vest is in the way (but a hollow point expands similarly, after impact). Therefore a all around better solution IMHO. Only advantage to the shotgun I can think of is it has more flexibility in ammunition (alternate slugs, and shot for example), and a pump action has a very distinctive sound, that is more intimidating than just silence before the shot (if you want to "give notice".)

Re:Only in Kansas. (1)

mister_playboy (1474163) | more than 4 years ago | (#28855927)

I can understand the 7.26x39 for the AK as a typo... but where did you get 7.62x33 for the 30-06? Try 7.52x51mm. Basically, a longer cartridge will have longer range and a bigger kick.

Re:Only in Kansas. (1)

JWSmythe (446288) | more than 4 years ago | (#28856321)

    That was a typo. It's 7.62x63mm [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Only in Kansas. (1)

houstonbofh (602064) | about 5 years ago | (#28794757)

Selling an AK for self/home defense is kind of misguided. The slug from an AK will cut through interior walls with relative ease and remain intact even after several trajectory altering contacts. Not a caliber of choice for indoor use.

If you are outside, shooting in, it's great though.

Horses for courses... It would be a bad choice for apartment dwellers. But on a country home on 12 acres (like he mentioned in the video) it is a good choice. And frangible rounds are helpful in dense environments.

Also many people get stuck on how the gun looks... A CZ-52 pistol has far more penetration than an AR-15, but the AR-15 gets all the bad press.

Re:Only in Kansas. (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28806557)

Actually, he has 1,200 acres. It's a ranch and I must say it's a really nice one. I've been there numerous times and even shot a few rifles with Mr. Muller. He is one of the most upstanding individuals I have ever had the pleasure of knowing.

Re:Only in Kansas. (2, Funny)

vlm (69642) | about 5 years ago | (#28750343)

I was going to comment but this kind of stupidity really inflames me and I honestly don't have the time to explain all the ways I see this as wrong.

No kidding, we (as in USA consumers) bail out GM, so the dealer gives away a commie AK-47. What a rip.

What's next, an american made AR-15 with every Toyota Prius?

Re:Only in Kansas. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28750485)

It's funny how the most lasting icon of soviet communism has been embraced in the US.

I guess it's nice that there are more important things that patriotic or ideological pride, though rate of fire might not be a great improvement. :D

Re:Only in Kansas. (1)

Nutria (679911) | about 5 years ago | (#28754951)

It's funny how the most lasting icon of soviet communism has been embraced in the US.

That's because we know a good firearm when we see it.

Sadly, we also don't care about buying crap, which is why so many SKS have been sold.

Re:Only in Kansas. (1)

MBGMorden (803437) | about 5 years ago | (#28774503)

Nothing wrong with the SKS. Shoots the same 7.62x39mm round as the AK-47 and it's typically more accurate (though calling EITHER rifle "accurate" is laughable). Both are very, very reliable too. The AK-47 just buys you select fire (though all civilian versions of the gun sold are semi-auto only anyways) and higher magazine capacity (as well as a detachable magazine). There are aftermarket modifications though that add 30-rnd detachable mags to the SKS making it pretty close to the AK.

I will also admit that the SKS is a smidge heavier and doesn't balance quite as well. Still, when the first came into the country an SKS ran you about $75. They were WELL worth that price. I bought 3 of them, though I only ended up keeping 1. The others I sold off after the price went up some. Ended up almost tripling my money on those 2.

Re:Only in Kansas. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28776773)

The SKS is the only gun I know of that lets you shoot full auto at the range via the great random slam fire issue. I ripped 12 rounds off in less than a second firing civi ammo. It was both fascinating and terrifying. Thankfully due to proper gun control the only thing hurt was the target (9 rounds hit the paper at 100 yards). Now that is the kind of gun control we need (For those who think it is impossible I was firing on sandbags from a sitting position and was aware of the slam fire problem through research and understanding the firearm before shooting it, and was thus prepared). After the incident the rifle went back into its case and was given to the range safety officer who was familiar with the slam fires and was nice about it (the demanded the gun be removed from the range for obvious reasons) (the range only allows slow fire (1 shot per second max). He recommended a gun smith that can adjust the firing pin so that the slam fire problem doesn't happen again. SKS's may be crap but at 149.99 it was a pretty cheap way to get into shooting the 7.62x39 round which is a lot cheaper than the 7.62x51 that I usually shoot. Once the slam fire issue is fixed it will be back to the range.

Don't be a hater.
Cheers

Re:Only in Kansas. (1)

nurb432 (527695) | about 5 years ago | (#28760965)

Not all of those rifles are manufactured overseas. In fact, there is a mandated % of American parts even on imported ones.

Free AR-15's from toyota? I doubt it, they wouldn't pick such a finicky firearm to give people. There is a reason the ak is still around after all these decades. Its well designed for its task.

Re:Only in Kansas. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28756619)

Unfortunately, it *is* in my state. (Missouri, not Kansas) and I agree with you.

For those that don't - please don't give me grief about anonymous posting; I'm late to work and don't have time to register (nor do I want to hear from my erratic neighbor - the one with the 4 gun racks in his living room)
nlh

Re:Only in Kansas. (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 4 years ago | (#28797217)

Right... like your erratic neighbour will know what your username is on here if you register. Unless you tell him, I suppose...

Re:Only in Kansas. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28861677)

You silly Americans, in my village, we shoot intruders with RPGs.

Re:Only in Kansas. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28776687)

Yeah I agree why would someone get offended about an AK47 giveaway with vehicle purchase. I would be kind of offended that you had to choose an AK since the AK is not that accurate, would prefer a CETME or maybe m14, but if it is a voucher I guess you could use it towards the purchase of whatever you wanted.

I am so glad I live in the state of Texas where we still have the right to defend ourselves. The news anchor was a bit over the top on her line of questioning and was not being fair and balanced. Who cares what everyone thinks about guns, this the the USA and our founding fathers were intelligent enough to give us the right to defend ourselves with arms (knives guns swords, chainguns, uzi's, rocket launchers, backyard nuclear weapons, chemical and biological weapons, etc). Alright I think I may have gone a TAD overboard with chemical and biological weapons, but can we at least have small nukes? I mean is that too much to ask.

Seriously though, he is right, 15 minutes is enough time to do some serious damage. An AK 47 has a general capacity of 30 rounds (I know there are bigger and smaller capacities). If we are limited to a 10 round magazine or whatever that means 10 chances to kill 7 invaders (referring to the attack he mentioned). When you are under attack you don't place rounds very accurately and there is the adrenaline factor to consider. 30 rounds is still only 4 rounds (I know it is more than 4 but you can shoot 1/5th of a round) per attacker. Also once the AK started going off most people would run away, though meth users might not. Also if someone is hyped up on drugs it may take more than one round to bring them down. I'm sorry, but that news anchor was just plain wrong and probably lived a very sheltered prissy pants life and is not qualified to make life and death decisions.

The right to keep and bear arms is the fundamental right that protects all others. I am also an Atheist but the right to worship any God you want is what this country is about and I will protect that right along with all the others, even this woman's right to free speech, even though I do not agree with what she is saying (or rather implying) in the slightest.

I know there are lots of differing opinions and meant this to be respectable and honest. If you don't like what I said, too bad, if you do not like how I said it, you have my sincere apologies.

Cheers
Anonymous

Bad Reporter (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28753669)

don't get me wrong, I'm against this promotion of giving away AK-47s with the cars, but I don't understand what this lady is trying to do. Her job is to report the news, and to report on what the story is about, not to argue with a man they brought in to interview over her own opinion and history. There is a difference between interviewing, and stating a completely separate opinion. The members of the media should not be injecting their opinion into their reporting.

OK for an interviewer, though. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28789497)

The tone of the interviewer doesn't bother me and neither does the promotion. She does make clear her opinion and allows the interviewee a full chance to respond his except at one point where she restates it and then forces the next question (Hardly, an O'Riely/Hannity/Asshat moment tho') . If the interview wasn't couched as a controversial promotion it would just be an advert for the dealership. True, really good interviewer would be trying to drill down to expose the heart of an argument, but the Car Salesman showed the insite to do that for her. The real discussion is one of moral imperatives and the rift between them is one of philosophies that cannot find accord except through conflict and compromise. Nothing wrong with exposing that conflict.

Re:Bad Reporter (1)

NotBornYesterday (1093817) | more than 4 years ago | (#28854473)

Her job is not to deliver news to you, even though that's what she would tell you if asked. Her job is to get ratings. She is doing that by generating controversy. She interviewed a car dealer who is running a promotion involving legal but scary-sounding weapons not because it directly affects a national audience, but because she could exploit it.

Not "assault rifle" -- just a scary black rifle (2, Informative)

timothy (36799) | about 5 years ago | (#28755089)

There might be a picture (as the linked story says) of an AK-47 assault rifle on that page, but (even aside from the mentioned fact that it's a voucher, not a gun, that buyers get) they almost certainly won't be buying an assault rifle, just a lookalike. Unless the dealer is somehow magically and illegally supplying them all with selective-fire capability. Pretty tough (expensive, long process) for ordinary Americans to buy any guns with selective (or plain full-auto) guns; those are only for the gub'mint, not the Pipple.

Just Say Nope to object-vilification through word choice :)

timothy

Re:Not "assault rifle" -- just a scary black rifle (1)

diskofish (1037768) | about 5 years ago | (#28773651)

You can legally buy a real AK here in the states, but they're just converted to semi-auto.

Re:Not "assault rifle" -- just a scary black rifle (3, Informative)

MBGMorden (803437) | about 5 years ago | (#28774651)

That's not really a "real" AK though. It's a clone version made as a semi-automatic. You CAN indeed buy a "real" select fire AK though if you want. You can buy a real M16 if you want, or a registered full-auto sear kit for an AR15 that converts it to selective fire mode.

It's not a well known fact, but in most US states as long as it was made prior to 1986 it's legal for a civilian to purchase a selective fire/full auto gun (ie, a machine gun). It just takes a background check, notification to your local chief law enforcement officer (sheriff or chief of police), and a special tax stamp from the BATF for each one (it's $300 IIRC). Not many people bother though because they cost a fortune. Not only to shoot (full auto fire is an expensive waste of ammo for fun shooting at the range), but also for the gun itself. $3000 minimum for a junker WW2 relic that barely functions, to upwards of $10,000 for a decent gun. Even just the registered full auto sear for an AR-15 (which is literally a small part that any machinist could churn out of a block of metal for $50) will run you $8000 and up just because finding a part to LEGALLY convert your brand new AR15 rifle into a machine gun is worth that much to people.

Re:Not "assault rifle" -- just a scary black rifle (1)

halber_mensch (851834) | more than 4 years ago | (#28883351)

Even just the registered full auto sear for an AR-15 (which is literally a small part that any machinist could churn out of a block of metal for $50) will run you $8000 and up just because finding a part to LEGALLY convert your brand new AR15 rifle into a machine gun is worth that much to people.

And isn't that just a kick in the nuts? A gun toting thug that intends to kill rival gang members or commit armed robbery doesn't give a rats ass if he gets an extra charge for having an illegal class III weapon, and has no problem with putting an illegally fabricated auto sear into a gun or making any other illegal modification to a firearm, all he needs is access to a machine shop and a meth head that works there to make it in exchange for some dope. Hell, an electric motor and a paddle gear or a simple astable timer and a solenoid attached to a trigger can turn a weapon automatic, and that's even cheaper and easier than modifying the internals of the gun or fabricating parts for it. Automatic weapons are formidable weapons, but they're outright dangerous when the majority of people with access to them are also the most dangerous to society, while the prey of that majority is forbidden access to them.

Re:Not "assault rifle" -- just a scary black rifle (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28789777)

TTBOMK clone commercial "AK-47s" are not converted military rifles and cannot accept military parts that will allow selective fire without nontrivial (remilling/stamping/drilling the receiver) and illegal modification. Of course there are a few million grandfathered weapons that predate this legal requirement, though it's still illegal to convert them back to full auto. And of course MGBM is right about real Assault Rifles, SMGs, and machine guns that fulfill the proper military definitions of those terms.

Ak is a hell of a Gun (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28755625)

An Ak-47 is a hell of a gun an AR won't go through what an AK can.

Re:Ak is a hell of a Gun (1)

MBGMorden (803437) | about 5 years ago | (#28774839)

An Ak-47 is a hell of a gun an AR won't go through what an AK can.

Depends on what features you're valuing. The AK is certainly more reliable (ie, dirt/lack of cleaning won't cause it to jam as readily). It also hits a bit harder at closer ranges.

On the other hand, the AR is a FAR more accurate rifle, and even though it doesn't hit as hard at close ranges, it's typically effective out to longer ranges (due to it's better accuracy and the lighter, faster bullet having less drop at any given range). The AR is also typically a bit lighter than the AK.

It really depends on what you're looking for TBH. For civilian shooting I'd take the AR15 any day of the week. Few civilian shooters put an AR through enough abuse to notice any appreciable difference in reliability. It's accuracy and versatility (changing out the upper assembly and magazine can easily convert an AR15 from one chambering to another) make it the obvious choice.

For a battle rifle on the other hand, I'd PROBABLY go for the AK, though honestly I'd rather a Steyr AUG compared to either :).

I'm moving to Missouri! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28756929)

I'm going to move to Missouri and buy a truck from this guy!

Re:I'm moving to Missouri! (1)

kullnd (760403) | more than 4 years ago | (#28824553)

I agree, we need more people like this!

Not an AK-47 (1)

nurb432 (527695) | about 5 years ago | (#28760917)

Its not a true ak-47 at the price he's offering the voucher for. A real one, would be in the thousands ( legal that is, i have no idea the black market value ), so its just a semi-automatic rifle.

Re:Not an AK-47 (1)

diskofish (1037768) | about 5 years ago | (#28773541)

You can get surplus soviet AK-47s for a few hundred dollars. The gun stores here frequently have them.

Re:Not an AK-47 (1)

MBGMorden (803437) | about 5 years ago | (#28774719)

I mentioned it in an earlier post, but those are generally semi-auto clones (most commonly Romanian, not Russian). A real, select fire AK-47 will run several thousand $$$ and require a lot more bg checks and paperwork than your standard gun purchase. Still, if you want one they can indeed be legally purchased (in most states anyways - in the extremely anti-gun states like California, Maryland, Massachusetts, etc, there are usually state laws that restrict it).

Stupid News Woman. (1)

Icegryphon (715550) | about 5 years ago | (#28782151)

You know why you carry a gun, Because carrying a police officer would be heavy. Police can not save you in quick situations where a few seconds tons of things can happen.

Re:Stupid News Woman. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28802419)

You know why you carry a gun, Because carrying a police officer would be heavy. Police can not save you in quick situations where a few seconds tons of things can happen.

Considering most people who have a gun for protection can barely use it on the range, you must be retarded to think they will hit anything when their blood is pumping.

Its beyond me why people spend all that money on a gun when simply using it for home security would be better. God knows I havent heard of anyone who died from having a reenforced door or windows.

Re:Stupid News Woman. (1)

sootman (158191) | more than 4 years ago | (#28810611)

Wow, talk about missing the point. You think it's heavy trying to carry a police officer around, try toting a whole HOUSE! It's a big world out there, outside your mom's basement.

Re:Stupid News Woman. (1)

NotBornYesterday (1093817) | more than 4 years ago | (#28855035)

Thanks for doing all that legwork, and actually surveying all those legally armed people to ascertain how often they practice at the range, and how well they shoot. It's nice to see that ignorant, opinionated ACs never pull speculation like that out of their ass and call it fact.

I'm glad you don't know of anyone who ever died of reinforced doors and windows. Because I'm sure that your experience is so broad as to be almost universal. I'm sure that bars on windows and doors don't impede firefighters' access, say, if incapacitated victims were trapped behind them.

People buy a gun because they choose to take responsibility for their own safety. A gun and ammo adequate for home protection can be bought for a few hundred dollars. Buying and installing the hardware to fortify even a small home costs how much?

Re:Stupid News Woman. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28862833)

Your point about impeding firefighters' access is a very good one.

However, more family members are killed accidentally with weapons purchased for home protection than people killed by intruders. I find it puzzling that anyone would willingly increase the risk of their family members being harmed/killed.

Re:Stupid News Woman. (1)

halber_mensch (851834) | more than 4 years ago | (#28883699)

Considering most people who have a gun for protection can barely use it on the range, you must be retarded to think they will hit anything when their blood is pumping.

I assume you have some concrete numbers that accurately detail this phenomenon of gun owners being inherently unable to operate their firearms, and you're not simply spouting a flagrantly ignorant assumption that you believe to be true but have never considered how utterly retarded it sounds when spoken aloud.

Its beyond me why people spend all that money on a gun when simply using it for home security would be better. God knows I havent heard of anyone who died from having a reenforced door or windows.

Yeah, because we all know that a reenforced door and windows keep those intruders out without exception right? And they even protect you when you are in your car, at the grocery store, at the ATM, or walking in a parking lot too! And if God knows you've never heard of anyone dying from home security improvements, he also knows you're a vacuous moron. People die every year from house fires that normally could have evacuated if their awesome security bars, reinforced doors, and reinforced windows hadn't stood between them and the safety of the outside of the house. But I guess at least they didn't get shot or robbed, right?

Defense? (1)

drainbramage (588291) | more than 4 years ago | (#28802089)

You can't save the world but can save your life.

Assault vs. defense (1)

spiffmastercow (1001386) | more than 4 years ago | (#28815993)

the AK-47 is, by definition, an assault rifle. It is designed for attack. It has a long range, and will shoot through your house and all the houses within a straight line of your shot for 1/4 mile. A sawed off shotgun is much better for dealing with an intruder in at your door when you've just been woken up by them shooting the dog. Also, a nice pack of dobermans will probably protect your home better than any gun.

Re:Assault vs. defense (1)

icebrain (944107) | more than 4 years ago | (#28827921)

the AK-47 is, by definition, an assault rifle. It is designed for attack. It has a long range, and will shoot through your house and all the houses within a straight line of your shot for 1/4 mile.

You gonna back that up, or are you just using the "I know nothing about guns but I'm just going to make an outrageous statement about how I thinkthings are"? A 7.62x39 will penetrate 2-3 interior walls, not rows and rows of houses. Most people don't realize it, but the AK is not some uber-powerful building destroyer; in fact, it's very similar in range and power to a lever-action .30-30 hunting rifle.

It may surprise you, but "assault rifles" were not actually developed for purposes of "long range attack". Previous to WWII, standard infantry rifles fired full-size rounds (which many polular modern hunting rounds are descended from) that were effective out to 600-800 yards with a competent marksman. The Germans, however, realized that those rounds were heavy, had hard recoil, and weren't being used to their long-range potential. Therefore, they developed the StG 44 "sturmgewehr" (literally, "assault rifle") which fired smaller, less-powerful rounds than the normal rifles, making it easier to carry and fire but sacrificing range and power. Too many people think these misnamed "assault weapons" on the civilian market are more powerful than traditional hunting rifles; they actually aren't. The AR-15/M-16 family, for example, fires a round originally developed for "varmint hunting", picking off small animals like groundhogs, coyotes, prairie dogs, etc.

Further, a "sawed-off" shotgun is actually not the best home-defense weapon. Ideally, a semi-auto rifle firing intermediate rounds (like the AK or AR rifles) is ideal; you get more than the five rounds or so of a shotgun, it's more controllable, and is more easily fitted with lights and such. And if overpenetration is a concern, the 5.56x45 round used by the AR-15 series actually presents less of a danger after passing through a single interior wall than handgun rounds or even 00 buckshot.

Dogs are certainly good for home protection, but you can't just rely solely on them--your last-ditch, nothing-else-left weapon should still be a firearm.

Re:Assault vs. defense (1)

Charles Dodgeson (248492) | more than 4 years ago | (#28877479)

Thanks for that informative post, but if I were to get a firearm, I think I would go with a semi-automatic handgun loaded with snake shot. By far and away, the only think I'm likely to need to shoot is a snake.

A handgun would be less unwieldy for someone like me than a rifle. Any person I could ever see myself needing to shoot would be in the house. Snake shot is unlikely to kill anyone and is extremely unlikely to injure a non-target if I miss. Sure it probably won't stop a very determined attacker, but that is why I want a semi-automatic. I want neither range nor power. I want something light and usable by a poor marksman. I want to deter and frighten. If I'm going up against someone who knows what they are doing and is armed, then I've got no chance anyway.

But for the most part I'm one of those people who feel uncomfortable with firearms and is not at all comfortable with the fact that so many people in my state (Texas) have them. But accepting the Constitution is an all or nothing thing. It's not like the Bible where you pick and choose which bits to apply.

Re:Assault vs. defense (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28884879)

When someone breaks into your house, they won't shoot you. They'll take your gun and club you to death with it after pissing them off with the snake shot. Get a real defensive round and practice so that you're not a poor marksman.

Re:Assault vs. defense (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28902229)

If you going to post logic or facts around here you'll need to leave. thanks!

Re:Assault vs. defense (1)

Mipsalawishus (674206) | more than 4 years ago | (#28874071)

Right. Because dobermans are much better at surviving a gunshot and protecting you than a gun. However, they do make a great addition to a gun for security.

At least make it an AR15 (1)

moxley (895517) | more than 4 years ago | (#28840043)

At least make it an AR15 instead of what is likely some ex soviet bloc knockoff - although my guess is that would cost twice as much for them to do....

AK's are great if you get a decent one...Very reliable weapons, but the variation in quality is so wide that unless you know what you're getting, you don't REALLY know what you're getting.

You can see how the fact that this dealer is doing this is generating publicity; very successfully I might add - look at us discussing this, we're all over the world and we're talking about a car dealer in Missouri. It's because it's controversial....It shouldn't be, but it is, because it scares some people. It shouldn't - but it does.

It's too bad that a large percentage of the populace is so ignorant about firearms and have lost touch with this aspect of American heritage; the only exposure they really have is through TV, movies, news reports, and fanatical anti-gun organizations - and it's universally negative and threatening.

Guns are tools, pure and simple, and only as dangerous or evil as the person using it. If the people trying to get rid of guns could actually snap their fingers and make all guns in the entire world past and future disappear and never have existed, then maybe they might actually accomplish what they are setting out to do - if they could do that, I might even sign on.....But that's just not reality - and the founders of this country - as imperfect as they were with their slaves and wealth and selfish reasons for some of the things they did - they did recognize that their fledgling republic could (and likely would) end up under tyranny at some point in the future if the people didn't have the right to stay armed.

There are situations that can happen, even in modern day America where anybody who has really thought about it is likely going to want to be armed or be with someone they trust who is armed; I know I will - any major civil emergency for starters....In live in a major American city, and I can guarantee you that if all power was cut, once we reached the 48 hour point it would be a very uncivilized and dangerous cutthroat place.

Missing the point? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28841091)

Wow, talk about missing the point.

There is a high chance that having a reenforced door (for the same price or less than a gun) WILL actively help you if/when someone tries to break into your house.
There is a low chance that carrying a gun will help you in the "big world out there", because most people panic when hit by emergency situations.

Just try to punch someone really hard in the face. Just that simple thing gets people panicked enough that they don't event think of kicking back. Just because they don't know how to react (I'm talking about a real punch, one that makes you stagger...).

The point was: if you need to spend 500$ on your security, better spend on your home security if you want a better ROI.

"...so that guns end up in the right hands."???!!! (1)

ismism (947992) | more than 4 years ago | (#28842575)

And just exactly which hands are the right hands to wield lethal weapons? I don't know, I'm not inclined to accept this person's (or anyone else's) opinion about who are the "right" people. But then, I'm just not a big fan of shooting people.

Re:"...so that guns end up in the right hands."??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28848159)

The 'right hands' are anyone who buys a truck from them, of course. Because only people who obey the law buy guns legally and people who don't obey the law only buy guns illegally. Taking away the chance to buy these semi-automatic assault rifles legally means they're going to end up in the wrong hands otherwise.

To be honest, I could live with them offering the handgun again, but an assault rifle is insane. I wonder if I get a voucher for a grenade launcher next year.

*goes back to reading the Butter Battle book* Yeah, I just went there. -Anon

meth addicts present--ak-47 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28843891)

So because meth addicts are now here, people need 50yr old Russian automatic rifles...

If meth addicts are so much of a problem in Missouri or anywhere, the best solution is to give away high purity meth for free. They will kill themselves in a very short amount of time. their death will be an example to others to maybe steer clear of that drug.... problem solved.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...