Slashdot Mirror
Missouri Car Dealer To Give Away AK-47 With New Truck
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."
Do want!
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?
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
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
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.
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
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.
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
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
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
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.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
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.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
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.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
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 :).
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
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
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.
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.
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
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.
American walls or European ones? ;)
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.
Right... like your erratic neighbour will know what your username is on here if you register. Unless you tell him, I suppose...
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
My front door faces a hill. ;)
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
You can't save the world but can save your life.
No brain, no pain.
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.
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.
I agree, we need more people like this!
+++ATH0 NO CARRIER
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, 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.
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.
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.
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.
I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
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.
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law
That was a typo. It's 7.62x63mm.
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
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.
Myth busters did bust this myth twice as well
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".)
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."
512 MB RAM, 20 GB disk, 200 GB transfer, five datacenters. $19.95/month.