Get a weekly recap in your inbox every Sunday of our best stories from the week plus a primer for the days ahead.

Find It

Search our directories for...









View All

View All


15 responses to “Leading Off”

  1. Amanda says:

    It can’t spell check blogs…

  2. Miss M says:

    For real – way to set the standard.

  3. mm says:

    I get tired-head from the term “assault rifle”, too, as a catch-all for scary looking guns, but c’mon.

    An AR-15 IS high-powered. It shoots a .223 bullet that is plenty capable of killing humans, and it holds a lot of shells in the clip. 40-45 shell capacities are common, and you can get drum magazines holding up to 100 cartridges.

    I agree, there are much higher powered hunting weapons out there, but just because something isn’t suitable for elephant hunting doesn’t mean it can’t be legitimately called high-powered.

  4. James says:

    Way to flush out the newbs, Trey! roflcopter.

  5. James says:

    Also, way to capitulate to the newbs, Trey. I want “teh” back.

  6. J says:

    To most journalists, “high-powered” means anything with greater muzzle velocity than this: .

  7. Trey Garrison says:

    “40-45 shell capacities are common”?

    O RLY?

  8. Amanda says:

    For the record I am not a newbie.

  9. mm says:

    “40-45 shell capacities are common”?

    O RLY?


    Um, yeah. Not predominant, but common. If you want to buy one at Cabela’s, here’s a link:

  10. mm says:

    Shane, did you not even read my posts? It’s like you took a quick glance, and put up your standard defense.

    Just about every point you made, I had already conceded. Yes, I get tired of the term “assault rifle”. Yes, there are plenty of rifles more powerful than a .223. Yes, I’m very familiar with calibers and ballistics, and am a lifelong hunter and guns enthusiast.

    Finally, I don’t appreciate being called a moron, and ignorant. I thought these comments were monitored…

  11. Shane says:


    I read your posts in detail and I specifically challenged the inacccuracy of your comments.

    In particular, your waffle on the high-power argument is problematic. You claim tired-head over the blanket classification, yet you support the reporter’s sensationalistic label of the AR-15 as a high-powered weapon. By definition it isn’t. Calling it anything other than that is irresponsible.

    Your subsequent comment about clip configurations ignores the fact that the purchase and ownership of these accessories is illegal in many parts of the country.

    My problem with your arguments is that you generalize for your own purposes. This is the same tactic used by the reporter in this story.

  12. mm says:

    This is semantics, which is why I suspect Trey kinda sheepishly brought it up in the first place.

    Trey’s initial point is that an AR-15 is not a high-powered weapon, and you seem to agree. You call that label sensationalistic, and dismissively say that the AR-15 is not a high-powered weapon “by definition”.

    By whose definition? That’s the whole crux of the argument. I’m not waffling. I’m solidly in the camp that calling it a high-powered weapon is not that far-fetched. I don’t see how it’s ludicrous, or ignorant, or moronic, to call a gun “high powered” if it’s been used in combat for many years for the purpose of killing people, and is capable of being used with a clip containing many dozens of cartridges.

    Is it a 30-06? No. Is it a 460 Weatherby Magnum? Definitely not. It’s not even as effective at close range as a .44 Magnum, I agree. And it’s not a mortar or a missile either. So on the scale of high-powered things that can kill people, it’s definitely on the low end of the scale. I just argue that it IS on the scale.

  13. mm says:

    Good thing the Nebraska mall shooter only used an SKS rifle (essentially a .30 caliber carbine) with a high capacity clip.

    If he had used something high-powered, we might have had a real tragedy on our hands.