AR-15s
 

Why do 5 million Americans own AR-15s, a military automatic assault rifle made only for killing humans and other living things. This short article does not attempt to change the minds of people who are against gun ownership, but it does a good job of explaining why AR-15's have been the choice of 5 million people other than short penises and delusions of grandeur.

I read the article, I just see wants and not needs.
In any picture of hunting I have seen, they are not shooting assault rifles.
I understand they are a bad choice for home defense because of over penetration, you miss the target and my shoot someone through the walls in the next room or outside.
Also any gun owner I know does not own one gun they reconfigure for different purposes, they own several, each suited for it's task.

I came to a realization recently after many years of playing paintball, that what a lot of people like about it is the shooting, pulling the trigger , feeling the action, seeing the splat, actually shooting people in a game was only an excuse to do that, many are happy to blast away on a range.

If you want to own an AR15 because it's fun to shoot and you like buying matching accessories for it (they call it tacticool in paintball, fairly useless accessories that just look cool) don't try and justify it as a need, people play Golf, but they don't need to.

He admits in the comment section he used Need in the title as click bait, because so many gun opponents claim nobody should own a gun because nobody needs a gun.

Possibly because there is no such thing as an assault rifle, that's a title the press made up for any rifle that's black and dressed up with military looking gingerbread. Many seem to use AR-15 interchangeably, and have the impression they are full auto. The asshole in Orlando used a Sig Sauer not an AR-15.
Many people hunt with an AR-15 because they are reliable and accurate, they just aren't all duded up. Most places it's illegal to hunt with a high capacity magazine, but they would just be a hindrance anyway.

You are misinformed, the AR-15 is no less suitable for home defense than any other gun. The choice of ammunition is critical, as a .22, .38, or 9mm will go through walls unless you buy frangible ammo. Personally I prefer a shotgun for chores around the house.
I agree, but what he said was in choosing a gun for each specific need want, there are multiple options and one option is the reliable AR-15 you're familiar with, optioned/configured for that specific task.

Sure, the boner factor is always in play, that, and the satisfaction of improving your skill, explains target shooters that never hunt.

The need may come as needing physical outlet or hobby to keep you sane but it doesn't have to be guns.
Whoa Nellie, just a damn minute ya commie, if people didn't play golf the golf courses would go broke, then the accessory makers, fertilizer companies and water companies would have profits slashed. That's heresy, that's anti-business, that's unpatriotic. :haha:

Almost nobody says that. That statement is same emotion that justifies a 'need'.

If we need AR-15s, than all must also have bazookas and 155mm howizters. Since those are also 'needed'. At what point does something become excessive? Never discussed because 'need' (an emotion) trumps logical thought.

Everyone (virutally) says many need guns. But not guns that are only for killing people. That AR-15 (that comes under many names) is only for killing people. It is not even acceptable as a hunting rifle. And clearly not for sportsmen - unless your sport is mass murder.

What need is created by bullets that travel for thousands of feet?

Well a hunter in Allentown was hunting with that type of gun. He shot a pregnant woman in her driveway because he bullets traveled thousands of feet. At trial, he so needed that gun as to even refuse to apologize to the woman he shot. He refused even when asked by a reporter. That is the need.

That statement shows you are clearly out of touch with reality.
There is no "we". I don't speak for you. You, despite your delusions of grandeur, don't speak for me. If you feel you need a bazooka then you're confirming your disconnect with the subject.
That shows your virtual reality is created on misinformation and emotional hyperbole. Hmm... sort of like a child's fantasies.
You really should read before writing, kid.
What exactly is "that type of gun"? Do you mean a semiautomatic rifle?
There was a drunk driver in MI last week who killed five people on bicycles with his truck. Should we outlaw trucks? Bicycles? MI? Driving? How about drunk driving? Oh, wait, we already did. How about against shooting people? Oh, wait, we did that too.
Since you're not part of the solution, that makes you part of the problem, boy.

It would be nice if guns and shooting were as regulated as cars and driving.

Yeah, no. In some states the government can take away a person's drivers license because that person missed too many child support payments. Imagine them taking away a transgendered person's means of defending their own life for that reason. That's why it's a right not easily interfered with rather than a privilege that can swing with the PC climate.

The only fault I find with that is the hoge poge of conflicting laws and regulations across the country. Some places you need high and low beams, turn signals, clearance lights, tail and brake lights, and license plate light. In another you need one tail light, period. The only way to avoid that is uniform federal laws, and that leads to the state's rights quagmire.

One year I bought a lever action .22 rifle as a Christmas present for a friend in New Jersey. I gave it to him and he took it home, no problem. I'd hate to see the red tape and expense of requiring us both go to a dealer, pay for a transfer, and arrange for an interstate transport permit. But that's what would happen if they tried to outlaw back alley Saturday night special sales. The irony is it would be a big hassle for me, and have no effect on the back alley deals at all.

One of the main reasons people are disgusted with the feds is they pass laws to do something good, but the collateral damage is intolerable.

For example, back home there is a river through the center of town, less than a hundred feet wide, less than three feet deep and moving pretty slowly in it's normal state. A guy living next to it had a lawn down to it with a couple trees along the edge. A storm blew one of the trees down and it fell into the river but still attached to the stump, so he yanked it out and cut it up for firewood.
The environmental cops fined him $10,000 because of some federal law to regulate loggers in the west.

That shit, and the current state of congress/politics creates a solid distrust of anything the feds do.

It wouldn't be a strict one-to-one (car law == gun law) rule. I don't have strong feelings either way on whether delinquent child support should strip your gun license in this hypothetical, and whether they're transgendered doesn't really enter into it.

I wouldn't. If you buy a car as a gift, you have to do the title transfer.

I have. I just signed the title and he drove it home on his plates. Then he had to go get a Jersey title, plates, insurance, to drive on the road legally.

I bought a trailer from a guy at work and both of us had to go pay somebody to do the paperwork even though I registered it in ME.

I am getting really tired of hearing that no one uses the AR-15 platform to hunt. That is patently NOT TRUE!

In Texas, I see hunting all the time with the AR-15. I have seen feral hogs in the 400 lb range brought down by the AR-15. You can take anything from prairie dogs to big game with an AR-15.

See here for plenty of information, yes YOU, TW.

The Second Amendment doesn't mention hunting. Hunting is a straw man argument. Directly traceable to the arguer not having a factual leg to stand on. The Second Amendment was written to enable We The People to defend our liberties and freedoms and rights from an overreaching government, in the unlikely event that the ballot box and the soap box fail to do so. Anyone who has read the Federalist Papers knows that the Founders meant (explicitly) that we were to be armed with weapons commonly available at the time. That means semi auto rifles, semi auto pistols and, yes even cannon. If one can afford a bazooka and the associated taxes and fees and whatnot, one should be able to buy a damn bazooka. Anyone with the cash can buy a tank already. Just Google around and I bet you can even find one with a hot gun (not destroyed before sale).

The point is, once we allow the government to attach conditions to a right, they can and will start attaching conditions to all our rights. We must not start down that slippery slope. I'll spare us all my usual quoting of appropriate patriotic sayings and suchlike. Bumper sticker logic is not going to change any minds or hearts.

Because someone does it proves it is right? Using your logic, I run red lights constantly and never kill anyone. That proves running red light is safe and acceptable? That was your logic.

An Allentown example demonstrates why assault weapons are not for hunting. And why hunting rifles exist. And also demonstrates the childish emotions he used to justify shooting a pregnant woman.

Please do not do what xoxoxoBruce has done only because emotion justifies it. Almost nobody says all guns should be banned. Even where some guns can and cannot be used or carried must vary according to the venue. Some Federal standards are desirable. That is what most believe. But again, rhetoric from an excellent brainwashing institution (NRA) says many if not most people want to ban all guns. That brainwashing also says why everyone should carry an AR-15 to protect themselves.

Cars are for moving humans. Using your logic, cars also should not be regulated because cars are not used to mow down people. My contempt for the "I do it is proof that is it acceptable" logic should be obvious and transparent. Please now use honesty and logic to stay in context.

Beest correctly asked about 'wants' and 'needs'. That is the damning question. Please answer that. What are the 'needs'. Not your 'wants' or what others have done. Needs.

Bottom line: one banned from planes can get an assault rifle even with 'cop killer' bullets that day to kill all they want. I expect every adult here to find that unacceptable. Once Federal standards existed to make that difficult. Even those laws are now successfully subverted by NRA extremists.

Question remains to be answered: wants verses needs. Why does anyone need a machine whose purpose is to quickly kill peopple in mass numbers? And can be obtained within hours. Explain that logically without hiding behind a 2nd Amendment. The question is 'need'.

You have just proved that everyone should have all the 155 mm howitzers they want. After all, the second amendment says "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State ..." That proves everyone has the right to any arms they want - using your reasoning.

Using your reasoning, Omar Mateen had every right to buy all the assault weapons and bullets he wanted using any legal tender he chooses.

Well maybe that is true. Justify why you believe that is acceptable.

It proves the statement, "Nobody hunts with an AR-15" is not true, and people who keep repeating it are liars.
Is that so...and
It seems tw is misinformed, as usual, or is cherry picking facts to twist into a false scenario, as usual.
More tw made up "facts". His opinions become "most people", while the real most people, on both sides of the issue, know he's a liar.
:lol2: So much chutzpah he doesn't even see the irony.
Yes he did, and I explained to him the authors deliberate use of that term to attract the anti-gun people who use "need" as an argument.
Very simple, everyone determines their own needs, and you can't do it for them. Even though everyone knows you need an enema, that's for you to decide.
I'll agree with he should not have been able. However there is no such thing as an assault rifle, and until you can define what constitutes one so it will hold up in court, you can't control it.
No, the question is truth, so that leaves you out.

Bad tw, bad bad, tw. Caught using propaganda technique again I see. Trying to make people prove a need before they can have rights. How un-American.

But then there are mitigating circumstances. Tw grew up in an adverse environment with a father who was a propagandist for big tobacco. The apple doesn't fall far from the tree. I don't think we'll put him on the government watch list though. Armchair pomposities are generally benign and good for a few laughs as they undermine their own credibility with their rabid overzealousness.

Extremists will say anything to avoid a damning question. Beest asked a damning question. Because he fears to answer, then an extremist will do what Donald Trump also does - attack a person rather than address the issue.

Question remains to be answered: wants verses needs. Why does anyone need a machine whose purpose is to quickly kill people in mass numbers? And can be obtained within hours. Why should anyone too dangerous to board a plane also have the right to buy assault weapons and ammunition in hours? Sexbon's answer remains that is good - until he want to reply in a logical and adult manner with reasons that say why.

Many who love guns for emotional reasons routinely avoid Beest's damning question. It only asks about want verse need. Nothing more. But even that simple question is a threat.

If everyone determines their own needs, then xoxoxoBruce listed them. Needs are not listed why? A classic Trump style cop out. Because needs do not exist? We still do not know what those needs are because xoxoxoBruce fears to answer a simple question.

Question remains to be answered: wants verses needs. Why does anyone need a machine whose purpose is to quickly kill people in mass numbers? What is the need if not for mass murder? Why does one who is too dangerous to board a plane *need* an assault weapon? Simple logical answer lists those 'needs'.

Since so many need that weapon for different reasons, then xoxoxoBruce's list of *needs* should be quite long. We await a logical and unemotional answer.


xoxoxoBruce - do you think you can stop the cheapshots and only answer in an adult manner? That means listing each 'need'.

So, Pam, Bruce, xoB, how do you stop mass shootings? Now.

just stickin' my head in the door
 

What every person needs...

-food

-water

-protection (from the elements, from predators)

-a sense of self-efficacy and -direction

...how each satisfies those needs is largely a matter of individual preference.

In this thread's context: some folks, in part, satisfy the need to self-protect and -direct (and eat) by having a big honkin' GUN. Me, I find my coach gun fits the bill. The fella down the street might assess a bazooka is more to his liking.

So, no, folks don't determine their own needs...they do, however, determine how best to meet those needs, and -- sometimes -- the way one goes about it, the tools he or she chooses, seem excessive to another. This is normal, natural, and ain't gonna change any time soon.

So we futz around with one another trying to restrain and (re)direct and restrict by way of the big stick (law). Sometimes that works, often it doesn't.

Gonna be interesting to see how things play out with this latest bout of 'you shouldn't have that!' and 'that's a bad, BAD, tool!'.

nuff said.

To be fair, include in your question "and not have them turn into something else," i.e., mass exploding, mass poisoning, mass drowning, derailment, large scale panic, etc. Assume that the potential shooter, when denied the opportunity to shoot, does not lose the will or insanity required to set off a murderous event that kills many.

We shall recall that enormous damage that can be done with a boxcutter, if one is motivated and clever. Or fertilizer and fuel oil. Actually, thinking that a rifle is the simplest way to effectively pull off such an event may be a lucky cultural meme on our part. In other parts of the world, they explode people. We should be so lucky that it doesn't catch on.

(Two posts and he merely sidesteps the Allentown mistake without acknowledging it. That's how adults do it.)

And for those answering, you might also consider that according to Wikipedia, gun legislation in Germany is considered among the strictest gun control in the world.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/23/europe...mass-shooting/

:(

(...although in Germany, we wait to see exactly what happened - fog of tear gas right now, it may be proof that gun controls work!)

Remove every gun on earth along with the knowledge and ability to make them. Then suffer the consequences UT pointed out.

That's because it wasn't a mistake, it was a deliberate lie. That's what tw does.

This question is for TW:

What is a hunting rifle?

Semi-autos used to be out of bounds for hunting in PA. I believe they changed that last year under NRA pressure. IMHO they are completely inappropriate if safe hunting is your goal. The ethic I was raised with was make one good shot. Don't needlessly injure the animal and be aware of where your round lands if you fail.

I've been on the other side of this but licensing and or a weapon schedule for depth of background check seems utterly sensible.

In just your first two sentences in reply to my post there you go lying again tw. Beest didn't ask any questions. He made statements, gave opinions (he's certainly entitled to them); but, he didn't ask any questions. That's just your pathetic attempt to deflect attention away from yourself after having got caught lying, again.

It's apparent that you're taking advantage of Beest because he's a naturalized citizen possibly without the in-depth knowledge that some others here possess. They know that among the reasons for the second amendment having been included in the Constitution is maintaining a pool of civilians already trained in firearms use who can be called up, trained in group tactics, and deployed as a well regulated militia (as opposed to vigilantes). That is very much with us yet as evidenced by the fact that we still have a selective service registration requirement despite our current volunteer military. Beest's sons may have to register for it.

There have always been those who wanted to own the military issue rifle of their time in case they were called to serve and there have always been those wanted to own it after their service with it. The fully automatic fire M16 rifle and its variants have been with us for nearly a half century and millions of people have been trained with it. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that people want what they're familiar with because it makes for better usage.

The AR15 is the semiautomatic fire civilian version of the military firearm. It doesn't have fully automatic fire capability (spray and pray); or, even selective 3 round burst capability. It does still have the basic configuration for use and maintenance as the military version that so many are familiar with and it can still be used for purposes that it's not the optimum firearm for. All military personnel are not each issued a dozen different small arms intended for specialized applications. They use what they have in hand, their rifle.

No one has to prove they need a right to bear arms; or, any particular arms for that matter. You have to prove that they don't. Prove it to the majority of the US Supreme Court; or, prove it to enough representatives to get the Constitution changed. If you can't do that; then, you've failed to establish that your needs for people not to have them outweigh even the wants of the people who have them and you deserve what you get: having a pathological liar like tw speak for you. :lol:

You are being lied to. The tool is irrelevant. It doesn't matter if its Kool-Aid laced with poison, a crock pot turned into a bomb, a knife, fertilizer or a gun. Stop blaming the inanimate object(s) and start dealing with evil people. Bicycles killed almost twice as many people as rifles. Heck, more people died from falls than both. Just fucking stop. Removing or restricting the rights of millions because of the actions of several is ridiculous. Besides all that, the correlation you think exists, doesn't.

For clarity, I believe you are referring specifically to rifles only.
I've owned and hunted with semi-auto shotguns all my life. In PA, DE MD and several states further north.

Cognitive dissonance your name is Andy Holt. He is running background checks on the people he's giving away AR-15s to so they don't fall into the wrong hands, but is opposed to background checks. I feel like he believes what he's saying but he really can't see the middle way.

For deer, semi-auto was (is?) right out except in shotgun only areas.

NRA also got all Federal research into gun violence banned. Because violence promotes more gun sales. Those sales (not gun safety) is the only purpose of the NRA. Increasing murders due assault weapons means more sales and profits - the only purpose of the NRA.

Then how do you explain the dramatic uptick in semi-auto rifle purchases under Obama and Clinton? They should get Salesman of the Year award for all the guns THEY caused to be bought!

You demonstrated the problem. You told DanaC that Britain was subverted by a dictatorship in Brussels. Why did so many Britains voted for Brexit? Emotional fears and lies being a first thing heard, then the naive to only believed that what they want to hear.

Those who fear others need more guns because a jack-booted Clinton or Obama will take away all guns. They entertain their fears to even believe Isis is a greatest personal threat. Even more dangerous than a car. Not one fact justifies that fear. Does not matter. They need more big guns to even defend from Isis.

None one adult reason exists to believe that fear. But then not all adults think like adults. Many can be told what to fear. Then just know it must be true. For the same reason most all American adults *knew* smoking cigarettes increase health. The fearful were told Clinton and Obama would take away their guns. Virtually no one even recommends that. Irrelevant. Some adults are only emotional - entertain their fears. Anything that inspires that fear means a massive increase in gun sales. NRA virtually cultivates that fear.

Advertising targets those most easily brainwashed. Adults are suppose to learn facts before jumping to a conclusion. DanaC was told she was a victim of a jack booted EU Parliament. Fact that the EU is a parliament of elected ministers somehow never got learned. Facts just get in the way of entertaining more fears and urban myths.

And OJ Simpson was innocent.

The NRA actively cultivates that fear.

Pam, the reason for the uptick is the end in 2004 of the ill conceived assault weapons ban, which just arbitrarily picked some makes and models. After that it was easy to convince people another ill conceived farce would follow, so get 'em while you can..

FactCheck: Did the 1994 assault weapons ban work?

TL;DR: A very tiny bit. Criminals just switched to other large-capacity magazines. However, it dramatically prevented arbitrary mass shootings by the mentally deranged.

I don't see that at your link.
The problem with legislation is to define exactly what is prohibited, what the hell is an assault weapon? The old, "I can't define it but I know it when I see it", doesn't work.

In Orlando, the Sig Sauer MCX .223-caliber rifle's magazine capacity is 30 rounds. The Glock 17 9mm semi-automatic pistol has a standard magazine capacity of 17 rounds, but up to 33 is an option.

Banning the Sig but not the Glock will make us safer?

I was curious about this so I went and looked at stats. Here is a graph on homicides by weapon type over time. I have left off the years at the bottom.

The exercise: point to which year the assault weapons ban took place on this graph. Hint, the assault weapons are in the green category.

http://cellar.org/2016/homocidesbyweapon.jpg

Can't be done, that was the point of the Politifact write-up: it didn't noticeably reduce assault weapons usage or crime. But the statistically insignificant reduction, which may not have even amounted to a net reduction overall, nonetheless occurred within one narrow but interesting category of usage.

A + B = C

A is big and bad (criminals mostly killing criminals), B is small and abhorrent (nutjobs killing innocents and children.) Getting rid of B is still worthwhile, even if C is still effectively equivalent to A. The only question: is getting rid of B worth the trade-off of hunters having to hunt with low-capacity magazines?

What I don't understand is why B is the only discussion we can possibly have.

Handguns are like 3-4 times in greater use in killin', why not just try to make them $100 more expensive? If we're talking about incremental gains.

Or why not even try and change the culture, because that's what changed with that huge drop in handgun deaths, not the laws or law enforcement.

http://cellar.org/2016/homocidesbyweaponyears.jpg

That's the only question for YOU! Others realize that if you ban high capacity magazines in rifles and someone misuses a handgun with a high capacity magazine; then, you'll want to ban high capacity magazines in handguns. Then if someone practices rapid magazine changes with a rifle or handgun and goes berserk, you'll want to ban all semiautomatic rifles and handguns because they all take magazines. You'll want everyone to use lever action rifles and revolvers until someone abuses those and you find out that lever action rifles and revolvers hold the same number of rounds as low capacity magazines and there are speed loaders for them. Then when some nut case causes multiple casualties with those, you'll want everyone to have single shot bolt or breach action rifles and handguns at which point you'll point out that rifles are too powerful for home defense and you'll want them all locked up in expensive shooting clubs; also, that single shot handguns may not be all that useful for self defense, 'cause there are no magic bullets, so we might as well just do away with handguns entirely.

I've lived long enough to see localities ban semiautomatics and to see localities ban all handguns. I've seen pro-right to bear arms people give an inch only to have anti-rights people take a mile. It has happened even though the anti people gave assurances that they only wanted just that first little concession; because, they rationalize the end justifying the means. The trust is long gone on this issue except for the gullible and people who live in their own little worlds. If you say the progression I described above is far fetched, I just label you a quack. A pleasant and good looking quack; but, non-astute nonetheless.

PS: I didn't mention shotguns since everyone knows shotguns are only used by gangsters to mess up people's faces in revenge shootings.

PPS: Anyone with a 3D printer can make their own high capacity magazines. Plastic magazines are already in use.

So many "you"s in that post, your clairvoyance apparently precludes any need for a response.

It gets worse as urban populations grow and suburbs are so dense they might as well be called urban. A large portion of the people grow up with no Dad, Granddad, uncle or brother who hunt, and have never handled a gun. They are scared to death of them because they only hear about gangbangers and whackos going nuts. For these people the solution is simple, make guns, all guns, illegal and the problem will instantly vaporize. This group is growing every day.

I knooooow! And there was only one question. Imagine if there had been two questions. I might no longer have been smitten. :p:

You have confused an imaginary majority invented by the NRA with what most people actually want. Every gun owner must be held responsible. We did that with cars when irresponsible car owners were massacring in large numbers. But gun owners need not be responsible. One can be too dangerous to board an airplane but can still buy all the assault weapons he wants in hours. That is called responsible? No, that increases sales - the entire purpose of the NRA.

NRA and extremist organizations foolishly promote responsibility as the banning and removal of all guns. Nobody - virtually nobody- is saying that except propaganda organizations such as the NRA.

You are confusing those who fear with others who demand responsible gun ownership based in a simple question so many fear to answer. No one has answers this question. Want verses need.

Still waiting for the long list of reasons what you said exist. Still writing that list? Looking forward to a 100 page thesis.

You're out of touch, stop reading the economist and get out with people.

The Gunfather...

Here's your chance to help the victims in Orlando. Get your raffle tickets now!

As I said, and WAPO says...

Etc.

Ignorance rages unabated and despite all the facts and figures and emotional rhetoric thrown about the primary culprit in this catastrophe is the media, who profit on fear mongering.

That said, there was a piece on the news today about recent findings on gun deaths in the U.S. The folks who did the study apparently spent years on it, and it adds perspective and clarity to an emotion fogged issue. Just raw data in an easy to read graphic.

I've been selling my silver and buying AR-15 lowers. I think we will have another assault weapons ban. I'll be laughing all the way to the bank!

Invest in a 3D printer or one of those personal desk-sized CNC mills and really corner the market.

I want my lowers on the registry as pre-ban so I can build rifles/pistols to pre-ban specs. I'll triple or quadruple my money if Hillary is elected.

Absolutely. She will ban the guns just like Obama did. Nothing wrong with that sound business plan.

.

Lol. Not an outright ban on weapons, but the reinstatement of the Assault Weapons Ban pushed through by President Clinton. We are starting to see the early stages of it with reduced capacity magazines and pinned magazines in some states. Once again, the ban on the magazines on apply to ones manufactured after a certain date.

I wonder when the gun speculation bubble will pop?