Nataly 38 #1 August 9, 2013 OK, I was just clicking through different links on youtube and ended up on this (warning to all Piers Morgan haters: contains Piers Morgan!): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2btKEnfuA4 I don't know how much you can stand to get through since everyone is talking at the same time but the question he poses made me think: QuoteWhy would anyone need an AR-15? (Or any other automatic or semi-automatic weapon or a magazine that can hold more than a handful of rounds...) It's a good question... Why *would* any civilian need these? (Other than the obvious: they're fun!!!) The US bans other weapons that have far less potential for harm... Would banning these types of riffles (or high-capacity magazines - or both) actually reduce mass murders? The argument being that law-abiding citizens (ie: people who have legally purchased these) are not the ones committing crimes in the first place... So banning these only punishes law-abiding citizens... Truthfully I don't know... I honestly can't think of a reason you would really *need* one, but I'm not convinced banning them would *actually* make people safer... Thoughts?"There is no problem so bad you can't make it worse." - Chris Hadfield « Sors le martinet et flagelle toi indigne contrôleuse de gestion. » - my boss Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 622 #2 August 9, 2013 Gang bangers in Orlando seem to prefer the AK-47. and Which variant? It's a good weapon. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #3 August 9, 2013 "You are entering a world of pain." -- Walter Sobchakquade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #4 August 9, 2013 Whats need got to do with anything? Why do you buy lipstick? Nothing to do with need, you just want it amnd there nothing wrong with that.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
melch 0 #5 August 9, 2013 Zombie apocolypse... On a serious note though, I agree that there is not a true 'need' for one. Times have changed since the writing of the constitution in which the right to bear arms by citizens was a form of defense in and of it self when the American army was a fledgling force. People have misconceptions about the birth of our Army and the history of the revolution in which Washington spent a vast amount of time getting his ass kicked until he finally got a trained army and some great assistance from the French. We didn't win many battles but we won the right ones. I own an AR-15 which is mostly custom built and an assortment of handguns. Personally I enjoy shooting because its something that does require skill (to accurately engage targets) and provides me with a level of comfort around firearms. I also practice reloading magazines, off hand shooting, etc etc but I have also used these skills overseas twice so in my mind it is a practical thing. There are plenty of gun competitions out there in which enthusiast participate in the require high capacity magaines (speed shooting, 3 gun competition, multiple engagements, etc). I think most of gun control arguments and feelings both pro and con come from misconceptions about guns and a general discomfort with firearms as a whole. My ex wife would never touch a gun because she felt they werent safe despite my numerous offers to teach her proper firearm safety and education. Personal defense: Handgun for concealed carry or shortbarreled shotgun at hom. AR15: Fun to shoot, easy to handle, relatively inexpensive compared to some other calibers out there. Banning them will do nothing to slow gun violence (most gun crimes are committed with handguns or shotguns anyway). I would have to read up on it because its been a long time since I've looked into it but I'm fairly certain that Columbine and the theater shooting were mostly hanguns (I may be wrong on this...too lazy to google this moment). Back to your OP, I agree that perhaps there is no real 'need' for firearms not tailored towards hunting or personal defense but I believe in the right to own them . (responsibly) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dmcoco84 4 #6 August 9, 2013 No... its a stupid question. And now we gotta go through all the same stupid bull shit we have already gone through. At least I can copy and paste... QuoteI honestly can't think of a reason you would really *need* one, but I'm not convinced banning them would *actually* make people safer... Simplest reason... because pistols suck, shotguns suck, while rifles are more accurate and the smallest of women or young girls, can easily handle an AR-15; or countless other very similar rifles. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #7 August 9, 2013 SkyradWhats need got to do with anything? Why do you buy lipstick? Nothing to do with need, you just want it amnd there nothing wrong with that. +1 why do you need a parachute, why do you need a house bigger than 1200 sqft, why do you need a new car, let's keep going down that whole - "I should get to decide what other people should own" - road. I see great things happening. for the children. It's just tailor made for the "I'm smarter than everyone else" crowd ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nataly 38 #8 August 9, 2013 Skyrad Whats need got to do with anything? Why do you buy lipstick? Nothing to do with need, you just want it amnd there nothing wrong with that. Not a great example... When's the last time 71 people in a cinema were attacked/injured/killed by a woman armed with lipstick?? "There is no problem so bad you can't make it worse." - Chris Hadfield « Sors le martinet et flagelle toi indigne contrôleuse de gestion. » - my boss Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
propblast 0 #9 August 9, 2013 Nataly QuoteWhy would anyone need an AR-15? (Or any other automatic or semi-automatic weapon or a magazine that can hold more than a handful of rounds...) It's a good question... Why *would* any civilian need these? (Other than the obvious: they're fun!!!) The US bans other weapons that have far less potential for harm... Would banning these types of riffles (or high-capacity magazines - or both) actually reduce mass murders? The argument being that law-abiding citizens (ie: people who have legally purchased these) are not the ones committing crimes in the first place... So banning these only punishes law-abiding citizens... Truthfully I don't know... I honestly can't think of a reason you would really *need* one, but I'm not convinced banning them would *actually* make people safer... Thoughts? Nataly, I know many that put food on the table with them. They are well suited for that purpose. I know thousands of folks that compete with them in healthy safe competition. Men, women and children. In fact some of the nicest folks and most well behaved kids I have seen at Civilian Marsksmanship events. Many practice with them to be proficient at work. Either Law Enforcement or other. They are a tool. They have a positive purpose. In a lot of ways they are like a parachute. You don't *need* one of those either. They can get folks killed if used improperly. They can kill others if used improperly. If used correctly they provide a healthy source of entertainment, which is important to the human spirit. I would agree with your last statement that banning them doesn't make anyone safer. I do think the issue gets charged. I once asked a friend whom was Greek. ( we were both cave divers why she wanted to ban guns because of the acts of a few criminals) why she was so supportive of taking tools away from the law abiding. This was after she had found out that one of our favorite cave diving spots was going to be banned due to vandals and a death due to a untrained and but licensed person getting in their. She was adamant about personal responsibility and choice, and upset that anyone would take that away from her in reference to cave diving. I told her that was how many felt about semi auto firearms. She sat quiet for about 30 minutes during our drive and then agreed with me on guns. She said thinking of it that way really changed her mind. She just needed a comparison that made sense. This was a friend who for 5 years maintained that weapons should be banned. It was interesting to see the change. Modern weapons are built well and are safe. They can provide one of the necessities of life: Food. The provide entertainment. They provide safety. I would say they are more important than parachutes, which I also love. Yet a lot of folks won't see it that way. Let law abiding citizens own their weapons, let companies continue to R and D through civilian sales to make better safer ones. Not sure if I directly answered anything but I hope it adds food for thought. -propblastPropblast Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Darius11 12 #10 August 9, 2013 The second amendment is not just designed to save you from robbers and rapist but also a tyrannical government. If you look at history most dictators will disarm the public, that way they can get away with so much more and kill anyone who stand up to fight. We can see that even in the US it’s very easy to justify murdering citizens by calling them an enemy of the state or a terrorist. If the people remained armed then a mob of people with Ar-15 or Ak 47 (my pick) stand a much better chance not only to achieve there goal but also to deter violence. So if you want the people to have the power that includes giving them guns that would actually be a threat to even the governmentI'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #11 August 9, 2013 What possesses you to try and justify a need? Who needs a parachute? Who needs to skydive? Who needs a Ferrari?---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #12 August 9, 2013 "A world of pain."quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 622 #13 August 9, 2013 Maybe you should look more into how many women are killed by lipstick itself. No gun can do that! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nataly 38 #14 August 9, 2013 propblastMany practice with them to be proficient at work. Either Law Enforcement or other. These are not civilians, though... The point being that these "toys" can do some serious damage... More than your average handgun. We give up A LOT of personal freedoms in the name of safety... A simple every-day example: you can't drive a car at whatever speed you like... As a society, we have decided that beyond a certain speed is just too dangerous. Even though most of the time nothing at all happens, it is just not worth the risk. In a similar way, some people would ban semi or fully automatic riffles for civilians - because the potential harm that can be done is too big. Do people who drive still speed despite it being illegal? Yes. Do people still own/use illegal weapons? Yes. Most people would agree that speed limits, annoying as they are, *do* increase safety. Why are gun lovers so reluctant to admit that some limits in gun ownership would do the same? Now if the law is not enforced and the crime is too rampant, they may be right... But at what point is personal freedom (to own a gun for "fun") overridden by safety (because too many people who SHOULDN'T own one CAN get one - totally legally)?"There is no problem so bad you can't make it worse." - Chris Hadfield « Sors le martinet et flagelle toi indigne contrôleuse de gestion. » - my boss Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nataly 38 #15 August 9, 2013 diablopilot What possesses you to try and justify a need? Who needs a parachute? Who needs to skydive? Who needs a Ferrari? Again, when is the last time a person armed with a parachute attacked 71 people (with said parachute)?? Come on people, these are BAD comparisons!!! "There is no problem so bad you can't make it worse." - Chris Hadfield « Sors le martinet et flagelle toi indigne contrôleuse de gestion. » - my boss Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,121 #16 August 9, 2013 The founding fathers either had the great forsight to see how violent US society would get, or they (inadvertently) had a hand in creating it. In the end, the "need" is created by the right. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #17 August 9, 2013 Nataly ***Whats need got to do with anything? Why do you buy lipstick? Nothing to do with need, you just want it amnd there nothing wrong with that. Not a great example... When's the last time 71 people in a cinema were attacked/injured/killed by a woman armed with lipstick?? Helen of Troy brought a nation to war. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GooniesKid 0 #18 August 9, 2013 Andy9o8 ******Whats need got to do with anything? Why do you buy lipstick? Nothing to do with need, you just want it amnd there nothing wrong with that. Not a great example... When's the last time 71 people in a cinema were attacked/injured/killed by a woman armed with lipstick?? Helen of Troy brought a nation to war. Helen of Troy was also a hot babe...did you see that movie "Troy"..she's hot. I'd go to war for her any day of the week 24/7 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BikerBabe 0 #19 August 9, 2013 quade "You are entering a world of pain." -- Walter Sobchak quoted for emphasis...and a chuckle Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CanuckInUSA 0 #20 August 9, 2013 QuoteIt's a good question... Why *would* any civilian need these? I race Karts. What possible reason is there in this world for myself and my peers to be racing Karts? It's not like we are solving world hunger and world peace racing our Karts. Add on top of that, there is the possibility that myself, one of my peers, a track marshal or a spectator could be seriously injured and/or killed if the Kart I race (capable to reaching speeds of about 75-80 mph and cornering almost as fast where you pull 2-3 Gs in the corners) crashes into someone else. Not to mention that my Kart burns a oil and gas mixture and the resulting emissions are exhausting into the atmosphere. Good grief am killing the planet racing Karts. So shouldn't we just ban Kart racing? There is no need for any civilian to race Karts. Fun is not a valid answer. Just think of the progress Progressives will pat themselves on their collective backs with should they ever ban Kart racing. Since the vast majority of modern day race car drivers all started racing in Karts. By banning Kart racing, the Progressives (over time through their indoctrination) will succeed in banning all forms of motorsports. It's already in the works, race tracks all over the place are closing and Formula One, to prevent themselves from being demonized by the Progressives will next season will be adopting 1.6 liter V6 engines down from the existing 2.4 liter V8s. The common denominator in all of this is that Progressives always seek to ban things they dislike. If we can only save one life by banning all forms of motorsports, it is worth it right? There is no need in this world to race. But when you bring up banning something that Progressives value, well then the proverbial shit hits the fan, and the Progressives will label you as a Homophobic Racist Bigot. Where does it end? If we should be banning things, we should be banning this idea that Progressives feel they are entitled to dictate to others how they are allowed to live. Try not to worry about the things you have no control over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CanuckInUSA 0 #21 August 9, 2013 Quoteyou can't drive a car at whatever speed you like Sure you can. 1) You can throw safety out the window and drive at any speed you and the car are capable of reaching. and/or 2) You can drive that car at any speed you want as long as you are not doing this on the public roads (ie: driving at any speed you want on private land such as a race track). Try not to worry about the things you have no control over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ManagingPrime 0 #22 August 9, 2013 Nataly ***What possesses you to try and justify a need? Who needs a parachute? Who needs to skydive? Who needs a Ferrari? Again, when is the last time a person armed with a parachute attacked 71 people (with said parachute)?? Come on people, these are BAD comparisons!!! Quote April 19, 1995, Oklahoma City, Okla.: Timothy McVay murdered 168 people and injured 680 when he blew up the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building using, among other components, fertilizer. We don't need fertilizer, but it's useful. Quote May 18, 1927, Bath, Mich.: A man murdered 44 people, 38 of which were elementary school children. Another 58 were wounded when he blew up the Bath Consolidated School. To date, this is still the worst school massacre in US history. We don't need dynamite, but it's useful. Quote September 11, 2001: Nineteen terrorists murdered nearly 3,000 people on American soil by intentionally flying passenger planes into the North and South towers of the World Trade Center complex in New York City and the Pentagon in Arlington, Va. A fourth plane was also hijacked and was intended to be crashed into the U.S. Capitol, but passengers overcame the hijackers and the plane crashed in Shanksville, Pa. We don't need planes, but they are useful. Quote April 30, 2009, Apeldoorn, Netherlands: A man intentionally drove his car into a group of people amassed for a parade. He killed six and seriously injured another 12 before dying from the crash himself. We don't need cars, but they are useful. Quote June 8, 2001, Osaka, Japan: A school janitor killed 8 children with a kitchen knife. We don't need knifes, but they are useful. It's a crime to kill or injure another human outside of self-defense. There is no need to outlaw the instruments used. If someone wants to kill a large number of people they don't NEED a gun. When it can be argued that a mass killer NEEDS a gun to commit their crimes I'd be more than willing to here arguments for additional limits on their availability. If you want to use the law to potentially save lives, why don't we make it a crime to have sex without a condom? Once could argue that many more lives would be saved than if there was a ban on AR-15 rifles. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrewEckhardt 0 #23 August 9, 2013 Nataly QuoteWhy would anyone need an AR-15? (Or any other automatic or semi-automatic weapon or a magazine that can hold more than a handful of rounds...) Thoughts? People need guns like AR15s because the police are under no legal obligation to protect individual citizens, like when the LA police withdrew during the Rodney King riots. Some business owners were spared only because they had guns and the mobs didn't want to risk death. People need guns like AR15s because bullets aren't magic and in real life guns don't work like they do in the movies. In the infamous 1986 FBI Miami shootout one bank robber was mortally wounded by the FBI's first bullet which stopped an inch from his heart and collapsed one lung. After that he killed two agents and wounded three more, not stopping until after he'd been shot a total of twelve times with a bruised spinal cord from the twelfth hit taking him out of the fight. For the sake of argument we could hypothesize that no one needs an AR15. They also do not need more than a bunk in a dormitory room, food better than Nutraloaf, and cars which can travel faster than any speed limit. Thankfully we live in a country where we're allowed private homes, gourmet meals, and powerful cars if we like them. You could think of AR15s in the same way except they're safer than cars. According to Dianne Feinstein who is politically motivated not to understate related casualties assault weapons are used to murder about 50 people a year. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration approximately 4000 pedestrians and 500 cyclists are killed each year by car drivers. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,392 #24 August 9, 2013 >Who needs an AR-15? No idea. Even the AR-11 was a pretty crappy canopy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #25 August 9, 2013 Nataly Again, when is the last time a person armed with a parachute attacked 71 people (with said parachute)?? Come on people, these are BAD comparisons!!! Red Dawn comes to mind. The 80s version with our man, Patrick S, not that abomination this past year. It's usually bad to make comparisons with outlier events (like Norway) as well. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
