Who needs an AR-15???

[1969912 0]

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[Boomerdog 0]

It's not a need so much as it is in the opinion of many including myself, a right. And it's a never ending argument. We have come a long way from single shot smoothbore muskets and flintlock rifles. Many argue that our Founding Fathers, yes those evil dead white males who owned slaves, could never have foreseen the advent of automatic and semi-automatic weapons. While they might not have foreseen this technology, they were historical scholars who had seen warfare go from swords to bows and arrows to gunpowder weapons in the form of cannons and muskets. If you visit our Civil War Battlefields, you'll see many cannons lined up and used by both sides. These cannons have been altered to be safe but make no mistake, as old and outdated the cannons are, they are still to this day, lethal weapons. An AR-15 in its appearance looks pretty intimidating. But there is a difference between intimidation and power. The bullet size of 0.223 inches or 5.56mm is rather small but there is sizable charge of powder behind the bullet that makes it quite effective within 180 meters or 200 yards. The added power of the weapon is due to the size of the ammunition magazine. A thirty round magazine can put a lot of rounds down range in a quick hurry. Now let's talk about "hunting rifles," rifles used in hunting say, deer, elk, moose. Hunting rifles carry about four to five bullets in the magazine. But lack of quantity is made up for quality. As an example, a Wetherby .300 magnum rifle is quite a powerful weapon. The bullet size is three tenths of one inch or 7.62 mm. This is a big round with a lot of powder behind the bullet. At 1000 yards (914 meters) this round is still traveling at supersonic speed and can still pack a lethal punch to a deer, a moose, and yes a human being from this distance. So a known, identified and legitimate hunting rifle is also one very good sniper rifle. So, an ugly looking assault rifle like an AR-15 that is lethal out to 200 yards or a .300 magnum hunting rifle that can "reach out and touch you" from 1000 yards. The result is the same you're still dead! The AR-15 is just the popular trendy focus of a larger and heated debate about what guns can be owned by private citizens like myself and which cannot. If humans were angels, we would not have the authoritative structures of government but those in government are not angels either and the power they wield needs to be checked, first by the ballot box and debate and i hope it stays that way. But the fact is that deterrence works. We own firearms for many LEGAL reasons here. But the Second Amendment is not about hunting or target practice...it is about an armed citizenry providing an ultimate check against out of control government power. Can it happen here? We certainly hope not but like playing poker there's an old saying..."trust everyone but always cut the cards."

[lawrocket 3]

[Reply]Ill still live inside my narrow viewpoint of the world where I can get my food at Shop N Save, and no one has a "desire" to have a weapon capable of killing lots of little kids really fast. Just seems like a better version of freedom to me.

[kelpdiver 2]

Bignugget

If you are right and its cheaper to go get the gun, permits and travel to where there is actually still game to shoot (NYC might be a tough hunt) then I will buy you a beer, and admit my narrow mindedness clouded me to the truth.

now shift this back in time a little and have Sandy come through on week 2.

[normiss 619]

But then the rainbows and the butterflies die!

[Bignugget 0]

kelpdiver

***
If you are right and its cheaper to go get the gun, permits and travel to where there is actually still game to shoot (NYC might be a tough hunt) then I will buy you a beer, and admit my narrow mindedness clouded me to the truth.

now shift this back in time a little and have Sandy come through on week 2.


I'm confused.

Was game more prevalent in NYC after Sandy?


But sure, lets add some sort of natural disaster into the show.

A hurricane sounds good enough.

The premise of the show is still sound.

Can one team survive through the disaster while not procuring firearms and going on a hunt more cheaply than the team that goes out and acquires some weapons to use hunting game to survive?

I'd watch.

Id wager I could get food from the Red Cross during the disaster more cheaply than you could buy a hunting permit.

But I would watch either way.

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

It's a good question... Why *would* any civilian need these? (Other than the obvious: they're fun!!!)

I'm going to try to answer this without reference to the US constitution or any current gun laws. To me it is not about guns, but a matter of choice. Why should anyone have the ability to take away my choice of whether to own a black rifle? I look at questions like this from the point of view that a government has to justify any reduction or liberty. Short answer: what answer do I need other than the obvious - I want one.

Quote

The US bans other weapons that have far less potential for harm...

Like what?

Quote

Would banning these types of riffles (or high-capacity magazines - or both) actually reduce mass murders?

Short answer: no, not at all, according to my own logic and Obama's CDC study.

Quote

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...

I can't think of a reason to ban them that overrules the inclination to allowing adults to choose for themselves, but you're spot on that banning them does nothing to increase safety.

What made you ask the question about AR15s? Do you think they're used in a lot of murders? I'd wouldn't blame you for assuming that based on news coverage and what politicians are saying, but the facts (according to FBI) are that AR type rifles are almost never used in homicide. I know they stand out because news media makes a big deal out of "mass shootings". While they evoke an emotional response, they are not truly statistically significant; they are not a reason to severely alter national policy. "Sandy Hook" isn't the problem - "Chicago" is.

The USA has a problem with violence disproportionate to its population. Because of our freedom to own firearms, much of that violence is committed with firearms, but assuming the violence would not occur if firearms were not available is not a reasonable position. Guns are used in violence, but that's hardly the same as saying guns cause violence, or that less guns would result in less violence.

Estimates vary, but there is about one firearm in this country for every man woman and child, and a similar number of passenger motor vehicles. (disclaimer: 310 million people, 270m private guns, 247m vehicles) Compare vehicle deaths to gun deaths and tell me what you find.
Firearms ownership is even distributed between handguns, rifles, and shotguns, with a tiny tiny fraction of blackpowder and relic guns. So handguns make up about 30% of private guns, but account for 80% of gun use in crime and about 70% of gun deaths.
Far more gun deaths are suicides than homicides; notice that folks wanting more gun control always say gun deaths, not murders.
Every study done (even by the Clinton DOJ) shows that firearms are used for self defense more often than for crime. The lowest estimate was over 500,000; the highest estimate was over 3 million. (I thought there was a 5m estimate, but couldn't find it)


The bottom line is that banning semiautomatic rifles has no effect on crime. It's primary purpose was to desensitize the US population to the idea of banning guns one by one. Those looking to push gun control wanted to prey on ignorance to push their agenda.

Quote

"Assault weapons—just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms—are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons. In addition, few people can envision a practical use for these weapons."
-Josh Sugarmann, Assault Weapons and Accessories in America, 1988[9][10]

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Bignugget 0]

Kennedy

Quote

The US bans other weapons that have far less potential for harm...

Like what?

Hahaha. Touche'

[skypuppy 1]

Nataly

***Many 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)?

so take a look at the statistics - what, less than 10 PERCENT of homicides are carried out with long guns, only a FRACTION OF THOSE are carried out with ar-15s. Something north of SIXTY PERCENT are carried out with handguns, which you seem to saying are safe.

Why ban something that's only responsible for a bare fraction of the homicides? Is it because the media hypes up 4 or 5 incidents a year where ar-15 might be used (and that couldn't have been carried out with any other type of gun?)

If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

[skypuppy 1]

SkyDekker

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.

not true. Violence will not go away just because you outlaw guns. People can still make bombs in pressure cookers, drive into groups, use fertilizer bombs, use knives - or if they're criminals, they can use illegal guns.

If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

I race Karts.

That's so cute!

[Kennedy 0]

Not really. King Koopa and Yoshi are ugly little lizards, and Princess Peaches isn't exactly cream of the crop.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Nataly 38]

Bignugget

***

Quote

The US bans other weapons that have far less potential for harm...

Like what?

Hahaha. Touche'

Nunchucks.


And to answer other questions:
- I didn't pick th AR-15, Piers Morgan did. Please actually read my post before making silly comments on it. As to why Piers Morgan picked that particular weapon, well, something to do with its use in a number of recent mass murders.

- Why are people explaining guns and "semi-automatic" and what is and isn't a "scary" weapon to me?? Stop making dumb assumptions - I don't need these thing explained, thank you very much.

- As for the argument that "needs" have nothing to do with it... I must disagree... Some things are NECESSARY evils. You can't take them away because people NEED them. The bottom line here is not whether or not they are necessary, but "please come up with a good argument against banning/restricting these types of weapons." (Given they are not at all necessary for civilians.)

- Also, all your examples of things that could hurt 1 or 2 people (and usually just the person directly involved - like skydiving) are BAD examples. They do not have the potential to seriously and easily maim/kill a lot of people at once.

- Finally: rights... These are not rights. They are laws/privileges. And they can be taken away. Nobody can take away a right. Please don't bring up semantics... The fact is that your laws currently prohibit things that used to be rights - like owning a slave... And thank goodness this is no longer the case. Your "right" to bare arms can also be taken away if too many people abuse it. Whoever came up with the statistic of 20-ish ppl killed per year by assault riffles... Somehow that doesn't sound right... Please post where you found this statistic.

"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

[normiss 619]

In the USA it IS a right given to every citizen that is legally qualified to own a weapon can.

Owning humans has never been a right.
It is in fact forbidden in the Amendments to the US Constitution (the same Amendments providing firearm ownership).

I think you do not understand what an assault rifle is still.

[rhaig 0]

Nunchucks? Really? There's a nationwide ban on nunchucks? Oh wait, you're talking about local jurisdictions who have laws against openly carrying nunchucks in public, but having them in your home or using them in a practice of a martial art is ok. So it's not really a ban is it? It's laws restricting carry of a type of weapon that are being followed and (realistically) selectively enforced.

Nataly

The bottom line here is not whether or not they are necessary, but "please come up with a good argument against banning/restricting these types of weapons." (Given they are not at all necessary for civilians.)

So, because there isn't a reason NOT to ban them, they should be banned?

Cars should be banned then. People can take public transit or walk. Motorcycles? Yup... them too. No good reason not to right?

No... that's absurd. You can't come up with a good reason why they should be banned? They shouldn't be banned.

Quote

- Finally: rights... These are not rights. They are laws/privileges. And they can be taken away.

Well... they are enumerated in the Bill of Rights in the Constitution of the US. So to us, they ARE rights. They are rights enumerated by law.

Quote

Nobody can take away a right. Please don't bring up semantics... The fact is that your laws currently prohibit things that used to be rights - like owning a slave... And thank goodness this is no longer the case. Your "right" to bare arms can also be taken away if too many people abuse it.

Yes, the Constitution can be modified. (as it was to abolish slavery) The process is outlined in the document itself. And if there were to be an amendment proposed to restrict firearms ownership to military and police, I do not believe it would pass.

Quote

Whoever came up with the statistic of 20-ish ppl killed per year by assault riffles... Somehow that doesn't sound right... Please post where you found this statistic.

Do your own search for "assault rifle deaths per year". What you end up finding is that most of the time, the article will report on the "number of gun deaths" without detail for the type of gun used but then go on to talk about the massive amounts of death that assault rifles are capable of inflicting (thus implying thousands of assault rifle deaths).

In 2011 there were 323 murders caused by rifles according to FBI crime stats. (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-11)

I don't have numbers on how many of those 323 rifle murders were committed with legally obtained firearms. That would be a number that is interesting in the context of this discussion. I could guess that it is a small percentage, but I have nothing to back up that guess.


and yes... what quade said -- "world of pain"

--
Rob

[Croc 0]

In answer to your original post, I need one. Sold mine to my brother last winter after I missed some work due to knee surgery.

Looking for an A-4 flattop.

"Here's a good specimen of my own wisdom. Something is so, except when it isn't so."

Charles Fort, commenting on the many contradictions of astronomy

[Skyrad 0]

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??



Actually I agree it was a pretty poor example, but I do have a much better one. Why are people allowed to buy cars that go over 75 Mph? In fact why do they want them? Other than on German autobahns its pretty much illegal to do so just about anywhere on public roads (with a couple of state exceptions). So why are cars able to go up to 150-200mph (Depending on the car)? In fact we could go further with this, if cars were restricted to a top speed of 75 MPH the number of deaths on American roads would decrease each year most likely by thousands, last year alone there were over 25,500 people who died on American roads. One could argue that many many more people would be saved every year by banning cars from travelling over 75 mph than by banning AR-15's.
Who needs a car that can go faster than the speed limit? What purpose does it serve, and speed is directly linked to the deaths of thousands of Americans every year. If you're looking to save lives forget about AR15's ban cars that go over 75 MPH.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[Skyrad 0]

Why do people need a AR15? Because when seconds count the Police are only minutes away.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[Skyrad 0]

Piers Morgan is a frikin prick. I hope he never comes back to the UK.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[lawrocket 3]

[Reply] They are laws/privileges. And they can be taken away. Nobody can take away a right. Please don't bring up semantics..

[regulator 0]

Nataly

******

Quote

The US bans other weapons that have far less potential for harm...

Like what?

Hahaha. Touche'

Nunchucks.


And to answer other questions:
- I didn't pick th AR-15, Piers Morgan did. Please actually read my post before making silly comments on it. As to why Piers Morgan picked that particular weapon, well, something to do with its use in a number of recent mass murders.

- Why are people explaining guns and "semi-automatic" and what is and isn't a "scary" weapon to me?? Stop making dumb assumptions - I don't need these thing explained, thank you very much.

- As for the argument that "needs" have nothing to do with it... I must disagree... Some things are NECESSARY evils. You can't take them away because people NEED them. The bottom line here is not whether or not they are necessary, but "please come up with a good argument against banning/restricting these types of weapons." (Given they are not at all necessary for civilians.)

- Also, all your examples of things that could hurt 1 or 2 people (and usually just the person directly involved - like skydiving) are BAD examples. They do not have the potential to seriously and easily maim/kill a lot of people at once.

- Finally: rights... These are not rights. They are laws/privileges. And they can be taken away. Nobody can take away a right. Please don't bring up semantics... The fact is that your laws currently prohibit things that used to be rights - like owning a slave... And thank goodness this is no longer the case. Your "right" to bare arms can also be taken away if too many people abuse it. Whoever came up with the statistic of 20-ish ppl killed per year by assault riffles... Somehow that doesn't sound right... Please post where you found this statistic.
----------------------------------------------------------
MINNEAPOLIS (WCCO) – Since the massacre at a Newtown elementary school, much of the discussion on gun violence has been around a proposal to reinstate the assault weapons ban.

During his State of the Union address, President Barack Obama discussed it, saying “Police chiefs are asking our help to get weapons of war and massive ammunition magazines off our streets, because they are tired of being outgunned.”

But how many people are killed by assault weapons in the U.S. as compared to other weapons?

According to the Minnesota report to the FBI in 2011, the last year there is Uniform Crime Report Data, three people were murdered with a rifle of any type. The report does not break rifle murders into “assault” rifles.


Four died in fist fights, 12 by knife and 51 by handguns in Minnesota in 2011.

Monday night’s shooting in Oakdale, Minn., which killed a 9-year-old boy, was committed using a semi-automatic handgun, according to police. The Accent Signage shooter killed five and then himself with a 9 mm Glock handgun.

The same story plays out across the nation. Of the 12,664 murders in 2011 reported to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report, 6,220 were committed with handguns — about 49 percent of the total report.

By comparison, killers used a rifle on 323 people, 2.5 percent of all murders. Assault rifle murders aren’t split out, but it’s safe to assume it’s less than the 323.

Most put the number of assault weapon murders as between 1 and 2 percent of all murders.

In 2011, knives were used in 1,694 murders. Fists and feet were used in 728 murders, and blunt objects –like clubs, bats and hammers – were used in 496 murders.


Of course lets use the lame 'for the children' ploy over and over again.

I served this country in the military and you don't get to decide what tool I use to defend my family.


that number would be 323 for ALL rifle murders and they arent broken down by type of rifle used...so thats less than 2%

But because some liberal passes some lame ass feel good law thats going to prevent criminals from using their weapons against us.


Brilliant.

http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2013/02/12/good-question-how-many-people-are-killed-by-assault-rifles/

[regulator 0]

propblast

******Many 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)?

I would counter your point about cars with a point.

Do we ban the ownership of fast or sport autos?

Nope.

And police buy these weapons as civilians. They buy those weapons using civilian funds(personal) for a variety of reasons.

My father is a 1st lieutenant deputy sheriff and he trains the deputies in several different firearms functionality and I inherited an old police M1 carbine after they all upgraded to the AR platform. The reserve deputies had to purchase their firearm with their own funds. My father has over 20 different variation of the AR platform and I am extremely proficient with each variation.

[propblast 0]

Nataly

- Also, all your examples of things that could hurt 1 or 2 people (and usually just the person directly involved - like skydiving) are BAD examples. They do not have the potential to seriously and easily maim/kill a lot of people at once.

- Finally: rights... These are not rights. They are laws/privileges. And they can be taken away. Nobody can take away a right. Please don't bring up semantics... The fact is that your laws currently prohibit things that used to be rights - like owning a slave... And thank goodness this is no longer the case. Your "right" to bare arms can also be taken away if too many people abuse it. Whoever came up with the statistic of 20-ish ppl killed per year by assault riffles... Somehow that doesn't sound right... Please post where you found this statistic.

On your top point I was using something here we can all understand. Misused a parachute can kill its user, it can kill others as seen by the low turn incidents where the inconsiderate have ended the live of another. Most of the time they are used without incident or harm.

The same frankly is true with the AR 15. Which coincidently is a rifle produced for civilian use. I used the example of civilian rifle match of which whether you realize it or not hundreds go on every weekend. They are used without incident or harm.

I also used the example of cars. There was just a news story last week where a individual purposefully used a car to plow into a crowd. It wasn't an accident. It was done on purpose.

I personally think anything where someone maims another carelessly or with malice is bad. It just appears to me that a lot of folks are willing to accept that when it is a car/ parachute and chalk it up to individual actions, where as when a incident with a firearm happens, they are not. They would rather blame the gun.

Your second point as I broke them out above; In the United States, it is absolutely a right as enumerated by Ammendment II of the US Constitution.

I do think you are asking a good question. What I see are not many responses with real reasons why these rifles should be banned.


I really think the term, "Assault rifle" is a poor term that many use to demonize civilian rifles. The AR15 buy definition is not a assault rifle. I ask you to define what an assault rifle is. You are a smart woman, who has handled firearms in the military, I think. What was the military definition of a assault rifle? I am sure somewhere in the learning process of weapons an instructor mentioned that assault weapons are select fire which ARs are not.

BTW: Everyone out there is aware that AR in AR15 does not stand for automatic or assault rifle, I hope. ( It stands for Armalite Rifle)

Cheers

Propblast

[Bignugget 0]

propblast

I personally think anything where someone maims another carelessly or with malice is bad. It just appears to me that a lot of folks are willing to accept that when it is a car/ parachute and chalk it up to individual actions, where as when a incident with a firearm happens, they are not. They would rather blame the gun.

No one is 'blaming the gun'. That is ridiculous. Reasonable people can understand that with 0 guns on the streets, the likelihood of being killed by a gun is much smaller than when there are 280 MILLION guns around.


While banning all cars from the roads would have an ENORMOUS impact on the way the country operates day to day.

Removing ALL GUNS from the USA wouldn't, people would continue to live pretty much as normal. There will still be plenty of assholes who want to kill people, and they will have to find new, more creative, ways to do it.

[propblast 0]

Banning guns would have a large impact on the lives of many as well. Even if you can't admit it.


So tell me if criminals will just find more creative ways to kill. Why shouldn't the law abiding continue to be able to protect themselves.

Propblast