AR-15s

[xoxoxoBruce]

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.

No, this article is for the genuinely curious — those who assume that 5 million of their fellow Americans are not inhuman or insane, and who want to understand what set of rationales, no matter how flawed and confused they may ultimately turn out to be, could make an otherwise normal person walk out of a gun store with an “assault weapon.”

By the end of this piece, you probably still will not believe that I or any other civilian actually needs an AR-15. That’s fine. My only hope is that you’ll go forth better equipped to talk about gun control based on an understanding of how real live people view and use these firearms.

[Beest]

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.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Beest

I read the article, I just see wants and not needs.

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.

In any picture of hunting I have seen, they are not shooting assault rifles.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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

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.

The need may come as needing physical outlet or hobby to keep you sane but it doesn't have to be guns.

...people play Golf, but they don't need to.

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.

[tw]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

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.

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.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by tw

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

That statement shows you are clearly out of touch with reality.

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.

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.

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.

That shows your virtual reality is created on misinformation and emotional hyperbole. Hmm... sort of like a child's fantasies.

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

You really should read before writing, kid.

Well a hunter in Allentown was hunting with that type of gun.

What exactly is "that type of gun"? Do you mean a semiautomatic rifle?

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.

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.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

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?

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

[sexobon]

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.

[xoxoxoBruce]

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.

[Happy Monkey]

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.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

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.

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

[xoxoxoBruce]

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.

[Pamela]

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.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Pamela

In Texas, I see hunting all the time with the AR-15.

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'.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Pamela

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.

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.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by tw

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.

It proves the statement, "Nobody hunts with an AR-15" is not true, and people who keep repeating it are liars.

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..

Is that so...

Mr. Wetzel was more than a half-mile away, hunting for deer. His .284-caliber Remington hunting rifle had a range of two to three miles.

and

ALLENTOWN, Pa. - A hunter who accidentally shot a pregnant woman pleaded guilty Wednesday to violating hunting laws, but declined to apologize to the victim. Craig T. Wetzel, 46, of North Whitehall Township, was sentenced to six months of probation and ordered to pay $2,700 in fines for the Nov. 30 shooting of Casey Burns, 18, also of North Whitehall Township.
Wetzel also lost hunting privileges for five to 10 years and will be required to pay $3,175 in restitution.

It seems tw is misinformed, as usual, or is cherry picking facts to twist into a false scenario, as usual.

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.

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.

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.

So much chutzpah he doesn't even see the irony.

Beest correctly asked about 'wants' and 'needs'.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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'.

No, the question is truth, so that leaves you out.