The Deadly Selfishness Behind the AR-15

[Vox]

Frankly, I prefer a pump shot gun; if you value family members in other rooms a high powered rifle is a poor choice for home defense; IMHO. But you know so much more than I do.

I only know so much more than you because I have studied ballistics for about 60 years.

You could easily know the same in time.

A pump shotgun is not a bad home defense gun........if you only need five shots and operate it perfectly under stress.

I, being cautious, prefer 20 or 30 semi-automatically......just in case.

I'm betting my life, after all.

If you value your family members you will get the weapon that ensures that you have superior firepower........and plenty of extra shots just in case.

Wall penetration of the AR-15 with expanding bullets is not much different than a shotgun with large shot, BTW.

No matter what you use you will have to be concerned about penetration through walls.

Check this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXOIQgfvVlE

 

[Deuce]

You based your argument on NEED. I'm simply showing you the fail in that logic.

Also....is it any gun called an AR15 you have an issue with? Is any gun that can fire the .223 round you have an issue with? Or any gun that is semi automatic? Or, specifically, one that fires a .223 semi auto?

Let me flesh out the "need" discussion, there's an implied piece that somehow you are unaware of:

You don't need an AR-15 and their presence in our society represents a clear danger to the population.

Nobody is saying "ban everything that isn't needed." The real world isn't black and white like that.

 

[Vox]

You don't need an AR-15 and their presence in our society represents a clear danger to the population.

Wrong in a couple of ways.

First, there is no need to show a need. Constitution mandates possession.

Second, with dangerous thugs running around with Glocks that hold 18 shots.......yes, I do need an AR-15.

Home invasions by these scum are getting more common.

My AR-15 represents a clear danger to thugs who might invade my home.......and that's it.

Thus your argument fails.

 

[KevinKohler]

Let me flesh out the "need" discussion, there's an implied piece that somehow you are unaware of:

You don't need an AR-15 and their presence in our society represents a clear danger to the population.

Nobody is saying "ban everything that isn't needed." The real world isn't black and white like that.

Right. Ban sports cars, or more to the point, ban any car that can travel faster than 80 mph. We don't need them, and they pose a FAR greater danger to the population than AR15s.

 

[Maccabee]

Yep, he got off four quick rounds and then ... he had to reload. No box magazine, he would have to shove rounds in one at a time; in the mean time his victims could swarm him and beat the $hit out of him.

Exactly when has that ever happened? I can think of one right off in France but it was three military veterens who had the midest to take that risk, not some teenager that never saw a real gun that wasn't on a cop. Plus the shooter can carry multple weapons. If he has trouble with one, it onky takes a second to switch.

 

[ajn678]

If 60" TVs and lawns were responsible for regular monthly massacres too, you can bet we would take away your right to them.

60" TVs cause laziness and laziness causes heart disease. Banned.

 

[ajn678]

Semiautoamatic weapons are weapons designed for mass killlings. That makes them more like the nukes than the knives.

Do you even know what a semi automatic weapon is?

 

[ajn678]

There are legitimate home uses for explosives too but I'm gonna go ahead and support strict controls on those.

Such as what?

 

[Mycroft]

Yep, he got off four quick rounds and then ... he had to reload. No box magazine, he would have to shove rounds in one at a time; in the mean time his victims could swarm him and beat the $hit out of him.

Oh...so you are admitting that one DOESN'T need to remove their rifle from their shoulder when using a bolt action rifle. Good. But now you quibble about how many rounds he can fire rapidly.

Here is another weapon...a Lee-Enfield. I actually have one. It comes with a 10 round magazine, but as you can see in this next video, it'll accept an AK magazine...30 rounds.



Or, maybe you'd like to see a different rifle...



Any other goal posts you'd like to set up?

 

[ajn678]

The post that opens this thread has an unstated premise. I didn't realize it needed to be stated. I'll state it now:

Need is the only justification for marketing a product that is designed to kill people. There it is.

Guns serve the need of home defense. But an assault weapon is not needed for home defense. It is as likely to tear up your house as the intruder.

Guns serve the need of hunters. But an assault weapon would be considered improper for hunting.

Since no need exists for possessing an AR-15, the marketing of AR-15's should be banned. This is the argument of the thread. Pointing out other things in life we don't
need kind of misses the point.

You're entirely clueless about the subject. Might I suggest you do some research and come back with better opinions.

 

[TurtleDude]

You mean he mowed down the whole town? OMG, no more Vegas. It's been all mowed down. The guy murdered the whole town of Las Vegas. Just mowed down the whole town. There needs to be a law that makes that illegal.

lies and dishonesty permeate the anti gun movement's entire set of arguments

 

[TurtleDude]

You're not thinking, or at least you're wrong. If there were a limited civilian need for napalm an allowance in the law would be made for it to meet, but not extend beyond, the need. This is how the law works.

if cops can use napalm then private citizens should have it too. But napalm has no legitimate self defense usage and thus the second amendment doesn't cover it. It properly covers any hand held firearm.

 

[NonoBadDog]

lies and dishonesty permeate the anti gun movement's entire set of arguments

I have noticed an increase of people going overboard with the dramatic exaggerations in their arguments lately. I guess some people need that dramatic flavor in the post to try to make the stupid arguments they pose seem more valid in some inane way.

I was thinking about you earlier. I found this article and I thought I should remember to share it. It's not anything you don't already know but they are finally admitting to calling for an outright ban, regardless of the =rhetoric that they eon't want to "take our guns".
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/feb/23/the-latest-ban-assault-weapons-civil-rights-activi/

The woman who faced threats and harassment when she integrated a southern school as a child several decades ago says “the next civil rights movement” should be banning assault weapons.
Ruby Bridges Hall said Friday at a celebration of the Mississippi Civil Rights Museum that she is distressed by mass shootings at U.S. schools.

Can you believe that someone that hails as a person for civil rights would work at taking away civil rights in the name of civil rights? LOL

 

[NonoBadDog]

It's a relief to know you're a Libertarian.

It's a relief to know you and I aren't on the same side.

 

[NonoBadDog]

You can start a thread about banning cars, I'll stick to the topic of firearms, and in particular, the AR-15.
Cars are designed for transportion, the AR-15 is based on a weapon design to kill humans. There is a difference that is obvious, but had to be spelled out for the reason-impaired apparently.

Maybe that's the basis of the 2nd Amendment. Can't prevent tyranny with sling shots. Let me ask you this, how are you going to confiscate all those millions of guns? Do you think that there is any possibility that it would be realistic that the govt could just declare them illegal and everyone just say, "Yeah, sure, here is my thousands of dollars worth of guns, you can have them and I don't mind losing my 2nd Amendment rights while you are at it"? Not gonna happen.

 

[Nickyjo]

You don't need a 60" TV either, and you don't need a lawn. In fact, if you leave it up to me, you don't even need anymore that I, the government decides to give you. I will bury you with regulations and permits making your freedom to choose just too damn expensive. If you let me roll back one thing, I will be energized to roll back more and more until I roll you up in a little ball and store you in the closet.

What about the millions of gun owners who own AR15's that didn't kill anyone?

Lawns and 60" TV's aren't generally capable of killing. But even they are subject to regulations of sorts. True, the Founders didn't know about 60" TV's, but they didn't know about AR15's either.

 

[PLizzy]

Maybe that's the basis of the 2nd Amendment. Can't prevent tyranny with sling shots. Let me ask you this, how are you going to confiscate all those millions of guns? Do you think that there is any possibility that it would be realistic that the govt could just declare them illegal and everyone just say, "Yeah, sure, here is my thousands of dollars worth of guns, you can have them and I don't mind losing my 2nd Amendment rights while you are at it"? Not gonna happen.

I don't think anyone here has suggested such a thing.

What has been proposed is a ceasing of further production of assault weapons, which will make controlling them a more manageable feat going forward. A similar concept was done with automatic weapons, and we haven't seen one mass shooting involving them, despite many of them having been grandfathered in.

And if you think you'll be able to prevent tyranny with an AR-15, you're very mistaken.

 

[NonoBadDog]

I don't think anyone here has suggested such a thing.

What has been proposed is a ceasing of further production of assault weapons, which will make controlling them a more manageable feat going forward. A similar concept was done with automatic weapons, and we haven't seen one mass shooting involving them, despite many of them having been grandfathered in.

And if you think you'll be able to prevent tyranny with an AR-15, you're very mistaken.

yeah, no. That ceasing manufacture thingy ain't gonna work either. I alone can't stop tyranny but think about this. Most vets are gun owning conservatives. Most people in the military are conservatives. Most cops are conservatives. Who do you think is going to follow an order to go to war to take guns from their uncle or cousin, brother, father, mother or sister while violating their oath to protect the Constitution?

 

[Irwin Corey]

Oh...so you are admitting that one DOESN'T need to remove their rifle from their shoulder when using a bolt action rifle. Good. But now you quibble about how many rounds he can fire rapidly.

Here is another weapon...a Lee-Enfield. I actually have one. It comes with a 10 round magazine, but as you can see in this next video, it'll accept an AK magazine...30 rounds.


Or, maybe you'd like to see a different rifle...



Any other goal posts you'd like to set up?

What wasn't show was how many shots hit the target, before he starts firing the target is already shot out right of center. The way the muzzle is floating around during the demonstration, I wonder if he ever hit the target? I get it at close quarters in a crowd he would still be deadly. Still quite a bit slower and demonstrably less accurate than an AR or AK.

 

[Irwin Corey]

What wasn't show was how many shots hit the target, before he starts firing the target is already shot out right of center. The way the muzzle is floating around during the demonstration, I wonder if he ever hit the target? I get it at close quarters in a crowd he would still be deadly. Still quite a bit slower and demonstrably less accurate than an AR or AK.



But, since Charles Whitman, who's used a bolt action rifle for a mass shooting? There's no "goal posts" just differing opinions. I'm an American, I have one voice as you do, in the collective opinion of the nation mine is just as valid and holds just as much wait as yours. There are 320 million plus Americans, five million of which belong to the NRA of which I USED to be one. It's time the rest of us weigh in on the mass shooting debate and not let one faction control the debate.

 

[Mycroft]

What wasn't show was how many shots hit the target, before he starts firing the target is already shot out right of center. The way the muzzle is floating around during the demonstration, I wonder if he ever hit the target? I get it at close quarters in a crowd he would still be deadly. Still quite a bit slower and demonstrably less accurate than an AR or AK.

There you go.

First it was "you got to take it off your shoulder". When proved wrong, it's "only five rounds". When proved wrong, it's now "not accurate".

Do I really need to prove THAT wrong?

Why don't you just go ahead and get all your goal posts out of your system in one go, eh?

 

[Mycroft]

What wasn't show was how many shots hit the target, before he starts firing the target is already shot out right of center. The way the muzzle is floating around during the demonstration, I wonder if he ever hit the target? I get it at close quarters in a crowd he would still be deadly. Still quite a bit slower and demonstrably less accurate than an AR or AK.



But, since Charles Whitman, who's used a bolt action rifle for a mass shooting? There's no "goal posts" just differing opinions. I'm an American, I have one voice as you do, in the collective opinion of the nation mine is just as valid and holds just as much wait as yours. There are 320 million plus Americans, five million of which belong to the NRA of which I USED to be one. It's time the rest of us weigh in on the mass shooting debate and not let one faction control the debate.

Okay. You are going to go with a straw man, instead.

I didn't say you don't have a voice. You do. I've only been using facts to destroy the nonsense you are spouting with your "one voice".

 

[TurtleDude]

I have noticed an increase of people going overboard with the dramatic exaggerations in their arguments lately. I guess some people need that dramatic flavor in the post to try to make the stupid arguments they pose seem more valid in some inane way.

I was thinking about you earlier. I found this article and I thought I should remember to share it. It's not anything you don't already know but they are finally admitting to calling for an outright ban, regardless of the =rhetoric that they eon't want to "take our guns".
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/feb/23/the-latest-ban-assault-weapons-civil-rights-activi/



Can you believe that someone that hails as a person for civil rights would work at taking away civil rights in the name of civil rights? LOL

They want a civil war on this issue

 

[eduard]

We? Who is we?

 

[Deuce]

Such as what?

Removing old tree stumps.

Protecting myself against a tyrannical government.