Why Everyone Needs An AR-15

returntosender said:

@dogs4 And they don't til it's too late

Click to expand...

That’s where the owner of the firearm needs to be held responsible. If your going to own a firearm you need to be responsible enough to keep it locked up so that no one can use it.

AlexB23 said:

Yeah, sorry for making that statement. But, I still feel that an AK or AR is not necessary for hunting deer. It is an excuse for guys (or gals) to show off.

Click to expand...

Personally I’d prefer an AK, it’s better for shooting thru brush. I’ve hunted with a lever action and lost a couple elk because I couldn’t get another shot off in time. You do realize that even with a semi automatic that your only going to get maybe 1 shot per second if your a really good shot right? For me it’s more like 1 shot every 3 seconds to get back on target.

BNR32FAN said:

Personally I’d prefer an AK, it’s better for shooting thru brush. I’ve hunted with a lever action and lost a couple elk because I couldn’t get another shot off in time. You do realize that even with a semi automatic that your only going to get maybe 1 shot per second if your a really good shot right? For me it’s more like 1 shot every 3 seconds to get back on target.

Click to expand...

Well, I do not hunt, so I can not make any comments. But yeah, if you want to use a military weapon to hunt elk, I'm not gonna stop you, but it is a little overkill. Sometimes, patience is a virtue. Anyways, I will step out of here, cos I am not a fan of auto/semi-autos being allowed for civilians.

dogs4thewin said:

The assault weapons ban lasted ten years has lapsed for twice that by now and with so many millions out there good luck rounding them up and some people will tell you even if you try ( those that are not on the black market it would get real violent real quick and some of the "good guys" military and police would not help and many people ( even if they do not own any would not rat. I remember and this is in a rural county in the south the sheriff one time ( who I do not like for a number of reasons, but anyway asks people to report weed they saw growing SEVERAL people told him plainly look it is illegal so if you find them arrest them, but I am not helping you. Now, even if G was gong to try something like that if people in this rural coumty will not report weed a usually liberal issue how many do you think would rat on people for having guns? Even though, it is well known you break-in in this county there is a good chance the coronor will be coming with the police as most households do own at least one gun and nothing is thought of gun shots with all the hurting and target practicing.

Click to expand...

The fact that there are millions of semi automatic rifles in circulation and less than a handful of incidents each year should be evidence that they actually cause less deaths than cars.

PloverWing said:

So we are, at least in part, talking about using the weapons in the video to kill human beings.

1. The use of lethal violence in self-defense is a morally gray area. We balance the imperative of loving our neighbors (even if they are enemies) against the practical need to make moral compromises as we make our way through a broken world. I do not have an easy answer, and the church has not found a single, easy answer, despite centuries of debate.

Using one of those weapons on a human is pretty far into the morally-dark-grey zone, but I suppose I can allow that a reasonable person might sometimes make that choice, especially since:

2. We live in a multicultural, multi-religious society, where I live alongside people whose religious and philosophical beliefs are different from mine. I can't expect my neighbors to be Quakers.

This brings us to the civil society point:

3. Regardless of our religions and philosophies, here in the US we need to reduce the danger posed by widespread gun ownership. Truly, I don't know what the best remedy is. Options I've see suggested are: arm everyone; arm no one; require strict licensing and screening; or restrict the weapons that can be sold. I'd like to see more data, a better analysis of what works and doesn't work, empirically, to reduce violence. Until we understand better what make a gun owner cross the line from shooting targets to shooting humans, I don't think we really know what we're screening for.

I'll conclude with a couple of positive points I've seen from the gun owners in this discussion:

4. If you must own a gun, then (as @Tuur observed) thorough training and excellent discipline make a big difference, especially in reducing accidental injuries.

5. Returning to the OP, I agree that some of our gun laws are clumsily written. Evidence-based legislation (perhaps written by knowledgeable gun owners themselves?) would be better.

Click to expand...

The use of lethal violence in self-defense is perhaps not as morally gray as we might think. The 6th Commandment is "Do not murder." When, then, does taking another life constitute murder?

Before we begin, take none of what follows as legal advice. Laws vary. If anyone wants to know what the law says, ask a local lawyer. Don't get your information here.

Let us suppose someone breaks into your home and you have reason to believe your life is in danger and the only way to eliminate the danger is to take his life. That's what most of us think of as self-defense.

Now let's supposed someone breaks into your house, sees you there, says "I don't want no trouble," and flees. Would it be self-defense to shoot him? I don't think it would, since the person is no longer a threat.

Now let's say someone breaks into your home, you have reason to believe your life is in danger, and wound the person. The person is laying there, incapacitated. Would a foillow-up shot to kill him be self-defense? I don't think it would, again because the person is no longer a threat.

The common thread here is whether your life is in danger and whether the person remains a threat. If it's not in danger, then I think it's murder, not self-defense.

In the same way, if someone starts a fight and then pulls a weapon and shoots the other person, I don't think that's self-defense.

Nor is it self-defense is someone has taken your stuff and is running away. They aren't a threat. Is your stuff worth someone else's life? I don't think so.

Again, none of the above is legal advice. If you want legal advice, talk to a local lawyer.

It doesn't necessarily follow that reducing the number of firearms reduces fatal violence. 19th Century laws against Bowie knives doesn't seem to have reduced the mayhem. At the time, the lurid press portrayed them as dueling weapons, but by the 19th Century dueling was already frowned upon. That's why Aaron Burr had to go on the lam after shooting Alexander Hamilton. Even in 1804 such was frowned upon. Similarly the famous (or infamous) Vidalia Sandbar Fight happened where Samuel Wells and Thomas Maddox thought there was a question of legal jurisdiction and they could get away with it. Yet incidents seemed to have decreased, judging by the lurid stories in the press. Given that the British had a ready market for Bowie knives in the US and that any competent blacksmith could make one, neither laws nor the availability of knives had an impact in reducing incidents. Again, if the press can be trusted, the stories they did report happened despite laws designed to curb such.

I don't think we need to go over the lack of success of 20th Century laws banning switchblades in reducing gang violence. Any difficulty in obtaining switchblades was offset by other means.

That's how such things work. The problem is the intent to do harm, and that exists regardless of the weapon. We had ready access to firearms in an age when you could buy them through the mail without going through a firearms dealer and knowledge of how to use them, and we never considered such things touted today as an excuse to ban firearms. If availability is the problem there should have been more incidents when there was easier access to firearms than there is now.

I don't think it's a coincidence that such things increased after banning religious instruction in public school. The way things are now, that's apt to cause howls of protest even in the Christians' section, but there is it. We at least had memories of such instruction after such was banned, and I'm convinced that made a positive difference.

timewerx said:

Ever heard of mass stabbing incidents? Maybe we shouldn't have access to knives too?

Iceland have high gun ownership but far lower homicide rate that compared to USA. Mass shootings are unheard of in Iceland.

Guns and knives are not the problem but the American culture of espousing social inequality, bullying, and the love of money.

Click to expand...

Yes fine. Your culture is the peoblem but that doeant mean that limiting guns is not a solution.

But perhaps it would also make sense to limit guns......for people In that culture.

BNR32FAN said:

The fact that there are millions of semi automatic rifles in circulation and less than a handful of incidents each year should be evidence that they actually cause less deaths than cars.

Click to expand...

Never quite understood what argument. Less deadly than cars? So what?

AlexB23 said:

Well, I do not hunt, so I can not make any comments. But yeah, if you want to use a military weapon to hunt elk, I'm not gonna stop you, but it is a little overkill. Sometimes, patience is a virtue. Anyways, I will step out of here, cos I am not a fan of auto/semi-autos being allowed for civilians.

Click to expand...

Ah, no. Like it or not, most type of firearms, from flintlocks all the way up to AR-15, have been used by militaries. The 45-70 hails from a 19th Century military round. That ended up a popular cartridge for lever actions. Lever actions have been used in war, but flat tipped bullets have terrible ballistics compared to pointed tipped bullets, and center fire pointed tipped bullets aren't safe in a tube magazine. There have been lever action vertical magazine rifles used in war, but you have to have room to work the lever, not ideal when your stomach's flat on the ground, and here bolt actions have an advantage. The venerable .30-06 started as a bolt action round and was used in US bolt action rifles in World War I. The .30-06 is also a good hunting round, as was the 45-70. .30-06 saw used in the M1 Garand, the US battle rifle of WWII, and was replaced by the .308, a shorter round that's practically equivalent (and it's kissing cousin the 7.62 x 51- no they're not the same) saw use in the US military's M14 rifle. It also sees use as a hunting caliber, again because it's close to the .30-06. It also saw use in the AR-10. That's the one that catches my eye because you can fire a round in .308 capable of handling bear and hog. The AR-10 for us civilians is strictly semi-automatic, where as the military version had automatic and burst of three as well as semi-automatic. There were issues I'll leave to the ones well versed in firearms to explain (I'm not well versed by any means) which led to the AR-15. That's the one that fires a .223 or it's kissing cousin the 5.56x45 (no, they aren't the same). It's a smaller round round that the .308 and I just don't trust it for bear and hog. But I had an uncle who liked the .223 for deer hunting, and it's a good round for game like coyotes (consult local laws before hunting with the round).

If we mosey on over to shotguns, guess what: those are used by the military, too. WWI Germans hated shotguns in Allied hands, and these were pump operated shotguns. I think the military version was designed for slam-fire whereas civilian models weren't, but be that as it may, Germans threatened to kill any captured Allied soldier who had one because the Allies used them to deadly effect in trench warfare. Shotguns are still used by militaries.

My point is that every type of firearm has, at some point, been considered a military weapon. Civilian versions seem to be on the lighter side and like the video pointed out, fancier, but it's the same types that have seen use on the battlefield. The only difference is that civilian versions don't come in full auto or burst of three.

AlexB23 said:

Well, I do not hunt, so I can not make any comments. But yeah, if you want to use a military weapon to hunt elk, I'm not gonna stop you, but it is a little overkill. Sometimes, patience is a virtue. Anyways, I will step out of here, cos I am not a fan of auto/semi-autos being allowed for civilians.

Click to expand...

How do you know it's overkill if you've never done it? If you don't know how to put down an animal how would you know what's required?

Do you apply the same logic to food? Are you a vegetarian and restrict your consumption to locally produced foods grown organically? Or do you vote with your wallet or what's available? Crops and livestock undergo far more than an animal being hunted by a skilled marksman.

~bella

bèlla said:

How do you know it's overkill if you've never done it? If you don't know how to put down an animal how would you know what's required?

Do you apply the same logic to food? Are you a vegetarian and restrict your consumption to locally produced foods grown organically? Or do you vote with your wallet or what's available? Crops and livestock undergo far more than an animal being hunted by a skilled marksman.

~bella

Click to expand...

@All I'm outta here. Please do not reply to me any further in this thread.

dogs4thewin said:

You do not hear people saying let's ban cars and yet they kill more people a year than AR-15s do by a mile.

Click to expand...

What is the purpose of cars?

dogs4thewin said:

You do not hear people saying let's ban cars and yet they kill more people a year than AR-15s do by a mile.

Click to expand...

OTOH, you do see/hear broad support of increased safety measures to prevent injuries and death(s). Licensing (with a written and road test prior) is a requirement, as is registration with an annual renewal. At the minimum there's liability insurance.
I'd be agreeable to implementing some of these concepts into public safety measures concerning guns.

AlexB23 said:

Well, I do not hunt, so I can not make any comments. But yeah, if you want to use a military weapon to hunt elk, I'm not gonna stop you, but it is a little overkill. Sometimes, patience is a virtue. Anyways, I will step out of here, cos I am not a fan of auto/semi-autos being allowed for civilians.

Click to expand...

When I used to elk hunt I used a lever action 30/30 which is actually a smaller round than most people use. An AK47 is a 30cal which is very close to the same caliber and damage. So it’s not overkill, it doesn’t do more damage, it just gives you an advantage by being able to take another shot quicker if you missed. When you’re hunting in the forest most animals move so fast that you’re lucky if you get a chance for a second shot. Using a traditional hunting rifle either lever action or bolt action you can’t chamber another round without taking your eyes off the target. So the likeliness that you’ll be able to get a second shot off is very slim. With a semi auto you can get a second shot off much quicker because you don’t have to take your eyes off the target to chamber another round.

dogs4thewin said:

If I could I would winner that a million times.

Click to expand...

It seems like only the people who actually own guns realize how many millions of guns in the US have never killed anyone even tho this should be common knowledge. I don’t believe that these people don’t know this fact, they just ignore it because they’ve never been in a situation where they actually needed one. The folks in Sutherland Springs First Baptist Church know how many lives an AR can save when it’s in the right hands.

HARK! said:

It all goes to intent.

Click to expand...

it was a pretty simple question