Why Everyone Needs An AR-15

Aldebaran said:

Now, can you tell us how many people were shot with other types of guns during that same time period? According to the NIH, "assault weapons" are only used less than 7% of the time, which means that other guns were used around 93% of the time. So why not focus on those?

Criminal Use of Assault Weapons and High-Capacity Semiautomatic Firearms: an Updated Examination of Local and National Sources - PubMed

Policies restricting semiautomatic assault weapons and large-capacity ammunition magazines are intended to reduce gunshot victimizations by limiting the stock of semiautomatic firearms with large ammunition capacities and other military-style features conducive to criminal use. The federal...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Click to expand...

BNR32FAN said:

Rifles just aren’t as feasible for most criminal applications. They’re not concealable, they’re slower to maneuver, they’re louder, they’re more expensive to buy. In most criminal applications concealment is crucial. It’s a lot harder to walk into a 7eleven with an AR without drawing attention before you even get in the door... I would think that most criminals would never want to buy an AR and use it in a crime because once you shoot somebody with a gun you have to get rid of it.

Click to expand...

Aldebaran said:

Now, can you tell us how many people were shot with other types of guns during that same time period? According to the NIH, "assault weapons" are only used less than 7% of the time, which means that other guns were used around 93% of the time. So why not focus on those?

Criminal Use of Assault Weapons and High-Capacity Semiautomatic Firearms: an Updated Examination of Local and National Sources - PubMed

Policies restricting semiautomatic assault weapons and large-capacity ammunition magazines are intended to reduce gunshot victimizations by limiting the stock of semiautomatic firearms with large ammunition capacities and other military-style features conducive to criminal use. The federal...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Click to expand...

PloverWing said:

I trust you mean actual pigs, and that you're not using "wild pigs" metaphorically to refer to human beings.

Click to expand...

Tuur said:

FWIW, a proper boar spear is a thrusting weapon. You don't throw it. But it's sort of primitive and things would get up close and personal and fatal if there's a slip.

Click to expand...

PloverWing said:

I have trouble picturing a morally acceptable use of any of the weapons on his table. If you live in an area like Alaska where you're occasionally attacked by polar bears, then okay. But I don't think that's what he has in mind. All of his video clips were about using the weapons on human beings.

Click to expand...

JosephZ said:

Speaking of 7eleven, this happened just this past Monday:

Manhunt Launched for Suspect Armed with AR-15 in 7/11 Store Robbery

View attachment 346721

Other crimes where an AR-15 was used in the past two weeks:

Glen Carbon man charged, pulled AR-15 on workers at neighbor's home
Resident describes active shooter incident in Marina del Rey as ‘terrifying’; man in custody: 50 Rounds Fired
Shots fired at Rockford rental, 4 guns recovered
Gunman shot by Portland police was high on meth, sent ‘weird’ messages to friend hours earlier
Minnetonka standoff: Body camera video shows shootout
Mass shooting in Chicago leaves girl dead, 10 other people injured in Back of the Yards
2 Charged After Wiley Street Shooting
Man points AR-15 at employees at 2 separate Waffle Houses, police say
Man Wields AR-15 in Road Rage Incident: Arrest and Weapon Cache Uncovered
Man who killed 2 law enforcement officers used rifle with illegal 40-round magazine, sheriff's office says
9 people shot, 2 dead during Orange Mound block party, police say
RIFLE AT THE MALL: Police say 14-year-old brought gun to Coastland Center: Police: The teen had a rifle and marijuana in his backpack
Man Suspected of Pointing Rifle at Motorist in Moreno Valley

Click to expand...

HARK! said:

Are the pink ones, with small mags, as dangerous as shotgun?

Years ago I saw a report of a man who robbed a bank with cherries tied around his waist. He slipped the bank teller a note claiming that the cherries were bombs.


Should cherries be banned? I don't believe that they are protected by the Second. Amendment. We could ban notes, if they weren't protected by that pesky First Amendment.

Click to expand...

Aviel said:

If you were a Jew, living in Israel last Oct 7, 2023, you'd have a better understanding then you do now.

Or, if you wake up at 3am, in your Country.... and 5 hooded robbers are in your house, and they are going to do more to your family then rob them... = at that point, you'll understand why protecting your family with a gun is the "smart play", and its Biblical, as the NT says that if you dont provide for your Family = you are "worse then an Infidel".

So, to PROTECT YOUR FAMILY< ... is one of the things you PROVIDE for them.

Only the uneducated can't understand this common sense.

And if you dont, . ... READER. then wishing you'd "had a gun" later, is not going to help you sleep better at night.


Figure it out.

Click to expand...

dogs4thewin said:

Do we want to save more lives or do we want to appear like we are saving more lives? You are right ars and other such weapons may tend to be more deadly PER event, BUT if I am going by just total body count those are not the weapons used no it is handguns which already have stricter regulations.

Here is the example I always use say there is 1,100 people You have one group of 1,000 the other group has the remaining 100 both groups have roughly the same population demographics ( precentage) wise age, overall health gender ECT.

The choices are these you can either save 100 people from dying TODAY ( at one time) or you can save the 1,000 from dying over the course of the next 12 months.

Saving all 1,100 is not a choice

Now in the situation discribed which makes more sense?

The 100 people respeant the people killed by ars and other "assault" weapons each year the 1,000 people resprent deaths by handguns even though the number of handgun deaths is well over 1,000.

Banning Ar's and assault weapons would supposedly save the 100 ( it would not save all of them as criminals do not obay the law, but it may save a few. Banning handguns which fairly few people are proposing and are the guns that ALREADY have more restrictions in many states ( particularly releating to the age to legally carry them would supposedlly save many more.

Not that I support banning either, but if people want to agure we could save lives by banning ARS, yet support handguns being legal the stats ssay they are for banning the wrong guns.

Click to expand...

HARK! said:

Yes

Click to expand...

HARK! said:

Yes

Click to expand...

HARK! said:

However, you might find it interesting that in the vast majority of situations where firearms are used in self defense no shots are fired. In most cases, the criminal flees when he realizes that his would be victim is armed.

I wonder if how black and scary looking the firearm is, makes a difference. What do you suppose?

Click to expand...

Tuur said:

Never say never. The Japanese invaded and held a few Aleutian Islands for about a year in WWII. That said, the Chinese have long held the principle of vassal states, longer than there's been a US, which is different than occupation. A state that has vassal status is as desirable, perhaps more so, than possessing territory. Given how US companies kowtow to China in hopes of preserving market access, we may already be well on that path.

There's also, sadly, a question: If the Chinese did invade and occupy the US, would it really make much of a difference?

Click to expand...

ViaCrucis said:

Perhaps I'm not mathing very good, but I'm not sure how two swords would be enough for the Eleven apostles, let alone all of Jesus' followers. There were 120 as mentioned in Acts 2, and then by the end of Peter's sermon another three thousand people received baptism and became followers of Jesus. So two swords for roughly 3,120 people, at least by the end of Pentecost. Did they have a rotation system?



Yes to what? That they never used swords?

So you agree that swords were superfluous? Then why bring up the swords thing at all?



How do you feel about those situations where they are used?

Hey if owning a gun and never ever using it could solve problems, that'd be peachy keen. And even if in 99 out of a 100 instances where "firearms are used" nobody gets hurt, there's still that 1.

Do you consider the loss of some lives justified collateral damage? Does it change depending on if that 1 person is a stranger or your own kin? What if it is your spouse, or child, or parent, or sibling? Does that change how you feel about it?

Do you believe that a stranger's needless death is okay because you aren't directly impacted? And if so, do you believe this is an appropriate Christian mindset to have?

-CryptoLutheran

Click to expand...

RDKirk said:

I was with a group that was hunting feral pig that way on Oahu in Hawaii. I gave that a "Nope" for myself.

I did go on a hunting trip on the big island with a friend using dogs and .44 carbines. That was "sport" to put it mildly. After chasing the pig a mile through serious sub-tropical jungle, getting pig cornered, you've got sweat running into your eyes, you're shaking with exhaustion, and you get one shot at the pig before the pig gets a shot at you.

Click to expand...

returntosender said:

Scary stuff to see a little girl fooling around with a gun. Throwing caution to the wind

Click to expand...