What is the use you would have for owning an AR-15?

[CreekDog]

Interested to hear.

[RainCaster]

1. None- these are made for killing people and I don't want to do that

There is no other reason for owning one. Unless you think your penis is too small.

[samir.g]

2. This

[Always Right]

8. Why do you hate women?

My wife has an AR-15 that she target shoots with.

Do you think she bought it because she has too small of a penis or because she has a penis but it is too small?

Despite the reputation the AR-15 has a high powered rifle, it is in fact about the least powerful rifle made with only a couple lower on the power scale. That is why she uses an AR-15 due to it being low powered and having substantially less recoil than actual high power rifle.

Also, her AR-15 is purple. Is that to compensate for having a tiny vagina?

[demigoddess]

29. shooting at a target is not a use. It is practice for something else. Is she

keeping the AR-15 in the bedroom in case she becomes frightened in the middle of the night? Does she live miles away from town and there are roaming gangs of criminals in the area. Is she afraid that some group (blacks, democrats, catholics or jews) will come after her? Is she expecting to be drafted into the army?(there is no more draft). Or is she wanting to protect her home filled with drugs from the SWAT team or FBI?

[Always Right]

34. Agree to disagree

While you may not feel that target shooting is a use, there are millions of people would disagree with you.

Why would you make her out to be a racist or religious zealot because her idea of a hobby differs from yours?

In your mind only criminals and cops have guns so anyone who owns a gun and isn't a cop then they must be a criminal. Is that why you would call her a drug dealer?

She has AAA in case her car breaks down or she gets a flat tire as it is possible she will need the AAA service. It would be silly if you said that she should only have AAA if she had an old junker or drove near construction sites. So why would should she limit owning a gun to being in a high crime area as low crime areas have crime too. Also they are not immune to natural disasters and unforeseen events.

A few such examples that came to mind were the riots after the Rodney King trial, the civil unrest after Reginald Denny was attacked and when there was massive looting and lawlessness after Hurricane Andrew and Katrina. None of those people living in those areas needed a gun until they needed a gun.

[EX500rider]

35. "shooting at a target is not a use."

Of course it is, it's even a Olympic event.

https://www.olympic.org/shooting

Tons of people target shoot and compete.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_sports

[flamin lib]

50. Funny, I didn't see any AR15s on the Olympics website.

I didn't use M16s on the CG rifle team.

[EX500rider]

67. And yet lots of shooting competitions do use them. Most people can't afford Olympic level guns.

[ManiacJoe]

71. The Olympics caters to the lowest common denominator.

Some countries prohibit civilians from using calibers that the military uses. Thus the Olympics uses .22lr rifles.

[flamin lib]

74. Then tell ex500 not to cite the Olympics as a reason to own an AR15.

Or for that matter the sport and mastery of marksmanship. If the international standard for these things is .22 rimfire or .177 air rifle there is no way a rational human being can use those things as justification for owning the prototype for an RFQ from the Pentagon. But then gun idiots aren't often rational when it comes to their Precious.

[ManiacJoe]

84. The .22lr is not the "choice" of the Olympics.

It is what remains from the international politics.

The AR-15 would be a superb choice for the Olympics and other competitions. It is a great target rifle as well as great hunting rifle and great home defense rifle.

[flamin lib]

96. The AR15 is none of what you say it is. Fantasize as much as you want

it is absolutely a miserable choice for any of the things you say.

Gun collector, marksman, FFL holder and ameteur firearm historian. I know of what I speak.

Teply, have the last word, declare victory and just accept that I know how wrong and stupid your commentary is.

[hack89]

97. The AR-15 is the gold standard for high power target shooting

With the appropriate modifications it is extremely accurate. Upgrade the upper to a 6.8 Grendel and it is a superb hunting rifle.

[ManiacJoe]

98. Wow. Assuming your resume is accurate,

it is a shame you don't know more about the topic than you do.

You don't have to take my word for it, and you shouldn't. Just ask the experts who know more than both of us.

[Marengo]

100. To characterize yourself as an "amateur" is generous to say the least. I'm still looking for one...

Of those USA manufactured Mosin dragoons you claim exist.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=199560

It would be in your best interest not to refer to anyone else’s commentary as stupid after posting that dog’s breakfast.

[EX500rider]

156. I was responding to a post that claimed target shooting was not a use or sport.

So I pointed out it is a Olympic sport indeed.
Just because they don't use AR-15's is besides the point of whether target shooting is a use of in itself.

[hack89]

44. Of course it is a use

it is a competitive sport. I have shot competitively for 35 years and have never used my guns for anything else but target shooting.

[erronis]

52. Curious. Do you feel the urge to have high-capacity clips? Or bump stocks? Night scopes?

I'm a shooter myself. But my tool is a camera that I like to outfit with the highest-tech gear - lenses, mega-gigabit cards, and extra batteries.

I guess there's a difference between people that like to play with toys that are essentially killing machines and those that can be used to record the killing crimes.

[hack89]

59. That's nice - enjoy your hobby

I certainly enjoy mine.

[ManiacJoe]

72. Some of us enjoy both hobbies.

Rifle shooting and long-lens shooting use the same bracing positions.

[wasupaloopa]

106. Gunners always have the best arguments. I don't know where they come from. I used to think it was

from some web site or gun magazine, or possibly they are taught and re taught buy gunners themselves.

AR-15 type guns are the weapons of choice for many mass killers. You agree?

A Las Vegas concert. An Orlando nightclub. An elementary school in Newtown, Conn. A Texas church. And a high school in Parkland, Fla.

[ManiacJoe]

109. Not sure "weapon of choice" would be an accurate description.

That suggests planning for the weapons selection, which often does not seem to happen.

Most of the time the AR-15 style rifles seem to be a weapon of convenience, as in commonly-available and easy to operate and reliable. Kind of like a bank robber stealing a Toyota camry to use as a getaway car; it may not be the ideal, but it gets the job done most of the time.

[spin]

115. The media has been telling people for years that the AR-15 is only good ...

for killing people. This weapon is also a very common firearm in movies and video games.

If the media portrayed AK-47s or Uzi semiautomatic firearms in the same manner they might be the weapon of choice for mass murder rather than the AR-15.

The media definitely can influence people when it comes to firearms. For example remember the movie Dirty Harry?



After watching that movie the relatively unknown S&W .44 Magnum revolver became extremely popular and outrageously expensive.

[Marie Marie]

3. Sorry, I can't think of any.

[NBachers]

4. I can't even come up with some wise-ass response - murder, death, & mayhem aren't funny.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

5. I have friends who hunt with them.

[hack89]

6. I use mine for competitive target shooting

Last edited Wed Feb 28, 2018, 06:33 PM - Edit history (1)

they are the standard rifle for competitions in America. My entire family competes.

[CreekDog]

9. So you have no use for them at home?

If i'm understanding correctly.

[hack89]

10. I don't own guns for self defense. I live in a very safe town. nt

[oneshooter]

25. I have built 5

Last edited Wed Feb 28, 2018, 07:33 PM - Edit history (1)

One for my Loving Wife, and one each for our boys. They all shoot them in competition (High Power}. Loving Wife finds that the adjustable stock readily adjusts to either longer for summer matches or shorter for cooler weather. Our "boys" are 33,30, and 19 years old. All started at age 12 shooting 22 rf bulls eye at 50-100yards.


The last one was a repo of a rifle I carried as a Marine (semi-auto only} A1 lower, 20" 1-12 barrel, forward assist, triangle forearm.

All of our sons has a steel heavy duty safe, bolted to wall and floor. (they were gifts from Mom and I)

[vercetti2021]

7. Zombies

When The Walking Dead actually becomes reality then I would see a use

[narnian60]

26. Yep.

[sarisataka]

11. I would feel confident

using one for home defense. I have had advanced CQB training on the M-4

However with two dogs, a cell phone, 200 lumen flashlight and a biometric safe with a .45 for myself and a .38 with a grip laser for my wife, I feel no need to spend the money to get an AR.

[redstatebluegirl]

12. We have some gun lovers here, I have blocked most of them.

I can't understand how anyone can say they need an AR15.

[tortoise1956]

23. Some of my friends living in rural areas

use them for varmint control - feral pigs and coyotes, mostly. They are an excellent platform for that purpose. In urban areas? Other than target shooting, home defense or for collectors, that's about it. And I personally wouldn't use them for home defense...

Full disclosure - I have owned three at one time or another. I sold my first one several years ago after only shooting it once in 7 years. Since than, I bought two others. The only use I have for them is to shoot at targets, and I don' t do much of that because they are a pain in the ass to clean. Truth be told, I would sell one of them immediately if anyone made an offer, and would only hold the other for now because I still (after assembling it almost a year ago) haven't actually tested it at the range.

[EL34x4]

41. How could you understand? You've blocked all the ones who have answered.

"Why do you need an AR-15?"

"Well, because..."

***BLOCKED***

"I can't understand how anyone can say they need an AR-15."

[The Mouth]

13. chew toy for my dog

I like target shooting a bit, and have appropriate firearms should some insane idiot try to attack me in my house, but feh- a plastic fantastic?

The only real use for such a firearm, to me, would be in the ability to load up a bunch of 30 round magazines so that I wouldn't have to do so in cold weather during expensive and inconvenient range time, that would sort of be nice since loading bullets into most fixed mags is slow and no fun when the weather is really cold. That's the only really practical think I can think of.

[Puha Ekapi_2]

14. Several good reasons

for me to own AR-platform rifles. One, is for home defense. I live in a remote area of a very rural region of the western U.S. Violent crime is pretty rare, but it does happen. On a good day and with a bit of luck, response time to a 911 call is at least 30 minutes. If LE is otherwise occupied and/or in a remote part of the rez, it can be well over an hour. The AR is an excellent defensive weapon and I am more comfortable using it than just about anything else. I also have two AR's configured for hunting. One is an AR-15 in 6.8 SPC, and it's proven to be a great little deer rifle.The other is an AR-10 (the -15's bigger brother) that I've chambered in 7mm-08, and I use that for elk hunting during rifle season. I am primarily a bow hunter, but I also hunt rifle season, as well as other subsistence hunting to maximize the meat I put up for the year. The last reason, and I don't really expect some of you taibo to understand this, is for the defense of my people and my community. This is a very important thing to us.

[CreekDog]

19. wow, you went a year without a post that didn't involve guns

i guess this one wasn't going to break your streak!

[Puha Ekapi_2]

20. I use DU...

...mostly for entertainment purposes. This topic is one that is of particular interest to me here. I do virtually all of my political discussion elswhere on the internet, however. If that bothers you, the problem is yours, not mine.

Would you care to actually address my post?

[CreekDog]

21. so, posting about guns on DU is entertainment for you?

well that's interesting.

as for your post, let me ask you these 2 questions:

1) are you unable to protect yourself without a semi automatic?

2) are you unable to hunt without a semi automatic?

i'm asking about your abilities and non-abilities.

[Puha Ekapi_2]

22. Guns, shooting, and RKBA...

...are of interest to me. I do take that subject seriously. I save my discussions on other political topics for other venues, for the most part.


1. If I am in a situation where I need to use a firearm to defend myself and my family, it's very possible that a bad guy will be well armed with semi auto firearms. I want to be at least as well armed, preferably better. I want the odds stacked in my favor as far as possible. I'd be an idiot to seek a "fair" fight in a defensive situation.

2. Of course I can hunt without a semi auto, and I do. As I stated earlier, I'm primarily a bowhunter and I use primitive bows that I make myself. I also hunt during rifle season to increase the meat I put up. I have been using AR platform rifles for that more lately because they are accurate, lightweight, reliable and I can do pretty much all the work on them myself without being a trained gunsmith and without a big investment in specialized tools. I can even swap barrels to change calibers easily and quickly, something I'd have to take a bolt action rifle to a gunsmith to do, and pay money that I'd rather have in my pocket. The two AR's that I have configured for hunting are set up with 5 round magazines, and I only load them with three rounds. The several animals that I have taken with them have all been one shot kills.

[pbmus]

55. All your points are valid and understandable by me...

Of course, my Rez experience is real...lived in Covelo and worked with 7 different tribes...

You are in an individually unique environment and your use of semiautomatic weapons are understandable....

[spin]

38. Most younger shooters I see on the pistol ranges are using semi-automatic ...

handguns. A few dinosaurs like me still use revolvers. I do own several semi-automatic pistols including .22 caliber target pistols and a couple Colt .45s. I prefer to use a revolver for home defense as they are reliable and uncomplicated. I also legally carry a concealed snub nosed revolver for self defense. Younger shooters seem to find a revolver harder to master than a semi-automatic pistol especially in double action.

I don’t hunt but I do talk about hunting with those that do. Many tell me that they feel a semi-automatic offers them the advantage of a quick follow up shot. Many states limit the magazine capacity of a semi-automatic hunting rifle to five rounds. Feral hogs are common in the area I live and they do considerable damage to the environment. I understand that the five round magazine limit doesn’t apply when hunting feral hogs on private property as they are considered pests.

[Ferrets are Cool]

131. So glad you posted

It is nice when posters voluntarily let me know who I want to block.

[krispos42]

15. If I was going to get one, it would be for self-defense

There are really only 4 reasons for owning a gun, IMO: hunting, self-defense, collecting, and recreational shooting.

I don't hunt and I don't collect, so that leaves self-defense and recreational shooting.

I don't have the kind of money or time (nor do I want the almost-mandatory NRA membership that comes with most shooting clubs) so I'm not going to be performing either tactical or target competitive shooting. But that leaves the once-or-twice a year trip to the rifle range to maintain some minimal aspect of proficiency.

The rest of the time, like all other self-defense guns, it would be kept someplace secure but readily accessible just in case the shit hits the fan.

It would not be my first choice; I live in a smallish apartment and prefer the mobility and agility of a handgun. But if you told me I had to get one, it would be optimized for self-defense. I'd probably opt for one that shoots 9mm Luger handgun ammo or the .300 Blackout instead of the .223 rifle cartridge.

I could use the gun for hunting; the .223 works well on coyote and smaller animals, and something like the 6.8 SPC is sufficient for short-to-medium range deer and other similar-sized animals. But I'm not in hunting territory (suburban Connecticut) so I double I'll ever be hunting.

[gejohnston]

16. Come out west,

we have plenty of public land.

[krispos42]

17. I used to live in South Dakota and Minnesota

Personal situation changed, and I had to come back to Connecticut. I doubt I'll ever live in another state again, at least for a couple of decades.

[gejohnston]

18. It's a conspiracy I tell you,

between the wife and manufacturers to suppress the choice of lever actions.
I always questioned the wisdom of rural police departments trading in lever action .30-30s for ARs, sacrificing range and a more powerful round for increased magazine capacity. Urban departments, I can see a lower powered rifle.
Modernity is sometimes over rated.

[OU65802]

27. Protecting my family

[ADX]

28. In these days and times, the foremost reason to own an AR...

...is because there are a whole lot of Freepers and the rest of their ilk who own them.

What are you going to do when the shit hits the fan and these alt-right fuckers start shooting? March and protest?

If/when they shoot at me and mine, we're shooting back, believe that...

[LongtimeAZDem]

130. Found this about a year back:

[ADX]

135. Thanks for posting that, friend...

Stay safe...

[Atticus]

30. If I was parachuting into an IS IS stronghold, I'd want one. Short of that, can't say I 'd have

a use for one.

[gejohnston]

32. even then,

(depending on the terrain) I would prefer a rifle that uses a more powerful round and longer range.

[RearwinRoyce]

62. Militaries don't use AR-15

Not very useful in that situation (parachuting into an ISIS stronghold). No military in the world uses the AR-15.

[flamin lib]

68. U.S. Navy aboard ship. Ships are made of steel with long companion ways

and lots of bulkheads. Not a friendly place to let go a 10 round burst. They may have upgraded to M4s which are limited to a 3 round burst but one of the first military sales to Armalite was for the AR for ship board use.

[RearwinRoyce]

70. Navy used M14 now M4.

Nope. The semi-automatic AR-15 has never been used by a military as an issue weapon, anywhere in the world, at any time. Colt started selling it on the civilian market in January, 1964 (over 54 years ago). Armalite has never made production AR-15s or M-16s, they invented it and licensed it to Colt and some foreign manufacturers.

[Marengo]

120. He claims to know "probably more about firearm development and its effect on warfare than most"

Astonishing considering what he attempts to pass off as fact here. I have long suspected he’s acquired this “knowledge” from alternative history literature without realizing it.

[friendly_iconoclast]

147. "I hold a C&R FFL, own more guns than I have fingers, know local and national laws and probably...

...more about firearm development and its effect on warfare than most."

https://upload.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=155395

https://upload.democraticunderground.com/100210258612#post20

"I was actually trained as a sniper when the Army didn't have a sniper program."

But yet didn't know that the US Navy never used the AR-15?

https://www.democraticunderground.com/126211593#post3

I'm bookmarking this for future reference

There has never been any real doubt about the AR being an assault rifle. It has been marketed as such from the beginning. It was only after the general public began to recognize it for the threat it is that the NRA launched a major marketing campaign to change the name from Assault Weapon to Popular Sporting Rifle.

Bullshit:

[Kaleva]

31. Don't have a use for an AR-15 or any semi-automatic

Hoyt asked me in GD if I had an AR-15 or something similar and I said I didn't. Have a couple of revolvers and my next purchase will be a single shot break action 20 gauge shotgun. A gun that will do for me what the revolvers can't. Hunting, varmint control and a backup home defense gun my wife can use while I have the revolvers. It's simple to operate and thus train on and is very reliable as it has few moving parts.

[Straw Man]

36. Might I suggest ...

Have a couple of revolvers and my next purchase will be a single shot break action 20 gauge shotgun.

... a side-by-side rather than a single? They're just so .... traditional. And there's that second shot.

[ileus]

33. Because I was tired of the SKS.

[spin]

37. If I move to a more rural area of Florida and find feral hogs on my property...

I might consider buying one. Feral hogs are pests that can do a lot of damage to the environment and to people’s yards. AR-15s are commonly used for hog hunting.

?resize=1200%2C630





In a rural area the AR-15 is a good choice for a home defense weapon as you don’t have to worry about your neighbors being downrange. I currently live in the center of a small town so I prefer to use a double barrel coach gun or a handgun for home defense.

Of course an AR-15 can also be used for target shooting. I’ve enjoyed target shooting with handguns for years.

[luvs2sing]

153. You beat me to it.

Have a good friend in rural Oklahoma who hires a guy to come in and deal with their hog problem. He uses an AR-15.

[spin]

154. I can see how a semiautomatic rifle would come in handy ...

when trying to exterminate a herd of wild hogs.

An increasing number of hunters and exterminators here in Florida use AR-15s although a lot still use bolt and lever action rifles. Some even use a handgun like a .44 magnum.

Hog Guns: 15 Great Pig Hunting Rifles and Handguns
https://www.outdoorlife.com/photos/gallery/hunting/2012/05/hog-guns-15-great-hog-hunting-rifles-and-handguns

[kudzu22]

39. I have no need for one....yet

I don't have a need for a fire extinguisher either, but I own one because when you do need it it's too late to buy it.

[HeartachesNhangovers]

40. I have no reason, which is why I don't own one.

I don't hunt, I don't need one for self-defense, I don't compete in any shooting discipline that allows or requires one, I don't target shoot at rifle distances. I've never owned one and probably never will.

But I still don't support banning them or restricting their sale. I don't believe in giving up rights.

[aikoaiko]

42. Recreational shooting, some competition, and potential defense of self, family, and home

Yup.

[ManiacJoe]

43. Hunting, formal and informal competitions, self defense.

I do own one. Great rifle.
I don't hunt any more, mostly out of laziness.

[SoutherDem]

46. Two reasons

Natural or man-made disaster. You never know what may happen. Meteor striking the planet, massive volcano, cyber attack on power grid, nuclear attack, ect. The crap may hit the fan and as much as we may not want to, we may have to fend for ourselves.

Trump. While I hoped and prayed (and voted) for Sec. Clinton to be elected President, I knew this country could elect Trump simply because of the electoral college. Now, we have a 5-4 conservative Supreme Court. I am fearful republicans will keep the Senate and House. This would give Trump no checks on power. No matter the outcome of the Mueller investigation nothing may happen. In other words I am worried as to what he will do next, and who he will go after next. And, with a rubber stamp congress and SCOTUS, they may not stop him. He wants to be a dictator and congress and the SCOTUS may just make him that.

In either situation I want to be able to defend myself and my loved ones. The same reasons many say ARs aren’t needed, would be the reason they become needed.

[The Mouth]

47. Pissing off people who think I shouldn't have one

just like smoking, drinking, driving a car with a V8, watching porn, swearing or anything else that annoys anybody else unless and until I actually cause them harm.

Not that I have one, I'm more of a flintlock guy who uses fountain pens, I think they're ugly and have zero interest in killing anything, but if I *DID* have one it would be for that reason- people who concern themselves with what other people do -unless and until it actually effects them - should hopefully be made utterly miserable. Actually don't care for porn and drive a Beetle, but you asked

[Decoy of Fenris]

48. Same. If I'm in my own home and its legal, fuck anyone who doesn't like it. Reason enough. n/t

[aeromanKC]

51. They are fun to shoot

This is what I have heard from many gun nuts.

[4nic8em]

56. Rachael Maddow

has stated and shown video that she too, enjoys recreational shooting. I (for one) do not think she is a gun nut...

[aeromanKC]

58. Driving 100 mph down the freeway is also fun to do

But fun is not an excuse to make it legal to do.

[4nic8em]

61. In my opinion...

cruising 100 mph on the freeway would be much more fun if you were driving a horse and buggy. I'm pretty sure that would be illegal too...

[aeromanKC]

63. YIKES!!

Now that would require some supercharged oats!! Whoooaaaaaaaa Nellie!!!!!!!

[Turbineguy]

54. I've got a little list...

[Pope George Ringo II]

57. I've got no use for one, and will shortly be moving somewhere they're completely illegal.

That said, I've got no use for a Corvette, either. Whether or not I can use something isn't really a useful legal standard.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

64. As I generally characterize laws...

..."It doesn't always have to make sense, it's just a law."

[Pope George Ringo II]

66. The mere question is still utterly horrifying and has no place in a democracy.

I really don't have a problem with gun control, provided it's done the right way. If they prove little else, speed limits prove that we are capable of weighing necessity, convenience, and public safety, running some numbers, and coming to a compromise we can live with as a society. I'm not arguing against a similar approach to gun control, and honestly believe we should re-assess that one every few years based on the data before us. But the frank truth is that AR-whatevers are felt to have at least some arguable use to a very significant percentage of the population in most of the country. Granted, it may be 30-40% of the population, but it's likely 80% of the country's land area. And let me be clear that gun control as a subject bothers me so much that this time next year I'll be in Edinburgh.

But every time we start with this sort of crap, where we grab some rancher from Montana and say, "Citizen, a bunch of urban Democrats don't understand why you think you neeeeeeeeeed that rifle. Justify it to them or you can't have it," it's really not all that different from the times our society has said, "Citizen, a bunch of old biddies don't understand why you think you neeeeeeeeed that beer. Justify it to them or you can't have it." Or, "Citizen, a bunch of religious Republicans don't understand why you think you neeeeeeeed to marry your gay lover. Justify it to them or you can't do it." Or, "Citizen, a bunch of old white men don't understand why you think you neeeeeeed that abortion. Justify it to them or you can't have it." It doesn't help that no answer is ever acceptable to the Grand High Inquisitors in any of those situations, either. Those laws didn't just not make sense, they were all complete fucking disasters, and at some point a learning curve should kick in and we should stop doing this malum prohibitum shit. See? It's a mistake we make so often that there's even a name for it. That's not an argument for doing it more often, though.

Nobody will ever have a justifiable point when asking a citizen of a free society why he thinks he neeeeeeeeds to do or have something. It's not his job to justify his needs and wants to somebody else, never has been, and never will be. It's fine to pick up the burden of proof and actually make an honest argument why society thinks you need to not have or do something, and it's fine to support the anti-gun(anti-home-nuclear-reactor/...) argument with crime data, public health figures, possibly even poll numbers, or whatnot, but "Citizen, justify your need for something to me!" is really a demand which has no place in a free society. Especially if no answer is ever acceptable on any subject.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

79. Control: In short, I'm against it. I mostly agree with what you said.

I'm especially against arbitrary control. Attempts to control require some level of the general populace accepting such control. Certain malcontents among us never will and a subset of these actively work against control. Some of us own guns without a serial number made before serial numbers were required. Some of us own RADAR detectors. Some folks grow their own pot.

Several times I have explained that the only real control is self-control. Examples of well controlled populations are small and expensive to maintain. ADX Florence would be one example.

I accept and advocate cooperating with certain controls such as those on agents like BZ and Sarin and those on explosives. Rules on full-auto guns seem reasonable to me.

In general, freedom is freedom. Accept no substitutes.

If you think guns cause evil, you're part of the problem.

[JohnnyRingo]

60. Actually, I really do have a legitimate use for one.

It's not something everyone would need, and I don't have one myself, but if a western rancher in Montana or Wyoming, for example, spent time driving the far reaches of his property mending fences or rounding up strays, it'd be pretty handy to have one in the rifle rack. Surprises with deadly wildlife can happen suddenly and with little warning out where cell phones are useless.

One might think a shotgun or a pistol would be sufficient defense against bears, boars, or wolves, but only a high powered rifle can assure a chance of survival against determined big game. Being able to quickly fire multiple rounds can be added life insurance in such a situation.

Having said that, an AR-15 in downtown Cleveland takes on a much more sinister profile. As I said, it's not something everyone needs, but you can bet many who live as outlined above do have them.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

65. Your point on remote and wild areas is well taken

However, I would hold a 9mm or .38 revolver about as sinister as a AR in any downtown area. Handguns murder more than 10 times more often than rifles.

[JohnnyRingo]

69. But a handgun is very useful for self defense

Especially in the home. An assault rifle has such a range and penetration power as to be a liability in that capacity. Rounds that miss will easily go through many walls and even car doors to strike innocents,

Nothing is more effective than a pistol for defending a home from intruders. Though TV characters often grab a golf club or baseball bat, I don't play sports. hahaha

[ManiacJoe]

73. AR-15 makes a great house defense gun.

Except for it being so loud.

The standard .223 round goes through fewer walls than any other standard defensive gun, including 9mm handguns and 00 buckshot.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

80. Assault rifles use smaller ammo and are neither high power nor long range

I tend to agree with a you handgun use for home defense.
Over penetration can be mitigated by choosing the best ammo for the task.

[JohnnyRingo]

82. FPS muzzle velocity is much, much higher.

That's what all that powder is for.

That speed, coupled with the relative low mass makes the .223 a very hot round that penetrates better than a .380 for instance. I believe the assault rifle round doesn't start tumbling until it enters a body so stray rounds can indeed pass through walls and disrupt your neighbors better than a pistol round. The 9mm is pretty fast and low mass, but it's know for leaving clean exit wounds and for going through car doors.

Assault rifles belong outdoors, and apparently schools, theaters, and churches these days. and that's sad.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

87. Reiterating: my opinion...

...my choice for a home defense gun for the average person in the average situation in the average urban or suburban home would be a handgun. I would (I don't a currently own any guns) choose a .40 cal or 10mm with unjacketed hollow point ammo.

For serious ballistic data and professional opinion I recommend papers by Dr Gary K Roberts (USNR ret.)

[ADX]

103. Actually, for a number of reasons...

... nothing is more effective for home defense than a pistol-gripped shotgun.

[JohnnyRingo]

110. Good point

Certainly that big 12 gauge hole in the end of the barrel gets immediate attention.

[Paladin]

75. I have sufficient armaments at present.

Should I feel the need for an AR-15, I'll acquire one from some MAGAdouche.

[rzemanfl]

76. Posting this today is like posting "What is the best car to drive drunk? Interested to hear."

There are responsible gun owners on and off of DU. None of them, IMHO, need or want a 30 round magazine or full auto.

[Kali]

77. For shooting.

It is hard to shoot if you don't have some kind of gun.

What is the use you would have for owning anything I find dangerous or useless that you own or would like to own?


EDIT: Your thread was at the top of the latest page when I logged on, I didn't realize there has been another urban mass shooting and that is why this OP was posted. I suppose my answer might be seen as a little insensitive, but then after thinking about it I will leave it. It is legal to own guns in the US and has been determined to be a constitutional right, so I tend to go by that. There is obviously a problem especially in urban areas with violence, and I agree that some kind of bandaid is needed to staunch the bleeding. However I am a solve the root cause of problems sort of person so I wish more attention would be focused on those rather than the endless cycle of shooting > we gotta do something > NRA blocking anything > forget for a short time > repeat.

People have problems - mentally, socially, economically, spiritually, medically. They need to be addressed. That will solve a lot of all kinds of violence.

[CreekDog]

83. you posted this 3 hours after the shooting in Pittsburgh??? wtf

shameless.

but we have our priorities. some guy shoots up a synagogue with an AR-15 and some people decide that's a great time to defend the gun online.

congratulations Kali, you're the latter.

[ManiacJoe]

85. What is there to defend.

The gun did not choose to do the killing. The user did that.

Are you thinking that there is something special about the AR-15 style rifles?

[CreekDog]

86. You're saying he could have done it with his bare hands?

Maniacjoe said that a 9 year old girl who killed her instructor by accident with an Uzi had the wrong size Uzi, should have had a larger one.

This is an example of the insanity you post here.

YOUR PURPOSE HERE IS TO EMBARRASS THE PRO-GUN MOVEMENT. And you embarrass it and yourself extremely well.

ManiacJoe said:
"If the girl had been given a full-size uzi, she would probably have been fine. "

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=881529

[ManiacJoe]

93. All your years here and you still wallow in your ignorance regarding firearms.

Since there is no way that what I said could be interpreted as "he could have done it with his bare hands", are you really trying to troll this thread? Shame on you!

If you knew anything about the Uzi models of guns, you would know that the larger ones are WAY easier to control than the mini sized ones, especially by small people.

You embarrass yourself with your well-displayed ignorance. There are plenty of us knowledgeable people here willing to help educate you. All you need to do is ask.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

88. Still taking those continuing ed classes in over reacting?

Dialog > accusations.................. ALWAYS!

[CreekDog]

90. Kali's only post in the gun group this year was yesterday to say AR-15's are "for shooting"

the day one was used to shoot Jewish people at synagogue.

that’s on you Kali.

“For shooting” on the day of a mass shooting.

you take the cake.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

91. I'm not one of those that goes for the alert button and I'm not alerting this...

...but your post seems really close to a call-out.


Maybe the post was ill-timed.
I would give a long time member the benefit of the doubt.

[CreekDog]

92. i described her post fairly and accurately. i broke no rules or community standards

her post made her look bad, not me.

[Kali]

94. You never change do you?

You also seem to have some major reading comprehension issues. Read the fucking edit again. I posted before I knew anything about the shooting. Your dumb OP was at the top of the Latest page when I logged in. It was the first post I saw and I just hit it with a little obvious snark. Then I saw the headlines so I edited to explain.

You have a real nice day, Creeky.

[Kali]

95. As I said, your stupid OP was at the top of the Latest page when I opened DU.

Taking the cake is not reading the edit and intentionally misrepresenting my post.

And WTF does the number of my posts in a group have to do with anything?

[Lithos]

78. I have zero

I also think most people have zero use. Because this is a military grade weapon - I can fully understand why people who are truly active in target shooting competitions, reserve law enforcement, and maybe a few who are in a rural situation *might* justify having one.

However, I would like to see some control on the weapon given that it's got quite the fetish with the gun porn fanatics, most of whom do not have any use or need for it. What that form is I do not know - maybe Israel or Iceland might have something to pull from.

This debate comes a lot like the Pit Bull breed debate. There are a lot of other factors beyond just the mechanics - it's the people involved with them who make them good or bad. Unfortunately, too many irresponsible, unqualified, and in a few cases, evil people, are attracted.

L-

[krispos42]

111. It's a launching device for 5.56mm caliber bullets, primarily.

Therefore, if a 5.56mm caliber bullet suits your needs then an AR-15 probably will suit your needs.

You can get AR-15s in other calibers if 5.56mm/.223 Rem does not suit. 9mm pistol ammo? No problem. .45 pistol ammo? No problem. 6.8mm SPC? No problem. .300 Blackout? No problem. .50 Beowulf? No problem.

What does "military grade" really mean? A really tough, non-glare finish? Pistol grips? Tight tolerances on the machining? Lots of attachment points for sights and lights?



It means that the military has a specification, and the gun meets it. In my job, I send stuff out for military-grade treatments, mostly prime-and-paint and anodizing, and non-destructive testing.

Guns, like other tools and other things we use, should be ergonomically well designed. Except with guns, that design gets them called "assault weapons".

I own guns for self defense. (Well, 1 gun). Which means I bought it specifically for killing people. I have no problem with either doing it or saying it. Will I ever kill anybody with it? Highly unlikely, but it's there, just in case.

[Lithos]

112. It is more than a calibre

Military grade weapons are designed not for the highest lethality in a single round, but to maximize the capabilities of a rifleman on the battlefield. To achieve this the AR-15 does two things.

First, it fires a small round at an extremely high velocity. The terminal ballistics are designed to not only achieve the primary wound, but focused on the secondary wound caused by the energy being dissipated. Organs are not punched thru, they and adjacent organs are shredded. The smaller round means less le is not guaranteed, but the wound is painful and debilitating. Purposeful from a military standpoint as it increases the medical and operational burden on the enemy to deal with the wounded.

Many states do not allow the AR-15 for hunting because the small calibre is considered inhumane because it leaves large animals wounded that a 30 calibre rifle would have killed.

Second, the AR-15 also is designed with minimal kick back allowing the shooter to quickly recover and shoot effectively again. This combined with large magazines allows for more bullets to be shot. The smaller calibre meaning more bullets as well which can be carried. Good from a military perspective as these can be used by those with less training. Bullets being cheap. Quantity over quality.

[krispos42]

116. And this is the ammunition performing, not the rifle

Yes, the .223 Rem ammuntion an AR-15 typically fires is somewhat faster than the much larger .30-caliber bullets, but it is not that much higher. The .30-06 launches at about 2,800 fps, the .223 Rem at about 3,100 fps.

It's faster, but maybe 10% faster. And there are other, even faster .223 cartridges out there that push bullets to 3,400 fps or higher, such as the .22-250, the .220 Swift, and the .223 WSSM.

And of course, hunting and self-defense cartridges are going to be designed to deliver maximum damage to their target. They are hollowpoints or otherwise expanding bullets; they generally triple their frontal area and often parts of them break off in the person they hit. The wound ballistics you describe are from the military-issue non-expanding ammunition, which does tend to tumble and fragment when it hits a person at close range (less than 100 yards) more so than the heavier and somewhat slower bullets fired by larger-caliber guns. But the effects you describe are what other ammunition, rifle or pistol, is designed to achieve similar effects. The police carry some form of expanding ammunition in their pistols, and the much slower 9mm or .40 S&W or .45 ACP bullets their handguns fire will also expand to nearly 2x their diameter, tumble, and might even fragment when they hit someone.

Any rifle that shoots the .223 is going to be mild; the cartridge is not particularly powerful. The guy who designed the AR-15 put the sights up high so the recoil is delivered square to the shoulder, but even more traditional firearms have very little recoil due the mildness of the cartridge.

You seem to want two contradictory things: a gun that has a very heavy recoil but that also does not cause much wounding.

I don't know how to accomplish those two goals.

I know that handguns are used to kill 20x the number of people that are killed with rifles, and I know that if you're really concerned about mass shootings with rifles, the only sensible, loophole-free way to at least tangentally address the problem would be to ban ALL semi-automatic rifles.

I doubt it will do much, but at least there's no loophole to exploit.

[Paladin]

113. The AR-15 suits the needs and fantasies of way too many mass killers.

But you were fully aware of that already, weren't you?

I own guns for self-defense, as you do. But as you well know, that doesn't prevent me from supporting rigorous controls on firearms.

[krispos42]

114. Taking away the AR-15 doesn't solve the problem

Except get them motivated to vote for Republicans.

Absent an AR-15 or whatever gun you choose to villianize, they will pick a substitute from the broad offerings from the makers of guns, who will respond to market forces as needed and supply them.

You're not making the mentality go away by taking one a particular object, but you are getting out votes for the GOP. Worse, you're making lifelong GOP voters.

I've stated before that I don't have problems with some more rigorous laws with guns, but this is not a hardware problem. These people are not rationally motivated when they plan and perform these things, so hoping that if they can't get an AR-15 (or whatever) they'll just not perform these horrific and senseless acts is a forlorn hope. They don't have a rational goal; the death and injuries is not a by-product of a mission, it IS the mission.

[ileus]

81. Which one?

My Wife set hers up for general plinking and distance shooting with a 4-12x50 scope (556)

My son has his set up for just plain fun at the range with a red dot (also 556)

Mine is set up for home defense and for shooting coyotes out of the back field.

My next two are as follows:

1. I really want a 300 blk pistol, fun little plinking round plus as a pistol it'd be covered under my CHP in my vehicle.

2. Hoping to build my son a 6.8spc for hunting.

That would leave one remaining blank lower for something but I'm not sure what...maybe 50 Beowulf since it's an anderson lower???

[Marengo]

99. If I believed you were genuinely objectively interested I would be tempted to answer as I own...

An AR. However, it’s an old and obvious trick you’re setting up here. How about you try it on AR15.com? Go ahead, I dare you LOL!

[underpants]

101. So I can fight off the Army Marines Navy Airforce

The Mississippi National Guard and the League of Women Voters*

* Simpsons reference

“Daybreak, Jakarta, the proud men and women of the Navy are fighting for freedom. But you’re in Lubbock, Texas, hosing the stains off a monument. You’re in the Naval Reserve, America’s seventeenth line of defense, between the Mississippi National Guard and the League of Women Voters.” – TV Announcer

[A DAY IN THE LIFE]

102. Yes, as so many have said "they're for killing people." That is the point

They are very accurate for those with little training.
They do cause a great deal of damage, but is rare to have a trhough'n'through.
You are more likely to miss and/or injure an innocent bystander with a pistol than an AR15
The AR15 is light and easy to use during an emergency.
It carries a good load and quick to reload.
Good recycling rate.

The negatives for self defense are:
Pretty obvious you are carrying a weapon. You also look like a wanker carrying one.
Its length can cause problems in close quarters.

[gay texan]

104. Quail hunting?

For those times I have a hankering for quail puree...

[better]

105. I should start by confessing...

that I have not read the hundred previous replies, so please forgive me if I cover topics already addressed, but in the interest of providing an objective, non-combative answer to your question, here is one....

Continuity of operational principles and controls across caliber/application.

One of the main advantages of the AR platform is that it is a modular design, consisting of an upper and a lower assembly, the latter of which is the actual regulated firearm. You can have a single lower that can be mated to uppers of many different configurations, which can be suited to different applications. Yet across these possible applications, the operational and safety controls remain identical. And furthermore, I could in theory possess the capability to do target shooting, pest elimination all the way up to big game hunting, yet only be able to do one of those things at a time, as opposed to having three or more completely and independently functional weapons.

The wiser question to be asking, in my humble opinion, is what use one would have for owning an AR-15 (or other similar weapon) with high capacity magazines and/or without features making them take longer to reload.

Personally, I don't see any valid reason to ban AR-15's, but I DO see a valid reason to bad high capacity magazines and make swapping magazines take longer to replace. Those two things, capacity and speed of reloading, are the things that actually matter. Ban AR-15's without addressing those things, and wingnuts will just use other rifles of the same caliber with available high capacity magazines, and you'll still have the exact same danger.

Again, just my humble opinion, but I think that instead of banning models of weapons, we should ban capabilities, specifically related to capacity and speed of reloading, since those really do apply to the kinds of mass shootings we have been witnessing.

There are, however, plenty of valid reasons to own an AR-15 that do not require high capacity magazines or lightning fast magazine replacement. And at the same time, there are NOT many valid reasons to allow high capacity magazines or lightning fast magazine replacement.

[dameatball]

107. Several years ago I owned a small farm and had a few Tennessee Walkers for trail riding. I also

had problems with ground hogs in the pasture, under the barn, etc. I don't hate groundhogs. In fact they are rather cute. Every now and then I was able to use a trap in the barn area and relocate them. I also purchased a Ruger .223 rifle for the occasional times when they burrowed up into the pasture. I would rather bury a ground hog than have a horse with a broken leg.
As it turned out, I discovered I could get close enough to use a .410 with much less risk to the nearest neighbors which were probably a quarter mile away. In six years I did kill two in the pasture and trapped a few in other areas.
So the Ruger served out the rest of its days blowing up various pumpkins, squashes and 2 liter soda bottles out back.


Now that I am living back in town, my home defense consists of two revolvers and a shotgun. No need for anything else. I sold the Ruger when I moved off the farm. I realize the Ruger is not an AR-15, but the point is it has certain uses that can change with a person's circumstance. I never needed one and hopefully never will.

[Doodley]

108. Why even try to justify ownership of such a weapon?

[X_Digger]

117. Whatever reason I choose. It's none of your business. n/t

[CreekDog]

118. You're right, it isn't. The rules here say that posts favoring Republicans should be kept to oneself

So I stand corrected. You are right to keep those opinions to yourself.

Just wish you'd keep all the Republican opinions to yourself, but credit where credit is due I guess.

[X_Digger]

119. When did you become the Secretary of Need?

You don't have to justify why you need something in order to buy or possess things.

I don't have to tell you shit when I buy a truck rather than a car, or choose blue socks over speckled. Teflon coated pans vs copper? Fuck right off, none of your goddamned business.

But hey, thanks for the insult. I had almost forgotten how your *cough* rhetoric works.

*Ask a loaded question that presupposes something that isn't required...

* snark back at anyone answering.

Typical.

[Alea]

121. I thought you started this thread with good intent

Edited: I never self deleted a post before. I always liked to stand by what I say but this is craziest, most insulting thread I've ever been in. For the betterment of the group/DU, I've deleted a few post. Mainly because it's just not worth it.

[CreekDog]

122. I have posted a copy of your second post at Democratic Underground below

Now who's really trolling?

SECOND POST AT DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND!

Calling ME a troll!

Alea (431 posts)

15. My preference

Smith & Wesson Shield 9mm and Glock 43 although the shield prints less while carrying concealed and holds 2 more rounds. I love them both. Glock 19 for home defense.

Practice often

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=202841

[CreekDog]

123. Oh dear, one of your posts has not aged well

LOL

Alea (431 posts)

1. Haven't you heard? We're taking back the house and senate in 2018 and must double down on gun

control. The fact that a 6 shooter was used by a man that should have been in jail is irrelevant.

If the anti-gun folks want to ban 6 shooters then you should change point 1 from:

Perpetuating the idea that Democrats want to "take your guns" to

Perpetuating the fact that Democrats want to "take your guns"

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=203300

[CreekDog]

124. Uh oh, you came here to back up X_Digger's post

interesting that you defend bump stocks as much as him.

SMMMMMOOOOOOOTTTTTTTHHHHHH

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=9674595

[CreekDog]

133. liberal, progressive, supporter of social democracy

as for you...

[CreekDog]

137. here's another example where X_Digger was joining your argument in a subthread

far down in a topic that X_digger had no other posts.

until your post got criticized.

then he joined.

much like in this thread, you joined when his post was criticized.

https://upload.democraticunderground.com/100210619589#post11

[Soxfan58]

126. Make up for Their tiny penises

And lack of courage.

[Alea]

127. No dick here and I deployed 3 times to the middle east

You should stop sneaking peeks at men's penises

[SWBTATTReg]

128. I am still thinking of a reason...still nothing comes to mind...nt

[Ferrets are Cool]

129. My "used to be friends" would take it out at every gathering

and fondle it like a loved one, while showing it off like a trophy wife. They are no longer my acquaintances.

[AJT]

132. I don't have a problem with the AR -15 if we have proper licensing and

other safety rules. I don't think there needs to be 30 rounds in a clip(not sure the nomenclature is correct).

[keithbvadu2]

136. AR-15 style rifle is the preferred weapon of choice for killing schoolchildren.

AR-15 style rifle is the preferred weapon of choice for killing schoolchildren.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

139. From the witness stand:

Vinny: What's the best-selling single model tire|being sold in the United States today?
George Wilbur: The Michelin XGV.
Vinny: And what's the most popular size?
George Wilbur: 75R-14.
Vinny: The same size as on the defendants' car.
...
Vinny: Excuse me. What I'm askin' you...
..is if the most popular size of the most popular tire...
..is on the defendants' car?
George Wilbur: Well,.....yeah.

Vinny: Um, thank you. No further questions.

[ManiacJoe]

140. That is like saying

that the Toyota Camry is the preferred car for getaways by bank robbers.

Are you suggesting there is something special about an AR-15?

[keithbvadu2]

141. The people using it think so.

[ManiacJoe]

142. Most likely not.

The higher probability thought is something along the lines of "use whatever is handy at the moment".

[keithbvadu2]

143. What a coincidence that so many seek it out.

What a coincidence that so many seek it out.

[ManiacJoe]

144. For example?

I don't recall any reports of school shooters purposely buying an AR-15 for that purpose.
Of course, that could be a simple matter of a poor memory.

[Smackdown2019]

145. I posted this on Topix before it was shutdown.

I have been on record on topix with a similar topic about AR 15. They are simply a mass causality weapons! I have been on record that I believe it is quite alright to own one, BUT it must be either at a registered gun club that is secured or license arms dealer that has it secured. ONLY licensed arms dealers should be allowed to transport the AR-15 from their store to the gun clubs.

In other words, the public will not see an AR-15, unless at a Private Gun Club that allows it.
I do NOT own, nor ever fired one, but I do own rifles for hunting.

This will:

1. Create more regulations, meaning more money for the licensed arms dealers.

2. The weapons be secured under lock and key and reduce the chances to be stolen from the owners possession.

3. It would not be banned, but regulated.

4. Where else could you actually fire the weapon?

Common Sense!

If you want protection, get a handgun that is more wielding than a freakin long barrel!

[Smackdown2019]

146. Concept of this

Brings an alternative to the discussion of our gun era. It would remove the AK off the street, but allows ownerships to those who would fight tooth to nail to keep their guns. Majority of Americans are not bad people, it's a few who crosses the red line.

[DashOneBravo]

148. Never thought we would

I carried an M16A2 for a short while and then was blessed with being assigned as a M60 gunner. (Yes, Democratic voters can be gun guys/girls)

I really had no use for the M16 which birthed the current AR-15s. Couple of things have changed. They came out with the flat top and a collapsible stock is pretty much standard. They also made hunting deer legal with any center fire caliber legal in our state.

My very small daughter who cannot shoot my .243 bolt action sporter can now hunt

[Wolf Frankula]

149. I don't need one

I can hit what I shoot at. To quote Leslie Fish, "If you need more than five rounds to hit a target, you need shooting lessons, not more bullets."

Wolf

[Straw Man]

150. By that logic ...

I don't need one

I can hit what I shoot at. To quote Leslie Fish, "If you need more than five rounds to hit a target, you need shooting lessons, not more bullets."

... your mag capacity should increase by a factor of five for each potential target. Prudence, then, would dictate carrying five times as many rounds as there may be assailants, a number that is unknown and unknowable.

Erring on the side of caution, I would start at a 15-round magazine (three assailants) as a reasonable precaution against home invasion. Unfortunately, those are illegal in my state. The New York State Legislature has decreed that I am barred from being prepared for more than two assailants. I will defer to their superior wisdom and hope that they are correct.

Who is Leslie Fish, and what is his/her experience with defensive use of firearms?

Finally, as someone who can "hit what [you] shoot at," you are aware, of course, that for a firearm that takes detachable magazines, capacity is a function of the magazine and not the firearm.

[gejohnston]

152. That could be true, depending on the situation,

but since Leslie is an anarchist, I don't imagine her supporting a ban by the State. As for five round AR mags, you can pick one up at any gun show in Canada or from these guys.
https://www.sportsmansguide.com/product/index/thermold-ar-15-223-caliber-magazine-5-rounds?a=1739218
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leslie_Fish

[underpants]

151. To defeat the entire US military....all by myself

That and people bepreaking into my house, which has never happened.

[yagotme]

155. You're blessed,

that no one has broken into your home. It happens to people occasionally. And, on a few occasions, home defenders have used AR's to protect themselves and their property. Telling someone that they can only have 10 or less rounds to defend themselves would be like telling someone their baseball bat is too long, and to cut it in half.