CDZ I do not understand the fascination with and demand for semi-automatic rifles

Status
Not open for further replies.

usmbguest5318

Gold Member
Jan 1, 2017
10,923
1,635
290
D.C.
EDIT:
Several readers have responded remarking specifically about the AR-15 genre of rifles. I don't know if they didn't read the whole OP, but this post/thread is about semi-automatic rifles in general, and the AR-15 is but one form of them, albeit, apparently, the most popular one. I've not in the main post below singled out the AR-15 genre of semi-automatic rifles.​
Edit end.


I'm not a hunter or target shooter, though I have on occasion fired a rifle at a stationary target. That said, it seems to me that the only legitimate civilian uses of rifles are for sport -- hunting and target shooting. Perhaps, however, that's an errant predicate, but barring a handful of exceptional circumstances, it doesn't seem to me seem so; thus I'm baffled at the existential fascination gun enthusiasts have with semi-automatic rifles.

Over the past few days and in an effort to challenge my own perception that there is no sound/cogent basis for demanding a semi-automatic rifle for target shooting or game hunting, I've plumbed the Internet seeking input on whether there be any hunting or target shooting sports for which an automatic rifle is necessary or even militated for. So far, I have yet to find one.

What have I found? Well, this:

So what did the inquiry above lead me to think? [1] Well, pretty much what I thought before I undertook it: what the hell is the fascination with semis? It seems very clear to me that for hunting and target shooting a semi isn't at all necessary, though it's also clear that semis facilitate follow-up shots if such is needed. All the same, assuming one is is a fair marksman and has in one's sights a single target, a "manual" rifle of some sort will get the job done very effectively for any medium to large game.

Why was I interested in trying to make some sense of just what gives rise to the fascination with semis? Quite simply, it's because in my recollection, all the unlawful rifle users of recent times have used a semi. [2][3] That suggests to me that if there is to be ban, it needs to be a ban of semis, not so-called assault rifles. It also seems to me that if the tactical styling of "next gen" rifles is what drives sales to some consumers, fine. I'm sure that look can be implemented without semi-automatic functionality.

At the end of the day several things strike me as legitimate concerns:
  • People do have a right to own guns.
  • While the gun doesn't leap off a shelf or rack and go out shooting people, it's clear that people who use rifles to shoot others -- be they shooting single targets as the D.C. Sniper did or shooting indiscriminately at people -- preponderantly choose to do so using semis.
  • For most of those rifle gunmen, it's very clear that the rate of fire has had a material impact on the quantity of people whom the shooters killed and/or injured.
  • Hunting is a legitimate sporting pursuit and nobody should be denied the ability to enjoy it.
  • Target shooting is a legitimate sporting pursuit and nobody should be denied the ability to enjoy it.
  • Given the body of available germane information about all sorts of things -- soundly performed psychological research findings, soundly performed sociological research findings, extant limitations on future findings in either discipline, consumer behavior, guns themselves and their various capabilities, fitness for a purpose, extant laws, the nature and extent of law enforcement, the nature and extent of policy solution actions that can be taken, etc. -- it seems to me that rifle enthusiasts are going to have to make or face some sort of concessions on the nature of rifle availability. Access to semis may be among them, too it may not.
  • Given the body of available germane information about all sorts of things -- [same list as above] -- it seems to me that gun control advocates are going to have to make or face some sort of concessions on the nature of rifle restrictions. Simply banning all rifles is not an option.
  • Mass shooters don't much seem to use handguns. (This discussion does not include handguns and it does not construe "semis" as handguns.)
In light of those concerns, it seems to me that declaring semis to have the same status as fully automatic rifles may be one of the viable means and modes of established a basis by which we can reduce deaths an injuries caused by unlawful users of rifles.


Note to Members who are in the "no, no, no" camp as go access and/or gun reporting:
You need not post in this thread because I am well aware of your stance and I know you exist. We all are and do. This thread is not about how many responses it may generate and I'm not canvassing to see what views are most popular here.​


Note:
  1. Though I did encounter some coverage given to shotguns, I didn't see much. I inferred from that that either bird hunting isn't especially popular in the U.S. or just about shotgun, roughly speaking, will do as goes bird hunting, the key being the size of the shot one uses more so than the shotgun. I don't really know or care, right now, which of those, if either, be so. It was just a ancillary thought that crossed my mind.
  2. I'm thinking back as far as the D.C. sniper days. I have not checked to see if shooters prior to that used semis or didn't use them. I also have relied only on my memory as goes what weapons rifle-murderers used/fired to kill folks.
  3. This is flat-out bizarre. -- Based on FBI Uniform Crime Report data, in any given year between 2006 to 2011 (inclusive), rifles and shotguns outstrip handguns in terms of having been used to commit murder; however, over the period as a whole, handguns overwhelming outstrip rifles.

    I'm sure there must be an explanation for that strange happenstance, but I don't at this juncture know what it is. It could be that the site that compiled and graphically reported the data goofed somewhere. A "goof" certainly seems plausible given that the FBI's data about victims of rifle and handgun shootings from 2010 to 2014 presents a very different picture.

    Be that as it may, it's all too damn many people being unlawfully shot and killed, regardless of the weapon, as far as I'm concerned. That said, this post/thread is about rifles.
 
Last edited:
I'm not a hunter or target shooter, though I have on occasion fired a rifle at a stationary target. That said, it seems to me that the only legitimate civilian uses of rifles are for sport -- hunting and target shooting. Perhaps, however, that's an errant predicate, but barring a handful of exceptional circumstances, it doesn't seem to me seem so; thus I'm baffled at the existential fascination gun enthusiasts have with semi-automatic rifles.

Over the past few days and in an effort to challenge my own perception that there is no sound/cogent basis for demanding a semi-automatic rifle for target shooting or game hunting, I've plumbed the Internet seeking input on whether there be any hunting or target shooting sports for which an automatic rifle is necessary or even militated for. So far, I have yet to find one.

What have I found? Well, this:

So what did the inquiry above lead me to think? [1] Well, pretty much what I thought before I undertook it: what the hell is the fascination with semis? It seems very clear to me that for hunting and target shooting a semi isn't at all necessary, though it's also clear that semis facilitate follow-up shots if such is needed. All the same, assuming one is is a fair marksman and has in one's sights a single target, a "manual" rifle of some sort will get the job done very effectively for any medium to large game.

Why was I interested in trying to make some sense of just what gives rise to the fascination with semis? Quite simply, it's because in my recollection, all the unlawful rifle users of recent times have used a semi. [2][3] That suggests to me that if there is to be ban, it needs to be a ban of semis, not so-called assault rifles. It also seems to me that if the tactical styling of "next gen" rifles is what drives sales to some consumers, fine. I'm sure that look can be implemented without semi-automatic functionality.

At the end of the day several things strike me as legitimate concerns:
  • People do have a right to own guns.
  • While the gun doesn't leap off a shelf or rack and go out shooting people, it's clear that people who use rifles to shoot others -- be they shooting single targets as the D.C. Sniper did or shooting indiscriminately at people -- preponderantly choose to do so using semis.
  • For most of those rifle gunmen, it's very clear that the rate of fire has had a material impact on the quantity of people whom the shooters killed and/or injured.
  • Hunting is a legitimate sporting pursuit and nobody should be denied the ability to enjoy it.
  • Target shooting is a legitimate sporting pursuit and nobody should be denied the ability to enjoy it.
  • Given the body of available germane information about all sorts of things -- soundly performed psychological research findings, soundly performed sociological research findings, extant limitations on future findings in either discipline, consumer behavior, guns themselves and their various capabilities, fitness for a purpose, extant laws, the nature and extent of law enforcement, the nature and extent of policy solution actions that can be taken, etc. -- it seems to me that rifle enthusiasts are going to have to make or face some sort of concessions on the nature of rifle availability. Access to semis may be among them, too it may not.
  • Given the body of available germane information about all sorts of things -- [same list as above] -- it seems to me that gun control advocates are going to have to make or face some sort of concessions on the nature of rifle restrictions. Simply banning all rifles is not an option.
  • Mass shooters don't much seem to use handguns. (This discussion does not include handguns and it does not construe "semis" as handguns.)
In light of those concerns, it seems to me that declaring semis to have the same status as fully automatic rifles may be one of the viable means and modes of established a basis by which we can reduce deaths an injuries caused by unlawful users of rifles.


Note to Members who are in the "no, no, no" camp as go access and/or gun reporting:
You need not post in this thread because I am well aware of your stance and I know you exist. We all are and do. This thread is not about how many responses it may generate and I'm not canvassing to see what views are most popular here.​


Note:
  1. Though I did encounter some coverage given to shotguns, I didn't see much. I inferred from that that either bird hunting isn't especially popular in the U.S. or just about shotgun, roughly speaking, will do as goes bird hunting, the key being the size of the shot one uses more so than the shotgun. I don't really know or care, right now, which of those, if either, be so. It was just a ancillary thought that crossed my mind.
  2. I'm thinking back as far as the D.C. sniper days. I have not checked to see if shooters prior to that used semis or didn't use them. I also have relied only on my memory as goes what weapons rifle-murderers used/fired to kill folks.
  3. This is flat-out bizarre. -- Based on FBI Uniform Crime Report data, in any given year between 2006 to 2011 (inclusive), rifles and shotguns outstrip handguns in terms of having been used to commit murder; however, over the period as a whole, handguns overwhelming outstrip rifles.

    I'm sure there must be an explanation for that strange happenstance, but I don't at this juncture know what it is. It could be that the site that compiled and graphically reported the data goofed somewhere. A "goof" certainly seems plausible given that the FBI's data about victims of rifle and handgun shootings from 2010 to 2014 presents a very different picture.

    Be that as it may, it's all too damn many people being unlawfully shot and killed, regardless of the weapon, as far as I'm concerned. That said, this post/thread is about rifles.



Your understanding is not required.
 
we still have a FREE Country , And maybe as a foreigner to America you don't understand the purpose of the SECOND Amendment XELOR ,
So if I have a 2nd Amendment right, then where can I buy a cruise missile, some grenades, maybe some anti-aircraft missiles... You know, all the stuff we're not allowed to buy.
 
You have demonstrated, Xelor, that the favoring of AR-15-type rifles is not for hunting or target shooting. And I agree with you. So it has to be some other reason, right? So what is that reason?
 
“I do not understand the fascination with and demand for semi-automatic rifles”

Fair enough.

As someone who owns semi-automatic rifles, however, I can assure you that the issue has nothing to do with ‘fascination’ or ‘demand.’

If one enjoys the shooting sports – target shooting in particular – then an AR 15 makes for an excellent target rifle.

No, they’re not as accurate as bolt action rifles, but that’s not the point; indeed, I own both semi-auto and bolt action rifles for target shooting, each used in its respective and appropriate application.

And that some might not understand the avocation of target shooting, or not perceive a ‘need’ to own semi-automatic rifles, does not warrant their ban or punitive restriction, such as giving them the same legal designation as fully automatic rifles.
 
we still have a FREE Country , And maybe as a foreigner to America you don't understand the purpose of the SECOND Amendment XELOR ,
So if I have a 2nd Amendment right, then where can I buy a cruise missile, some grenades, maybe some anti-aircraft missiles... You know, all the stuff we're not allowed to buy.
------------------------------------------------------------ the second amendment is about being able to own all the small arms weapons Man Carried by the American Combat soldier Taz .
 
we still have a FREE Country , And maybe as a foreigner to America you don't understand the purpose of the SECOND Amendment XELOR ,
So if I have a 2nd Amendment right, then where can I buy a cruise missile, some grenades, maybe some anti-aircraft missiles... You know, all the stuff we're not allowed to buy.

th


Try Obama's new library. I hear it has just about everything but a library.

*****CHUCKLE*****



:)
 
we still have a FREE Country , And maybe as a foreigner to America you don't understand the purpose of the SECOND Amendment XELOR ,
So if I have a 2nd Amendment right, then where can I buy a cruise missile, some grenades, maybe some anti-aircraft missiles... You know, all the stuff we're not allowed to buy.

Pay the tax and you can have grenades.
 
we still have a FREE Country , And maybe as a foreigner to America you don't understand the purpose of the SECOND Amendment XELOR ,
So if I have a 2nd Amendment right, then where can I buy a cruise missile, some grenades, maybe some anti-aircraft missiles... You know, all the stuff we're not allowed to buy.
------------------------------------------------------------ the second amendment is about being able to own all the small arms weapons Man Carried by the American Combat soldier Taz .
No, now you're infringing on my 2nd A. right by setting conditions. "Shall not be infringed", go look it up.
 
we still have a FREE Country , And maybe as a foreigner to America you don't understand the purpose of the SECOND Amendment XELOR ,
So if I have a 2nd Amendment right, then where can I buy a cruise missile, some grenades, maybe some anti-aircraft missiles... You know, all the stuff we're not allowed to buy.

Pay the tax and you can have grenades.
What about the other stuff? And nukes? Otherwise my rights are being infringement, AND THEY SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED, sir.
 
we still have a FREE Country , And maybe as a foreigner to America you don't understand the purpose of the SECOND Amendment XELOR ,
So if I have a 2nd Amendment right, then where can I buy a cruise missile, some grenades, maybe some anti-aircraft missiles... You know, all the stuff we're not allowed to buy.

Pay the tax and you can have grenades.
What about the other stuff? And nukes? Otherwise my rights are being infringement, AND THEY SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED, sir.

You already infringed your own intelligence, so what do you care?
 
I'm not a hunter or target shooter, though I have on occasion fired a rifle at a stationary target. That said, it seems to me that the only legitimate civilian uses of rifles are for sport -- hunting and target shooting. Perhaps, however, that's an errant predicate, but barring a handful of exceptional circumstances, it doesn't seem to me seem so; thus I'm baffled at the existential fascination gun enthusiasts have with semi-automatic rifles.

Over the past few days and in an effort to challenge my own perception that there is no sound/cogent basis for demanding a semi-automatic rifle for target shooting or game hunting, I've plumbed the Internet seeking input on whether there be any hunting or target shooting sports for which an automatic rifle is necessary or even militated for. So far, I have yet to find one.

What have I found? Well, this:

So what did the inquiry above lead me to think? [1] Well, pretty much what I thought before I undertook it: what the hell is the fascination with semis? It seems very clear to me that for hunting and target shooting a semi isn't at all necessary, though it's also clear that semis facilitate follow-up shots if such is needed. All the same, assuming one is is a fair marksman and has in one's sights a single target, a "manual" rifle of some sort will get the job done very effectively for any medium to large game.

Why was I interested in trying to make some sense of just what gives rise to the fascination with semis? Quite simply, it's because in my recollection, all the unlawful rifle users of recent times have used a semi. [2][3] That suggests to me that if there is to be ban, it needs to be a ban of semis, not so-called assault rifles. It also seems to me that if the tactical styling of "next gen" rifles is what drives sales to some consumers, fine. I'm sure that look can be implemented without semi-automatic functionality.

At the end of the day several things strike me as legitimate concerns:
  • People do have a right to own guns.
  • While the gun doesn't leap off a shelf or rack and go out shooting people, it's clear that people who use rifles to shoot others -- be they shooting single targets as the D.C. Sniper did or shooting indiscriminately at people -- preponderantly choose to do so using semis.
  • For most of those rifle gunmen, it's very clear that the rate of fire has had a material impact on the quantity of people whom the shooters killed and/or injured.
  • Hunting is a legitimate sporting pursuit and nobody should be denied the ability to enjoy it.
  • Target shooting is a legitimate sporting pursuit and nobody should be denied the ability to enjoy it.
  • Given the body of available germane information about all sorts of things -- soundly performed psychological research findings, soundly performed sociological research findings, extant limitations on future findings in either discipline, consumer behavior, guns themselves and their various capabilities, fitness for a purpose, extant laws, the nature and extent of law enforcement, the nature and extent of policy solution actions that can be taken, etc. -- it seems to me that rifle enthusiasts are going to have to make or face some sort of concessions on the nature of rifle availability. Access to semis may be among them, too it may not.
  • Given the body of available germane information about all sorts of things -- [same list as above] -- it seems to me that gun control advocates are going to have to make or face some sort of concessions on the nature of rifle restrictions. Simply banning all rifles is not an option.
  • Mass shooters don't much seem to use handguns. (This discussion does not include handguns and it does not construe "semis" as handguns.)
In light of those concerns, it seems to me that declaring semis to have the same status as fully automatic rifles may be one of the viable means and modes of established a basis by which we can reduce deaths an injuries caused by unlawful users of rifles.


Note to Members who are in the "no, no, no" camp as go access and/or gun reporting:
You need not post in this thread because I am well aware of your stance and I know you exist. We all are and do. This thread is not about how many responses it may generate and I'm not canvassing to see what views are most popular here.​


Note:
  1. Though I did encounter some coverage given to shotguns, I didn't see much. I inferred from that that either bird hunting isn't especially popular in the U.S. or just about shotgun, roughly speaking, will do as goes bird hunting, the key being the size of the shot one uses more so than the shotgun. I don't really know or care, right now, which of those, if either, be so. It was just a ancillary thought that crossed my mind.
  2. I'm thinking back as far as the D.C. sniper days. I have not checked to see if shooters prior to that used semis or didn't use them. I also have relied only on my memory as goes what weapons rifle-murderers used/fired to kill folks.
  3. This is flat-out bizarre. -- Based on FBI Uniform Crime Report data, in any given year between 2006 to 2011 (inclusive), rifles and shotguns outstrip handguns in terms of having been used to commit murder; however, over the period as a whole, handguns overwhelming outstrip rifles.

    I'm sure there must be an explanation for that strange happenstance, but I don't at this juncture know what it is. It could be that the site that compiled and graphically reported the data goofed somewhere. A "goof" certainly seems plausible given that the FBI's data about victims of rifle and handgun shootings from 2010 to 2014 presents a very different picture.

    Be that as it may, it's all too damn many people being unlawfully shot and killed, regardless of the weapon, as far as I'm concerned. That said, this post/thread is about rifles.

If you thought the founders intention regarding the second amendment related to sport, or hunting... You were wrong.
 
Pay the tax and you can have grenades.
What about the other stuff? And nukes? Otherwise my rights are being infringement, AND THEY SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED, sir.[/QUOTE]

It is the best argument: that these rights have already been infringed, so you'll just keep right on infringing.

However, it's become a personal and family security matter now, so I think any government that tries to grab guns will have a rebellion rising. We are very close to that as it is. I'd let it go if I were you: solve the school shooter problem some other way.
 
we still have a FREE Country , And maybe as a foreigner to America you don't understand the purpose of the SECOND Amendment XELOR ,
So if I have a 2nd Amendment right, then where can I buy a cruise missile, some grenades, maybe some anti-aircraft missiles... You know, all the stuff we're not allowed to buy.

Pay the tax and you can have grenades.
What about the other stuff? And nukes? Otherwise my rights are being infringement, AND THEY SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED, sir.

You already infringed your own intelligence, so what do you care?
I'm trying to figure out why everyone gets their short and curlies in a knot when there are tons of weapons that you can't buy. So why all the fake outrage?
 
we still have a FREE Country , And maybe as a foreigner to America you don't understand the purpose of the SECOND Amendment XELOR ,
So if I have a 2nd Amendment right, then where can I buy a cruise missile, some grenades, maybe some anti-aircraft missiles... You know, all the stuff we're not allowed to buy.

Pay the tax and you can have grenades.
What about the other stuff? And nukes? Otherwise my rights are being infringement, AND THEY SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED, sir.
Then go get you one... Do you got pockets deeper than Iran? No? Then why are you crying about not being able to afford a product that you cannot make, nor find for purchase?
 
Xelor, I think you missed something. Semi-auto rifles are designed for hunting very specific prey. The Gov-Thugs and Lib-Scum that those rifles are designed for hunting appear only occasionally, so we need to be ready when their hunting season opens.
 
and here , just for grins , some of the big guns that can be owned TAZ . --- ---
 
we still have a FREE Country , And maybe as a foreigner to America you don't understand the purpose of the SECOND Amendment XELOR ,
So if I have a 2nd Amendment right, then where can I buy a cruise missile, some grenades, maybe some anti-aircraft missiles... You know, all the stuff we're not allowed to buy.

Pay the tax and you can have grenades.
What about the other stuff? And nukes? Otherwise my rights are being infringement, AND THEY SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED, sir.

You already infringed your own intelligence, so what do you care?
I'm trying to figure out why everyone gets their short and curlies in a knot when there are tons of weapons that you can't buy. So why all the fake outrage?
Because you gun grabbers to convice the government to take away the weapons we can afford to buy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum List

Back
Top