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

[2aguy]

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?

There is no debating that semi-automatic rifles can be used for hunting and target shooting sports. Truly, I'm not of a mind to show that semi-automatic rifles are not "for" hunting, but rather that there are viable alternatives to them "for" hunting and that in the minds of a good quantity of firearms and hunting experts (click the link and see the exception noted in the content), those alternatives are better or equally effective for shooting things other than humans.

All true – but that’s not the issue.

AR 15s are fun to shoot, they’re fun to build and modify.

Owning and shooting AR 15s, AK 47s, and HK 91s is an avocation, a pastime – indeed, a passion for many.

And those who own and shoot such rifles do so in a safe and responsible manner, in an appropriate venue, ensuring their guns are properly secured when not in use.

That there are in fact other rifles better suited for hunting and target shooting is irrelevant and completely misses the point.

Moreover, it’s not incumbent upon owners to ‘justify’ their avocation, something done responsibly as private citizens; nor is it warranted for government to needlessly interfere with responsible gun owners enjoying their avocation, however subjective and devoid of merit some might perceive that avocation to be.

“But children shouldn’t die so you can enjoy your silly hobby.”

The problem with this is there’s no evidence that responsible owners of AR 15s are the cause of mass school shootings; that some might commit crimes with AR 15s is not a valid reason to deny otherwise responsible individuals access to, or possession of, an AR 15, particularly when such a prohibition will not have the desired effect.

First, let me clarify something for you. My post to which you responded had only one objective, that of demurring from the attestation another member made about my OP having tacitly/explicitly made a point that (1) it didn't make and (2) it didn't aim to make.

All true – but that’s not the issue.

As goes this thread, there is truly only one so-called "issue," which really isn't an issue at all but rather an exhortation.

Organizational structure of the OP essay:

1. Thesis statement with its implicit question:
   • Statement: "I don't understand the fascination with and demand for with semi-automatic rifles."
   • Implicit question: What are the rational drivers of the fascination with and demand for with semi-automatic rifles?
     • Obviously, I don't need anyone to expound on the nature and extent of emotional drivers because there's really only one emotional driver that is relevant and that one is unlawful. All other emotional drivers are, well, emotional, that is to say ephemeral, and they are surely as numerous as are stars in the sky.
2. Identification of (1) what observations contribute to the understanding I currently have pertaining to the nature of differences between semi-automatic rifles and other types of rifle and (2) the sources from which that understanding is drawn.
   • The only point of this section's presence the OP essay is so that readers who are willing to and can offer substantive answers to the thesis question understand what information forms the basis for my current understandings about semi-automatic rifles and other genres of rifles and structure their remarks accordingly.
3. Two part conclusion:
   • Identification of reason I have pondered what be the fascination with and demand for with semi-automatic rifles.
   • Identification of rational inferences I've drawn based on my current understanding.

Obtaining people's well considered answers to the implicit thesis question is the only "issue" for this thread. Were I to have had some other purpose, I truly could have posed a loaded question (written a loaded thesis statement), but because I merely want well considered answers to a question that presupposes nothing other than one's having fascination with and expressing a demand for semi-automatic rifles. For example, I could have inserted qualifying words or phases to modify "fascination," "demand" and/or "semi-automatic rifles." I did no such thing so to tacitly convey to skilled readers that my inquiry is simply to gain credible/reliable information.

AR 15s are fun to shoot, they’re fun to build and modify....Owning and shooting AR 15s, AK 47s, and HK 91s is an avocation, a pastime....it’s not incumbent upon owners to ‘justify’ their avocation

What the remarks above allude to is that the fascination with and demand for with semi-automatic rifles derives from what one call a hobbyist collector's passion. That fine, but it's also emotional. [1] That said, I don't seek a justification; I seek an explanation(s), one that is credible.

I and several friends and acquaintances collect art and I once collected Avengers comic books; one friend collects cars; Momma collected ceramics and crystal; a relative collects purses, another friend collects mechanical watches; one collects political convention/campaign paraphernalia and bumper stickers, and yet another coins, for example. I even have an acquaintance (not a close one but one with whom I occasionally cross paths and socialize) who collects weaponry and armor -- firearms, blades, bows and arrows, armor and shields -- and while he doesn't have much use for most of the items in his collection, he does use the firearms in it. [2] The point being that the notion of hobbyist collecting isn't abstruse to me.

Strangely, however, unlike myself and the other folks whom I know to be hobbyist collectors of one thing or another, when bid to expound upon the impetus for their fascination with whatever they collect, they gleefully respond with all sorts of interesting and useful information about themselves and their relationship with the object of their affinity. They wax poetically and effusively about their motivations and consumptive behavior re: their hobby because (1) like anyone, they relish opportunities to share a piece of themselves with others -- it's what social beings do, and (2) they're well aware that most folks simply aren't interested in their hobby, so, when expressly entreated to do so, they take advantage of the opportunity to extol their avocation and to share of themselves.

Contrast that very typical behavior pattern with the near universal reticence of folks here who, assuming anyone here does indeed consider themselves to be a rifle collector as opposed to merely a rifle user, behave completely opposite to that, in some cases snidely so (see post #3 and the folks who share that member's sentiment). A handful of members have, however, provided their personal reasons for why they own a specific semi-automatic rifle(s) they do, and I've thanked them for doing so. [3] All the same, I am looking for something more universally applicable than a single individual's specific reason(s). After all, being a member of a hobbyist community most often results in one having a very fine understanding of the general behavior and motivations of others in that community, even though there are nuances that distinguish individual members of that community.

Speaking of behavioral and psychological differences, the collectors whom I know to collect mechanical devices without exception have a strong preference for the manually operated versions of those devices. Moreover, an acquaintance who is a racecar driver (he's not a car collector) prefers manual transmission cars for his personal use, but for his profession, he and his competitors drive semi-automatic transmission cars because such transmissions shift with both more alacrity and aplomb than can any human. That concept -- that of employing for professional purposes the most effective tool for whatever be the primary end -- seems, by their rhetoric, for folks who are fascinated with semi-automatic rifles [4] to be completely the opposite. That is yet another reason I created this thread.

Note:

1. Yes, certain things one collects might have a smidgen of value-appreciation potential associated with them; however, with rare exception, the temporal exigencies associated with value increase are such that there is no rational basis for value-appreciation being a primary or secondary driver, which is why collecting is an avocation not a vocation.
2. I went hunting with him once. He used a 100+ year-old shotgun that he'd restored to "like new" condition. I jokingly asked him if he was sure the darn thing wouldn't explode when he fired it.
3. One member posted his/her reason -- CDZ - I do not understand the fascination with and demand for semi-automatic rifles -- and I didn't offer any gratitude for their doing so. I didn't because while I accept that it is that member's basis for his/her fascination with and/or demand for semi-automatic rifles, I decided that the remark merited one of two responses: (1) ignore it because it's flat-out insipid, and/or (2) inform law enforcement authorities that that nut job apparently demands semi-automatic rifles for the purpose of opportunistically hunting people whom s/he considers to be either "Gov-Thugs" and/or "Lib-Scum" and let them figure out whether he's someone about whom society should be concerned or whether s/he's merely a poor communicator, be it on the communication consumption or expression dimension.
4. You'll notice I haven't at all discussed semi-automatic handguns. I understand exactly what forms the basis for people's demand and fascination with them. That said, unlike a pistol, which is a very fine short-range defensive weapon, a rifle is first and foremost a long-range offensive weapon. Of course, if folks have nothing other than a rifle for short-range defense, then a rifle is what they'll use, but such is clearly secondary to a rifle's raison d'etre.

That there are in fact other rifles better suited for hunting and target shooting is irrelevant and completely misses the point.

It doesn't miss the point of this thread. That there are is the very reason I created this thread.

The problem with this is there’s no evidence that responsible owners of AR 15s are the cause of mass school shootings

1. What "this?"
2. No evidence...: Well, duh! There's never going to be evidence to that effect because, quite simply, responsible owners and users of AR-15s and every other device that might be used to kill people don't willfully use them to do so, and they certainly don't use them to commit mass shootings. I don't care for how long one can appear to be a responsible gun owner:
   
   • the instant one uses one's firearm for an unlawful purpose, one can no longer be said to be a responsible owner of that firearm, and
   • the instant one stores one's firearm so that unauthorized users, without undertaking extraordinary measures [1], obtain possession of it, one can no longer be be said to be a responsible owner of that firearm.

Note:

1. What's an extraordinary measure? Well, there are too many to enumerate, but breaking into one's locked safe and taking a gun found there is an extraordinary measure whereas breaking into one's car and taking a gun found hidden there, or taking the car and late finding a gun hidden in it, is not an extraordinary measure. The latter is not extraordinary with regard to the gun (an unauthorized person's obtaining it) because while the action to break into the car is extraordinary, if the gun is not in plain sight, the extraordinary measure aimed at the car itself or some object that was visibly within it or known by the burglar to be in it.

• the instant one uses one's firearm for an unlawful purpose, one can no longer be said to be a responsible owner of that firearm, and
• the instant one stores one's firearm so that unauthorized users, without undertaking extraordinary measures [1], obtain possession of it, one can no longer be be said to be a responsible owner of that firearm.

Wrong....

As actual research shows, 90% of murderers, including those who use guns, have long histories of violence and crime, including the high school shooter of 2 weeks ago.......so they are not normal people who suddenly decide to use their guns to kill people....

As to storing your weapons.....if it is in your home, it is safely stored, and if a criminal breaks into your home, that is on them, not you....

.....the Sandy Hook shooter murdered his mother to get her guns......and mass shooters plan their attacks 6 months to 2 years in advance...so even locking them in a safe would not permanently keep a determined killer from accessing them.

 

[2aguy]

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?

There is no debating that semi-automatic rifles can be used for hunting and target shooting sports. Truly, I'm not of a mind to show that semi-automatic rifles are not "for" hunting, but rather that there are viable alternatives to them "for" hunting and that in the minds of a good quantity of firearms and hunting experts (click the link and see the exception noted in the content), those alternatives are better or equally effective for shooting things other than humans.

All true – but that’s not the issue.

AR 15s are fun to shoot, they’re fun to build and modify.

Owning and shooting AR 15s, AK 47s, and HK 91s is an avocation, a pastime – indeed, a passion for many.

And those who own and shoot such rifles do so in a safe and responsible manner, in an appropriate venue, ensuring their guns are properly secured when not in use.

That there are in fact other rifles better suited for hunting and target shooting is irrelevant and completely misses the point.

Moreover, it’s not incumbent upon owners to ‘justify’ their avocation, something done responsibly as private citizens; nor is it warranted for government to needlessly interfere with responsible gun owners enjoying their avocation, however subjective and devoid of merit some might perceive that avocation to be.

“But children shouldn’t die so you can enjoy your silly hobby.”

The problem with this is there’s no evidence that responsible owners of AR 15s are the cause of mass school shootings; that some might commit crimes with AR 15s is not a valid reason to deny otherwise responsible individuals access to, or possession of, an AR 15, particularly when such a prohibition will not have the desired effect.

First, let me clarify something for you. My post to which you responded had only one objective, that of demurring from the attestation another member made about my OP having tacitly/explicitly made a point that (1) it didn't make and (2) it didn't aim to make.

All true – but that’s not the issue.

As goes this thread, there is truly only one so-called "issue," which really isn't an issue at all but rather an exhortation.

Organizational structure of the OP essay:

1. Thesis statement with its implicit question:
   • Statement: "I don't understand the fascination with and demand for with semi-automatic rifles."
   • Implicit question: What are the rational drivers of the fascination with and demand for with semi-automatic rifles?
     • Obviously, I don't need anyone to expound on the nature and extent of emotional drivers because there's really only one emotional driver that is relevant and that one is unlawful. All other emotional drivers are, well, emotional, that is to say ephemeral, and they are surely as numerous as are stars in the sky.
2. Identification of (1) what observations contribute to the understanding I currently have pertaining to the nature of differences between semi-automatic rifles and other types of rifle and (2) the sources from which that understanding is drawn.
   • The only point of this section's presence the OP essay is so that readers who are willing to and can offer substantive answers to the thesis question understand what information forms the basis for my current understandings about semi-automatic rifles and other genres of rifles and structure their remarks accordingly.
3. Two part conclusion:
   • Identification of reason I have pondered what be the fascination with and demand for with semi-automatic rifles.
   • Identification of rational inferences I've drawn based on my current understanding.

Obtaining people's well considered answers to the implicit thesis question is the only "issue" for this thread. Were I to have had some other purpose, I truly could have posed a loaded question (written a loaded thesis statement), but because I merely want well considered answers to a question that presupposes nothing other than one's having fascination with and expressing a demand for semi-automatic rifles. For example, I could have inserted qualifying words or phases to modify "fascination," "demand" and/or "semi-automatic rifles." I did no such thing so to tacitly convey to skilled readers that my inquiry is simply to gain credible/reliable information.

AR 15s are fun to shoot, they’re fun to build and modify....Owning and shooting AR 15s, AK 47s, and HK 91s is an avocation, a pastime....it’s not incumbent upon owners to ‘justify’ their avocation

What the remarks above allude to is that the fascination with and demand for with semi-automatic rifles derives from what one call a hobbyist collector's passion. That fine, but it's also emotional. [1] That said, I don't seek a justification; I seek an explanation(s), one that is credible.

I and several friends and acquaintances collect art and I once collected Avengers comic books; one friend collects cars; Momma collected ceramics and crystal; a relative collects purses, another friend collects mechanical watches; one collects political convention/campaign paraphernalia and bumper stickers, and yet another coins, for example. I even have an acquaintance (not a close one but one with whom I occasionally cross paths and socialize) who collects weaponry and armor -- firearms, blades, bows and arrows, armor and shields -- and while he doesn't have much use for most of the items in his collection, he does use the firearms in it. [2] The point being that the notion of hobbyist collecting isn't abstruse to me.

Strangely, however, unlike myself and the other folks whom I know to be hobbyist collectors of one thing or another, when bid to expound upon the impetus for their fascination with whatever they collect, they gleefully respond with all sorts of interesting and useful information about themselves and their relationship with the object of their affinity. They wax poetically and effusively about their motivations and consumptive behavior re: their hobby because (1) like anyone, they relish opportunities to share a piece of themselves with others -- it's what social beings do, and (2) they're well aware that most folks simply aren't interested in their hobby, so, when expressly entreated to do so, they take advantage of the opportunity to extol their avocation and to share of themselves.

Contrast that very typical behavior pattern with the near universal reticence of folks here who, assuming anyone here does indeed consider themselves to be a rifle collector as opposed to merely a rifle user, behave completely opposite to that, in some cases snidely so (see post #3 and the folks who share that member's sentiment). A handful of members have, however, provided their personal reasons for why they own a specific semi-automatic rifle(s) they do, and I've thanked them for doing so. [3] All the same, I am looking for something more universally applicable than a single individual's specific reason(s). After all, being a member of a hobbyist community most often results in one having a very fine understanding of the general behavior and motivations of others in that community, even though there are nuances that distinguish individual members of that community.

Speaking of behavioral and psychological differences, the collectors whom I know to collect mechanical devices without exception have a strong preference for the manually operated versions of those devices. Moreover, an acquaintance who is a racecar driver (he's not a car collector) prefers manual transmission cars for his personal use, but for his profession, he and his competitors drive semi-automatic transmission cars because such transmissions shift with both more alacrity and aplomb than can any human. That concept -- that of employing for professional purposes the most effective tool for whatever be the primary end -- seems, by their rhetoric, for folks who are fascinated with semi-automatic rifles [4] to be completely the opposite. That is yet another reason I created this thread.

Note:

1. Yes, certain things one collects might have a smidgen of value-appreciation potential associated with them; however, with rare exception, the temporal exigencies associated with value increase are such that there is no rational basis for value-appreciation being a primary or secondary driver, which is why collecting is an avocation not a vocation.
2. I went hunting with him once. He used a 100+ year-old shotgun that he'd restored to "like new" condition. I jokingly asked him if he was sure the darn thing wouldn't explode when he fired it.
3. One member posted his/her reason -- CDZ - I do not understand the fascination with and demand for semi-automatic rifles -- and I didn't offer any gratitude for their doing so. I didn't because while I accept that it is that member's basis for his/her fascination with and/or demand for semi-automatic rifles, I decided that the remark merited one of two responses: (1) ignore it because it's flat-out insipid, and/or (2) inform law enforcement authorities that that nut job apparently demands semi-automatic rifles for the purpose of opportunistically hunting people whom s/he considers to be either "Gov-Thugs" and/or "Lib-Scum" and let them figure out whether he's someone about whom society should be concerned or whether s/he's merely a poor communicator, be it on the communication consumption or expression dimension.
4. You'll notice I haven't at all discussed semi-automatic handguns. I understand exactly what forms the basis for people's demand and fascination with them. That said, unlike a pistol, which is a very fine short-range defensive weapon, a rifle is first and foremost a long-range offensive weapon. Of course, if folks have nothing other than a rifle for short-range defense, then a rifle is what they'll use, but such is clearly secondary to a rifle's raison d'etre.

That there are in fact other rifles better suited for hunting and target shooting is irrelevant and completely misses the point.

It doesn't miss the point of this thread. That there are is the very reason I created this thread.

The problem with this is there’s no evidence that responsible owners of AR 15s are the cause of mass school shootings

1. What "this?"
2. No evidence...: Well, duh! There's never going to be evidence to that effect because, quite simply, responsible owners and users of AR-15s and every other device that might be used to kill people don't willfully use them to do so, and they certainly don't use them to commit mass shootings. I don't care for how long one can appear to be a responsible gun owner:
   
   • the instant one uses one's firearm for an unlawful purpose, one can no longer be said to be a responsible owner of that firearm, and
   • the instant one stores one's firearm so that unauthorized users, without undertaking extraordinary measures [1], obtain possession of it, one can no longer be be said to be a responsible owner of that firearm.

Note:

1. What's an extraordinary measure? Well, there are too many to enumerate, but breaking into one's locked safe and taking a gun found there is an extraordinary measure whereas breaking into one's car and taking a gun found hidden there, or taking the car and late finding a gun hidden in it, is not an extraordinary measure. The latter is not extraordinary with regard to the gun (an unauthorized person's obtaining it) because while the action to break into the car is extraordinary, if the gun is not in plain sight, the extraordinary measure aimed at the car itself or some object that was visibly within it or known by the burglar to be in it.

whereas breaking into one's car and taking a gun found hidden there, or taking the car and late finding a gun hidden in it, is not an extraordinary measure.

And why are so many guns left in cars.....because people like you have created laws that make almost every foot of public space gun free zones.....so just navigating to go to a store while carrying a gun for self defense requires leaving the gun in the car too often....where it would be much more secure on your body.....

end gun free zones and you cut down on the number of stolen guns...

 

[Manonthestreet]

Its really quite simple, people prefer the most modern of anything....cars, phones, televisions, computers.....

 

[Bob Blaylock]

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?

There is no debating that semi-automatic rifles can be used for hunting and target shooting sports. Truly, I'm not of a mind to show that semi-automatic rifles are not "for" hunting, but rather that there are viable alternatives to them "for" hunting and that in the minds of a good quantity of firearms and hunting experts (click the link and see the exception noted in the content), those alternatives are better or equally effective for shooting things other than humans.

All true – but that’s not the issue.

AR 15s are fun to shoot, they’re fun to build and modify.

Owning and shooting AR 15s, AK 47s, and HK 91s is an avocation, a pastime – indeed, a passion for many.

And those who own and shoot such rifles do so in a safe and responsible manner, in an appropriate venue, ensuring their guns are properly secured when not in use.

That there are in fact other rifles better suited for hunting and target shooting is irrelevant and completely misses the point.

Moreover, it’s not incumbent upon owners to ‘justify’ their avocation, something done responsibly as private citizens; nor is it warranted for government to needlessly interfere with responsible gun owners enjoying their avocation, however subjective and devoid of merit some might perceive that avocation to be.

“But children shouldn’t die so you can enjoy your silly hobby.”

The problem with this is there’s no evidence that responsible owners of AR 15s are the cause of mass school shootings; that some might commit crimes with AR 15s is not a valid reason to deny otherwise responsible individuals access to, or possession of, an AR 15, particularly when such a prohibition will not have the desired effect.

First, let me clarify something for you. My post to which you responded had only one objective, that of demurring from the attestation another member made about my OP having tacitly/explicitly made a point that (1) it didn't make and (2) it didn't aim to make.

All true – but that’s not the issue.

As goes this thread, there is truly only one so-called "issue," which really isn't an issue at all but rather an exhortation.

Organizational structure of the OP essay:

1. Thesis statement with its implicit question:
   • Statement: "I don't understand the fascination with and demand for with semi-automatic rifles."
   • Implicit question: What are the rational drivers of the fascination with and demand for with semi-automatic rifles?
     • Obviously, I don't need anyone to expound on the nature and extent of emotional drivers because there's really only one emotional driver that is relevant and that one is unlawful. All other emotional drivers are, well, emotional, that is to say ephemeral, and they are surely as numerous as are stars in the sky.
2. Identification of (1) what observations contribute to the understanding I currently have pertaining to the nature of differences between semi-automatic rifles and other types of rifle and (2) the sources from which that understanding is drawn.
   • The only point of this section's presence the OP essay is so that readers who are willing to and can offer substantive answers to the thesis question understand what information forms the basis for my current understandings about semi-automatic rifles and other genres of rifles and structure their remarks accordingly.
3. Two part conclusion:
   • Identification of reason I have pondered what be the fascination with and demand for with semi-automatic rifles.
   • Identification of rational inferences I've drawn based on my current understanding.

Obtaining people's well considered answers to the implicit thesis question is the only "issue" for this thread. Were I to have had some other purpose, I truly could have posed a loaded question (written a loaded thesis statement), but because I merely want well considered answers to a question that presupposes nothing other than one's having fascination with and expressing a demand for semi-automatic rifles. For example, I could have inserted qualifying words or phases to modify "fascination," "demand" and/or "semi-automatic rifles." I did no such thing so to tacitly convey to skilled readers that my inquiry is simply to gain credible/reliable information.

AR 15s are fun to shoot, they’re fun to build and modify....Owning and shooting AR 15s, AK 47s, and HK 91s is an avocation, a pastime....it’s not incumbent upon owners to ‘justify’ their avocation

What the remarks above allude to is that the fascination with and demand for with semi-automatic rifles derives from what one call a hobbyist collector's passion. That fine, but it's also emotional. [1] That said, I don't seek a justification; I seek an explanation(s), one that is credible.

I and several friends and acquaintances collect art and I once collected Avengers comic books; one friend collects cars; Momma collected ceramics and crystal; a relative collects purses, another friend collects mechanical watches; one collects political convention/campaign paraphernalia and bumper stickers, and yet another coins, for example. I even have an acquaintance (not a close one but one with whom I occasionally cross paths and socialize) who collects weaponry and armor -- firearms, blades, bows and arrows, armor and shields -- and while he doesn't have much use for most of the items in his collection, he does use the firearms in it. [2] The point being that the notion of hobbyist collecting isn't abstruse to me.

Strangely, however, unlike myself and the other folks whom I know to be hobbyist collectors of one thing or another, when bid to expound upon the impetus for their fascination with whatever they collect, they gleefully respond with all sorts of interesting and useful information about themselves and their relationship with the object of their affinity. They wax poetically and effusively about their motivations and consumptive behavior re: their hobby because (1) like anyone, they relish opportunities to share a piece of themselves with others -- it's what social beings do, and (2) they're well aware that most folks simply aren't interested in their hobby, so, when expressly entreated to do so, they take advantage of the opportunity to extol their avocation and to share of themselves.

Contrast that very typical behavior pattern with the near universal reticence of folks here who, assuming anyone here does indeed consider themselves to be a rifle collector as opposed to merely a rifle user, behave completely opposite to that, in some cases snidely so (see post #3 and the folks who share that member's sentiment). A handful of members have, however, provided their personal reasons for why they own a specific semi-automatic rifle(s) they do, and I've thanked them for doing so. [3] All the same, I am looking for something more universally applicable than a single individual's specific reason(s). After all, being a member of a hobbyist community most often results in one having a very fine understanding of the general behavior and motivations of others in that community, even though there are nuances that distinguish individual members of that community.

Speaking of behavioral and psychological differences, the collectors whom I know to collect mechanical devices without exception have a strong preference for the manually operated versions of those devices. Moreover, an acquaintance who is a racecar driver (he's not a car collector) prefers manual transmission cars for his personal use, but for his profession, he and his competitors drive semi-automatic transmission cars because such transmissions shift with both more alacrity and aplomb than can any human. That concept -- that of employing for professional purposes the most effective tool for whatever be the primary end -- seems, by their rhetoric, for folks who are fascinated with semi-automatic rifles [4] to be completely the opposite. That is yet another reason I created this thread.

Note:

1. Yes, certain things one collects might have a smidgen of value-appreciation potential associated with them; however, with rare exception, the temporal exigencies associated with value increase are such that there is no rational basis for value-appreciation being a primary or secondary driver, which is why collecting is an avocation not a vocation.
2. I went hunting with him once. He used a 100+ year-old shotgun that he'd restored to "like new" condition. I jokingly asked him if he was sure the darn thing wouldn't explode when he fired it.
3. One member posted his/her reason -- CDZ - I do not understand the fascination with and demand for semi-automatic rifles -- and I didn't offer any gratitude for their doing so. I didn't because while I accept that it is that member's basis for his/her fascination with and/or demand for semi-automatic rifles, I decided that the remark merited one of two responses: (1) ignore it because it's flat-out insipid, and/or (2) inform law enforcement authorities that that nut job apparently demands semi-automatic rifles for the purpose of opportunistically hunting people whom s/he considers to be either "Gov-Thugs" and/or "Lib-Scum" and let them figure out whether he's someone about whom society should be concerned or whether s/he's merely a poor communicator, be it on the communication consumption or expression dimension.
4. You'll notice I haven't at all discussed semi-automatic handguns. I understand exactly what forms the basis for people's demand and fascination with them. That said, unlike a pistol, which is a very fine short-range defensive weapon, a rifle is first and foremost a long-range offensive weapon. Of course, if folks have nothing other than a rifle for short-range defense, then a rifle is what they'll use, but such is clearly secondary to a rifle's raison d'etre.

That there are in fact other rifles better suited for hunting and target shooting is irrelevant and completely misses the point.

It doesn't miss the point of this thread. That there are is the very reason I created this thread.

The problem with this is there’s no evidence that responsible owners of AR 15s are the cause of mass school shootings

1. What "this?"
2. No evidence...: Well, duh! There's never going to be evidence to that effect because, quite simply, responsible owners and users of AR-15s and every other device that might be used to kill people don't willfully use them to do so, and they certainly don't use them to commit mass shootings. I don't care for how long one can appear to be a responsible gun owner:
   
   • the instant one uses one's firearm for an unlawful purpose, one can no longer be said to be a responsible owner of that firearm, and
   • the instant one stores one's firearm so that unauthorized users, without undertaking extraordinary measures [1], obtain possession of it, one can no longer be be said to be a responsible owner of that firearm.

Note:

1. What's an extraordinary measure? Well, there are too many to enumerate, but breaking into one's locked safe and taking a gun found there is an extraordinary measure whereas breaking into one's car and taking a gun found hidden there, or taking the car and late finding a gun hidden in it, is not an extraordinary measure. The latter is not extraordinary with regard to the gun (an unauthorized person's obtaining it) because while the action to break into the car is extraordinary, if the gun is not in plain sight, the extraordinary measure aimed at the car itself or some object that was visibly within it or known by the burglar to be in it.

That's an awful lot of words, just to explain that you are ignorant and bereft of understanding. But no matter how many words you write to express it, your ignorance and lack of understanding still has no relevance to what arms anyone may want or think he needs, nor on our right to keep and bear them.

 

[usmbguest5318]

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?

There is no debating that semi-automatic rifles can be used for hunting and target shooting sports. Truly, I'm not of a mind to show that semi-automatic rifles are not "for" hunting, but rather that there are viable alternatives to them "for" hunting and that in the minds of a good quantity of firearms and hunting experts (click the link and see the exception noted in the content), those alternatives are better or equally effective for shooting things other than humans.

All true – but that’s not the issue.

AR 15s are fun to shoot, they’re fun to build and modify.

Owning and shooting AR 15s, AK 47s, and HK 91s is an avocation, a pastime – indeed, a passion for many.

And those who own and shoot such rifles do so in a safe and responsible manner, in an appropriate venue, ensuring their guns are properly secured when not in use.

That there are in fact other rifles better suited for hunting and target shooting is irrelevant and completely misses the point.

Moreover, it’s not incumbent upon owners to ‘justify’ their avocation, something done responsibly as private citizens; nor is it warranted for government to needlessly interfere with responsible gun owners enjoying their avocation, however subjective and devoid of merit some might perceive that avocation to be.

“But children shouldn’t die so you can enjoy your silly hobby.”

The problem with this is there’s no evidence that responsible owners of AR 15s are the cause of mass school shootings; that some might commit crimes with AR 15s is not a valid reason to deny otherwise responsible individuals access to, or possession of, an AR 15, particularly when such a prohibition will not have the desired effect.

First, let me clarify something for you. My post to which you responded had only one objective, that of demurring from the attestation another member made about my OP having tacitly/explicitly made a point that (1) it didn't make and (2) it didn't aim to make.

All true – but that’s not the issue.

As goes this thread, there is truly only one so-called "issue," which really isn't an issue at all but rather an exhortation.

Organizational structure of the OP essay:

1. Thesis statement with its implicit question:
   • Statement: "I don't understand the fascination with and demand for with semi-automatic rifles."
   • Implicit question: What are the rational drivers of the fascination with and demand for with semi-automatic rifles?
     • Obviously, I don't need anyone to expound on the nature and extent of emotional drivers because there's really only one emotional driver that is relevant and that one is unlawful. All other emotional drivers are, well, emotional, that is to say ephemeral, and they are surely as numerous as are stars in the sky.
2. Identification of (1) what observations contribute to the understanding I currently have pertaining to the nature of differences between semi-automatic rifles and other types of rifle and (2) the sources from which that understanding is drawn.
   • The only point of this section's presence the OP essay is so that readers who are willing to and can offer substantive answers to the thesis question understand what information forms the basis for my current understandings about semi-automatic rifles and other genres of rifles and structure their remarks accordingly.
3. Two part conclusion:
   • Identification of reason I have pondered what be the fascination with and demand for with semi-automatic rifles.
   • Identification of rational inferences I've drawn based on my current understanding.

Obtaining people's well considered answers to the implicit thesis question is the only "issue" for this thread. Were I to have had some other purpose, I truly could have posed a loaded question (written a loaded thesis statement), but because I merely want well considered answers to a question that presupposes nothing other than one's having fascination with and expressing a demand for semi-automatic rifles. For example, I could have inserted qualifying words or phases to modify "fascination," "demand" and/or "semi-automatic rifles." I did no such thing so to tacitly convey to skilled readers that my inquiry is simply to gain credible/reliable information.

AR 15s are fun to shoot, they’re fun to build and modify....Owning and shooting AR 15s, AK 47s, and HK 91s is an avocation, a pastime....it’s not incumbent upon owners to ‘justify’ their avocation

What the remarks above allude to is that the fascination with and demand for with semi-automatic rifles derives from what one call a hobbyist collector's passion. That fine, but it's also emotional. [1] That said, I don't seek a justification; I seek an explanation(s), one that is credible.

I and several friends and acquaintances collect art and I once collected Avengers comic books; one friend collects cars; Momma collected ceramics and crystal; a relative collects purses, another friend collects mechanical watches; one collects political convention/campaign paraphernalia and bumper stickers, and yet another coins, for example. I even have an acquaintance (not a close one but one with whom I occasionally cross paths and socialize) who collects weaponry and armor -- firearms, blades, bows and arrows, armor and shields -- and while he doesn't have much use for most of the items in his collection, he does use the firearms in it. [2] The point being that the notion of hobbyist collecting isn't abstruse to me.

Strangely, however, unlike myself and the other folks whom I know to be hobbyist collectors of one thing or another, when bid to expound upon the impetus for their fascination with whatever they collect, they gleefully respond with all sorts of interesting and useful information about themselves and their relationship with the object of their affinity. They wax poetically and effusively about their motivations and consumptive behavior re: their hobby because (1) like anyone, they relish opportunities to share a piece of themselves with others -- it's what social beings do, and (2) they're well aware that most folks simply aren't interested in their hobby, so, when expressly entreated to do so, they take advantage of the opportunity to extol their avocation and to share of themselves.

Contrast that very typical behavior pattern with the near universal reticence of folks here who, assuming anyone here does indeed consider themselves to be a rifle collector as opposed to merely a rifle user, behave completely opposite to that, in some cases snidely so (see post #3 and the folks who share that member's sentiment). A handful of members have, however, provided their personal reasons for why they own a specific semi-automatic rifle(s) they do, and I've thanked them for doing so. [3] All the same, I am looking for something more universally applicable than a single individual's specific reason(s). After all, being a member of a hobbyist community most often results in one having a very fine understanding of the general behavior and motivations of others in that community, even though there are nuances that distinguish individual members of that community.

Speaking of behavioral and psychological differences, the collectors whom I know to collect mechanical devices without exception have a strong preference for the manually operated versions of those devices. Moreover, an acquaintance who is a racecar driver (he's not a car collector) prefers manual transmission cars for his personal use, but for his profession, he and his competitors drive semi-automatic transmission cars because such transmissions shift with both more alacrity and aplomb than can any human. That concept -- that of employing for professional purposes the most effective tool for whatever be the primary end -- seems, by their rhetoric, for folks who are fascinated with semi-automatic rifles [4] to be completely the opposite. That is yet another reason I created this thread.

Note:

1. Yes, certain things one collects might have a smidgen of value-appreciation potential associated with them; however, with rare exception, the temporal exigencies associated with value increase are such that there is no rational basis for value-appreciation being a primary or secondary driver, which is why collecting is an avocation not a vocation.
2. I went hunting with him once. He used a 100+ year-old shotgun that he'd restored to "like new" condition. I jokingly asked him if he was sure the darn thing wouldn't explode when he fired it.
3. One member posted his/her reason -- CDZ - I do not understand the fascination with and demand for semi-automatic rifles -- and I didn't offer any gratitude for their doing so. I didn't because while I accept that it is that member's basis for his/her fascination with and/or demand for semi-automatic rifles, I decided that the remark merited one of two responses: (1) ignore it because it's flat-out insipid, and/or (2) inform law enforcement authorities that that nut job apparently demands semi-automatic rifles for the purpose of opportunistically hunting people whom s/he considers to be either "Gov-Thugs" and/or "Lib-Scum" and let them figure out whether he's someone about whom society should be concerned or whether s/he's merely a poor communicator, be it on the communication consumption or expression dimension.
4. You'll notice I haven't at all discussed semi-automatic handguns. I understand exactly what forms the basis for people's demand and fascination with them. That said, unlike a pistol, which is a very fine short-range defensive weapon, a rifle is first and foremost a long-range offensive weapon. Of course, if folks have nothing other than a rifle for short-range defense, then a rifle is what they'll use, but such is clearly secondary to a rifle's raison d'etre.

That there are in fact other rifles better suited for hunting and target shooting is irrelevant and completely misses the point.

It doesn't miss the point of this thread. That there are is the very reason I created this thread.

The problem with this is there’s no evidence that responsible owners of AR 15s are the cause of mass school shootings

1. What "this?"
2. No evidence...: Well, duh! There's never going to be evidence to that effect because, quite simply, responsible owners and users of AR-15s and every other device that might be used to kill people don't willfully use them to do so, and they certainly don't use them to commit mass shootings. I don't care for how long one can appear to be a responsible gun owner:
   
   • the instant one uses one's firearm for an unlawful purpose, one can no longer be said to be a responsible owner of that firearm, and
   • the instant one stores one's firearm so that unauthorized users, without undertaking extraordinary measures [1], obtain possession of it, one can no longer be be said to be a responsible owner of that firearm.

Note:

1. What's an extraordinary measure? Well, there are too many to enumerate, but breaking into one's locked safe and taking a gun found there is an extraordinary measure whereas breaking into one's car and taking a gun found hidden there, or taking the car and late finding a gun hidden in it, is not an extraordinary measure. The latter is not extraordinary with regard to the gun (an unauthorized person's obtaining it) because while the action to break into the car is extraordinary, if the gun is not in plain sight, the extraordinary measure aimed at the car itself or some object that was visibly within it or known by the burglar to be in it.

That's an awful lot of words, just to explain that you are ignorant and bereft of understanding. But no matter how many words you write to express it, your ignorance and lack of understanding still has no relevance to what arms anyone may want or think he needs, nor on our right to keep and bear them.

That's an awful lot of words to say nothing that contributes productively to the conversation for which this thread entreats.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

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?

There is no debating that semi-automatic rifles can be used for hunting and target shooting sports. Truly, I'm not of a mind to show that semi-automatic rifles are not "for" hunting, but rather that there are viable alternatives to them "for" hunting and that in the minds of a good quantity of firearms and hunting experts (click the link and see the exception noted in the content), those alternatives are better or equally effective for shooting things other than humans.

All true – but that’s not the issue.

AR 15s are fun to shoot, they’re fun to build and modify.

Owning and shooting AR 15s, AK 47s, and HK 91s is an avocation, a pastime – indeed, a passion for many.

And those who own and shoot such rifles do so in a safe and responsible manner, in an appropriate venue, ensuring their guns are properly secured when not in use.

That there are in fact other rifles better suited for hunting and target shooting is irrelevant and completely misses the point.

Moreover, it’s not incumbent upon owners to ‘justify’ their avocation, something done responsibly as private citizens; nor is it warranted for government to needlessly interfere with responsible gun owners enjoying their avocation, however subjective and devoid of merit some might perceive that avocation to be.

“But children shouldn’t die so you can enjoy your silly hobby.”

The problem with this is there’s no evidence that responsible owners of AR 15s are the cause of mass school shootings; that some might commit crimes with AR 15s is not a valid reason to deny otherwise responsible individuals access to, or possession of, an AR 15, particularly when such a prohibition will not have the desired effect.

First, let me clarify something for you. My post to which you responded had only one objective, that of demurring from the attestation another member made about my OP having tacitly/explicitly made a point that (1) it didn't make and (2) it didn't aim to make.

All true – but that’s not the issue.

As goes this thread, there is truly only one so-called "issue," which really isn't an issue at all but rather an exhortation.

Organizational structure of the OP essay:

1. Thesis statement with its implicit question:
   • Statement: "I don't understand the fascination with and demand for with semi-automatic rifles."
   • Implicit question: What are the rational drivers of the fascination with and demand for with semi-automatic rifles?
     • Obviously, I don't need anyone to expound on the nature and extent of emotional drivers because there's really only one emotional driver that is relevant and that one is unlawful. All other emotional drivers are, well, emotional, that is to say ephemeral, and they are surely as numerous as are stars in the sky.
2. Identification of (1) what observations contribute to the understanding I currently have pertaining to the nature of differences between semi-automatic rifles and other types of rifle and (2) the sources from which that understanding is drawn.
   • The only point of this section's presence the OP essay is so that readers who are willing to and can offer substantive answers to the thesis question understand what information forms the basis for my current understandings about semi-automatic rifles and other genres of rifles and structure their remarks accordingly.
3. Two part conclusion:
   • Identification of reason I have pondered what be the fascination with and demand for with semi-automatic rifles.
   • Identification of rational inferences I've drawn based on my current understanding.

Obtaining people's well considered answers to the implicit thesis question is the only "issue" for this thread. Were I to have had some other purpose, I truly could have posed a loaded question (written a loaded thesis statement), but because I merely want well considered answers to a question that presupposes nothing other than one's having fascination with and expressing a demand for semi-automatic rifles. For example, I could have inserted qualifying words or phases to modify "fascination," "demand" and/or "semi-automatic rifles." I did no such thing so to tacitly convey to skilled readers that my inquiry is simply to gain credible/reliable information.

AR 15s are fun to shoot, they’re fun to build and modify....Owning and shooting AR 15s, AK 47s, and HK 91s is an avocation, a pastime....it’s not incumbent upon owners to ‘justify’ their avocation

What the remarks above allude to is that the fascination with and demand for with semi-automatic rifles derives from what one call a hobbyist collector's passion. That fine, but it's also emotional. [1] That said, I don't seek a justification; I seek an explanation(s), one that is credible.

I and several friends and acquaintances collect art and I once collected Avengers comic books; one friend collects cars; Momma collected ceramics and crystal; a relative collects purses, another friend collects mechanical watches; one collects political convention/campaign paraphernalia and bumper stickers, and yet another coins, for example. I even have an acquaintance (not a close one but one with whom I occasionally cross paths and socialize) who collects weaponry and armor -- firearms, blades, bows and arrows, armor and shields -- and while he doesn't have much use for most of the items in his collection, he does use the firearms in it. [2] The point being that the notion of hobbyist collecting isn't abstruse to me.

Strangely, however, unlike myself and the other folks whom I know to be hobbyist collectors of one thing or another, when bid to expound upon the impetus for their fascination with whatever they collect, they gleefully respond with all sorts of interesting and useful information about themselves and their relationship with the object of their affinity. They wax poetically and effusively about their motivations and consumptive behavior re: their hobby because (1) like anyone, they relish opportunities to share a piece of themselves with others -- it's what social beings do, and (2) they're well aware that most folks simply aren't interested in their hobby, so, when expressly entreated to do so, they take advantage of the opportunity to extol their avocation and to share of themselves.

Contrast that very typical behavior pattern with the near universal reticence of folks here who, assuming anyone here does indeed consider themselves to be a rifle collector as opposed to merely a rifle user, behave completely opposite to that, in some cases snidely so (see post #3 and the folks who share that member's sentiment). A handful of members have, however, provided their personal reasons for why they own a specific semi-automatic rifle(s) they do, and I've thanked them for doing so. [3] All the same, I am looking for something more universally applicable than a single individual's specific reason(s). After all, being a member of a hobbyist community most often results in one having a very fine understanding of the general behavior and motivations of others in that community, even though there are nuances that distinguish individual members of that community.

Speaking of behavioral and psychological differences, the collectors whom I know to collect mechanical devices without exception have a strong preference for the manually operated versions of those devices. Moreover, an acquaintance who is a racecar driver (he's not a car collector) prefers manual transmission cars for his personal use, but for his profession, he and his competitors drive semi-automatic transmission cars because such transmissions shift with both more alacrity and aplomb than can any human. That concept -- that of employing for professional purposes the most effective tool for whatever be the primary end -- seems, by their rhetoric, for folks who are fascinated with semi-automatic rifles [4] to be completely the opposite. That is yet another reason I created this thread.

Note:

1. Yes, certain things one collects might have a smidgen of value-appreciation potential associated with them; however, with rare exception, the temporal exigencies associated with value increase are such that there is no rational basis for value-appreciation being a primary or secondary driver, which is why collecting is an avocation not a vocation.
2. I went hunting with him once. He used a 100+ year-old shotgun that he'd restored to "like new" condition. I jokingly asked him if he was sure the darn thing wouldn't explode when he fired it.
3. One member posted his/her reason -- CDZ - I do not understand the fascination with and demand for semi-automatic rifles -- and I didn't offer any gratitude for their doing so. I didn't because while I accept that it is that member's basis for his/her fascination with and/or demand for semi-automatic rifles, I decided that the remark merited one of two responses: (1) ignore it because it's flat-out insipid, and/or (2) inform law enforcement authorities that that nut job apparently demands semi-automatic rifles for the purpose of opportunistically hunting people whom s/he considers to be either "Gov-Thugs" and/or "Lib-Scum" and let them figure out whether he's someone about whom society should be concerned or whether s/he's merely a poor communicator, be it on the communication consumption or expression dimension.
4. You'll notice I haven't at all discussed semi-automatic handguns. I understand exactly what forms the basis for people's demand and fascination with them. That said, unlike a pistol, which is a very fine short-range defensive weapon, a rifle is first and foremost a long-range offensive weapon. Of course, if folks have nothing other than a rifle for short-range defense, then a rifle is what they'll use, but such is clearly secondary to a rifle's raison d'etre.

That there are in fact other rifles better suited for hunting and target shooting is irrelevant and completely misses the point.

It doesn't miss the point of this thread. That there are is the very reason I created this thread.

The problem with this is there’s no evidence that responsible owners of AR 15s are the cause of mass school shootings

1. What "this?"
2. No evidence...: Well, duh! There's never going to be evidence to that effect because, quite simply, responsible owners and users of AR-15s and every other device that might be used to kill people don't willfully use them to do so, and they certainly don't use them to commit mass shootings. I don't care for how long one can appear to be a responsible gun owner:
   
   • the instant one uses one's firearm for an unlawful purpose, one can no longer be said to be a responsible owner of that firearm, and
   • the instant one stores one's firearm so that unauthorized users, without undertaking extraordinary measures [1], obtain possession of it, one can no longer be be said to be a responsible owner of that firearm.

Note:

1. What's an extraordinary measure? Well, there are too many to enumerate, but breaking into one's locked safe and taking a gun found there is an extraordinary measure whereas breaking into one's car and taking a gun found hidden there, or taking the car and late finding a gun hidden in it, is not an extraordinary measure. The latter is not extraordinary with regard to the gun (an unauthorized person's obtaining it) because while the action to break into the car is extraordinary, if the gun is not in plain sight, the extraordinary measure aimed at the car itself or some object that was visibly within it or known by the burglar to be in it.

That's an awful lot of words, just to explain that you are ignorant and bereft of understanding. But no matter how many words you write to express it, your ignorance and lack of understanding still has no relevance to what arms anyone may want or think he needs, nor on our right to keep and bear them.

That's an awful lot of words to say nothing that contributes productively to the conversation for which this thread entreats.

What productive contribution do you think there is to be made?

You started this thread, expressing your ignorance and lack of understanding, as if those somehow constituted any valid argument against the right to keep and bear certain classes of arms. As the thread has progressed, it has become apparent that you have no interesting in gaining knowledge or understanding, that you willfully choose to remain ignorant, and are intent on continuing to disparage the right to keep and bear arms based on that ignorance.

Your position is worthy of nothing better than mockery and scorn.

 

[Hossfly]

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:

• Gun recommendations for hunters from multiple sources --> Of them only four recommended a semi-automatic rifle of any sort, and on each list that included a semi-automatic (semi), only one of the rifles recommended is a semi. Among the semis recommended only one was an AR-15-style semi. (I note this only because of what appears to be the AR-15's overwhelming popularity compared to it's incidence of being recommended. For the purpose of this thread, however, that matters not; for the purpose of this discussion, a semi is a semi.)
  • Outdoor Life -- This one recommended an AR-15-style semi.
  • Game and Fish
  • Field and Stream
    • Sub $1000 options
  • American Whitetail -- This one recommended a BAR carbine semi (circa 1967 and, presumably, later)
  • Grand View Outdoors
  • I Like Big Guns and I Cannot Lie: Best Big Bore Rifles - Pew Pew Tactical
  • You Can Hunt Any Animal in the World with Just These 4 Guns
  • The Best Big Game Rifles of All Time - Petersen's Hunting -- This reviewer recommended the Remington Model 74/7400/750.
  • The 20 Best Elk Hunting Rifles Ever Made -- This revier recommended the Browning BAR MK. II Safari Grade .338 (BAR Mark II Safari with BOSS)
• In light of the Olympics, I checked to see what sort of guns biathletes (the biathlon apparently is the #1 televised winer sport in Europe) use. They use guns that roughly look something like an AR-15, but that are yet not semis. That informed me that a rifle can look "cool" (if that be what describes how gun enthusiasts describe the visage of AR-15-style rifles) and not be a semi. It also informed me that, inasmuch as winning at the biathlon is a function of time, firing accurately matters because receives a time deduction for a missed target. That, absent the competitive elements and factors, strikes me as about what matters for hunting game. This part of my inquiry also made me think that it may be that a bolt action rifle, rather than a semi, is used in biathlon because in part perhaps they're more accurate (? -- I don't know...it seems as though there really shouldn't be any difference in that regard, but maybe there is....).
  • 
    
    
    
• Given the above described question about accuracy, I sought an answer to it. Turns out that there is an ongoing debate about exactly that. As the Moirae would have it, there is a multiplicity of factors that affect accuracy. From my high level reading about it, seems to me that which is more accurate depends heavily on situational factors and factors intrinsic to the rifle itself, but in the main a bolt action rifle is considered more accurate.
  • 6 Reasons Why AR Guys Need a Bolt-Action - Shooting Times
    
  • Long Range Shooting with a Semi Auto - AccuracyTech -- This writer's analysis focues on a genre of rifles referred to as "AR10s."
    
  • Best Sniper & Precision Rifle for Beginners [2018] - Pew Pew Tactical
    
  • How to Hit a 1,000-Yard Target with a $500 Rifle
    
  • 12 Next-Gen Precision Rifles For Long-Range Shooting -- Finally, I came by this editorial. It lists multiple sems and multiple bolt action rifles.
    
  • Best .308 Rifle Reviews - Best Target Rifle Guide - Reviewster -- This revier lists quite a few rifles and expounds on three, two of which are semis.

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.

I'll make it simple for ya. Guns in general and specifically semi-automatics are like Viagra to us old white guys. Gives us a hard-on a cat couldn't scratch.

 

[usmbguest5318]

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?

There is no debating that semi-automatic rifles can be used for hunting and target shooting sports. Truly, I'm not of a mind to show that semi-automatic rifles are not "for" hunting, but rather that there are viable alternatives to them "for" hunting and that in the minds of a good quantity of firearms and hunting experts (click the link and see the exception noted in the content), those alternatives are better or equally effective for shooting things other than humans.

All true – but that’s not the issue.

AR 15s are fun to shoot, they’re fun to build and modify.

Owning and shooting AR 15s, AK 47s, and HK 91s is an avocation, a pastime – indeed, a passion for many.

And those who own and shoot such rifles do so in a safe and responsible manner, in an appropriate venue, ensuring their guns are properly secured when not in use.

That there are in fact other rifles better suited for hunting and target shooting is irrelevant and completely misses the point.

Moreover, it’s not incumbent upon owners to ‘justify’ their avocation, something done responsibly as private citizens; nor is it warranted for government to needlessly interfere with responsible gun owners enjoying their avocation, however subjective and devoid of merit some might perceive that avocation to be.

“But children shouldn’t die so you can enjoy your silly hobby.”

The problem with this is there’s no evidence that responsible owners of AR 15s are the cause of mass school shootings; that some might commit crimes with AR 15s is not a valid reason to deny otherwise responsible individuals access to, or possession of, an AR 15, particularly when such a prohibition will not have the desired effect.

First, let me clarify something for you. My post to which you responded had only one objective, that of demurring from the attestation another member made about my OP having tacitly/explicitly made a point that (1) it didn't make and (2) it didn't aim to make.

All true – but that’s not the issue.

As goes this thread, there is truly only one so-called "issue," which really isn't an issue at all but rather an exhortation.

Organizational structure of the OP essay:

1. Thesis statement with its implicit question:
   • Statement: "I don't understand the fascination with and demand for with semi-automatic rifles."
   • Implicit question: What are the rational drivers of the fascination with and demand for with semi-automatic rifles?
     • Obviously, I don't need anyone to expound on the nature and extent of emotional drivers because there's really only one emotional driver that is relevant and that one is unlawful. All other emotional drivers are, well, emotional, that is to say ephemeral, and they are surely as numerous as are stars in the sky.
2. Identification of (1) what observations contribute to the understanding I currently have pertaining to the nature of differences between semi-automatic rifles and other types of rifle and (2) the sources from which that understanding is drawn.
   • The only point of this section's presence the OP essay is so that readers who are willing to and can offer substantive answers to the thesis question understand what information forms the basis for my current understandings about semi-automatic rifles and other genres of rifles and structure their remarks accordingly.
3. Two part conclusion:
   • Identification of reason I have pondered what be the fascination with and demand for with semi-automatic rifles.
   • Identification of rational inferences I've drawn based on my current understanding.

Obtaining people's well considered answers to the implicit thesis question is the only "issue" for this thread. Were I to have had some other purpose, I truly could have posed a loaded question (written a loaded thesis statement), but because I merely want well considered answers to a question that presupposes nothing other than one's having fascination with and expressing a demand for semi-automatic rifles. For example, I could have inserted qualifying words or phases to modify "fascination," "demand" and/or "semi-automatic rifles." I did no such thing so to tacitly convey to skilled readers that my inquiry is simply to gain credible/reliable information.

AR 15s are fun to shoot, they’re fun to build and modify....Owning and shooting AR 15s, AK 47s, and HK 91s is an avocation, a pastime....it’s not incumbent upon owners to ‘justify’ their avocation

What the remarks above allude to is that the fascination with and demand for with semi-automatic rifles derives from what one call a hobbyist collector's passion. That fine, but it's also emotional. [1] That said, I don't seek a justification; I seek an explanation(s), one that is credible.

I and several friends and acquaintances collect art and I once collected Avengers comic books; one friend collects cars; Momma collected ceramics and crystal; a relative collects purses, another friend collects mechanical watches; one collects political convention/campaign paraphernalia and bumper stickers, and yet another coins, for example. I even have an acquaintance (not a close one but one with whom I occasionally cross paths and socialize) who collects weaponry and armor -- firearms, blades, bows and arrows, armor and shields -- and while he doesn't have much use for most of the items in his collection, he does use the firearms in it. [2] The point being that the notion of hobbyist collecting isn't abstruse to me.

Strangely, however, unlike myself and the other folks whom I know to be hobbyist collectors of one thing or another, when bid to expound upon the impetus for their fascination with whatever they collect, they gleefully respond with all sorts of interesting and useful information about themselves and their relationship with the object of their affinity. They wax poetically and effusively about their motivations and consumptive behavior re: their hobby because (1) like anyone, they relish opportunities to share a piece of themselves with others -- it's what social beings do, and (2) they're well aware that most folks simply aren't interested in their hobby, so, when expressly entreated to do so, they take advantage of the opportunity to extol their avocation and to share of themselves.

Contrast that very typical behavior pattern with the near universal reticence of folks here who, assuming anyone here does indeed consider themselves to be a rifle collector as opposed to merely a rifle user, behave completely opposite to that, in some cases snidely so (see post #3 and the folks who share that member's sentiment). A handful of members have, however, provided their personal reasons for why they own a specific semi-automatic rifle(s) they do, and I've thanked them for doing so. [3] All the same, I am looking for something more universally applicable than a single individual's specific reason(s). After all, being a member of a hobbyist community most often results in one having a very fine understanding of the general behavior and motivations of others in that community, even though there are nuances that distinguish individual members of that community.

Speaking of behavioral and psychological differences, the collectors whom I know to collect mechanical devices without exception have a strong preference for the manually operated versions of those devices. Moreover, an acquaintance who is a racecar driver (he's not a car collector) prefers manual transmission cars for his personal use, but for his profession, he and his competitors drive semi-automatic transmission cars because such transmissions shift with both more alacrity and aplomb than can any human. That concept -- that of employing for professional purposes the most effective tool for whatever be the primary end -- seems, by their rhetoric, for folks who are fascinated with semi-automatic rifles [4] to be completely the opposite. That is yet another reason I created this thread.

Note:

1. Yes, certain things one collects might have a smidgen of value-appreciation potential associated with them; however, with rare exception, the temporal exigencies associated with value increase are such that there is no rational basis for value-appreciation being a primary or secondary driver, which is why collecting is an avocation not a vocation.
2. I went hunting with him once. He used a 100+ year-old shotgun that he'd restored to "like new" condition. I jokingly asked him if he was sure the darn thing wouldn't explode when he fired it.
3. One member posted his/her reason -- CDZ - I do not understand the fascination with and demand for semi-automatic rifles -- and I didn't offer any gratitude for their doing so. I didn't because while I accept that it is that member's basis for his/her fascination with and/or demand for semi-automatic rifles, I decided that the remark merited one of two responses: (1) ignore it because it's flat-out insipid, and/or (2) inform law enforcement authorities that that nut job apparently demands semi-automatic rifles for the purpose of opportunistically hunting people whom s/he considers to be either "Gov-Thugs" and/or "Lib-Scum" and let them figure out whether he's someone about whom society should be concerned or whether s/he's merely a poor communicator, be it on the communication consumption or expression dimension.
4. You'll notice I haven't at all discussed semi-automatic handguns. I understand exactly what forms the basis for people's demand and fascination with them. That said, unlike a pistol, which is a very fine short-range defensive weapon, a rifle is first and foremost a long-range offensive weapon. Of course, if folks have nothing other than a rifle for short-range defense, then a rifle is what they'll use, but such is clearly secondary to a rifle's raison d'etre.

That there are in fact other rifles better suited for hunting and target shooting is irrelevant and completely misses the point.

It doesn't miss the point of this thread. That there are is the very reason I created this thread.

The problem with this is there’s no evidence that responsible owners of AR 15s are the cause of mass school shootings

1. What "this?"
2. No evidence...: Well, duh! There's never going to be evidence to that effect because, quite simply, responsible owners and users of AR-15s and every other device that might be used to kill people don't willfully use them to do so, and they certainly don't use them to commit mass shootings. I don't care for how long one can appear to be a responsible gun owner:
   
   • the instant one uses one's firearm for an unlawful purpose, one can no longer be said to be a responsible owner of that firearm, and
   • the instant one stores one's firearm so that unauthorized users, without undertaking extraordinary measures [1], obtain possession of it, one can no longer be be said to be a responsible owner of that firearm.

Note:

1. What's an extraordinary measure? Well, there are too many to enumerate, but breaking into one's locked safe and taking a gun found there is an extraordinary measure whereas breaking into one's car and taking a gun found hidden there, or taking the car and late finding a gun hidden in it, is not an extraordinary measure. The latter is not extraordinary with regard to the gun (an unauthorized person's obtaining it) because while the action to break into the car is extraordinary, if the gun is not in plain sight, the extraordinary measure aimed at the car itself or some object that was visibly within it or known by the burglar to be in it.

That's an awful lot of words, just to explain that you are ignorant and bereft of understanding. But no matter how many words you write to express it, your ignorance and lack of understanding still has no relevance to what arms anyone may want or think he needs, nor on our right to keep and bear them.

That's an awful lot of words to say nothing that contributes productively to the conversation for which this thread entreats.

What productive contribution do you think there is to be made?

You started this thread, expressing your ignorance and lack of understanding, as if those somehow constituted any valid argument against the right to keep and bear certain classes of arms. As the thread has progressed, it has become apparent that you have no interesting in gaining knowledge or understanding, that you willfully choose to remain ignorant, and are intent on continuing to disparage the right to keep and bear arms based on that ignorance.

Your position is worthy of nothing better than mockery and scorn.

You just keep thinking that....

 

[miketx]

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:

• Gun recommendations for hunters from multiple sources --> Of them only four recommended a semi-automatic rifle of any sort, and on each list that included a semi-automatic (semi), only one of the rifles recommended is a semi. Among the semis recommended only one was an AR-15-style semi. (I note this only because of what appears to be the AR-15's overwhelming popularity compared to it's incidence of being recommended. For the purpose of this thread, however, that matters not; for the purpose of this discussion, a semi is a semi.)
  • Outdoor Life -- This one recommended an AR-15-style semi.
  • Game and Fish
  • Field and Stream
    • Sub $1000 options
  • American Whitetail -- This one recommended a BAR carbine semi (circa 1967 and, presumably, later)
  • Grand View Outdoors
  • I Like Big Guns and I Cannot Lie: Best Big Bore Rifles - Pew Pew Tactical
  • You Can Hunt Any Animal in the World with Just These 4 Guns
  • The Best Big Game Rifles of All Time - Petersen's Hunting -- This reviewer recommended the Remington Model 74/7400/750.
  • The 20 Best Elk Hunting Rifles Ever Made -- This revier recommended the Browning BAR MK. II Safari Grade .338 (BAR Mark II Safari with BOSS)
• In light of the Olympics, I checked to see what sort of guns biathletes (the biathlon apparently is the #1 televised winer sport in Europe) use. They use guns that roughly look something like an AR-15, but that are yet not semis. That informed me that a rifle can look "cool" (if that be what describes how gun enthusiasts describe the visage of AR-15-style rifles) and not be a semi. It also informed me that, inasmuch as winning at the biathlon is a function of time, firing accurately matters because receives a time deduction for a missed target. That, absent the competitive elements and factors, strikes me as about what matters for hunting game. This part of my inquiry also made me think that it may be that a bolt action rifle, rather than a semi, is used in biathlon because in part perhaps they're more accurate (? -- I don't know...it seems as though there really shouldn't be any difference in that regard, but maybe there is....).
  • 
    
    
    
• Given the above described question about accuracy, I sought an answer to it. Turns out that there is an ongoing debate about exactly that. As the Moirae would have it, there is a multiplicity of factors that affect accuracy. From my high level reading about it, seems to me that which is more accurate depends heavily on situational factors and factors intrinsic to the rifle itself, but in the main a bolt action rifle is considered more accurate.
  • 6 Reasons Why AR Guys Need a Bolt-Action - Shooting Times
  • Long Range Shooting with a Semi Auto - AccuracyTech -- This writer's analysis focues on a genre of rifles referred to as "AR10s."
  • Best Sniper & Precision Rifle for Beginners [2018] - Pew Pew Tactical
  • How to Hit a 1,000-Yard Target with a $500 Rifle
  • 12 Next-Gen Precision Rifles For Long-Range Shooting -- Finally, I came by this editorial. It lists multiple sems and multiple bolt action rifles.
  • Best .308 Rifle Reviews - Best Target Rifle Guide - Reviewster -- This revier lists quite a few rifles and expounds on three, two of which are semis.

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.

Classic troll gun banner.

 

[badbob85037]

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:

• Gun recommendations for hunters from multiple sources --> Of them only four recommended a semi-automatic rifle of any sort, and on each list that included a semi-automatic (semi), only one of the rifles recommended is a semi. Among the semis recommended only one was an AR-15-style semi. (I note this only because of what appears to be the AR-15's overwhelming popularity compared to it's incidence of being recommended. For the purpose of this thread, however, that matters not; for the purpose of this discussion, a semi is a semi.)
  • Outdoor Life -- This one recommended an AR-15-style semi.
  • Game and Fish
  • Field and Stream
    • Sub $1000 options
  • American Whitetail -- This one recommended a BAR carbine semi (circa 1967 and, presumably, later)
  • Grand View Outdoors
  • I Like Big Guns and I Cannot Lie: Best Big Bore Rifles - Pew Pew Tactical
  • You Can Hunt Any Animal in the World with Just These 4 Guns
  • The Best Big Game Rifles of All Time - Petersen's Hunting -- This reviewer recommended the Remington Model 74/7400/750.
  • The 20 Best Elk Hunting Rifles Ever Made -- This revier recommended the Browning BAR MK. II Safari Grade .338 (BAR Mark II Safari with BOSS)
• In light of the Olympics, I checked to see what sort of guns biathletes (the biathlon apparently is the #1 televised winer sport in Europe) use. They use guns that roughly look something like an AR-15, but that are yet not semis. That informed me that a rifle can look "cool" (if that be what describes how gun enthusiasts describe the visage of AR-15-style rifles) and not be a semi. It also informed me that, inasmuch as winning at the biathlon is a function of time, firing accurately matters because receives a time deduction for a missed target. That, absent the competitive elements and factors, strikes me as about what matters for hunting game. This part of my inquiry also made me think that it may be that a bolt action rifle, rather than a semi, is used in biathlon because in part perhaps they're more accurate (? -- I don't know...it seems as though there really shouldn't be any difference in that regard, but maybe there is....).
  • 
    
    
    
• Given the above described question about accuracy, I sought an answer to it. Turns out that there is an ongoing debate about exactly that. As the Moirae would have it, there is a multiplicity of factors that affect accuracy. From my high level reading about it, seems to me that which is more accurate depends heavily on situational factors and factors intrinsic to the rifle itself, but in the main a bolt action rifle is considered more accurate.
  • 6 Reasons Why AR Guys Need a Bolt-Action - Shooting Times
  • Long Range Shooting with a Semi Auto - AccuracyTech -- This writer's analysis focues on a genre of rifles referred to as "AR10s."
  • Best Sniper & Precision Rifle for Beginners [2018] - Pew Pew Tactical
  • How to Hit a 1,000-Yard Target with a $500 Rifle
  • 12 Next-Gen Precision Rifles For Long-Range Shooting -- Finally, I came by this editorial. It lists multiple sems and multiple bolt action rifles.
  • Best .308 Rifle Reviews - Best Target Rifle Guide - Reviewster -- This revier lists quite a few rifles and expounds on three, two of which are semis.

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.

Why don't you try reading the Constitution and it's Second Amendment. It ain't about hunting or target shooting. If you still don't understand move. Just be aware of the stabbings

 

[sartre play]

Guns good people bad.

 

[Flash]

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.

If you don't want a semi auto then don't buy one.

Problem solved.

However, don't infringe upon my right to keep and bear arms. It is against the Constitution.

 

[Otis Mayfield]

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:

• Gun recommendations for hunters from multiple sources --> Of them only four recommended a semi-automatic rifle of any sort, and on each list that included a semi-automatic (semi), only one of the rifles recommended is a semi. Among the semis recommended only one was an AR-15-style semi. (I note this only because of what appears to be the AR-15's overwhelming popularity compared to it's incidence of being recommended. For the purpose of this thread, however, that matters not; for the purpose of this discussion, a semi is a semi.)
  • Outdoor Life -- This one recommended an AR-15-style semi.
  • Game and Fish
  • Field and Stream
    • Sub $1000 options
  • American Whitetail -- This one recommended a BAR carbine semi (circa 1967 and, presumably, later)
  • Grand View Outdoors
  • I Like Big Guns and I Cannot Lie: Best Big Bore Rifles - Pew Pew Tactical
  • You Can Hunt Any Animal in the World with Just These 4 Guns
  • The Best Big Game Rifles of All Time - Petersen's Hunting -- This reviewer recommended the Remington Model 74/7400/750.
  • The 20 Best Elk Hunting Rifles Ever Made -- This revier recommended the Browning BAR MK. II Safari Grade .338 (BAR Mark II Safari with BOSS)
• In light of the Olympics, I checked to see what sort of guns biathletes (the biathlon apparently is the #1 televised winer sport in Europe) use. They use guns that roughly look something like an AR-15, but that are yet not semis. That informed me that a rifle can look "cool" (if that be what describes how gun enthusiasts describe the visage of AR-15-style rifles) and not be a semi. It also informed me that, inasmuch as winning at the biathlon is a function of time, firing accurately matters because receives a time deduction for a missed target. That, absent the competitive elements and factors, strikes me as about what matters for hunting game. This part of my inquiry also made me think that it may be that a bolt action rifle, rather than a semi, is used in biathlon because in part perhaps they're more accurate (? -- I don't know...it seems as though there really shouldn't be any difference in that regard, but maybe there is....).
  • 
    
    
    
• Given the above described question about accuracy, I sought an answer to it. Turns out that there is an ongoing debate about exactly that. As the Moirae would have it, there is a multiplicity of factors that affect accuracy. From my high level reading about it, seems to me that which is more accurate depends heavily on situational factors and factors intrinsic to the rifle itself, but in the main a bolt action rifle is considered more accurate.
  • 6 Reasons Why AR Guys Need a Bolt-Action - Shooting Times
  • Long Range Shooting with a Semi Auto - AccuracyTech -- This writer's analysis focues on a genre of rifles referred to as "AR10s."
  • Best Sniper & Precision Rifle for Beginners [2018] - Pew Pew Tactical
  • How to Hit a 1,000-Yard Target with a $500 Rifle
  • 12 Next-Gen Precision Rifles For Long-Range Shooting -- Finally, I came by this editorial. It lists multiple sems and multiple bolt action rifles.
  • Best .308 Rifle Reviews - Best Target Rifle Guide - Reviewster -- This revier lists quite a few rifles and expounds on three, two of which are semis.

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.

The military fantasy aspect is a big part of AR15 ownership. Owners think they look cool.

Even among people who are too fat, too old, or too out of shape to fight in a battle.

The gun in a prop for his costume.

 

[2aguy]

The military fantasy aspect is a big part of AR15 ownership. Owners think they look cool.

Even among people who are too fat, too old, or too out of shape to fight in a battle.

20 million AR-15s in private hands.......people like them because they are easy to shoot, easy to clean, and provide a general purpose rifle for multiple people in your family.

 

[Donald H]

20 million AR-15s in private hands.......people like them because they are easy to shoot, easy to clean, and provide a general purpose rifle for multiple people in your family.

Another big shootup of a high school in Texas today. Almost certain he use an AR type weapon.

People like them because they are easy to shoot multiple people with.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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

Good news:
It's not necessary that you do.
Semi-automatic rifles are in common use for traditionally lawfun purposes, and as such, our right to owwn and use them for said purposes shall not be infringed.
/ thread

 

[M14 Shooter]

Another big shootup of a high school in Texas today. Almost certain he use an AR type weapon.

"Almost certain"?
Why do you say that?
Most mass shootings are prepertraed with handguns, and most people who die in a mass shooting are killed with a handgun.

 

[Donald H]

"Almost certain"?
Why do you say that?
Most mass shootings are prepertraed with handguns, and most people who die in a mass shooting are killed with a handgun.

It was a school shooting and most school shootings are done with AR type weapons.

 

[M14 Shooter]

It was a school shooting and most school shootings are done with AR type weapons.

Yours is a statement of ignorance or dishonesty.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Yours is a statement of ignorance or dishonesty.

Have you ever seen anything from Donald H that was otherwise?