Why does someone want an AR-15

[Marion Morrison]

I'd pay decent money to have a .22 like I had when I was a kid. It had a squirrel on the handle. I used to pop off shotgun shells with it. Get back a little ways and shoot the primer.

Tbh, that's the most accurate gun I've ever shot. Only the .06 even comes close.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Again, your understanding is neither required nor relevant.

You are telling me you can not explain why anyone wants an AR-15.
It is a gun that requires absolute no skill to kill animals and humans with the greatest chance of collateral damage.

How can a relatively low powered rifle do the most collateral damage? Could be that you just don't know your ass from a hole in the ground.

Here's an AR-15 round compared to a typical hunting round, the 30-06, which are available in semi auto as well.

AR is on the left like you.

The automatic feature has provided collateral damage in many cases

Really?
What cases?

The AR-15 was designed as a semi-automatic version of the M-16 which is build as a war weapon. The M-16 is an effective war weapon but an acknowledged down side is the collateral damage that happens with Automatic and semi-automatic weapons. Look at Iraq and Afghanistan.

Read the article attached in reference specifically to AR-15.
NSW Police move to semi-automatics could cause 'collateral damage': expert

Why would it cause anymore collateral damage than a semi auto pistol?

 

[DamnDude]

Again, your understanding is neither required nor relevant.

You are telling me you can not explain why anyone wants an AR-15.
It is a gun that requires absolute no skill to kill animals and humans with the greatest chance of collateral damage.

How can a relatively low powered rifle do the most collateral damage? Could be that you just don't know your ass from a hole in the ground.

Here's an AR-15 round compared to a typical hunting round, the 30-06, which are available in semi auto as well.

AR is on the left like you.

The automatic feature has provided collateral damage in many cases

Really?
What cases?

The AR-15 was designed as a semi-automatic version of the M-16 which is build as a war weapon. The M-16 is an effective war weapon but an acknowledged down side is the collateral damage that happens with Automatic and semi-automatic weapons. Look at Iraq and Afghanistan.

Read the article attached in reference specifically to AR-15.
NSW Police move to semi-automatics could cause 'collateral damage': expert

Some people's kids, man.... some people's kids

 

[ElmerMudd]

I understand wanting guns for hunting or protection.
I know enough about guns that an AR-15 is not the best gun for hunting or protection.

Who are you to judge? A well-built AR-15 may just would be better for hunting than an older mini-14 chambered in .223.

I know this much.

The following is what Supreme Court Judge Scalia had to say about the second ammendment.
Scalia clearly stated in (District of Columbia vs) Heller that the right to bear arms had boundaries. “Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited,” he wrote. “It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” For example, he cited laws that prohibit the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or that forbid them in places such as schools and government buildings, or impose conditions on their sale.

I agree. I should not be allowed to own a howitzer.

Where do you draw the line? You agree a howitzer should not be legal. What do you say to those who say a howitzer should be legal.

 

[WinterBorn]

I'd give the anti-gun leftists here an AR-15 or AK47 and I get my .22 for a 100 yard shootout, baby!

I'd win.

I'd rather have a Browning .22LR semi rifle....

Why? Does Browning make some kinda super-awesome .22 I never heard of within 40 years?

Near as I can tell the top 3 are Ruger, Marlin, and Mossberg, in no particular order.

Marlin
Ruger
Mossberg

If you want order.

As for a .22, I have owned several. I have a Ruger 10/22 now. No need to look at any others. Although I do miss the Remington Nylon 66 my Dad and I used to shoot.

 

[Deno]

Again, your understanding is neither required nor relevant.

You are telling me you can not explain why anyone wants an AR-15.
It is a gun that requires absolute no skill to kill animals and humans with the greatest chance of collateral damage.

No, they're telling you it none of your business why they want/need an AR-15.
I will share with you why I want one.... I want one for home defense.

And because I can

Rights assured to me by the 2nd

Now Joe Biden me and tell me to get a shot gun and shoot through the door....

If you use the gun for personal defense, I assume you do not keep it locked up so you have easy access.

Only an imbecile would lock up a gun they rely on. So your guns are all locked up?

Your AR-15 is not locked up and available to you and anyone else who comes upon it.
I do not rely on guns for my personal safety and I feel very safe.

I have also heard that ostriches

feel safe with their head in the sand.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

I understand wanting guns for hunting or protection.
I know enough about guns that an AR-15 is not the best gun for hunting or protection.

I understand you're an idiot that doesn't know anything about guns so your opinion will be treated as such and taken into zero consideration when I am purchasing my own.

 

[WinterBorn]

Again, your understanding is neither required nor relevant.

You are telling me you can not explain why anyone wants an AR-15.
It is a gun that requires absolute no skill to kill animals and humans with the greatest chance of collateral damage.

How can a relatively low powered rifle do the most collateral damage? Could be that you just don't know your ass from a hole in the ground.

Here's an AR-15 round compared to a typical hunting round, the 30-06, which are available in semi auto as well.

AR is on the left like you.

The automatic feature has provided collateral damage in many cases

Really?
What cases?

The AR-15 was designed as a semi-automatic version of the M-16 which is build as a war weapon. The M-16 is an effective war weapon but an acknowledged down side is the collateral damage that happens with Automatic and semi-automatic weapons. Look at Iraq and Afghanistan.

Read the article attached in reference specifically to AR-15.
NSW Police move to semi-automatics could cause 'collateral damage': expert

You should have read your own link. It is not the rifle that they are saying will cause the collateral damage. It is the cartridge.

from your link:
"You increase the range and accuracy, but you also increase the velocity," he said.
"So the danger is that theoretically (there’ll) be bullets passing through rather than stopping somebody. So you may be talking collateral damage on the streets of Melbourne or Sydney."

The fact that the rifle is a semi-auto is not why the bullet passes thru a target, goes faster or has an increased range. In fact, a single shot rifle of the same caliber will shoot farther and with more velocity (since all of the power of the propellant will be focused down the barrel).

 

[Marion Morrison]

I'd give the anti-gun leftists here an AR-15 or AK47 and I get my .22 for a 100 yard shootout, baby!

I'd win.

I'd rather have a Browning .22LR semi rifle....

Why? Does Browning make some kinda super-awesome .22 I never heard of within 40 years?

Near as I can tell the top 3 are Ruger, Marlin, and Mossberg, in no particular order.

Marlin
Ruger
Mossberg

If you want order.

As for a .22, I have owned several. I have a Ruger 10/22 now. No need to look at any others. Although I do miss the Remington Nylon 66 my Dad and I used to shoot.

I remember those. Etched nylon, pretty stock, black tip and white and stuff by the front grip. Those were decent.

 

[Moonglow]

I'd give the anti-gun leftists here an AR-15 or AK47 and I get my .22 for a 100 yard shootout, baby!

I'd win.

I'd rather have a Browning .22LR semi rifle....

Why? Does Browning make some kinda super-awesome .22 I never heard of within 40 years?

Near as I can tell the top 3 are Ruger, Marlin, and Mossberg, in no particular order.

Marlin
Ruger
Mossberg

If you want order.

As for a .22, I have owned several. I have a Ruger 10/22 now. No need to look at any others. Although I do miss the Remington Nylon 66 my Dad and I used to shoot.

I had a Ruger "Luger" look alike....

 

[ElmerMudd]

I understand wanting guns for hunting or protection.
I know enough about guns that an AR-15 is not the best gun for hunting or protection.

Again, your understanding is neither required nor relevant.

You are telling me you can not explain why anyone wants an AR-15.
It is a gun that requires absolute no skill to kill animals and humans with the greatest chance of collateral damage.

How can a relatively low powered rifle do the most collateral damage? Could be that you just don't know your ass from a hole in the ground.

Here's an AR-15 round compared to a typical hunting round, the 30-06, which are available in semi auto as well.

AR is on the left like you.

The automatic feature has provided collateral damage in many cases

"Automatic feature"? What is that?

Automatic or semi-automatic features on a gun allow more rounds to be shot in a shorter time. I cannot believe you did not know that. What did you think you were getting when you bought a semi-automatic gun.
Does it make you mad that is so difficult if not impossible to buy a fully automatic weapon or maybe you did not know of the restrictions on fully automatic weapons.

 

[ElmerMudd]

I understand wanting guns for hunting or protection.
I know enough about guns that an AR-15 is not the best gun for hunting or protection.

Again, your understanding is neither required nor relevant.

You are telling me you can not explain why anyone wants an AR-15.
It is a gun that requires absolute no skill to kill animals and humans with the greatest chance of collateral damage.

"It is a gun that requires absolute no skill to kill animals and humans with the greatest chance of collateral damage"???? WTF? No skill? Maybe at point blank range. But then, any firearm can do that. Tell you what. How about we meet at a range. I'll borrow and AR for you to shoot. I'll bring a lever action rifle in .44 Magnum. We will see who will be the first to hit 10 soda cans at 100 yards, shooting offhand. I'll bet you'd change you mind about the "absolutely no skill" requirement.

And there are numerous calibers that will do far more collateral damage.

It is the automatic feature that provides the ability for any idiot to spray an area without much skill and do huge damage.
The first restictive gun laws were placed on machine guns for that reason.
None of these school shooters were trained marksman and their weapon of choice is a semi-automatic or automatic weapon to do as much damage as possible in a short amount of time with no skill.

Your ignorance knows no bounds does it liar. You can't just go by an automatic weapon.

Tell me how what I said is untrue.

 

[Moonglow]

I understand wanting guns for hunting or protection.
I know enough about guns that an AR-15 is not the best gun for hunting or protection.

Who are you to judge? A well-built AR-15 may just would be better for hunting than an older mini-14 chambered in .223.

I know this much.

The following is what Supreme Court Judge Scalia had to say about the second ammendment.
Scalia clearly stated in (District of Columbia vs) Heller that the right to bear arms had boundaries. “Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited,” he wrote. “It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” For example, he cited laws that prohibit the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or that forbid them in places such as schools and government buildings, or impose conditions on their sale.

I agree. I should not be allowed to own a howitzer.

Where do you draw the line? You agree a howitzer should not be legal. What do you say to those who say a howitzer should be legal.

Make mine a 155mm on tracks....

 

[WinterBorn]

I'd give the anti-gun leftists here an AR-15 or AK47 and I get my .22 for a 100 yard shootout, baby!

I'd win.

I'd rather have a Browning .22LR semi rifle....

Why? Does Browning make some kinda super-awesome .22 I never heard of within 40 years?

Near as I can tell the top 3 are Ruger, Marlin, and Mossberg, in no particular order.

Marlin
Ruger
Mossberg

If you want order.

As for a .22, I have owned several. I have a Ruger 10/22 now. No need to look at any others. Although I do miss the Remington Nylon 66 my Dad and I used to shoot.

I remember those. Etched nylon, pretty stock, black tip and white and stuff by the front grip. Those were decent.

Yep, that is the one. It was a great little rifle. I think the 10/22 is a better gun. But I can be a sentimental old fool at times too. lol

 

[Moonglow]

Again, your understanding is neither required nor relevant.

You are telling me you can not explain why anyone wants an AR-15.
It is a gun that requires absolute no skill to kill animals and humans with the greatest chance of collateral damage.

How can a relatively low powered rifle do the most collateral damage? Could be that you just don't know your ass from a hole in the ground.

Here's an AR-15 round compared to a typical hunting round, the 30-06, which are available in semi auto as well.

AR is on the left like you.

The automatic feature has provided collateral damage in many cases

"Automatic feature"? What is that?

Automatic or semi-automatic features on a gun allow more rounds to be shot in a shorter time. I cannot believe you did not know that. What did you think you were getting when you bought a semi-automatic gun.
Does it make you mad that is so difficult if not impossible to buy a fully automatic weapon or maybe you did not know of the restrictions on fully automatic weapons.

You can buy them from a class 9 dealer...Or modify a semi to be an auto....

 

[WinterBorn]

Again, your understanding is neither required nor relevant.

You are telling me you can not explain why anyone wants an AR-15.
It is a gun that requires absolute no skill to kill animals and humans with the greatest chance of collateral damage.

"It is a gun that requires absolute no skill to kill animals and humans with the greatest chance of collateral damage"???? WTF? No skill? Maybe at point blank range. But then, any firearm can do that. Tell you what. How about we meet at a range. I'll borrow and AR for you to shoot. I'll bring a lever action rifle in .44 Magnum. We will see who will be the first to hit 10 soda cans at 100 yards, shooting offhand. I'll bet you'd change you mind about the "absolutely no skill" requirement.

And there are numerous calibers that will do far more collateral damage.

It is the automatic feature that provides the ability for any idiot to spray an area without much skill and do huge damage.
The first restictive gun laws were placed on machine guns for that reason.
None of these school shooters were trained marksman and their weapon of choice is a semi-automatic or automatic weapon to do as much damage as possible in a short amount of time with no skill.

Your ignorance knows no bounds does it liar. You can't just go by an automatic weapon.

Tell me how what I said is untrue.

I'm still waiting for you to tell me which school shooter used an automatic rifle.

 

[Moonglow]

I'd give the anti-gun leftists here an AR-15 or AK47 and I get my .22 for a 100 yard shootout, baby!

I'd win.

I'd rather have a Browning .22LR semi rifle....

Why? Does Browning make some kinda super-awesome .22 I never heard of within 40 years?

Near as I can tell the top 3 are Ruger, Marlin, and Mossberg, in no particular order.

Marlin
Ruger
Mossberg

If you want order.

Not awesome but worked better than the M-16 I was issued...

 

[WinterBorn]

Again, your understanding is neither required nor relevant.

You are telling me you can not explain why anyone wants an AR-15.
It is a gun that requires absolute no skill to kill animals and humans with the greatest chance of collateral damage.

How can a relatively low powered rifle do the most collateral damage? Could be that you just don't know your ass from a hole in the ground.

Here's an AR-15 round compared to a typical hunting round, the 30-06, which are available in semi auto as well.

AR is on the left like you.

The automatic feature has provided collateral damage in many cases

"Automatic feature"? What is that?

Automatic or semi-automatic features on a gun allow more rounds to be shot in a shorter time. I cannot believe you did not know that. What did you think you were getting when you bought a semi-automatic gun.
Does it make you mad that is so difficult if not impossible to buy a fully automatic weapon or maybe you did not know of the restrictions on fully automatic weapons.

You keep using automatic and semi-automatic like they are the same thing. By now I would have thought you would have known the difference.

Yes, a semi-auto lets you fire more rounds in a shorter time. But the collateral damage is not because of the number of rounds, as the article you linked explained.

 

[ElmerMudd]

I understand wanting guns for hunting or protection.
I know enough about guns that an AR-15 is not the best gun for hunting or protection.

Again, your understanding is neither required nor relevant.

You are telling me you can not explain why anyone wants an AR-15.
It is a gun that requires absolute no skill to kill animals and humans with the greatest chance of collateral damage.

"It is a gun that requires absolute no skill to kill animals and humans with the greatest chance of collateral damage"???? WTF? No skill? Maybe at point blank range. But then, any firearm can do that. Tell you what. How about we meet at a range. I'll borrow and AR for you to shoot. I'll bring a lever action rifle in .44 Magnum. We will see who will be the first to hit 10 soda cans at 100 yards, shooting offhand. I'll bet you'd change you mind about the "absolutely no skill" requirement.

And there are numerous calibers that will do far more collateral damage.

It is the automatic feature that provides the ability for any idiot to spray an area without much skill and do huge damage.
The first restictive gun laws were placed on machine guns for that reason.
None of these school shooters were trained marksman and their weapon of choice is a semi-automatic or automatic weapon to do as much damage as possible in a short amount of time with no skill.

I thought we were talking about the AR? The AR does not shoot like a machine gun, despite what some antigun folks claim.

And the restrictions on machine guns is more financial than anything. Pay the tax stamp, and you can own one too.

Not true. You have to go through a more extensive background check. The reason they are expensive is there are not many around. They cannot build new ones for civilians because of restictions provided by law.

 

[WinterBorn]

Again, your understanding is neither required nor relevant.

You are telling me you can not explain why anyone wants an AR-15.
It is a gun that requires absolute no skill to kill animals and humans with the greatest chance of collateral damage.

"It is a gun that requires absolute no skill to kill animals and humans with the greatest chance of collateral damage"???? WTF? No skill? Maybe at point blank range. But then, any firearm can do that. Tell you what. How about we meet at a range. I'll borrow and AR for you to shoot. I'll bring a lever action rifle in .44 Magnum. We will see who will be the first to hit 10 soda cans at 100 yards, shooting offhand. I'll bet you'd change you mind about the "absolutely no skill" requirement.

And there are numerous calibers that will do far more collateral damage.

It is the automatic feature that provides the ability for any idiot to spray an area without much skill and do huge damage.
The first restictive gun laws were placed on machine guns for that reason.
None of these school shooters were trained marksman and their weapon of choice is a semi-automatic or automatic weapon to do as much damage as possible in a short amount of time with no skill.

I thought we were talking about the AR? The AR does not shoot like a machine gun, despite what some antigun folks claim.

And the restrictions on machine guns is more financial than anything. Pay the tax stamp, and you can own one too.

Not true. You have to go through a more extensive background check. The reason they are expensive is there are not many around. They cannot build new ones for civilians because of restictions provided by law.

Unless you have been convicted of a felony, convicted of domestic abuse or stalking, have been diagnosed as mentally ill, or some other reason (just like buying a standard firearm), you can buy a machine gun. You have to pay a tax stamp. You also have restrictions when you sell it. And there are rules concerning storage ect ect. But buying one is just a hassle, not an impossibility.