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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Markle said:
In your OPINION, which of these rifles is the most dangerous?

i-7mb9sLB-M.jpg
Click to expand...
The AR or AR type weapon is by far the most efficient weapon for the purpose of wounding or killing people.

Referring to any weapon as dangerous isn't applicable to the discussion. It's an unsophiscated question that was designed to trap anyone who would be ignorant enough to take the bait.
 
Donald H said:
If the bad guys took a knife to the children's school the death toll wouldn't be such a success for the bad guy. Usually at best one dead and several cut up badly.
We all know by now how many innocent people are killed in the average shooting by the guy with an AR-15.

The reason why they use their AR's on human silouette targets isn't being debated by the pro-gunners. It never was!

Waiting for the Chicoms or the government to use them on delivers no gratification for them.
They receive the gratification by seeing children's dead bodies on the ground.
Click to expand...
Our friends across the pond have had so many knife murders that they're trying that too! :D

Knife%20bins-X3.jpg
 
Donald H said:
The AR or AR type weapon is by far the most efficient weapon for the purpose of wounding or killing people.
Click to expand...
And yet, they are used to kill an average of 6.5 people per year.
Handguns? More than 6,000
Thats a factor of 1000, if you're keeping score.
Donald H said:
Referring to any weapon as dangerous isn't applicable to the discussion. It's an unsophiscated question that was designed to trap anyone who would be ignorant enough to take the bait.
Click to expand...
Translation:
You know you cannot address the issue put to you.
 
usmbguest5318 said:
EDIT:
Several readers have responded remarking specifically about the AR-15 genre of rifles. I don't know if they didn't read the whole OP, but this post/thread is about semi-automatic rifles in general, and the AR-15 is but one form of them, albeit, apparently, the most popular one. I've not in the main post below singled out the AR-15 genre of semi-automatic rifles.​
Edit end.


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

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

What have I found? Well, this:

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

I don't own a gun, I don't care for them, I don't understand why others collect them. That stated, if someone wants to collect guns, I have no issue with it. I used to buy, sell and collect baseball cards, I enjoyed it for awhile and now I collect rocks and make cut, cab and make things out of rock. Others don't understand this hobby, however if you don't like it, that is fine with me, I enjoy it.

Gun owners enjoy their collections, I don't need to know why, nor do I care.
 
M14 Shooter said:
You know that one of those rifles in an AR, and the other is not.
Right?
How / why is the AR more efficient at killing people than the other rifle?
Click to expand...
Which one would you choose between the two if you're going to try to be competitive on the kill rate of school children?
The last Texas shooter made a poor choice obviously and his kill plan was poorly executed. You don't take a saturday night special or an M1 to a war or a school if you want to be somebody.
 
M14 Shooter said:
No no. After you address my question, I will address yours.

How / why is the AR more efficient at killing people than the other rifle?
Click to expand...

Faster rate of fire.

Semi autos have a rate of fire too, some are slower than others.
 
Donald H said:
The AR or AR type weapon is by far the most efficient weapon for the purpose of wounding or killing people.

Referring to any weapon as dangerous isn't applicable to the discussion. It's an unsophiscated question that was designed to trap anyone who would be ignorant enough to take the bait.
Click to expand...
Oooooo..." an unsophisticated question"! :D

Thank you for proving that you are ignorant enough to take the bait.

Keep up the good work!

i-jc5WtPb-S.png
 
Markle said:
Oooooo..." an unsophisticated question"! :D

Thank you for proving that you are ignorant enough to take the bait.

Keep up the good work!

i-jc5WtPb-S.png
Click to expand...
It's mostly about the appeal of the black one to people who should be carefully screened to determine if they can be safe with any gun.
You know they are going to be shooting at human silouette targets and that's the first indication of potential trouble.

You don't see the crazies standing around in their camo holding the natural wood grained model.
(a few exceptions)
 
Donald H said:
If the bad guys took a knife to the children's school the death toll wouldn't be such a success for the bad guy. Usually at best one dead and several cut up badly.
We all know by now how many innocent people are killed in the average shooting by the guy with an AR-15.

The reason why they use their AR's on human silouette targets isn't being debated by the pro-gunners. It never was!

Waiting for the Chicoms or the government to use them on delivers no gratification for them.
They receive the gratification by seeing children's dead bodies on the ground.
Click to expand...
One%20sick%20puppy-S.jpg
 
The AR 15 was designed to kill an human attacker, not deer or anything else. The design is to kill an enemy who is trying to kill you.

The M 16/ M 4 are simply full auto versions of it.
 
Donald H said:
The AR or AR type weapon is by far the most efficient weapon for the purpose of wounding or killing people.

Referring to any weapon as dangerous isn't applicable to the discussion. It's an unsophiscated question that was designed to trap anyone who would be ignorant enough to take the bait.
Click to expand...

No it isnt, but you keep showing your ignorance on all issues related to guns and self defense. It isnt the rifle its the bullet………
 
1633742617861.webp

Thats a picture of a Ruger Mini 14, and I have owned one. Its action works just like an AR action does. And it’s purpose is the same, it shoots fast and it holds plenty of 5.56 anytime that you need it .

And it is intended to be used primarily against human attackers.
 
Markle said:
In your OPINION, which of these rifles is the most dangerous?

i-7mb9sLB-M.jpg
Click to expand...
I’m just answering this question for any gun newbie out there, they are equally dangerous . They take the same ammo, and they both can use 30+ round mags.
 
usmbguest5318 said:
EDIT:
Several readers have responded remarking specifically about the AR-15 genre of rifles. I don't know if they didn't read the whole OP, but this post/thread is about semi-automatic rifles in general, and the AR-15 is but one form of them, albeit, apparently, the most popular one. I've not in the main post below singled out the AR-15 genre of semi-automatic rifles.​
Edit end.


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

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

What have I found? Well, this:

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

It's an illness. they are children who want to be big and bad.
 
usmbguest5318 said:
EDIT:
Several readers have responded remarking specifically about the AR-15 genre of rifles. I don't know if they didn't read the whole OP, but this post/thread is about semi-automatic rifles in general, and the AR-15 is but one form of them, albeit, apparently, the most popular one. I've not in the main post below singled out the AR-15 genre of semi-automatic rifles.​
Edit end.


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

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

What have I found? Well, this:

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

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

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


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


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

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

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


Nice post…..sadly you miss the point. I am not a hunter, I am not a collector, and I don’t target shoot. My focus is on freedom and self defense. The semi-auto rifle is a tool for self defense. Period.

You are wrong on several points, the majority of mass public shootings are done with pistols, not rifles, and any mass public shooting can just as easily be accomplished with a pistol, pistols, or pump action shotgun. The only exception to this would be the Las Vegas shooting where the attacker was firing from 400 yards from the target. And the only reason that was effective was due to the fact that he was firing from a concealed location, with the sound of the rifle masked by the concert, and he was firing into a tightly packed crowd of over 22,000 people. They had a poor a ability to fan out, run away and find cover once they realized they were under attack. Had he fired at people on a random street they would have been moving, which makes them incredibly hard to hit, or hiding.

Even with the planning and advantages he had he only managed to kill
60 people…..out of over 22,000 people at the concert.

Keep in mind, a Muslim terrorist with a rental truck murdered 86 people and wounded 435.

The Virginia Tech shooter, using two pistols murdered 32 and the Lubies Cafe shooter using pistols killed 24.

So the gun type is not the deciding factor in how many people are killed, which is something you dont understand.

The biggest factor is how long it takes for a good guy with a gun, any gun, to engage the attacker……at which point mass public shooters commit suicide…which the Vegas shooter did once he knew the police were on the way to his room, which the Sandy Hook shooter did as soon as he heard the sirens of the approaching police……or, they surrender, as the Colorado theater shooter did…or run away…as the Florida high school shooter did.

Outside of the Vegas shooting all of the other mass public shootings could have been done, with the same number killed, with a shotgun or pistols.

Your fixation on the semi-auto rifle is just uninformed.

The semi-auto rifle is a tool for self defense…but also hunting and competition……but primarily self defense. When the police can’t or won’t protect you and your family….as we saw in the Rodney King riots, and the 7 months of the democrat party, BLM/antifa riots, when the democrat party mayors told the local police to stand down and not stop the rioters…….leaving the people of the community completely on their own and helpless…….

The stores and businesses that weren’t burnt to the ground? Had individuals with semi auto rifles protecting them…….

the AR-15 is a good semi-auto rifle for self defense, and for keeping rioters from burning your home, or business and keeping them from dragging you into the street and murdering you…

Did you bother to look at this aspect of the rifle? I think not because of the bulk of your post.

Hunting is a secondary use for the rifle and lots of hunters do use them……

The semi-auto rifle allows for a good person to protect their family from threats that are bigger than a hand gun can handle. Handguns are convenient for every day use, since you can carry them easily.

At night, when you don’t know how many criminals may be targeting your home, a semi auto rifle in the hands of a woman or even a teenager can convince them to leave in a way a hand gun might not.

A woman with a pistol is not as convincing to one or more violent criminals as a woman with a rifle is. Where they may try and test a woman with a pistol, a woman with a rifle is a different target……and less likely to be challenged.

That is at the personal level…..then we come to the real intent of owning a semi auto rifle….out of control government.

History and human nature shows that governments kill more people than criminals do……in 6 years the Europeans murdered 12 million innocent men, women, and children……more innocents murdered than innocents murdered in 82 years of criminals with guns in the U.S.

These murders did not happen in the dark ages or the barbaric past…they happened after 1917…..in countries with the rule of law, democratically elected governments, science, philosophy……..

12 million murdered in Europe
25 million murdered in Russia
70 million murdered in China
3 million murdered by the Japanese

So all of your research into hunting is really meaningless…..as is your research into crime. As the murder rates between criminals and governments demonstrates.

The semi Auto rifle is the last line of defense against government mass murder……and your opinions based on hunting and crime have no weight.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Home plate and the coach

< Previous Thread

Media Manipulation and Deception: It's Not About the NRA or 'Guns' .

Next Thread >

Similar threads

Doc7505
They Said Biden Wouldn’t Come for Our Guns. The Plan Says Otherwise.
Replies
19
Views
295
rightwinger
rightwinger
Nostra
Bondi arrests Democrat extremist domestic terrorists for Tesla attacks.
Replies
17
Views
205
Blisterfinger
Blisterfinger
1srelluc
#4 MK I/2 F (FTR) .303 Enfield
Replies
4
Views
398
1srelluc
1srelluc
2aguy
Are AK-47, automatic military rifles against the law in Brussels? Asking for a friend......
Replies
3
Views
187
JWBooth
JWBooth
1srelluc
Stevens Junior - Model 11 .22 "Cat Rifle"
Replies
16
Views
699
Grumpyolman
Grumpyolman

New Topics

Latest Discussions

Back
Top Bottom