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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Indeed it does fail. No citizen should have to prove a need. There must be proof that banning is needed. There isn't.
And, you are sole arbiter of what is 'necessary' for your chosen purpose of a gun.
With certain exceptions, of course - you cannot hunt waterfowl with a rifle.

This does beg the question, of course-
You can effectively duck hunt with an over/under; there's no need for pump-action or semi-auto shotguns.
 
All this emotionally charged rhetoric about assault rifles, when they are used to commit 1% - 2% of the murders is ridiculous.
20,000,000 AR15s in the US.
Over the last 40 years, 16 were used to murder 266 people in a mass shooting.
That's 0.4 ARs and 6.65 people, per year.
Across 20,000,000 rifles.
It takes a special breed of loon to look at that and conclude the need to ban them.
 
Last edited:
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.
Not that you are likely around any more, but...
Try here:
All of these competitions are dominated by... semi-automatic rifles.
Mass shooters don't much seem to use handguns.
Most mass shootings are committed with handguns.
Most people who die in a mass shootings are killed with handguns.

Your premise, on these points alone, is, at best, flawed.
 
Try again. When something does suffice, why go better. If you wish to get from A to B, then a Ford Focus will suffice, why buy a Bugatti Veyron?

If you need to protect yourself from all of your enemies, a concealed hand gun is an excellent and suitable option, why go to the extremes of a semi automatic rifle.

It's not rocket science but some gun nuts are making it so.



Because in a life or death situation merely sufficing isn't enough. I don't fight "fair". If you fight "fair" you will end up dead. Thus, the best way to ensure your survival is to have the absolute best weapon you can have. The AR-15 platform is one of THE best home defense weapons in the world. They have superior ergonomics, are easily used by those who have physical ailments, and don't penetrate through walls thus keeping their family members safe.

Handguns are difficult to use for old people and the infirm, penetrate through walls so are a hazard for not just your own family but your neighbors too.

The problem you have is you are completely ignorant of the usage and abilities of the various firearms families, and types.
 
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.


Let me help you out.

Most of the sources you used for gun recommendations are hunting purists. I know. I am one of those. I found my "perfect" deer rifle many years ago, and spent a pretty penny to get one. It is a Ruger No. 1 in .270 Win. It is a single shot.

But the idea that an AR is not a good hunting rifle is simply a myth. Here are the reason I have heard that it is not a good hunting rifle, and my response to them.

1) It is not as accurate as most hunting rifles. This is absolute nonsense. Granted a good bolt action or single shot might be slightly more accurate. But not by much at all. Certainly not by enough for most shooters to take advantage of. And if this is a reason to ban ARs from hunting, then lever actions and slide actions would have been banned decades ago.

2) The caliber (.223Rem or 5.56mm) is too small to be used on deer and deer-sized game. Again, absolute nonsense. Granted, most states have minimum calibers for deer and such, but it is somewhat arbitrary. The .223 does, in fact, fire a relatively small bullet. Most .223 rounds have a 55 to 62 grain bullet. For comparison, a 9mm fires a 115 grain bullet. My .357 Magnum is loaded with 158 grain bullets. But what is not taken into account is the speed at which the .223 bullet travels. A 55 grain .223 bullet is traveling at over 3,200 fps at the muzzle, and still cruising at or near 2,500 fps at 200 yards. That is hauling ass. And while the projectile might be small, the hydrostatic shock of the impact at that speed is substantial. Proof? The .223 in an AR platform is one of the most popular rounds for hunting feral pigs. And they are notoriously tough game animals.


Now as for anyone "needing" an AR, I don't know of an argument for that, as far as hunting goes. But considering the language of the 2nd Amendment, proving a need is a moot point.
 
It wasn’t this way at all in the 1970’s, I have never seen anything like it.
Guns are flying off of the shelves, and some people are buying crates of ammo. They are very afraid of what they have seen, with Antifa and the federal government. There is a lawlessness now, that wasn’t there before.
Their fear is both ridiculous and unwarranted.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum List

Back
Top