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

[yiostheoy]

Jeeze Adolf is still with us.

Volkswagens.

Autobahns.

Rockets.

Buzz bombs.

Blitzkrieg.

And Sturm Gewehr.

 

[usmbguest5318]

I wonder where Mr. OP has gone. Guess he couldn't defend all those assertions of his.

And yet, we need not wonder where you went. We know you went to a different thread to complain about the goings on in this one.

Maybe, just maybe, people are uninterested in new and improved gun control laws because they have been well and truly proven to do nothing but disarm the good guy/gals and empower the bad guys/gals. Maybe any further dialog should be about finding a solution that actually addresses the problem. "Gun free" areas were supposed to be the answer but have only served to attract crazies and terrorists.

...new and improved gun control laws because they have been well and truly proven to....

And yet you'd have us -- solely on the basis of your say-so, no less -- take the remainder of your assertions and speculations as both plausible and probable.

It clearly escapes you that, by definition, that which is new has not at all been proven. That is part and parcel to the very substance of the meaning of the word "new."

Apparently sarcasm-as well as current events for the last 4--5 decades-escapes you. And my assertions and speculations are most certainly more plausible and probable than your OP. Why do you think I would bother with supporting evidence when you ignored it when I did present it to you in your OP in the "I don't understand..." thread and disproved some of your assertions in the doing. If you actually wanted a discussion as you have claimed, why don't you discuss instead of running away?

Why do you think I would bother with supporting evidence when you ignored it when I did present it to you in your OP in the "I don't understand..."

??? It was clear to me then and it remains clear that you didn't understand (1) the rhetorical point of the OP in that thread and (2) what the hell I requested; consequently, you provided content that answers a question that wasn't being asked. You could have provided literally all the supporting evidence in the world and it still would not have addressed the actual question I posed. I ignored most of what you had to say because you're 70 years-old and didn't address the central question of that thread.

As I made clear to another member, the point of the OP in that thread is this:

I'm in [the "I do not understand"] thread seeking credible input on what motivates the elasticity and substitution conclusions consumers obtain when demanding (effective and latent) semi-automatic rifles.

To avoid the formal and precise language of economics, I, in that thread's OP, I expressed the central question in layman's terms and as a statement, thinking that readers could from that statement derive what must necessarily be the question the thread entreats them to answer.

I'm baffled at the existential fascination gun enthusiasts have with semi-automatic rifles.

The entirety of the remainder of that OP is nothing other than my sharing broadly the nature of what I'd observed in seeking the answer to my question.

What you did was share different observations and challenge the ones I shared. That's all well and good, but that those observations can and do exist -- yours or mine -- does not answer the central question:

• In layman's terms: "Why are folks so fascinated with semi-automatic rifles?"
• In economic terms: "What motivates the elasticity and substitution conclusions consumers obtain when demanding (effective and latent) semi-automatic rifles?"

If one doesn't have an answer to the question, well, one just doesn't. I don't have an answer to it, so I'm not going to ridicule someone else for not having an answer to it. If one wants to post and say "I don't know the answer to your question," that's fine too. But don't sit there feeling dejected because I didn't respond to your remarks that don't answer the thread question. Yes, the question was tacitly posed, but still, you're 70 year-old; it shouldn't have overtaxed your abilities to get from a statement to a question.

Hell, in your first post in that thread, you deigned to tell me with what consumer sub-groups certain firearms are popular. Why you did so is beyond me, for my OP made it clear that I already knew that semi-automatic rifles are popular. With whom they are popular is irrelevant to that thread's central question unless one/you show (credibly, not just your say-so) that the specific people or consumer sub-groups with whom they are popular are the people driving demand for item under consideration (in that thread's case, semi-automatic rifles).

"Semiautomatic" is a term used to describe a firing mechanism in which a single round is fired for each pull of the trigger and may describe rifles pistols or shotguns. They are popular with the military police hunters and competition shooters and have been for quite a long time. They are especially popular in handguns used by military police and defensive civilian carry weapons. They are popular shotguns for hunting rabbits waterfowl and upland birds and in rifles for hunting varmints squirrels hogs and deer.

Absent providing input that explains why folks are so fascinated with semi-automatic rifles, one might also have shown that the premise of the question -- that folks are fascinated with semi-automatic rifles -- is not true. Such a tack would be very difficult to credibly take, but it's an option and effectively showing the inaccuracy of the question's implicit premise does directly address the question.

Lastly, your notion of providing credible support for things and mine are clearly very different. I can sit here and attest to being an expert in the fields in which I am; however, insofar as I don't care to yield the freedom from professional controversy I here enjoy on account of my anonymity, I am not going to identify myself and point folks to my publications and achievements. Because I'm not going to offer anyone here a means for verifying my status as an expert in a few disciplines, when I'm assert something about a matter for which I am an expert, I nonetheless provide links to credible references rather than bidding readers to rely on my say-so. I do that because as an expert, it's no trouble at all for me to do so -- 30 seconds to a minute is all it takes because I know exactly what I'm looking for, the names of authors (researchers) who've written about the matter, etc. Truly, the majority of those few seconds is spent finding a document that's available in the public domain and that doesn't require one to purchase it.

Contrast that with what you did. You undertook to tell me about all your experience with guns and bid me to take your word for it.

I am about to be 70 y/o. I have hunted since the age of 12 And taken game with pretty much all types of weapons including bow and arrow,spear, flintlock and percussion muzzleloaders, single-shot, bolt action, pump, multi-barrel, and semiautomatic rifles, shotguns, and handguns. In the Army I qualified as expert with the M-16 rifle and also with the 1911A1 .45ACP pistol and as sharpshooter with the M-14 rifle. In Vietnam I carried the M-16A1 and .45 pistol into combat and survived. Later on I acted as training Sgt., range safety NCO, company armorer, and capt. of the rifle/pistol team Later as a civilian at various times I engaged in (low level) competition with archery equipment, muzzle loaders, smallbore and military rifle, and handguns..I have to think that I have a fairly well informed opinion concerning most subjects related to firearms and their use.

Quite simply, I cannot verify any of that. But I'm not insisting that you provide the means for me to do so. Documentary support published by other experts and that I can read will do just fine. Indeed, that approach, when well executed, can obviate the need for you (or anyone) to be a widely acknowledged expert. But here's the key: experts on "whatever" don't generally misconstrue what be the central question being asked and, in turn, answer a question that's not been asked. There is, however, one genre of sometimes-experts who do that: politicians.​

 

[strollingbones]

they are fun...why fire once when one can rapid fire....i dont care for autos...but damn i wanted a flame thrower so flipping bad....and they sold out in no time...crazy is crazy auto crazy or flame thrower crazy

 

[9thIDdoc]

I wonder where Mr. OP has gone. Guess he couldn't defend all those assertions of his.

And yet, we need not wonder where you went. We know you went to a different thread to complain about the goings on in this one.

Maybe, just maybe, people are uninterested in new and improved gun control laws because they have been well and truly proven to do nothing but disarm the good guy/gals and empower the bad guys/gals. Maybe any further dialog should be about finding a solution that actually addresses the problem. "Gun free" areas were supposed to be the answer but have only served to attract crazies and terrorists.

...new and improved gun control laws because they have been well and truly proven to....

And yet you'd have us -- solely on the basis of your say-so, no less -- take the remainder of your assertions and speculations as both plausible and probable.

It clearly escapes you that, by definition, that which is new has not at all been proven. That is part and parcel to the very substance of the meaning of the word "new."

Apparently sarcasm-as well as current events for the last 4--5 decades-escapes you. And my assertions and speculations are most certainly more plausible and probable than your OP. Why do you think I would bother with supporting evidence when you ignored it when I did present it to you in your OP in the "I don't understand..." thread and disproved some of your assertions in the doing. If you actually wanted a discussion as you have claimed, why don't you discuss instead of running away?

Why do you think I would bother with supporting evidence when you ignored it when I did present it to you in your OP in the "I don't understand..."

??? It was clear to me then and it remains clear that you didn't understand (1) the rhetorical point of the OP in that thread and (2) what the hell I requested; consequently, you provided content that answers a question that wasn't being asked. You could have provided literally all the supporting evidence in the world and it still would not have addressed the actual question I posed. I ignored most of what you had to say because you're 70 years-old and didn't address the central question of that thread.

As I made clear to another member, the point of the OP in that thread is this:

I'm in [the "I do not understand"] thread seeking credible input on what motivates the elasticity and substitution conclusions consumers obtain when demanding (effective and latent) semi-automatic rifles.

To avoid the formal and precise language of economics, I, in that thread's OP, I expressed the central question in layman's terms and as a statement, thinking that readers could from that statement derive what must necessarily be the question the thread entreats them to answer.

I'm baffled at the existential fascination gun enthusiasts have with semi-automatic rifles.

The entirety of the remainder of that OP is nothing other than my sharing broadly the nature of what I'd observed in seeking the answer to my question.

What you did was share different observations and challenge the ones I shared. That's all well and good, but that those observations can and do exist -- yours or mine -- does not answer the central question:

• In layman's terms: "Why are folks so fascinated with semi-automatic rifles?"
• In economic terms: "What motivates the elasticity and substitution conclusions consumers obtain when demanding (effective and latent) semi-automatic rifles?"

If one doesn't have an answer to the question, well, one just doesn't. I don't have an answer to it, so I'm not going to ridicule someone else for not having an answer to it. If one wants to post and say "I don't know the answer to your question," that's fine too. But don't sit there feeling dejected because I didn't respond to your remarks that don't answer the thread question. Yes, the question was tacitly posed, but still, you're 70 year-old; it shouldn't have overtaxed your abilities to get from a statement to a question.

Hell, in your first post in that thread, you deigned to tell me with what consumer sub-groups certain firearms are popular. Why you did so is beyond me, for my OP made it clear that I already knew that semi-automatic rifles are popular. With whom they are popular is irrelevant to that thread's central question unless one/you show (credibly, not just your say-so) that the specific people or consumer sub-groups with whom they are popular are the people driving demand for item under consideration (in that thread's case, semi-automatic rifles).

"Semiautomatic" is a term used to describe a firing mechanism in which a single round is fired for each pull of the trigger and may describe rifles pistols or shotguns. They are popular with the military police hunters and competition shooters and have been for quite a long time. They are especially popular in handguns used by military police and defensive civilian carry weapons. They are popular shotguns for hunting rabbits waterfowl and upland birds and in rifles for hunting varmints squirrels hogs and deer.

Absent providing input that explains why folks are so fascinated with semi-automatic rifles, one might also have shown that the premise of the question -- that folks are fascinated with semi-automatic rifles -- is not true. Such a tack would be very difficult to credibly take, but it's an option and effectively showing the inaccuracy of the question's implicit premise does directly address the question.

Lastly, your notion of providing credible support for things and mine are clearly very different. I can sit here and attest to being an expert in the fields in which I am; however, insofar as I don't care to yield the freedom from professional controversy I here enjoy on account of my anonymity, I am not going to identify myself and point folks to my publications and achievements. Because I'm not going to offer anyone here a means for verifying my status as an expert in a few disciplines, when I'm assert something about a matter for which I am an expert, I nonetheless provide links to credible references rather than bidding readers to rely on my say-so. I do that because as an expert, it's no trouble at all for me to do so -- 30 seconds to a minute is all it takes because I know exactly what I'm looking for, the names of authors (researchers) who've written about the matter, etc. Truly, the majority of those few seconds is spent finding a document that's available in the public domain and that doesn't require one to purchase it.

Contrast that with what you did. You undertook to tell me about all your experience with guns and bid me to take your word for it.

I am about to be 70 y/o. I have hunted since the age of 12 And taken game with pretty much all types of weapons including bow and arrow,spear, flintlock and percussion muzzleloaders, single-shot, bolt action, pump, multi-barrel, and semiautomatic rifles, shotguns, and handguns. In the Army I qualified as expert with the M-16 rifle and also with the 1911A1 .45ACP pistol and as sharpshooter with the M-14 rifle. In Vietnam I carried the M-16A1 and .45 pistol into combat and survived. Later on I acted as training Sgt., range safety NCO, company armorer, and capt. of the rifle/pistol team Later as a civilian at various times I engaged in (low level) competition with archery equipment, muzzle loaders, smallbore and military rifle, and handguns..I have to think that I have a fairly well informed opinion concerning most subjects related to firearms and their use.

Quite simply, I cannot verify any of that. But I'm not insisting that you provide the means for me to do so. Documentary support published by other experts and that I can read will do just fine. Indeed, that approach, when well executed, can obviate the need for you (or anyone) to be a widely acknowledged expert. But here's the key: experts on "whatever" don't generally misconstrue what be the central question being asked and, in turn, answer a question that's not been asked. There is, however, one genre of sometimes-experts who do that: politicians.​

"And yet, we need not wonder where you went. We know you went to a different thread to complain about the goings on in this one"
Correct. At the time I still wanted some response from you and you had clearly stopped following this one..

"??? It was clear to me then and it remains clear that you didn't understand (1) the rhetorical point of the OP in that thread and (2) what the hell I requested; consequently, you provided content that answers a question that wasn't being asked. You could have provided literally all the supporting evidence in the world and it still would not have addressed the actual question I posed. I ignored most of what you had to say because you're 70 years-old and didn't address the central question of that thread."

Wrong. I made no attempt to respond to a rhetorical point. I did you the courtesy answering the question the OP asked. Correctly I might add. If you don't care why semiautomatic rifles are popular, you shouldn't ask. At this point in the thread what should be clear to you is that nobody knows what the hell you think you are trying to ask. It's nobody's fault but your own if you're unable or unwilling to ask a coherent question. My only guess at this point is that you attach some strange and unusual meaning to the word "fascination". But I've grown tired of trying to get you to divulge what it is you want to know. I have no reason to believe you are anything other than brilliant in your chosen field but you obviously tend to forget that you are the layman when it comes to this subject and you would be well advised to listen and consider what you are told rather than acting like a contemptuous know-it-all when you are actually clueless.

Lastly, your notion of providing credible support for things and mine are clearly very different.
Absolutely. You don't seem to understand what it is.
Further, you don't seem to understand that I have absolutely no reason to care what you can or cannot verify. If you doubt something I state as fact you always have the option to check it but don't expect someone else to do your research for you.

I ignored most of what you had to say because you're 70 years-old and didn't address the central question of that thread."
Cute. Child, I've forgotten far more than you will ever know.

 

[ding]

we still have a FREE Country , And maybe as a foreigner to America you don't understand the purpose of the SECOND Amendment XELOR ,

So if I have a 2nd Amendment right, then where can I buy a cruise missile, some grenades, maybe some anti-aircraft missiles... You know, all the stuff we're not allowed to buy.

Pay the tax and you can have grenades.

What about the other stuff? And nukes? Otherwise my rights are being infringement, AND THEY SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED, sir.

What about them?

Are those the weapons that a light infantry ought to possess? No.

Semi-automatic weapons with high capacity magazines is what a light infantry ought to possess.

 

[ding]

they are fun...why fire once when one can rapid fire....i dont care for autos...but damn i wanted a flame thrower so flipping bad....and they sold out in no time...crazy is crazy auto crazy or flame thrower crazy

I don't think full auto is effective as a semi-auto because you can't control the accuracy as well. Besides, it is possible to accurately fire a semi-auto almost as fast.

 

[Taz]

we still have a FREE Country , And maybe as a foreigner to America you don't understand the purpose of the SECOND Amendment XELOR ,

So if I have a 2nd Amendment right, then where can I buy a cruise missile, some grenades, maybe some anti-aircraft missiles... You know, all the stuff we're not allowed to buy.

Pay the tax and you can have grenades.

What about the other stuff? And nukes? Otherwise my rights are being infringement, AND THEY SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED, sir.

What about them?

Are those the weapons that a light infantry ought to possess? No.

Semi-automatic weapons with high capacity magazines is what a light infantry ought to possess.

What does light infantry have to do with "shall not be infringed"?

 

[Geaux4it]

we still have a FREE Country , And maybe as a foreigner to America you don't understand the purpose of the SECOND Amendment XELOR ,

So if I have a 2nd Amendment right, then where can I buy a cruise missile, some grenades, maybe some anti-aircraft missiles... You know, all the stuff we're not allowed to buy.

Pay the tax and you can have grenades.

What about the other stuff? And nukes? Otherwise my rights are being infringement, AND THEY SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED, sir.

What about them?

Are those the weapons that a light infantry ought to possess? No.

Semi-automatic weapons with high capacity magazines is what a light infantry ought to possess.

What does light infantry have to do with "shall not be infringed"?

The right to bear arms

-Geaux

 

[ding]

we still have a FREE Country , And maybe as a foreigner to America you don't understand the purpose of the SECOND Amendment XELOR ,

So if I have a 2nd Amendment right, then where can I buy a cruise missile, some grenades, maybe some anti-aircraft missiles... You know, all the stuff we're not allowed to buy.

Pay the tax and you can have grenades.

What about the other stuff? And nukes? Otherwise my rights are being infringement, AND THEY SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED, sir.

What about them?

Are those the weapons that a light infantry ought to possess? No.

Semi-automatic weapons with high capacity magazines is what a light infantry ought to possess.

What does light infantry have to do with "shall not be infringed"?

I was addressing your other stuff comment.

You want me to explain the shall not be infringed?

 

[PredFan]

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.

That’s a whole lot of work there just to say “I don’t know why anyone would like or need them so there is no reason anyone should like or need them”.

 

[PredFan]

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?

No, he has not. A great many of us use them for hunting, target practice and collecting. I hunt hogs with mine but I know people who hunt deer and coyotes with theirs.

 

[Taz]

So if I have a 2nd Amendment right, then where can I buy a cruise missile, some grenades, maybe some anti-aircraft missiles... You know, all the stuff we're not allowed to buy.

Pay the tax and you can have grenades.

What about the other stuff? And nukes? Otherwise my rights are being infringement, AND THEY SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED, sir.

What about them?

Are those the weapons that a light infantry ought to possess? No.

Semi-automatic weapons with high capacity magazines is what a light infantry ought to possess.

What does light infantry have to do with "shall not be infringed"?

I was addressing your other stuff comment.

You want me to explain the shall not be infringed?

Naw, it's ok, I already have no idea wtf you're talking about.

 

[ding]

Pay the tax and you can have grenades.

What about the other stuff? And nukes? Otherwise my rights are being infringement, AND THEY SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED, sir.

What about them?

Are those the weapons that a light infantry ought to possess? No.

Semi-automatic weapons with high capacity magazines is what a light infantry ought to possess.

What does light infantry have to do with "shall not be infringed"?

I was addressing your other stuff comment.

You want me to explain the shall not be infringed?

Naw, it's ok, I already have no idea wtf you're talking about.

Let me break it down for you. Restrictions on weapons that a light infantry ought NOT to have is not a restriction on the 2nd Amendment.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

That I am.

And so you can. For many. Himself doesn't have a single shot, though --- I asked.

And he was a little startled at the idea that the lever-action was a saddle rifle! We certainly had a bunch of horses for many years, but I can't say we ever took guns on them.

Merry-go-rounds are usually safe.

 

[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.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

 

[Pete7469]

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

You will never be able to understand things you're programmed to hate. You are not interested in understanding it anyway.

 

[Dale Smith]

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.

There are many things that you do not understand and comprehend....doesn't make you a bad person at all. Simply means that you are woefully uninformed.

 

[Pete7469]

There are many things that you do not understand and comprehend....doesn't make you a bad person at all. Simply means that you are woefully uninformed.

It's one thing to be uninformed, or misinformed.

This is a case of people being deliberately ignorant.

The information is available, everywhere. These people make an effort to to not only ignore it, but keep other people from being exposed to it. There is no excuse for not understanding why someone would want the most effective tools available for their own self preservation if they're faced with a violent threat.

No excuse at all.

 

[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.