I shot four AR-15's today

So I went out shooting today, took a slight break from das bass... and guitar... and the ukulele for a bit.

I built three of them and purchased on. Installed flee floaters and such. Most people assemble the lowers, however since the free float installation I can say I have completely disassembled and reassembled an AR-15 from the ground up. Two rifles in 5.56NATO and two copies in .22LR for cheap practice. The AR-15, in my oh so very not unbiased opinion, is one of the most versatile rifles a person can possess, and should be constitutionally protected under the "common use" clause of DC vs. Heller.





So, my questions:

I own AR-15's, I have built most of them, why have I not killed anyone?

I shoot four, not one, two or three, but four AR-15's today. Shouldn't someone have died?

Why are gun control advocates scared of scary looking semi-automatic rifles (which account for .4% of all firearm related homicides)?

Why not handguns (which account for 74% of all firearms related homicides)?

Why is it so hard to understand there are legitimate purposes for the AR-15?

Why is it hard to understand that less than 1% of "gun owners" use less than 1% of firearms (0.0004%) to harm another person?

Why is it hard to understand that people use it for target shooting?

Self-defense?

Hunting?

Competition?

Collection?

Why is it so hard to understand that AR-15's are not military grade weapons (no military fields the AR-15)?

Why is it so hard to understand that AR-15's are not automatic weapons?

Why is it hard to understand that AR_15's are not as powerful as typical hunting rifles?

Why is it hard to understand that the 5.56 NATO will pierce soft body armor, but that soft body armor was not designed to and will not stop "rifle bullets" (spitzer bullets)?

Why is it hard to understand that if you know nothing about guns, your opinion doesn't matter?

Why is it hard to understand that people prefer different guns, and just because you favor handguns for X does not mean everyone will?

Why do people who have not even participated in a self-defense class pretend to be self-defense experts and claim to know the best tool for the job?

If AR-15's are designed to "shoot and kill as many people as possible in the shortest amount of time" (says what source? I mean seriously, no need to be aggressively stupid), why should the police have them?

Why does the DHS claim that the AR is suitable for personal protection?

Why do people call AR-15's assault rifles when they are not assault rifles?

Why do people called the AR-15 an "assault weapon" while not being able to define "assault weapon"?

Why do lefites (which I honestly believe are sharper than righties, just sayin') aggressively resist education on this subject?

Why do clueless people do their best to act as stupid as they can on this topic?

Why act aggressively stupid on this subject?

 

I cleaned them last night and slept with on in the bedroom.

Why did nothing bad happen?

 

They *look scary* according to people who have probably never held a gun in their lives, therefore, they want them banned.

 

Why is everyone on that "looks scary" thing. The problem with the gun is not what it looks like, it's what it does.

Simple question. What is the purpose of a gun? You use it to maim or destroy something. There is no other use beyond that and the threat of using that force.

Guns are lethal. Period. Doesn't matter if it's black or pink, it's a deadly weapon.

I don't agree with excessive gun control, but this whole ridiculous campaign of trying to make guns "cute" and "harmless" is ridiculous. It's a damnogun.

 

Many of my guns sit in a safe.

Use = purpose

So then their purpose is simply being a collectors item.

 

That's not a simple question at all. It's a loaded, fallacious question. I used to trap shoot competitively. That required the use of a gun. Sure, I "maim(ed) or destroy(ed)" the clay targets I was shooting at... so what? Are you going to shed a single tear for those poor clay targets? If so, maybe you've got some issues that transcend this issue. The more important thing is that you are wrong when you say "there is no other use" for a gun.

The AR-15 is far less powerful than many other rifles that are not facing bans at the moment. The Ruger Mini-14 is a semi-automatic that fires the same exact round as the Bushmaster that is being blamed for Sandy Hook, yet that gun is exempted from the gun ban proposals.

Rifles of ANY kind, not just "assault rifles", were used in just a few hundred murders last year. 0.4% of murders, if I'm quoting Wolverine correctly. More people were killed with fists than with rifles. Handguns were used in about 9,000 murders. Why are they not proposing to ban handguns? If you really want to take a bite out of gun related homicides, I would think handguns would be where the focus would be. The ability to conceal is much more deadly than any modification that can be done to an AR-15.

Even assuming these rifles are causing as much damage as people think they are, where's the evidence to suggest that a gun ban is going to decrease violent crime?

 

The AR-15 type rifle is basically a civilianized M-16.

 

If you take the "assault weapons homicides" mentioned on Finsteins own website, figure that into the 88,000 firearms related homicides since the bans expiration, you get .4%.

 

I always wanted to go to a Shooting range and let them allow me
to take one of my old rifles and set it up in front of the paper hangers and
shoot the heck outta.
I always wanted to Shoot a Gun { especially an old rifle }.
I mean,like maybe some old guns might object.
I mean,sure beats the hell out of empty bottles.

 

It's not how you use them, it's the accidents that might occur from them. That is the argument pro-gunners face.

Didn't I say I was not against gun-ownership? Why the sarcasm? I'm not arguing against gun-ownership, I'm arguing against the play of words people use into trying to make guns sound harmless. Of course they are harmful, they are guns. I know, you only do non-psychopathic things with your gun, that's great. But that still doesn't change the fact that it's a gun, and it is inherently destructive.

I'd rather listen to the good arguments that guns are a, for the most part, manageable danger, than crap that says they aren't a danger. That's just wordplay. I honestly believe most of the arguments for gun-rights are sound except that one and the Second Amendment. I don't believe the wording actually authenticates private ownership of private citizens, but I still support it.

 

Your "accidents" argument relies on less than 1%.

0.00002%

 

Again, I am not arguing against gun-ownership. I am not saying that guns are responsible for the evils of the world. I am saying that a gun, any gun, in and of itself, is a dangerous object.

 

Alright, I don't believe I disagree.

 

Cool. Sorry, then.

 

oh oh, I've shot one of those too I think! In counter strike global offensive!

 

Wolverine, the Democrat party in our state has reached a new low. The president of the Colorado sanate has proposed a bill that would hold manufacturers and sellers of "assault-style" weapons rsponsible for any harm caused by them.

Kind of like holding Coors responsible for harm caused by a drunk driver, as well as the vehicle manufacturer .

 

Sounds like fun. I love shooting.

 

How is someone like that in a leadership position in this country? SMDH

 

I saw that. Simply asinine.

 

So is a car in the wrong hands, as are hammers, crowbars, baseball bats, even rocks can be a deadly weapon

- - - Updated - - -

The pics look like the Southwest, "sniff, sniff", wish we were already there. Less than a YEAR to GO!!!

 

Was it a good feeling for you???

 

NO IT'S NOT!!! Different bolt, different reciever, etc, etc, etc. They were made to LOOK and HANDLE like an M-16, NOT FUNCTION like one. Do you really KNOW the difference???

 

So many questions...so few non-retarded answers coming from gun control reactionaries...and so little time

 

What OLD rifles are you talking about??? 1861 Springfield??? Sharps 50??? Trap door Srpingfield 45-70??? 1886 Winchester 45-90??? Please elaborate.