Other than putting holes in paper, or slaughtering innocents, what purpose can an AR15 serve?

I support mental institutions.

 

How do you figure? Show your work

 

With 30,000 gun deaths a year and countless other shootings...obviously they are not working and need to be revamped..ya think?

 

Sorry but you WANT you society to devolve into civil war??

 

Lol.... oh you guys .... fun stuff

 

In 1958 the AR-15 hit the sporting goods stores and was sold as a hunting rifle.

Since the AR-15 is chambered for the Remington .223 ( 5.56 mm ) it's a varmint cartridge an excellent rifle for shooting ground hogs and squirrels.

The U.S. Army would adopt the AR-15 / M-16 some years later.


1962 Colt AR-15 advertisement






Start ’em young. Mattel

 

20,000 of those are suicides.
10,000 are homicides including justified homicides.
Of those remaining, 80% are gang related.

There are 100,000,000 + gun owners. 300,000,000 + known arms.

The homicide rate is the lowest it has been in decades.

Chill

 

2/3 of those gun deaths are suicides. Japan has a higher suicide rate than the U.S. and has very strict gun laws.

The other 1/3 are comprised of murders, self-defense and cops killing bad guys

Out of those three, the only ones that are unwanted are the murders which only comprise to about 7 or 8 thousand deaths which is insignificant.

 

" Because I want one"

It is not the BEST argument ever put forth but it is the best I have seen so far.

Now you might WANT to drive at 200k an hour drunk down a highway in the wrong direction

But should society allow you to do so?

 

Bearing arms, right.
Operating a motor vehicle on public roads? Privilege.
Operating a motor vehicle in impaired condition, contraflow, at speeds exceeding posted limits? Several crimes.

 

And you wonder why this is the outcome

 

You know as well as I you NEVER get perfect anything, particularly in legislation.

 

You're stuck in the 60's with the hippies Guyzilla.

The 5.56X45 mm bullet you are thinking about was declared to be politically incorrect by European sanowflake countries during the late 1970's.

In fact if you were to fire the .55 gr M-193 ammunition in a M-16 A2 or any AR that was manufactured after 1980 the bullet would likely disintegrate in mid air. Basically the copper jacket would separate from a bullet's lead core Because all M-16 A2's, M-4's and AR's have a six land and grooves with a rifling of 1 in 7" twist where as the M-16 A1 and older pre 1980 AR's have a 1 turn in 9".

"During the 1970s, NATO members signed an agreement to select a second, smaller caliber cartridge to replace the 7.62mm NATO cartridge. Of the cartridges tendered, the 5.56x45mm was successful, but not 55gr M193 load used by the U.S. at that time. The wounds produced by the M193 round were so devastating that many considered it to be inhumane. Instead, the Belgian 62gr SS109 load was chosen for standardization. The SS109 used a heavier bullet with a steel core and had a lower muzzle velocity for better long-range performance, specifically to meet a requirement that the bullet be able to penetrate through one side of a steel helmet at 600 meters. This requirement made the M855 less capable of fragmentation than the M193 and was considered more humane." with a references from "Ian V. Hogg, Military Small Arms of the 20th Century, 1981" and "The Small Arms Review vol.10, no.2 November 2006".

However, the word "many" in the third sentence was challanged as a "weasel word". Therefore, an additional reference from the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) "International Legal Initiatives to Restrict Military Small Arms Ammunition W. Hays Parks∗ Copyright 2010 by W. Hays Parks International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) page 1-18" which listed "Austria, Argentina, Belgium, Bolivia, Bulgaria, Burundi, Cambodia, Cyprus, Germany, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Mauritius, Mexico, Romania, Samoa, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland, etc." as countries that consider the 55gr M193 round to be inhumane. This refers only to the 55gr M193 round. These same "politically correct" countries consider the 62gr SS109 (M855) round to be more humane and subsequently adopted the 62gr SS109 round. They justify thier choice by claiming that the 62gr SS109 round is less likely to fragment than the 55gr M193 round...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:5.56×45mm_NATO

 

All good reasons why folks that KNOW guns, need to help, so we are MOST effective at reducing deaths, and least intrusive as possible. I always ask people to help, they freak.

 

Couldn't agree more! Personally I think we should look at the current data and use the obvious laws and tackle the high volume/violent area first, what say you?

 

Does your right include endangering others!

 

I think you may be asking the wrong people? If we were both out on the prairie plinking Gophers and Prairie Dogs, I'd look you straight in the eye and ask you if you felt more threatened out here or say Culver City

I think we both know the answer to that

 

Guns aren't the problem, cultural-marxism aka political correctness is the problem.

If you don't count mass shootings committed by jihadist and the mass shooting in Las Vegas, all mass shootings were committed by millennial generation snowflakes.

No mass shootings were committed by Generation X, baby boomers and only one by the luckiest generation and none by the greatest generation.
And believe me, access to guns were a lot easier back when America was still great.

The snowflake generation is the first generation to have been exposed their entire lives to political correctness daily, indoctrinated in our schools by PC and grew up on violent video games and watching violent Hollywood television and movies.

When I was growing up during the 50's and 60's we started out playing with toy guns playing politically incorrect games like cowboys and Indians and war.

Then we got our first Daisy Red Ryder BB gun. 6th or 7th grade we got our first real rifle, usually a .22. By high school we were so burned out on guns we discovered girls and contact sports. By 16 years of age we no longer had a infatuation with guns, only girls, cars and sports.

 

Well you have made a sound reason not to relinquish your personal protection You have unwittingly stated the very reason gun owners cling to the second, well done!

 

So you're scared of the round?


Meet the bolt action .556

 

No, which is why reckless discharge or brandishing are rightfully illegal. If I discharge I'm liable for my backstop i.e. if I shoot the person shooting me and hit a bystander as well, that's manslaughter. And wrongful death but a civil suit is beside the point.
Using a firearm in furtherance of a crime is rightfully an aggravating factor in crimes and a crime of itself.
Private property owners are free to restrict their own spaces.

 

Then why are some of the worst mass shootings back in the eighties? The iconic Texas tower shooting happened in 1966
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_shootings_in_the_United_States

 

So, you would be OK with some regulation around firearms that encouraged individual responsibility?

 

An AR-15 is really just the same as a semi-auto hunting rifle. It's just that it looks more tactical. That look doesn't make it any more powerful.

It's the attachments that are available for it that make it dangerous...bump stocks, silencers, etc...We need to regulate those, but there is really no need to ban the gun itself. It's the same as any other semi-auto rifle.