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

I think anything with a rapid rate of fire can be problematic because in the wrong hands there are too many casualties in too short a time period

 

An AR-15's fire rate isn't anymore fast than any other semi-auto weapon. So your point is meaningless. It can only fire as fast as you can pull the trigger. Now, one could fit a hair trigger on the weapon which allows one to pull the trigger faster, and thus fire at a faster rate, and I support banning hair triggers, but the gun itself, in it's factory form, isn't an issue.

 

So IOW you have no solution. Therefore, gun control advocate WILL have a solution.

 

No anything with a rapid rate of fire because it is that which is driving up the number of casualties

 

So IOW, you have no actual solution. Therefore gun control advocate will have a solution.

 

There have been several "mock ups" in which a person advocating more guns as you did, is confronted with a "crowd" or gathering of people when a mass shooter shows up. They all began with the "good guy with a gun" being unable to get a clear shot at the shooter, and eventually shooting the wrong person. At that point the police enter and they shoot and kill the "good guy with a gun" because they can't tell he a "good guy".

The US has many more guns per capital than any other country, and we also have the highest rate of mass shootings of any country. So clearly you haven't thought this through, because if you were correct and your proposal worked, we would already have a mass shooting rate that is lower than any other country since we have more guns. And arming citizens in "gun-free zones" would result in the problems I just described since "gun-free zones" are public places.

 

Its a partial solution to many problems even if you refuse to accept it. I am not sure why you reject it without any arguments or reason.

 

I saw it as sarcasm. Mental institutions do no good unless there are adequate laws that are enforced. And even that isn't enough. We see shooter after shooter with it said that they never showed any signs of mental trouble.

And in any case, this is just you. My point was that the gun rights advocates need to have a movement to get government to act and change things.

 

AR-15's are SEMI-AUTO. It's firing rate is no faster than any other semi-auto. So unless you are suggesting a universal ban on all semi-auto weapons, I don't get your point.

An AR-15 does not have a rapid rate of fire unless modified to have it. And it's illegal to mod semi-auto weapons to fire at a full-auto rate without the license to own full auto. The use of bump stocks is a loophole in this law, but bump stocks will soon be illegal.

 

IF a civil war begins, it will be because dems/libs/progs have taken our country away from its roots, . . . . while not accomplishing anything to solve current problems.

Do you even know what happened in 1994 with dems passing the temp AWB gun ban? Dems OWNED both the House and Senate before the 1994 legislation. After the law was passed. DEMS LOST CONTROL OF BOTH THE HOUSE AND SENATE! That was just a warning.

So the real question is, why are dems doing it again even though the only accomplishment was losing more seats of power? Evidently, THEY want a civil war.

Steve

 

Another thing regarding hunting with an AR-15 and it is actually rather important.

It is pretty lightweight. Which is a pretty big deal if you're trekking through rough wooded areas to find a deer.

 

3 guys, dressed in black, break into a house. They are armed with brass knuckles and knives. A resident of the house successfully defended himself with an AR and killed the 3 intruders. He was not charged with any crime, but the getaway driver for the 3 home invaders is being charged with 3 counts of murder as she was an accomplice in their felony crime that led to their death. A perfect outcome.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/oklahoma-man-uses-ar-15-kill-three-teen-home-intruders-n739541
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/04/0...arges-against-man-who-killed-3-intruders.html

 

Come to think of it, have conservatives any movements outside of pro-life which is mostly coming from the evangelical christian groups and not conservatism itself anyways?

 

OP...militia use.

 

I came across this and it is worth repeating

https://injury.research.chop.edu/vi...-violence/gun-violence-facts-and#.Wq0nS5EmKhA

 

Simply telling you what a weapons ignoramous thinks. I have firm views, but not perfect background. As I said in another thread, I am a moldmaker, and a product designer, I could implement design changes, to eliminate unwanted capabilities. How would a CASTRATED AR15 work for ya?

 

Rather have some castrated liberals, makes them docile and less troublesome...

 

Attempts to shave away at the boundaries of individual natural human rights should always be opposed.

The systems that the social engineers believe they have control over are far too complex for them to even understand, let alone direct.

Why do I need the kind of gun I want? Because I want it, that's why. Why do you need someone else to refrain from providing for their own self defense? Why do you need someone else to protect you?

 

You mean like the magazine design change that simply requires the removal of a dimple pressed into the side of the frame? Or maybe a sear assembly change that requires the removal of an extra lobe and the addition of some counter balancing weld?

You can't remove the human capacity to out think your sophomoric attempts to put a boot on technology that already exists.

 

I did mention the mass shooting that happened in 1966 at the Texas University Tower. That's the mass shooting committed by Charles Whitman "Luckiest Generation." ( To young to have fought during WW ll or the Korean War but to old to have been drafted and sent to Vietnam.)
It wasn't the gun but when they opened up Whitman's brain housing group they found the mother of all brain tumors of his brain.

Witman out to over 400 yards and beyond got 48 hits with 17 kills using a Remington bolt action 6mm Mod. 700 rifle and a Remington slide action .35 cal Mod 141 rifle. Both were deer hunting rifles.

Whitman qualified on the 500 yard KD range with the M-1 Garand as a sharpshooter while serving in the Marine Corps which would mean he was old schooled, So he could have bought an AR-15 but didn't. The AR-15 first started showing up in the sporting goods stores in 1958 and Colt was selling the AR-15 by 1962 as a hunting rifle a few years before the Army adopted the AR-15 / M-16.

So what is a mass shooting ? It seems the magic number is 3 or 4 people being killed by a firearm.

Handguns are the weapons used in the majority of mass shootings not AR's or other kinds of rifles.

 

You make a good case for a ban on semi-autos...at least magazine fed semi autos...

A revolver or a shot gun is just as effective for home defense as an AR-15

 

AR-15s were in gun shops in 1961?

No kidding. I never saw them...

 

Well, how you get yourself off should be a topic for another thread.

In keeping with this one, of what use is a vehicle with more than 100 horsepower or a business suit that costs more than $100?

The AR platform is, arguably, the best hunting rifle ever made. It is light, accurate, reliable, and rugged. The materials it is made from stand up very well to weather and rough conditions, and it is available in a wide variety of calibers.

It is possible, logical, legal, desirable, and easy to make. Therefore, it exists. If you remove the "legal" qualifier, it is still possible, logical, desirable, and easy to make. Therefore, it will exist. I.E. alcohol and drugs.

 

Colt advertisement being published in "Field and Stream," "Sports Afield," "Outdoor Life" and "Guns and Ammo" magazines back in 1962.

 

No. I would be ok with punishing criminal acts, like reckless discharge or manslaughter because you didn't check your backstop or depraved heart or intentional murder because you did and shot anyway.
I'm alright with weapons being aggravating factors in crime.

Those adjudicated mentally unfit can be institutionalized taking their liberty you can also take 2a rights along with the rest, to an extent.

Those convicted of crimes and incarcerated are in an even more open position. Though after they are not incarcerated or on parole they should have all rights back. If they're too dangerous for that, give them a longer sentence in the first place.

I don't see the point of anything else.