Debunking Some Gun Myths

[zidian]

First of all, I am REALLY glad that this sub-forum was created. I finally have some place to rant about whats going on with Government and their policies to "keep the kids safe".

 

I am a responsible gun owner. I believe safety comes FIRST and ALWAYS when it comes to handling guns. I believe they are tools for hunting, self defense, and just plain fun. I am a certified NRA Instructor in Pistols, as well as a classified Expert in IDPA (I got within 4 seconds from Master, but haven't gotten that close sense).

 

I have been shooting for many years. I'm only 25, but I've been around guns my whole life as my father was a hunter. I learned to both respect and fear firearms from a young age, and I still do. They can be used just as easily be used to provide food for a hungry family (as I have experienced) to being used to take the life of that same family (which I haven't experienced, thank god, and that is also thanks to firearms).

 

I'm not here to say that gun violence doesn't exist because well...it does. As with anything, there are people who will use it, and people who will abuse it. There are people who will be for it and against. It is the way of life, the way of democracy, and a choice given to us by the Constitution (for us in America). We can bare arms, or we can protest about the right to bare arms. That is why this country is great.

 

However, over the recent years, these rights (BOTH of them), have been infringed on time and time again. If you are unaware of this new law that was signed on Sunday (or maybe the day before), it is now a FELONY to protest within the vicinity of the President, or Secret Service Agents. They now have the authority to charge you with a FELONY for protesting. Not big on protesting myself, but that is one of those rights given to us by our forefathers.

 

The next issue that has me hot around the collar is all of these people trying to infringe on my rights to own guns. First it started years ago with it being illegal to own an automatic firearm. Ok, I get that, civilians don't need automatic firearms, however they sure are fun to shoot (and VERY VERY expensive). Then we started to make gun-free zones. Meaning it is illegal to carry guns on the property without the consent of the property owner, or in the case of schools and other government buildings, no exceptions given except for Law Enforcement and Military. "Yay, Gun-free zone means I won't get shot today!!!!" ORRRR, criminals don't follow the laws anyways, so all it is doing is prohibiting law-abiding citizens to right to bear arms in self protection against the criminals (I.E. Aurora, CO Movie Theater shooting, and VA Tech shooting, which were both gun-free zones).

 

Then Clinton and his congress banned COSMETIC enhancements to semi-automatic, such as collapsible stocks, flash hinders, and magazines over 10 rounds. None of these increase nor decrease the lethality of any firearm. "Ohh, well if you limit the magazine capacity, then they can't shoot as many rounds"....ORRRRRRR, you can just carry more magazines and preform a simple reload to get your firearm back in action as we found out in the Virginia Tech School shooting. He had 19 magazines of 10 and 15 round magazines (only 2 were 15 rounds). He murdered 32 and injured 17 while (mostly) complying with the Clinton Ban.

 

If you've read this far, you are either pro firearms, or you are against and are willing to take the time to actually hear out the other side. Either way, kudos for you. Since you have read this far, I have a couple of websites I would like you to read (when you have time). After you have read it, and would like to have an intellectual conversation with me, I will gladly respond to any questions/comments/concerns about anything mentioned on this post or on the websites.

 

http://www.gunfacts.info - This is basic gun myths debunked, comparing firearm-related murders in other countries to America, and how places with VERY strict gun laws (I.E. UK *coughcough Kizmy coughcough*) have more murders per 100,000 people than we do. How the Clinton ban did NOT reduce murder rates with firearms. Myths about how registries will not reduce firearm accidents/incidents, and how they are just a sink-hole for government money (and we already have are own problems with that). Also will show you in fact, states that went from shall-not issue to shall-issue (concealed carry permits), crime rate with firearms went DOWN, and the percentage of people who do have the Concealed carry permit that do actually commit crimes (any crimes, as well as ones with firearms or violent).

 

http://www.assaultweapon.info/ - Debunking the theory of "Assault" weapons. This one is a very quick read (maybe 10 minutes?). So not going to explain.

 

http://video.today.m...208495#50208495 - This is just a video on MSNBC stating how the Sandy Hook shooting was by several hand guns, and not an "assault" rifle as previously reported by CNN for about 2 weeks, yet never doing anything to correct their information after the investigation came out and concluded it, in fact, was NOT the Bushmaster AR-15.

 

I also have another video that I'm trying to find to go along with this. It shows a guy shooting 20 rounds out of 1 magazine, and 20 rounds out of 2 magazines (having to reload), and how it only added factions of a second in time.

 

HOWEVER, I do also what to state that SOMETHING has to be done. I love my guns, I do, but there are MANY people in this world that can get them way too easy. Mentally-ill people can purchase firearms as long as they have never been legally diagnosed. They have to either go to a mental institution or be evaluated by a Government-appointed psychiatric to be prohibited from purchasing a firearm. I do NOT think everyone should own a firearm, but I believe anyone of sound mind, and someone who receives proper training should own and carry a gun for self defense.

 

Thank you very much for reading, and I'm looking forward to your replies and having intellectual-based conversations with you, and not emotional-based which is what all the un-educated people act on.

 

-Zidian

Edited January 23, 2013 by zidian

[Puppymew]

Thank you for taking the time to write this, I agree with you 100%. But what we should do, is we should make murder illegal, so nobody does it anymore. OH WAIT, too late for that one.

[zidian]

Or make drunk driving, rape, torture, kidnapping, larceny, or arson illegal....Man, this world would be a much better place....

[60Seconds]

I personally own an assortment of firearms. I own a Glock, a P228, H&K P7M13, a Walther PPK, and a Bren Ten, + a few others. I am however, anti-assault rifle. No one needs an assault rifle. People's "right" to go sport shooting should not impede with someone else's right to live. On your point with the Assault Weapons Ban. Yes, the things banned were cosmetic, but that was not the point of the ban. The cosmetic things that were banned are characteristics of assault rifles, and the point was to ban assault rifles, they just used it as a way to describe assault rifles, and that ban should be reinstated. On your point about gun-free zones and law abiding citizens owning guns, let me debunk that. Virginia Tech, how would people shooting at each other in a crowded classroom work out? More people would have died. Aurora. Crowded smokey movie theater. Multiple shooters = Not good idea. America = Not Wild West anymore. The fact that the NRA opposes a national background check system is fucked up too. Do you know why they oppose it? Because a large part of its membership would probably not be allowed to buy guns then. Do you know how firearms deaths occurred in Japan last year? Around 4. Japan has strict gun laws. In America, around 11k people died last year from firearms deaths. As to your point on the guns used in Newtown. He used an AR-15. Initially it was reported that he used only handguns. It later turned out that an AR-15 was in fact in use. I take my weapons with me when I need to visit tough neighborhoods. There is no need for me to have an assault rifle though. We need to do all that we can to restrict assault rifles, as they are unneeded and used in the majority of massacres.

Edited January 29, 2013 by Billy Mays

[Iron Chef]

the government isn't taking all the guns btw. I'll just add the exact copy of the 2nd amendment which you alluded to:

 

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

 

sadly, I know that any sort of gun control laws will not stop things like school shootings to happen, because there are some fucked up people around.

[Papa John]

Ok, lets get something straight because I can't believe anyone within their right mind owning a gun would consider a stock, flash/sound suppressors, or larger magazines as purely cosmetic items and don't add to the lethality of the firearm. The stock transfers the recoil (kinetic energy) of the weapon into the users shoulder making it easier to fire. Flash/sound suppressors prevent you from being seen or heard shooting respectively making you able to fire off more rounds before spotted if firing at range. The most comical is the larger magazines, even if skilled marksmen can easily reload their weapon doesn't mean that skill is as easy as hammering the trigger. Any moron can depress a weapon's trigger then having to deal with reloading the weapon quickly. As each time they have to reload is an opening in which someone has the capacity of taking them down.

 

I believe you do deserve the right to own a firearm, however, I don't believe you need to possess automatic or even semi-automatic, ranged, weapons. I won't try to speak for you, but I believe (to whatever extent you have gone hunting) you don't use a semi-automatic weapon to fire at targets. As that would eliminate the sport of it all, right? After that, I see no reason why a private citizen would need to purchase and/or own a weapon that has the capacity to kill like the AR-15 (or weapons like it). Just because gun laws won't work 100% of the time at preventing those who want guns from getting them doesn't mean we give up and go home saying we tried. But if even one life is saved by the law, it seems worth it. The idea of arming everyone is simply a fallacy, more guns doesn't equal less gun violence as the NRA chairmen would have everyone believe.

Edited January 30, 2013 by Papa John

[Jake]

Lets just stop giving guns to bad people that break the law....oh wait.

[Clark]

I'm turning in all my guns. I don't believe in guns of any kind. I also voted for Obama.

[Iron Chef]

There comes a point, when you go from having a gun for personal protection to having multiple guns for the hell of it.

[zidian]

Before I start into my rant, I do want to thank you all for sharing your opinion on this heavily-debated topic. I do value your opinion and I believe different ways of thinking are the reason WHY this country was founded. Now that said, into my ranting.

 

The stock transfers the recoil (kinetic energy) of the weapon into the users shoulder making it easier to fire.

They are not banning the buffer system used is most 6-point collapsible. They are banning the feature to make a rifle a few inches shorter. There are plenty of fixed stocks that have a buffer system, especially on heavy caliber bolt action hunting rifles. Maybe their point is so you can't easily conceal it under a coat, but in most cases you will still need a duster jacket or something similar to conceal any long gun, even with a collapsed stock.

 

Flash/sound suppressors prevent you from being seen or heard shooting respectively making you able to fire off more rounds before spotted if firing at range.

Understandable, but I can just as easily port my barrel (which on my deer rifles I do), and was still legal under the Clinton Ban The flash hinder is just a cosmetic piece because porting your barrel doesn't look as cool. All it does is re-direct the blow back from the gasses, so the 'shock wave' doesn't head directly at your target.

 

The most comical is the larger magazines, even if skilled marksmen can easily reload their weapon doesn't mean that skill is as easy as hammering the trigger. Any moron can depress a weapon's trigger then having to deal with reloading the weapon quickly. As each time they have to reload is an opening in which someone has the capacity of taking them down.

Ok, I give you that. Personally, I own just as many magazines of 10+ as I do 10-. My rational on owning some 30 round mags for my AR15, as well as 15+ for my handguns is always being ready for the worst. I know the most likely situation I will even need my weapon is I hear a bump in the night in my house. I don't know if its the cat, a guy breaking into my house, or a riot was going on and the mob is going to loot my house. It happened before in many different areas. I not saying I'm one of those doomsday preppers (even though I do have a get out of dodge bag), but its something not too impossible living 20 miles outside of DC. "I'd rather have it and not need it then need it and not have it". Something my father instilled on me early in my life.

 

I believe (to whatever extent you have gone hunting) you don't use a semi-automatic weapon to fire at targets. As that would eliminate the sport of it all, right?

In perfect conditions, you're right. I would much rather have my VERY accurate bolt action rifle over my semi-automatic, as I can hit exactly where I want at very far distances. It's great when my ONLY intent is to make sure my hit is somewhere that it won't destroy the meat. But when it's freezing conditions and I'm trying to shoot at varmints destroying my crops, or terrorizing my livestock, I would always use my semi-automatic .22lr. If we would've had an AR or something similar, you better believe that's what we would've grabbed.

 

But if even one life is saved by the law, it seems worth it. The idea of arming everyone is simply a fallacy, more guns doesn't equal less gun violence as the NRA chairmen would have everyone believe.

No, not everyone should be armed, but I believe any rational-minded person who receives proper training should be. I don't know if you have ever been the victim of some sort of assault or anything, but I have. It's a bad feeling when you look at everyone as a threat. I then decided I don't what that to happen again, so I got armed and trained. Since then, I've been in only 1 other situation that I felt like my life was being threatened. My training kicked in, I stepped back, drew my pistol (with it in a low ready position, never pointing at the guy or finger on the trigger), and shouted "Stop!". The guy froze, stared at me for what seemed like an eternity (probably like 3 seconds), drop his knife and took off at a full sprint. Later I found out the fingerprints on the knife matched a felon on prole for a few violent crime, including assault with a deadly weapon. Luckily, I never had to find out if my 10 round magazine has been enough to stop a threat or threats to my life, but I always keep a 17 round magazine on my waist as well. If I didn't have my gun, who knows what would've happened? Could I give him my money and he'd just take off? Could I not have any money and him beat me up? Stab me a few times? Or kill me?

 

These bans, personally, will not affect me in any way. I already have what I potentially will want. I understand I don't need a 30 round magazine, or a collapsible stock, or a flash hinder, but these laws won't do anything to curb the violence. There are many laws in place ALREADY that could, if enforced more than they are, could save lives. I agree with a more universal background check system, not the ones that are in New York or other gun-unfriendly states in which it is a registry. As you see, if the government knows you owns a gun, EVERYONE will know you own a gun. I don't want bad guys to know I have a gun, unless I show it to him, and not in a friendly way.

 

Also, (On to Billy Mays' points), I don't believe much could have been done in situation in the Movie Theater. However, I do believe in a situation like most of the other mass shooting, where it was inside a building in regular lighting conditions, still with the same amount of chaos, could have been a different outcome if a trained individual with a firearm been allowed to carry inside those places, or it could have turned out the same, or maybe even worse. Who knows? I believe that myself, or some of the people I know, if were in that situation, would have improved it. Not saying I could have saved 26 people in an elementary school, or 32 people in a college, but maybe I could have saved one? or 2? or half? I don't know, and neither do you. The events happened to be an armed gunman started to mow down unarmed victims. This is, in fact, what happens in most cases. Weather it be a workplace where it is prohibited by your employee handbook to carry a firearm, or a gun free zone such as a school. These just provide a false sense of security. The fact is people who want to kill other people with a firearm usually won't care that there is a rule, and the people who are TRAINED and LAW ABIDING CITIZENS will NOT carry their firearm in these areas which are illegal.

[Clark]

BEING NECESSARY TO THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE

 

That's what is important. England tried, and failed, many times to disarm the people of the colonies. Hitler registered all the weapons, then disarmed the German people. How'd that go?

 

No one has the right to tell me how to defend me and mine, and with what kind of weapons.

 

Stricter gun laws do not make for less crime.

 

Ask the people of Chicago.

 

The second amendment was not written for hunters, or even defending your home from criminal invaders. That was a given.

 

The second amendment was written because the founding fathers saw the need to for the people to have the ability to defend themselves against a tyrannical government.

 

I have no idea why people just can't understand this. This shouldn't even be a debate.

[(Headband)(EG)]

BEING NECESSARY TO THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE

 

That's what is important. England tried, and failed, many times to disarm the people of the colonies. Hitler registered all the weapons, then disarmed the German people. How'd that go?

 

No one has the right to tell me how to defend me and mine, and with what kind of weapons.

 

Stricter gun laws do not make for less crime.

 

Ask the people of Chicago.

 

The second amendment was not written for hunters, or even defending your home from criminal invaders. That was a given.

 

The second amendment was written because the founding fathers saw the need to for the people to have the ability to defend themselves against a tyrannical government.

 

I have no idea why people just can't understand this. This shouldn't even be a debate.

 

My sentiments exactly. Soon their gonna tell us that because too many juries have been unfair to people, we gotta take that away 2. Its just another Bs play by the GOV to restrict our rights. Patriot act already allowing them to spy on us and invade our privacy with out us knowing. Some things make no sense. Just because you ban Assault rifles doesnt mean thats going to stop anyone from getting them. Its just going to push them toward illegal enties and drive the price and demand up. It will just be like prohibition, Gangsters going to be banking all the money while the government has to backtrack to fix its idiotic mistakes.

[60Seconds]

BEING NECESSARY TO THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE

 

That's what is important. England tried, and failed, many times to disarm the people of the colonies. Hitler registered all the weapons, then disarmed the German people. How'd that go?

 

No one has the right to tell me how to defend me and mine, and with what kind of weapons.

 

Stricter gun laws do not make for less crime.

 

Ask the people of Chicago.

 

The second amendment was not written for hunters, or even defending your home from criminal invaders. That was a given.

 

The second amendment was written because the founding fathers saw the need to for the people to have the ability to defend themselves against a tyrannical government.

 

I have no idea why people just can't understand this. This shouldn't even be a debate.

 

No offense, but please look at a map. Chicago is in Illinois. You can drive across a bridge and you are in Indiana. Indiana has pretty lax gun laws. Anyone who wants a gun can just drive over a bridge and buy one at a gun fair. The second amendment was written because it was needed at the time due to the lack of an organized army. It is not needed any more. How would you define a tyrannical government? Using those opinions, anyone can say they don't like the government, and go and shoot a cop, and use "tyrannical government" as a justification. The First Amendment provides for free speech. We can still sue people for slander and libel. There are limitations to everything, and there should be limitations on assault rifles.

 

To Zidian: I agree that we should be allowed to have pistols and shotguns for protection. No one needs a assault rifle, its that simple. It is not needed. The only thing that its useful for is killing people. A handgun can scare someone away, you do not need an assault rifle. Onto background checks. You realize that 75% of NRA members want background checks right? They have taken polls on the topic. The only people afraid of background checks are freaks who think that the government is after them. Not even mentioning that the NRA does not represent gun owners. The NRA represents gun manufacturers. Gun manufacturers do not want background checks because it would mean less sales for them.

 

Headband: While I think that the Patriot Act goes too far in some cases, its partially needed. A lot of terrorist plots have been stopped using it. I'd rather have intact buildings and have possibly parts of my phone calls recorded than destroyed cities and private phone calls. You have nothing to be afraid of.

Edited February 1, 2013 by Billy Mays

[LazaHorse]

 

The second amendment was written because the founding fathers saw the need to for the people to have the ability to defend themselves against a tyrannical government.

When Brock Obomb comes to my house, I'm gonna shoot him right up the pooper.

 

It is no doubt that the arms amendment was written so people could fend off a tyrannical government. Though, it wasn't the American government at which it was aimed. The right to bear arms was to trump (as Billy Bob Thornton here said) the possibility of British soldiers or even British sympathizers who could threaten American civility. Now the same excuse is used to protect ourselves from these social radicals who "fly off the hinge" and do crazy things. I love what Billy said earlier:

 

 

Multiple shooters = Not good idea. America = Not Wild West anymore.

Settlers moving west used to give even their young boys guns to protect the family from wildlife and other settlers. But we're not that country anymore. Guns are fun, and I'm all for keeping them for the sake of recreation. But let's not draft and enforce laws on some premise that we need guns to stop other people with guns. My dad's been an FBI agent for almost 3 decades now, and he always tells me that if we (as a family) are ever caught in a shooting, we are running first, and he will shoot only as a last resort. He was trained to not try and be a hero with his Smith & Wesson, but to save it for when it is completely necessary.

[Papa John]

The 2nd amendment wasn't created to allow citizens to defend themselves from the government, furthermore I doubt the founding fathers anticipated what kind of weaponry we would possess today. Since no one actually was around at that time who can speak on their behalf no one really is in the position to declare exactly what the intentions of the 2nd amendment were. However, considering they anticipated the constitution was to support a government by and for the people, I doubt they made provisions for the people to rise up against the government in an armed sense. The whole point of a democracy is to elect officials who express your views not to have a coup just because your chosen candidate didn't win. There is a serious issue of gun violence in the country, has been for quite a while, but rather than talk about the issue everyone always amounts to the government is taking something you own because they felt like it on a whim. Fact of the matter is the whole point is to prevent gun violence and that doesn't start nor end by allowing more guns in public. There is simply no justifiable reason for a private citizen to own a weapon which has the range and lethal capabilities of semi-automatic rifles. There are certainly people who use weapons responsibly, however, at its present state, it is far too easy from someone to purchase a gun whenever they feel like it. Chicago has a high gun violence despite strict gun laws because the guns used are being brought from neighboring states and cities. Empowering citizens to get into shootouts with criminals will only add to death toll rather than lower it.

Edited February 1, 2013 by Papa John

[Clark]

This is why I tried to stay out of this argument.

 

Do you want confiscation? There are already millions of guns in the hands of legal, law abiding citizens. When you take those away, whose going to have guns then? The government and criminals.

 

Criminals don't care that there is a ban on so-called assault weapons. They don't care where people have put up "GUN-FREE ZONE" signs. It draws criminals in fact.

 

You are mistaken. The second amendment was not written just because we didn't have an organized army. It was written into Bill of Rights specifically so the people could stop the government from becoming tyrannical. You ask what a tyrannical government is? It is one that takes away its citizens rights.

 

Without the second amendment, we would not have the others.

 

Billy, I'm sorry but you have NO right to tell me what I can use to defend myself.

 

btw.....I don't own an assault rifle with a high capacity magazine. I own a DEFENSE rifle, with a normal capacity magazine.

 

Go ahead and respond. I'm not going to respond in this thread again, because some of you guys make my eyes bleed.

[WhyYouNoDie?]

 

How I feel so far about this thread so far

Edited February 1, 2013 by WhyYouNoDie?

[Kigen]

The AR-15 is a semi-auto rifle NOT an assault rifle. It looks the same as the M4 but it does not have full auto or burst fire capability.

 

Which, by the way, full auto guns have been regulated since the 1930s to be basically regulated out of existence.

 

The attempt to ban the AR-15 is just because it looks like the M4.

 

Also, the 2nd Amendment was purposely designed so that the people could overthrow their government. Look at the papers written at the time. The founding fathers were clear that it was their objective to prevent the new USA from doing what Britain tried to do that started the Revolutionary War (which was confiscation of weapons).

 

http://en.wikipedia....ton_and_Concord

 

http://en.wikipedia....S._Constitution

 

So the basic intention behind the 2nd Amendment is so that a normal citizen can carry the same things a soldier at the time could carry.

[60Seconds]

The AR-15 is a semi-auto rifle NOT an assault rifle. It looks the same as the M4 but it does not have full auto or burst fire capability.

 

Which, by the way, full auto guns have been regulated since the 1930s to be basically regulated out of existence.

 

The attempt to ban the AR-15 is just because it looks like the M4.

 

Also, the 2nd Amendment was purposely designed so that the people could overthrow their government. Look at the papers written at the time. The founding fathers were clear that it was their objective to prevent the new USA from doing what Britain tried to do that started the Revolutionary War (which was confiscation of weapons).

 

http://en.wikipedia....ton_and_Concord

 

http://en.wikipedia....S._Constitution

 

So the basic intention behind the 2nd Amendment is so that a normal citizen can carry the same things a soldier at the time could carry.

 

Yes, Call of Duty doesn't entertain me enough, I want to buy a SCAR and go shoot up some enemies in the street. Great judgement there.

[Kigen]

Yes, Call of Duty doesn't entertain me enough, I want to buy a SCAR and go shoot up some enemies in the street. Great judgement there.

 

To bad you cannot.

 

Also, you should look at the definition of "well-regulated."

 

Edit: Also, please only post if you are rationally debating the issue.

[Papa John]

I cannot seriously believe the notion that you would ever need an AR-15 for your own personal defense. Its not like you have it slung around your back the entire time ready to go at a moments notice, not to mention in most situations it is fairly unwieldy and cumbersome. For example, if someone broke into your home with a weapon would you rather shoot them with an AR-15 or a pistol? A pistol because it is designed for closer range combat, and you would probably be better suited using the AR-15 as a club then an actual weapon in such close quarters (its designed for medium to long range). The idea is ludicrous. The AR-15 is and always will be a recreational weapon with no practical purposes for either your own personal defense or protecting yourself from the government. Which, by the way, not entirely sure how you plan to form your coup with AR-15's against the tanks and F-16's the government will have at its disposal. It all comes down to gun owners not wanting to give up their toys, and lets be clear, it is a toy, it serves no law abiding citizen any purpose other then recreational use and to show off. The only people it actually helps, is criminals, who are using weapons like the semi-automatic AR-15 (but not necessarily the same) to commit crimes and engage in fights with police.

[Kigen]

AR-15s have rarely been used in crimes. Hand guns are used in most crimes because they are concealable.

 

And don't call a gun a toy. Its never a toy and should never be thought of as such.

 

The AR-15 is a rifle. Rifles will always have purposes.

[Papa John]

AR-15s have rarely been used in crimes. Hand guns are used in most crimes because they are concealable.

 

And don't call a gun a toy. Its never a toy and should never be thought of as such.

 

The AR-15 is a rifle. Rifles will always have purposes.

 

Fine, its a novelty item and does serve no practical purpose. AR-15's may not be used in crimes, but semi-automatic rifles certainly are. You will never use an AR-15 as a private citizen other than for sport (which could easily be rented and used only on certified ranges) and to show off to the rest of your friends at ranges. It serves no other purpose, I defy you to name another one.

Edited February 2, 2013 by Papa John

[Prius]

Fine, its a novelty item and does serve no practical purpose. AR-15's may not be used in crimes, but semi-automatic rifles certainly are. You will never use an AR-15 as a private citizen other than for sport (which could easily be rented and used only on certified ranges) and to show off to the rest of your friends at ranges. It serves no other purpose, I defy you to name another one.

 

Ferral Hog Hunting - Awwik

Edited February 2, 2013 by Prius

[Kigen]

Fine, its a novelty item and does serve no practical purpose. AR-15's may not be used in crimes, but semi-automatic rifles certainly are. You will never use an AR-15 as a private citizen other than for sport (which could easily be rented and used only on certified ranges) and to show off to the rest of your friends at ranges. It serves no other purpose, I defy you to name another one.

 

The why does the Alaska State Troopers use it? Why do law enforcement across the country use it?

 

Please don't speak when you don't know. Just because you can't think of a reason doesn't mean there isn't one.