Have you ever shot an AR15?

WCH said:

Not only shot but, own one. I'll sell it for $5000.

Click to expand...

No thanks, they're fun to pick off beer cans with but when it comes time to kill a coyote at long range I prefer my single shot .223.

One shot, one kill and I prefer just one hole if that in my furs...

mike2810 said:

The funny thing Bucky is, imo, many who want firearms banned have probably never fired a weapon nor own one. don't you think, having never fired a weapon or owning one yet preaching something needs to be banned is hypocritical?

Click to expand...

So if you have never driven a car you have no right to say things about driving laws?

If you a man, you cannot discuss abortion laws?

Really, gun owners really need to think.

Gersh Kuntzman (appropriate name) claimed he was traumatized by firing an AR.

Own 3 AR 15's, one Mini 14, an AR 10, and an M1A, and yes I fire them all on a regular basis. Not to mention the countless times I fired an M16A1 and M14, along with an M60 and M2.

mike2810 said:

The funny thing Bucky is, imo, many who want firearms banned have probably never fired a weapon nor own one. don't you think, having never fired a weapon or owning one yet preaching something needs to be banned is hypocritical?

Click to expand...

I see your point. But, on the other hand, I have never tried heroin but I still want it to remain illegal.

If a person who has had their life tragically altered due to a firearm catastrophe, becomes an anti-gunner, it's easy for me to understand their point of view even if they, themselves, have never touched a firearm in their life. I may not agree but I would understand and I wouldn't judge him/her negatively for it.

My guns have always served me well and I have had a lifetime of positive experiences in their use. So, naturally, I am pro-gun.

But it never hurts to put yourself in another person's shoes now and again to gain a broader perspective. And I pray I don't ever become the person wearing that other guy's shoes.

The point of this thread is not that a person needs an AR15 - or any other particular firearm. Rather from my own perspective that the true question is not whether anyone needs an AR15 or any other magazine fed gun - rifle or pistol. That is a separate question.

Rather, in my opinion, the question if what type of mass murder weapon do we want mass murderers to use? Mass murderers have always existed. This is nothing new. With the advent of social media, we can look into their minds and history unlike before. Among other things, we have learned it is not a spur of the moment decision. Rather, it is one they work themselves into in relative social isolation other than social media - and that they tend to think though tactics of their attack - where, who, risk factors to themselves, and what to use to do it with.

The Department of Homeland Security was created the year after 9-11 specifically to address foreign and domestic terrorism, which mass murder attacks are. In 17 years it went from zero to over 250,000 people. Something I can not write of, I am familiar with where their concerns are - and have to leave it at that. They are not focused on mass shooters as those are exceptionally limited on killing ability and the shooter always is killed or captured quickly.

Hollywood has created the view most people have about guns. In Hollywood, people make amazing shots at extremely fast rates. None of that is real. Trying to rapidly hit a lot of targets - certainly moving targets - with a rifle or pistol is a skill not even 1/10th of 1% of gun owners have - nor 1% of AR and AK owners can do. In addition, the AR15 is the smallest caliber for rifles (other than odd .177 bb gun caliber). Yet the media, press, politicians have convinced people that AR15 is the ultimate mass murder military style assault weapon. Most probably believe it themselves having little to no firearm experience. After all, in mass shootings people are killed, no?

Yet nearly everyone survives. Nearly all escape. Of those shot, the majority of those live to. Not all, but most. Notably, no federal agency ever hints that want AR15s eliminated nor magazine size limitations. Why? The combined political and institutional power of the FBI, DOJ and Department of Homeland Security could get anything banned they wanted to.

If those psychological disturbed to the degree of wanting to commit mass murder, unless detected and prevented, the only question is what method of mass murder will the person use? So far, the DOH and FBI, along with CIA have kept this limited to mass shootings or less common crude bombs. This is very fortunate - VERY VERY fortunate. Unfortunately, more and more such disturbed people of murderous intentions are pursuing vastly more lethal ways - ways costing less then the price of an AR15 and ammo, for which there is no defense and the murderer will get away and probably remain unknown so can do it again. And again. And again.

So the purpose of this thread is the question of what do you want a mass murderer to use? If not an AR15, if not a gun, then what of the other mass murder method instead? Virtually all can (and have) mass murdered far, far more people than any mass shooting.

Most of these lone wolf shooters are not firearm usage experienced. They view of guns is the Hollywood view and they envision themselves as one of those actors. For people to understand the limitations of mass murder by an AR15 they need to shoot one - rapid fire - at fixed targets - a mere 30 feet away. Targets not moving so should be a piece of cake to hit nearly as fast as the trigger can be pulled. On then could a person grasp my point that if a lone wolf guy is determined to commit mass murder - and then pick how - hope he picks using an AR15. Nearly everything else is unimaginable worse. Due to the Internet, they can learn now to easily use those other vastly more lethal methods.

If terrorist wannabe mass murderers could be convinced to only use a knife or bb gun, that'd be great but they won't fall for that. So next on the list of LEAST lethal on a mass scale is the 22 caliber rifle. HOPE mass murderers keep picking those. Make THOSE easy to get - so easy they don't search beyond that. Keep ranting OMG! at the awesome, most deadly hand held killing machine every devised - the high velocity semi-auto 22 rifle.

I sigh in relief when I hear of a mass murder incident and learn the person was using an AR15 .223. At least most people got away. Of those shot, most are going to live. At least the murderer is going to commit suicide, be killed or be captured. Captured is my last choice personally.

Does ANYONE else understand my point? 1.) Mass murders always have and always will exist so 2.) then try to convince them how they should try to do it to minimize death and destruction. Pretending outlawing certain types of firearms then eliminated mass murderers trying to mass murder people is fully detached from reality.

Bucky said:

So if you have never driven a car you have no right to say things about driving laws?

If you a man, you cannot discuss abortion laws?

Really, gun owners really need to think.

Click to expand...

Those who don't need to educate oneself before addressing the issue. :mrgreen:

Captain America said:

I see your point. But, on the other hand, I have never tried heroin but I still want it to remain illegal.

If a person who has had their life tragically altered due to a firearm catastrophe, becomes an anti-gunner, it's easy for me to understand their point of view even if they, themselves, have never touched a firearm in their life. I may not agree but I would understand and I wouldn't judge him/her negatively for it.

My guns have always served me well and I have had a lifetime of positive experiences in their use. So, naturally, I am pro-gun.

But it never hurts to put yourself in another person's shoes now and again to gain a broader perspective. And I pray I don't ever become the person wearing that other guy's shoes.

Click to expand...

The key is for non gun owners and gun owners to educate themselves on the issue. Just spouting about ban a certain firearm without information is stupid.

joko104 said:

A new basic AR15 cost about $600 to $700 depending on the brand. Used about $400 to $700, depending if and how it is customized. If I bought every one at the local gun shop and/or at the local two flea markets, even including ones totally tricked out and with optics, it would be less than $1000 each on average.

But if you can get $5000 for one, more power to you! Someone that stupid is too stupid to figure out how to load up a magazine. :thumbs:

Click to expand...

My Wife wants one also. 8) It cost me about a grand. [M4A3 BM]

joko104 said:

The Obama administration imposed various restraints in regards to Muslims. Regardless, while you may not be aware of it, Obama was president during the Pulse nightclub shooting - which lasted over 2 hours. So you are claiming there was no contact with the White House during this? That the president had no opinion on it at the time? If so, then explain why he didn't give a damn. Because the victims were LGBTs?

I guess that's your point, huh? He did blame it on homosexuality, despite the shooter on the phone to the FBI stating is was because he was a Muslim fighting the USA for our involvement in ME Muslim countries.

Who do YOU say was president at the time of the Pulse nightclub shooting and the order for local police who had trapped the shooter in a bathroom to pull out and let the wounded bleed to death, while the FBI singularly pursued trying to talk the radical Muslim terrorist to giving himself up so he wasn't harmed?

Click to expand...

You aren’t helping your credibility when you bellow about who was in the White House during a certain shooting.

It’s not as if the President of the United States convenes the Situation Room every time there is a shooting.

And if you’re trying to blame Obama for not curing mass shootings, just remember that folks like you don’t seem to be interested in the most obvious and practical solution.

Lutherf said:

I can't think of an AR worth that much now but once a ban goes into effect I foresee the Eagle Arms ARs going for that much.

Click to expand...

If I could sell it for that much I would reinvest in 5 more....maybe 4 a bunch of ammo.

GDViking said:

No thanks, they're fun to pick off beer cans with but when it comes time to kill a coyote at long range I prefer my single shot .223.

One shot, one kill and I prefer just one hole if that in my furs...

Click to expand...

I could see that.

GDViking said:

No thanks, they're fun to pick off beer cans with but when it comes time to kill a coyote at long range I prefer my single shot .223.

One shot, one kill and I prefer just one hole if that in my furs...

Click to expand...

What AR do you have that ISNT a single shot rifle. And do you mean to say you have a single shot (as in bolt action) rifle in a .223 round? Yikes...

Captain America said:

I see your point. But, on the other hand, I have never tried heroin but I still want it to remain illegal.

If a person who has had their life tragically altered due to a firearm catastrophe, becomes an anti-gunner, it's easy for me to understand their point of view even if they, themselves, have never touched a firearm in their life. I may not agree but I would understand and I wouldn't judge him/her negatively for it.

My guns have always served me well and I have had a lifetime of positive experiences in their use. So, naturally, I am pro-gun.

But it never hurts to put yourself in another person's shoes now and again to gain a broader perspective. And I pray I don't ever become the person wearing that other guy's shoes.

Click to expand...

The media only tells that side of the story. It does not tell of the people who so deeply regretted not having their CCW with them - so relatives and/or friends killed. It does not tell the side of the story of those murdered defenselessly who have a voice to express how much they wish they had a gun to save their life or the life of others.

For example, the media put up a mother who had lost her child in a school to a mass shooting, furiously and sobbingly demanding getting rid of the guns!!!

But why isn't she furious that the school district - that spends tens of millions or more including on more administrators than teachers, piles of money on football and other sports - doesn't spend $1 to have a police officer in the school to protect the children - noting crime rates in schools are as high or higher than in the general public. Instead, not only are schools "no gun zones" that only law abiding citizens follow, they also are "police free zones" too.

Nor is it about "mass shooters." It is about "mass murder" regardless of how. Nor is it just about mass shootings in schools (and elsewhere). It is about ALL crime in schools and elsewhere. Why are school children the least protected of all by our government?

So were I in that other person's shoes (someone whose child was shot in a mass shooting) I always would be furious - but I would be furious that the government took my child by force (compulsory attendance laws), formally prohibited anyone being able to defend the children, and then even posting signs advertising for mass murderers to use that school for mass murder.

This made me furious and it hadn't happened - but that no longer is the situation here. Us gun toting parents got our way.

This is very, very pro-gun territory. This is the school program:


1. Yes, there are still "gun free zone" signs.
This allows assuming anyone for which a gun is detected is engaged in a criminal act, given HUGE power to the officer (or anyone else) to stop and arrest that person if deemed appropriate - or read them the riot act so they don't do it again circumstantially, possibly banned from coming in the school again without first calling in so someone can meet them at the door (such as a CCW who forgets to remove his/her little pocket gun).

2. There is a full time and trained "resource officer" - who is a fully trained and certified member of the Sheriff's Department armed as all are - sidearm, tazer, pepper spray, hand cuffs, and radio - in full uniform - and his/her marked police cruiser in front of the school.

3. All doors are locked to the outside - with panic bars on the inside as a fire safety measure. They will sound an alarm if opened.

4. The only way in and out of the school is thru the front doors. Except when school begins and ends, it is locked. The glass on it and all doors have heavy shatter resistant film over the glass. A person has to be buzzed in - and must first go to the office right inside the door. Failure to do so prompts immediate interception. 99/9+% of the time it will just be a parent who ignored the sign instructing to go to the office first - for a badge and being escorted.

5.) there is a method by which other school personnel with the appropriate background - maybe ex military - and put thru training for this - can get access to a firearm but there are delaying factors and there are other school personnel where that firearm is locked up securely.

I believe the above should be REQUIRED by federal law as a condition of any school receiving $1 of federal funds. No school district can pretend their concern is about the children and not just for money and authority for themselves if they refuse to protect the children.

I have fired one, but never shot one. That would damage it. Terribly wasteful.

WCH said:

If I could sell it for that much I would reinvest in 5 more....maybe 4 a bunch of ammo.

Click to expand...

You should be able to get cases of XM193 for 30-40¢ a round.

TomFitz said:

You aren’t helping your credibility when you bellow about who was in the White House during a certain shooting.

It’s not as if the President of the United States convenes the Situation Room every time there is a shooting.

And if you’re trying to blame Obama for not curing mass shootings, just remember that folks like you don’t seem to be interested in the most obvious and practical solution.

Click to expand...

Actually the topic isn't about me. The reason for the mention is Florida law enforcement got a black eye for that deputy at a school shooting. It needs to be clearly understood the Pulse nightclub mass shooting level of death is not on Florida law enforcement at all - but entirely on the FBI. Yes, at that time the FBI was acting under directives from the White House in regards to radical Islam and fears of it. That policy was set by the Obama administration and those people where in power as an extension of the president.

The point that mattered is the only reason so many died - where always otherwise AR15 shooting mostly wound people - was due to denial of medical care. I will state as fact the shooting would not have occurred by for the Obama administrations radical tolerance of radical Islam. If an Iranian cleric is online and even TV that he is coming to the USA to tell Muslims that homosexuals are sentenced to death, you do not let that person come to the USA. The Obama administration did. Then his FBI ignored the shooter telling others what he was going to do - him admitting to the FBI what he had said. And the Obama's BATF told the gun store that warned of him to sell him the gun and ammo. But I that is another topic.

The ONLY time an AR15 shooting did not mostly result in people being wounded was when they were denied medical care for 3 hours by the FBI while Obama was president. His administration congratulated the FBI for their conduct - when their conduct probably killed more people than the shooter did by denying medical care. One of those who died due to Obama's FBI was someone we knew quite well - very.

You can try to divert the topic to being about me and defending the Pulse nightclub mass murder if you think that accomplishes anything. The actual relevant point is that an AR15 is more a wounding weapon than a killing weapon statistically. Few other rifle calibers mostly just wound people and most other methods than guns kill vastly more people. The exception the Pulse nightclub due to denied medical care for 2 hours. They weren't shot to death, they bleed to death.

mike2810 said:

Those who don't need to educate oneself before addressing the issue. :mrgreen:

Click to expand...

Most gun owners lack using logic and common sense.

Many gun owners on this forum believe we shouldn't restrict guns because the bad guys will still get them.

Then what is the point of even having laws to begin with? Also gun laws will help hinder and restrict people who shouldn't have guns from obtaining them or firing them. This is common sense. Of course it wont stop all the bad guys, but it will stop some, just as harsh laws against duis have lowered the number of drunk drivers on the road.

Lutherf said:

You should be able to get cases of XM193 for 30-40¢ a round.

Click to expand...

my usual cost is 300 a K

Bucky said:

Most gun owners lack using logic and common sense.

Many gun owners on this forum believe we shouldn't restrict guns because the bad guys will still get them.

Then what is the point of even having laws to begin with? Also gun laws will help hinder and restrict people who shouldn't have guns from obtaining them or firing them. This is common sense. Of course it wont stop all the bad guys, but it will stop some, just as harsh laws against duis have lowered the number of drunk drivers on the road.

Click to expand...

Let me explain

You want criminalize behavior that is not harmful. Honest people owning guns doesn't harm anyone. But you want to turn them into armed criminals with the stupid laws you want to pass. Almost every gun owner supports laws that PUNISH HARMFUL actions involving firearms.

People like you want to punish non-harmful actions

Bucky said:

Most gun owners lack using logic and common sense.

Many gun owners on this forum believe we shouldn't restrict guns because the bad guys will still get them.

Then what is the point of even having laws to begin with? Also gun laws will help hinder and restrict people who shouldn't have guns from obtaining them or firing them. This is common sense. Of course it wont stop all the bad guys, but it will stop some, just as harsh laws against duis have lowered the number of drunk drivers on the road.

Click to expand...

- "Most gun owners lack using logic and common sense." Your opinion only. Care to show studies to back that up?

-"Many gun owners on this forum believe we shouldn't restrict guns because the bad guys will still get them." and is that a wrong "belief"? Won't some "bad guys" find a way to get a gun.

At what point is enough laws enough for you?

mike2810 said:

- "Most gun owners lack using logic and common sense." Your opinion only. Care to show studies to back that up?

-"Many gun owners on this forum believe we shouldn't restrict guns because the bad guys will still get them." and is that a wrong "belief"? Won't some "bad guys" find a way to get a gun.

At what point is enough laws enough for you?

Click to expand...

When gun deaths are in.line with other first world nations

vegas giants said:

When gun deaths are in.line with other first world nations

Click to expand...

Why do you claim a gun death is bad but the Oklahoma city bombing wasn't? I would seem that by your messages you prefer that mass murders do the latter, right?

TurtleDude said:

Let me explain

You want criminalize behavior that is not harmful. Honest people owning guns doesn't harm anyone. But you want to turn them into armed criminals with the stupid laws you want to pass. Almost every gun owner supports laws that PUNISH HARMFUL actions involving firearms.

People like you want to punish non-harmful actions

Click to expand...

In Australia, a maximum penalty for aggravated firearm trafficking across national and state borders is life imprisonment.

In the U.S you can buy guns and cross states lines. Apparently following Australia's good and common sense law hurts honest gun owners?

Please.