Why do you "need" an AR 15? [W243, 2001]

[jaeger19]

re: Why do you "need" an AR 15? [W243]

so tell us what legitimate use anthrax has in the hands of a non-medical researcher

Well.. I do think he has a point with the "legitimate use" argument. I can make an argument that there is no legitimate use for alcohol consumption, nor cigars or other tobacco products.

the fallacy is that he is contending as you said, that anthrax equals a semi auto rifle.

Its just a switch from the old... "well if you can own a .38 handgun.. then why can't I walk down the road with a nuclear weapons".. schtick.

What I think is funny.. is that the anti gun crowd label us gun owners as the "unreasonable" and "nutty" and "extremists". and then they go and act like my son owning his DPMS rifle for competition.. is the equivalent of him walking around with a nuclear bomb. :doh

 

[vesper]

re: Why do you "need" an AR 15? [W243]

Morning Joe got into a heated debate over the AR-15 with Ted Cruz and he lost.

 

[TurtleDude]

re: Why do you "need" an AR 15? [W243]

Morning Joe got into a heated debate over the AR-15 with Ted Cruz and he lost.

God is that Joe a moron. If lying and ignorance were felonies, that turd would be in jail for a million years

 

[zsu2357]

re: Why do you "need" an AR 15? [W243]

What does the 'AR' in 'AR-15' stand for?

You don't think it stands for assault rifle do you?

 

[goldkam]

re: Why do you "need" an AR 15? [W243]

Not if it results in the loss of life of good citizens due to good citizens being deprived of their stick for self-defense.

If you are going to view it from that perspective it is still outweighed. For instance the number of individuals losing their life because they couldn't defend themselves in comparison to the number losing their life because of reckless individuals with firearms (ie mass shootings, homicides etc..) is starkly different.

The use of firearms as self defence is not universally practised.... why because stricter gun legislation and bans have been implemented in many countries. If you fail to see this correlation and many other you are missing the premise of my point.

I have highlighted that of 29,618,300 violent crimes committed between 2007 and 2011, 0.79% of victims (235,700) protected themselves with a threat of use or use of a firearm, the least-employed protective behaviour. Thus if value this statistic over the deaths of 30,000 people in gun related instances, not including firearms injuries etc. you must reconsider the frameworks that you built you decisions off.

There are so many sources to disprove the firearm self-defence notions
Hemenway, David. Survey research and self-defense gun use: An explanation of extreme overestimates. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology. 1997; 87:1430-1445.

Hemenway, David. The myth of millions of annual self-defense gun uses: A case study of survey overestimates of rare events. Chance (American Statistical Association). 1997; 10:6-10.

A Harvard study also found that many uses of self-defence pertaining to firearms were used in arguments or unrest, the link is below

Hemenway, David; Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah. Gun use in the United States: Results from two national surveys. Injury Prevention. 2000; 6:263-267.

The following paper below highlights how very few law abiding citizens are defending by shooting or injuring criminals

May, John P; Hemenway, David. Oen, Roger; Pitts, Khalid R. Medical Care Solicitation by Criminals with Gunshot Wound Injuries: A Survey of Washington DC Jail Detainees. Journal of Trauma. 2000; 48:130-132.

May, John P; Hemenway, David. Do Criminals Go to the Hospital When They are Shot? Injury Prevention. 2002; 8:236-238.

 

[holbritter]

re: Why do you "need" an AR 15? [W243]

I was hoping to hear some actual defenses of assault rifle ownership, but all I heard was "You can't ask us anything! It's in the BoR!", like that settles the issue.

For the record, I'm fine with people owning AR-15's and whatnot. I'm even fine with people owning automatic weapons, so long as the meet the legal standards as defined by the ATF regulations.

But this guys contempt for Americans that want sensible gun laws, and to discuss the liability each class of firearm poses, is what will lead to the 2A getting wiped out eventually.

I honestly didn't see the 'contempt'. He seemed to be critical of the media who asks that question. Like he said, in America, possessions are not based on what you need. You don't 'need' refrigerator as big as a closet. But it's no ones right to tell anyone else what they 'need'

 

[holbritter]

re: Why do you "need" an AR 15? [W243]

View attachment 67229763

:lamo

 

[goldkam]

re: Why do you "need" an AR 15? [W243]

What did Australia do to completely get rid of mass shootings (but only by their definitions}? Why do you completely ignore US Constitutional protections for firearm ownership?

[/QUOTE]

Australia implemented, after the Port Arthur Massacre, a buy back program in 1996 and additional legislation including the banning of certain firearms.

The link below highlights the full implementations of this program.
https://www.loc.gov/law/help/firearms-control/australia.php

The buy back program was also included in 2003 and 2017, in order to reduce gun ownership in Australia.

The definition of mass shooting is 4 or more people, with some variations universally. Thus it can be said Australia, since 1996, has not had 4 or more people, killed in a shooting. Since then there has also been a significant decline in other gun related violence.

To your next point. The 2nd Amendment's volatility and instability is shown through the various interpretations by a plethora of courts, academics and governments over the past decades.
Cases such as United States v. Stewart, United States v. Warner, Lewis v. United States, United States v. Miller. So if you are governed by the 1993 Supreme Court decision you would be under completely different rules than if you are governed by the 2008 court decision. What is the true meaning of the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution, no one knows, because it is about as clear as mud.

Additionally the 2nd Amendment was written over 229 years ago in the context of the times where the population was just four million (over 700,000 of these were slaves) and 95% of the free population were farmers. The primary purpose of this document was to reduce the likelihood of "tyranny of the major" which in todays society is highly unlikely, as shown through various other countries throughout the world. From an English perspective, we talk of textual integrity it is truely lacking. This is a document written outside of the modern times and thus must be adapted to modern times. Law reform is an essential aspect of society, with it ensuring the validity and integrity of certain systems and frameworks in society. Why is the constitution any different??? Can you name any piece of legislation that is still in place from 229 years ago??

 

[Maccabee]

re: Why do you "need" an AR 15? [W243]

Common sense is something that individuals seem to lack into todays society. Common sense would be pertaining to viewing the source of this problem and what source is creating the most havoc and disaster. In my opinion this is a firearm.....a object that is created with the primary function to kill and object that is heavily legislated and banned in majority of countries throughout the world, an object that has become conditioned in the US to be a normality and an object that when either brought, given or stolen by individuals which induces a higher level of violence and danger than an individual without one.

Those countries that heavily legislated firearms did not affect crime, violent crime, or even gun deaths. In fact in some cases it had the opposite effect.

 

[jaeger19]

re: Why do you "need" an AR 15? [W243]

Australia implemented, after the Port Arthur Massacre, a buy back program in 1996 and additional legislation including the banning of certain firearms.

The link below highlights the full implementations of this program.
https://www.loc.gov/law/help/firearms-control/australia.php

The buy back program was also included in 2003 and 2017, in order to reduce gun ownership in Australia.

The definition of mass shooting is 4 or more people, with some variations universally. Thus it can be said Australia, since 1996, has not had 4 or more people, killed in a shooting. Since then there has also been a significant decline in other gun related violence.

?

[/QUOTE]

Australia had so few mass murders before the law.. that there is no statistical significant evidence that shows that their gun buyback did anything for mass murders.

Plus "gun violence" statistics are invalid. What is valid is overall violent crimes rates. Which either increased depending on years or decreased according to how they were statistically decreasing.. in other words.. the gun laws had no effect on violent crime except perhaps increased it.

What is the true meaning of the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution, no one knows, because it is about as clear as mud.

Nope.. not if you read the historical context of the 2nd amendment.

The primary purpose of this document was to reduce the likelihood of "tyranny of the major" which in todays society is highly unlikely, as shown through various other countries throughout the world

Hmmm.. I think you could find evidence that its highly likely.

This is a document written outside of the modern times and thus must be adapted to modern times

which it has been.

 

[Rucker61]

re: Why do you "need" an AR 15? [W243]


Australia implemented, after the Port Arthur Massacre, a buy back program in 1996 and additional legislation including the banning of certain firearms.

The link below highlights the full implementations of this program.
https://www.loc.gov/law/help/firearms-control/australia.php
[/quote]

Not as effective as some folks seem to think.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Agreement. It was also a buyback with a ban, iow, confiscation.

The buy back program was also included in 2003 and 2017, in order to reduce gun ownership in Australia.

That was not the purpose, nor has it worked, as Australia has more guns now than it did prior to the NFA in 1996.

The definition of mass shooting is 4 or more people, with some variations universally. Thus it can be said Australia, since 1996, has not had 4 or more people, killed in a shooting. Since then there has also been a significant decline in other gun related violence.

No one who has studied the NFA's effectiveness will credit that ban with reducing mass shootings. You know that there were still 250,000 banned long guns on the streets for the 20 after the ban, right, and that pistols with 10 round magazines are still legal to own?

To your next point. The 2nd Amendment's volatility and instability is shown through the various interpretations by a plethora of courts, academics and governments over the past decades.
Cases such as United States v. Stewart, United States v. Warner, Lewis v. United States, United States v. Miller. So if you are governed by the 1993 Supreme Court decision you would be under completely different rules than if you are governed by the 2008 court decision. What is the true meaning of the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution, no one knows, because it is about as clear as mud.

Additionally the 2nd Amendment was written over 229 years ago in the context of the times where the population was just four million (over 700,000 of these were slaves) and 95% of the free population were farmers. The primary purpose of this document was to reduce the likelihood of "tyranny of the major" which in todays society is highly unlikely, as shown through various other countries throughout the world. From an English perspective, we talk of textual integrity it is truely lacking. This is a document written outside of the modern times and thus must be adapted to modern times. Law reform is an essential aspect of society, with it ensuring the validity and integrity of certain systems and frameworks in society. Why is the constitution any different??? Can you name any piece of legislation that is still in place from 229 years ago??

Do the 1st and 4th Amendment protect digital communication and data storage? You want to adapt it, use Article 5. Otherwise, leave the Constitution alone.

If every "assault weapon" disappeared overnight, what would the results be?

 

[minnie616]

re: Why do you "need" an AR 15? [W243]

An assault rifle is a gun in which you can flip a switch to go from one shot per pull of the trigger to multiple shots per pull of the trigger.

A little history from the following:

1980s: The military issues the M16A2 rifle, which allows for semi-automatic and burst fire, but not automatic fire. The elimination of automatic fire from most weapons makes the military assault weapon more similar to the civilian version. A later version of the M16 often used by Special Forces, the M16A3, is equipped with the option for automatic fire, however the more widely issued M16A1 predecessors, the M16A4 and the M4 carbine, are not typically equipped with automatic fire capabilities.

1980s: Semi-automatic assault weapons become widely available on the civilian market. According to the Violence Policy Center, gun manufacturers began to heavily market these weapons to make up for declining handgun sales.

1982: Guns & Ammo magazine publishes a guide to semi-automatic assault weapons simply titled, Assault Rifles.

https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2013/02/06/what-right-wing-media-wont-tell-you-about-assau/192553

 

[goldkam]

re: Why do you "need" an AR 15? [W243]

Those countries that heavily legislated firearms did not affect crime, violent crime, or even gun deaths. In fact in some cases it had the opposite effect.

According to you, someone who has simply stated something with not facts or statistics to prove or negate my point.

I can provide a number of examples to prove my point.

India- Implemented heavy gun bans and legislation in 1959 and 1962 and additionally implemented more legislation in 1998 and 2014 (licensing regulation more heavily implemented)
In 1999 India saw 12,147 gun deaths and in 2014 has halved that at 6,000 deaths by firearms. So according to you this is an increase in crime???

Australia- Implemented the 1996 buy back program and heavily legislated and banned firearms
Suicide rates have plummeted from 22 per 100,000 in 2000 to 11.8 per 100,000 in 2017
Homicide Rates have lowered from 2 per 100,000 in 2000 to 1 per 100,000 in 2012
Firearms were only used in 8% of murder in 2015 (around 19 uses Australia wide)
Robberies have decreased from 23,000 in 1998 to 9,986 in 2016 with firearm accounting for only 2% of cases in 2014 (199 cases)

Japan- Arguably have the strictest gun policies in the world, with such legislation as having to attend an all-day class, take a written exam and pass a shooting-range test with a mark of at least 95%.
In 2014 there was only 6 gun deaths

 

[goldkam]

re: Why do you "need" an AR 15? [W243]


Australia had so few mass murders before the law.. that there is no statistical significant evidence that shows that their gun buyback did anything for mass murders.

Plus "gun violence" statistics are invalid. What is valid is overall violent crimes rates. Which either increased depending on years or decreased according to how they were statistically decreasing.. in other words.. the gun laws had no effect on violent crime except perhaps increased it.



Nope.. not if you read the historical context of the 2nd amendment.



Hmmm.. I think you could find evidence that its highly likely.



which it has been.[/QUOTE]

To your first point. That is actually untrue, from 1980 up until 1996 there was 20 mass shootings where over 132 people lost their lives and over 600 people were injured in these 20 shootings along. Is that not significant to you?? So if you can provide me with that statistical evidence I would gladly be open to acceptance, rather presently you are providing points that have not reliability and are simply not true.

Secondly, this source highlights how overall crime is decreasing. No doubt firearm legislation is not the primary medium that would decline overall crime rates, however there is a correlation between the two. Homicide deaths using a gun has decreased 0.61 per 100,000 in 1996 to 0.13 per 100,000 in 2014. Assaults using a gun has declined from 0.6 per 100,000 in 1996 to 0.1 per 100,000 in 2014.

It seems you perceive that implementing gun legislation can only increase crime, rather than decrease it.

Thirdly, so the dozens of court interpretations pertaining to the Second Amendment haven't misconstrued or altered the meaning??? The historical context is one of the interpretations of meanings when it was written. There is not source, other than the constitution, that explicitly outlines the true meaning of the wording. Rather it is just a plethora of individuals, whether that be academics or governmental leaders from 200 years ago, who have interpreted it.

To your next point. So what is the true context of the Second Amendment??

To your next point, please explain how it has been adapted to modern times, when the Second Amendment phrasing is the same today as it was 229 years ago. Hardly modern.....

 

[goldkam]

re: Why do you "need" an AR 15? [W243]

Australia implemented, after the Port Arthur Massacre, a buy back program in 1996 and additional legislation including the banning of certain firearms.

The link below highlights the full implementations of this program.
https://www.loc.gov/law/help/firearms-control/australia.php

Not as effective as some folks seem to think.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Agreement. It was also a buyback with a ban, iow, confiscation.



That was not the purpose, nor has it worked, as Australia has more guns now than it did prior to the NFA in 1996.



No one who has studied the NFA's effectiveness will credit that ban with reducing mass shootings. You know that there were still 250,000 banned long guns on the streets for the 20 after the ban, right, and that pistols with 10 round magazines are still legal to own?



Do the 1st and 4th Amendment protect digital communication and data storage? You want to adapt it, use Article 5. Otherwise, leave the Constitution alone.

If every "assault weapon" disappeared overnight, what would the results be?[/QUOTE]

So what was the purpose of the buy back program, to make money?? Well in fact it couldn't be because constitutionally the government was repaying society for the firearms.

To your next point. I am unsure where you gained those statistics from, because ABS statistics highlight that 1996 3.2 million firearms and in 2012 3.015 million. Now it must also be understood that population has increased by over 6 million, which correlates with the statistics. Additionally gun ownership per household has decreased by 75%.

To your third point. Where are these statistics coming from, I am unable to find them. Despite this, yes 10 round magazines are still legal to own. However firearm related offences has decreased, nitpicking legislation such as this does not change this notion. I propose that should also be changed, rather it highlights that further gun reform may be needed in Australia to further decrease firearm related crime.

To your last point. If we are going to draw comparisons between Articles in the Constitution I claim this....the 2nd Amendment is depriving individuals their right to the 14th Amendment. I will explain. The premise of any gun ownership in the US draws back to the 2nd Amendment, with all legislative frameworks relating to firearms been drawn from this. Thus the Las Vegas Shooting, Orlando Shooting etc.. all consisted of legal gun owners, thus for them to be legal gun owners the 2nd Amendment validated and enforced this notion. This in essence is depriving all those who have become victims of these atrocities the right to life and just protection under legislation (14th Amendment). If you deny you are essentially stating that you value gun ownership over the right to life and just protection.

The fact is not all weapons are going to disappear, rather it is how they are legislated and banned that creates the results. No one has a crystal ball nor does anyone understand implications of stricter firearm policies in the US. Thus you must draw off example and statistics, which alarmingly highlights the success of implementing stricter legislation and in some cases the banning of guns.

 

[Rucker61]

re: Why do you "need" an AR 15? [W243]

So what was the purpose of the buy back program, to make money?? Well in fact it couldn't be because constitutionally the government was repaying society for the firearms.

The purpose was to take guns that the government was afraid of away from law-abiding citizens, and it was funded through an increase in taxes on health insurance. Not sure I understand why this is an issue.

To your next point. I am unsure where you gained those statistics from, because ABS statistics highlight that 1996 3.2 million firearms and in 2012 3.015 million. Now it must also be understood that population has increased by over 6 million, which correlates with the statistics. Additionally gun ownership per household has decreased by 75%.

2012 is 6 years ago. Current number of guns, which is my point, come from Australian news sources:

Port Arthur: Australia has more guns than before massacre, University of Sydney research shows - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

To your third point. Where are these statistics coming from, I am unable to find them. Despite this, yes 10 round magazines are still legal to own. However firearm related offences has decreased, nitpicking legislation such as this does not change this notion. I propose that should also be changed, rather it highlights that further gun reform may be needed in Australia to further decrease firearm related crime.

For effectiveness of the NFA with regards to mass shootings, look for research by Philip Alpers of the University of Sydney, a 2006 study led by Simon Chapman, also of the University of Sydney, and by Samara McPhedran and Jeanine Baker.

To your last point. If we are going to draw comparisons between Articles in the Constitution I claim this....the 2nd Amendment is depriving individuals their right to the 14th Amendment. I will explain. The premise of any gun ownership in the US draws back to the 2nd Amendment, with all legislative frameworks relating to firearms been drawn from this. Thus the Las Vegas Shooting, Orlando Shooting etc.. all consisted of legal gun owners, thus for them to be legal gun owners the 2nd Amendment validated and enforced this notion. This in essence is depriving all those who have become victims of these atrocities the right to life and just protection under legislation (14th Amendment). If you deny you are essentially stating that you value gun ownership over the right to life and just protection.

Gun ownership did no such thing. Criminals committed crimes. The 99% of the gun owners who never commit a crime are no more responsible for those deaths than car owners who don't kill anyone, or drinkers who don't kill anyone, even though both cars and alcohol are the cause of more deaths each year than guns are.

The fact is not all weapons are going to disappear, rather it is how they are legislated and banned that creates the results. No one has a crystal ball nor does anyone understand implications of stricter firearm policies in the US. Thus you must draw off example and statistics, which alarmingly highlights the success of implementing stricter legislation and in some cases the banning of guns.

Unlike every other country, we have a Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. There's the difference.

 

[B'smith]

re: Why do you "need" an AR 15? [W243]

The latter would be a machine gun.


Proven? What do you count as proof? I've yet to see any evidence whatsoever that gun ownership is having any effect on violent crime levels. In fact, the stats tend to go the other way around.

Sorry, you're misrepresenting the "stats"

The simple truth is that there are more guns in America than ever before in this country's history however, homicides are at a 51 year low.(1)

Ergo, the widespread proliferation of firearms is not the problem.


"FBI: US Homicide Rate at 51-Year Low"
https://mises.org/wire/fbi-us-homicide-rate-51-year-low
Public Unaware that Homicide Rates Have Fallen
EXCERPT "As Pew has reported in recent years, in fact, the American public is "unaware" that the homicide rate in the United States has fallen by 49 percent over the past twenty years. And while Pew doesn't report on it, it's also a safe bet that the public is also unaware that homicide rates have collapsed as total gun ownership in the United States has increased significantly."CONTINUED

 

[Exactice]

re: Why do you "need" an AR 15? [W243]

To tired to go through 10 pages.

POSTED this in another thread.


CONVINCE ME Otherwise.

Ill actually answer this... Believe it or NOT, A Fire arm can be a hobby. OMG WHAT??? Really???

First of I am an Avid Golfer, I play about once a week, participate highly on another website and I have more Golf Videos on my personal YouTube channel than I do any Firearms.

BUT I support and enjoy the firearm. In a "previous" life I was a weapons expert, served in a specialized position and was a certified instructor.

After I left that life I still enjoyed that life and continued it as a hobby. Hobby? How?

Well Golf and Firearms flow and share many similarities. The tool Golf Club and Firearm is ever evolving and tweaking. Golf Shafts, Golf Heads, Lie angles, loft angles, spin, grips. length. The Firearm, Weight, Length, caliber, furniture, options etc. Then the caliber/bullet, is similar to the ball, trajectory, flight, flight angles, ball speed, velocity, distance etc etc.

So I enjoy the endless pursuit of accuracy perfection, which BOTH are basically impossible to do. I have 1 hole in one in my life, after thousands of rounds of golf, and I have probably 1 SUB 1/4moa shot group in my life. But its this enjoyment of perfection THAT I personally enjoy. Its the tweaking of a club, or the tweaking of powder charge, or bullet seating depth that I enjoy, I have about 7 Different Golf Shaft for my Driver, and I have about 3 different rifle barrels at different lengths and twist.

THIS is what I enjoy about the firearm. Is this criminal? Threatening, Violent?

Demonize All firearms owners. BUT at least get your facts straight people know what people actually do and MORE so Legal LAW abiding citizens do.....

I truly enjoy the scientific and mechanical aspect. In no way to I enjoy the "Killing" of an AR15. This would likely be the same growing up in Russia and an AK47, or in Britian and an SA80. Because I live in the US and the AR is a common firearm this is why I gravitate to it.

Is it wrong to have an endless pursuit of perfection through ballistics?

 

[Vox]

re: Why do you "need" an AR 15? [W243]

If you are going to view it from that perspective it is still outweighed. For instance the number of individuals losing their life because they couldn't defend themselves in comparison to the number losing their life because of reckless individuals with firearms (ie mass shootings, homicides etc..) is starkly different.

The use of firearms as self defence is not universally practised.... why because stricter gun legislation and bans have been implemented in many countries. If you fail to see this correlation and many other you are missing the premise of my point.

I have highlighted that of 29,618,300 violent crimes committed between 2007 and 2011, 0.79% of victims (235,700) protected themselves with a threat of use or use of a firearm, the least-employed protective behaviour. Thus if value this statistic over the deaths of 30,000 people in gun related instances, not including firearms injuries etc. you must reconsider the frameworks that you built you decisions off.

There are so many sources to disprove the firearm self-defence notions
Hemenway, David. Survey research and self-defense gun use: An explanation of extreme overestimates. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology. 1997; 87:1430-1445.

Hemenway, David. The myth of millions of annual self-defense gun uses: A case study of survey overestimates of rare events. Chance (American Statistical Association). 1997; 10:6-10.

A Harvard study also found that many uses of self-defence pertaining to firearms were used in arguments or unrest, the link is below

Hemenway, David; Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah. Gun use in the United States: Results from two national surveys. Injury Prevention. 2000; 6:263-267.

The following paper below highlights how very few law abiding citizens are defending by shooting or injuring criminals

May, John P; Hemenway, David. Oen, Roger; Pitts, Khalid R. Medical Care Solicitation by Criminals with Gunshot Wound Injuries: A Survey of Washington DC Jail Detainees. Journal of Trauma. 2000; 48:130-132.

May, John P; Hemenway, David. Do Criminals Go to the Hospital When They are Shot? Injury Prevention. 2002; 8:236-238.

What makes your statistics INVALID is that they are all based on citizens shooting criminals. This is done to intentionally cover up the many thousands of cases where the mere presence of the gun scares off the thugs and NOBODY gets shot.

Please read and learn the truth.

https://www.nraila.org/articles/201...roup-claims-guns-rarely-used-for-self-defense

Fatal shootings of criminals account for only a fraction of all defensive gun uses. Kleck notes that criminals are killed or non-fatally wounded in less than one percent of defensive gun uses.10

VPC drastically undercounts defensive gun uses in which criminals are not shot by relying upon outlier data obtained by the National Crime Victimization Survey. VPC says the survey is “the most accurate survey of self-defense gun use” extant.

However, Kleck has noted, while the NVCS is “a favorite of academic gun control supporters” because it produces lower numbers than other studies, “There are now at least fifteen other independent estimates of the frequency of DGUs [defensive gun uses] and every one of them is enormously larger than the NCVS estimate. Unanimity is rare in studies of crime, but this is one of those rare cases. . . . That the NCVS survey estimate [of defensive gun uses] is radically wrong is now beyond serious dispute.”11

VPC ignores the fact that widespread gun ownership deters some crimes from occurring in the first place. A study of imprisoned criminals found that 40 percent had decided not to commit one or more crimes for fear their prospective victims were armed.12

Also, the rate of “hot burglaries”—home invasions while the residents are at home—is much lower in the United States, where residents with guns are common, than in England, where guns are almost entirely outlawed.13

 

[hanger4]

re: Why do you "need" an AR 15? [W243]

The latter would be a machine gun.

Actually no. An assault weapon is select fire. One shot per trigger pull, flip a switch to burst fire, usually three shot per trigger pull. A machine gun fires continually till it jams, barrel melts or runs out of ammunition.

 

[Exactice]

re: Why do you "need" an AR 15? [W243]

Actually no. An assault weapon is select fire. One shot per trigger pull, flip a switch to burst fire, usually three shot per trigger pull. A machine gun fires continually till it jams, barrel melts or runs out of ammunition.

I'd hate to actually have to justify the difference between a machine gun "open bolt" system vs a rifle closed bolt system...

But again.. somehow guns are just scary in general without realizing what it does or why it does what... It has a trigger and they all go bang bang really really fast!!

 

[TurtleDude]

re: Why do you "need" an AR 15? [W243]

I'd hate to actually have to justify the difference between a machine gun "open bolt" system vs a rifle closed bolt system...

But again.. somehow guns are just scary in general without realizing what it does or why it does what... It has a trigger and they all go bang bang really really fast!!

most select fire "assault rifles" are closed bolts. Most SMGs are open bolt.

 

[Exactice]

re: Why do you "need" an AR 15? [W243]

most select fire "assault rifles" are closed bolts. Most SMGs are open bolt.

that and most machine guns are "open bolts"

yet the AR is a "Closed bolt system" nothing like a "Machine Gun" Hell even an "Assault rifle"

WTF "is" an Assault rifle LOL (rhetorical relax people)

I can assault a hill with a hockey stick or broom. Can I call a broom an Assault broom now just because?

 

[jet57]

re: Why do you "need" an AR 15? [W243]

If you honestly want the answer, take 5 minutes to watch this.

The man's a hawker for the gun industry speaking at a Tea Party meeting, and thinking people are supposed to take him seriously...

yeah, sure, whatever you say

it's your world

 

[Slingshot Bob]

re: Why do you "need" an AR 15? [W243]

The man's a hawker for the gun industry speaking at a Tea Party meeting, and thinking people are supposed to take him seriously...

yeah, sure, whatever you say

it's your world

Try watching it before you post.