ADVERTISEMENT

Why an AR-15?

HawkOptimist

HR Heisman
Gold Member
Jan 5, 2006
8,403
10,829
113
I’ve seen a lot of posts on social media from the gun crowd defending AR-15’s and other guns like it. Most are memes talking about how the gun has been around for a long time and was never a problem until recently. That, or something about the 2nd Amendment, which I think most level-headed people can agree could use some updating.

My question is, why exactly does someone need an AR-15 or a gun like it? Like, give me a realistic scenario where you might need one.

I ask because I can’t think of a single reason.
 
I’ve seen a lot of posts on social media from the gun crowd defending AR-15’s and other guns like it. Most are memes talking about how the gun has been around for a long time and was never a problem until recently. That, or something about the 2nd Amendment, which I think most level-headed people can agree could use some updating.

My question is, why exactly does someone need an AR-15 or a gun like it? Like, give me a realistic scenario where you might need one.

I ask because I can’t think of a single reason.
They’re going to give you the “it’s the right given to us by the 2nd amendment. It’s not about needs or wants. Shall not be infringed” blah blah blah
 
I’ve seen a lot of posts on social media from the gun crowd defending AR-15’s and other guns like it. Most are memes talking about how the gun has been around for a long time and was never a problem until recently. That, or something about the 2nd Amendment, which I think most level-headed people can agree could use some updating.

My question is, why exactly does someone need an AR-15 or a gun like it? Like, give me a realistic scenario where you might need one.

I ask because I can’t think of a single reason.
You can't think of a reason because you know relatively zero about the platform.

I like the versatility of the platform. I can swap the uppers and optics depending on what type of shooting I'm doing.

If I'm deer hunting I use an upper in .450 bushmaster, if I'm varmint hunting I can use .223 and if I'm target shooting I can use 6.8 SPC. All of this while using the same lower unit. It is basically 3 guns in one.

The uppers are easily stored and are basically harmless without the lower unit. Just lake any other weapon, it's only dangerous if handled by someone intending to do harm.
 
I’ve seen a lot of posts on social media from the gun crowd defending AR-15’s and other guns like it. Most are memes talking about how the gun has been around for a long time and was never a problem until recently. That, or something about the 2nd Amendment, which I think most level-headed people can agree could use some updating.

My question is, why exactly does someone need an AR-15 or a gun like it? Like, give me a realistic scenario where you might need one.

I ask because I can’t think of a single reason.
I am not a gun person but this essentially says: reliability, availability, adaptability/versatility, and affordability/lethality for a range of targets (from gophers to feral hogs) avoiding the need for more then one gun.

 
  • Like
Reactions: KFsdisciple
I am not a gun person but this essentially says: reliability, availability, adaptability/versatility, and affordability/lethality for a range of targets (from gophers to feral hogs) avoiding the need for more then one gun.

Some of the exact reasons a version of this design was chosen for the Vietnam war.

JIM SULLIVAN: “The hits on the enemy, were just fatal– almost anywhere. One guy had been hit in the ankle, and it killed him.”

DAVID SCOTT: “Why?”

JIM SULLIVAN: “They couldn’t stop the bleeding. I mean, there was just so much damage.”

DAVID SCOTT: “No matter where you hit the enemy, you’d take him off the battlefield.”

JIM SULLIVAN: “That’s right. It was more lethal than any cartridge that was fired by any army in, in history.”

DAVID SCOTT: “Did you ever imagine—“

JIM SULLIVAN: “No. Never even considered that—it had any civilian application.”

DAVID SCOTT: “Concern you at all?”

JIM SULLIVAN: “Of course, everybody gets concerned when there’s one of these school issues where children are killed by an AR-15. I mean, that’s sickening. But that was never the intended purpose. Civilian sales was never the intended purpose.

DAVID SCOTT: “The lethality of the AR-15, is that reduced in the civilian semi-automatic mode?”

JIM SULLIVAN: “No.”

DAVID SCOTT: “It’s not?”

JIM SULLIVAN: “Same effectiveness. I mean, in fact, the gun is functioning exactly the way the military model is in semi-automatic.”
 
Last edited:
You can't think of a reason because you know relatively zero about the platform.

I like the versatility of the platform. I can swap the uppers and optics depending on what type of shooting I'm doing.

If I'm deer hunting I use an upper in .450 bushmaster, if I'm varmint hunting I can use .223 and if I'm target shooting I can use 6.8 SPC. All of this while using the same lower unit. It is basically 3 guns in one.

The uppers are easily stored and are basically harmless without the lower unit. Just lake any other weapon, it's only dangerous if handled by someone intending to do harm.

But why do you need an AR-15 for deer hunting? You know, back in the day our ancestors used bow and arrows, single shot rifles, axes, etc. I consider their way of hunting deer manly. If you need an AR-15 to hunt deer, you’re cheating … and less manly.
 
You can't think of a reason because you know relatively zero about the platform.

I like the versatility of the platform. I can swap the uppers and optics depending on what type of shooting I'm doing.

If I'm deer hunting I use an upper in .450 bushmaster, if I'm varmint hunting I can use .223 and if I'm target shooting I can use 6.8 SPC. All of this while using the same lower unit. It is basically 3 guns in one.

The uppers are easily stored and are basically harmless without the lower unit. Just lake any other weapon, it's only dangerous if handled by someone intending to do harm.

How come no one wanted such great versatility prior to the AWB in the '90's. AR-15's barely sold then.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tom Paris
But why do you need an AR-15 for deer hunting? You know, back in the day our ancestors used bow and arrows, single shot rifles, axes, etc. I consider their way of hunting deer manly. If you need an AR-15 to hunt deer, you’re cheating … and less manly.
What are you posting this in an Internet forum? You should obtain his address and send him a handwritten letter. It’s more manly as well
 
Honestly I think people like how it looks and feels and it's fun to shoot. The versatility argument may be true but I feel like it is mostly a cover for the reasons I stated.

AR-15's for home defense is flat out overkill and a danger. Those rounds travel much faster than handgun rounds and go far far further. AR-15 round could easily shoot through your wall and through your neighbors wall and into their house. It only makes sense if you live extremely rurally and your closest neighbors are more than a few hundred yards away or there is a dense line of trees between your house and your neighbors.

I don't think banning it is politically feasible but I wouldn't be necessarily opposed to such bans. I just think it's a waste of time, we can't even get universal background checks passed so why would you think you could pull off banning what has now become a very popular gun.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BelemNole
The fun is just starting, there's no limit to the 2A's slaughter capacity.

The US Army's new assault rifle coming to local gun stores​

Sig Sauer's MCX Spear is designed to punch through body armor at range. Selling to the general public concerns gun regulation advocates

 
  • Like
Reactions: BelemNole
I’m still not getting a good answer here. They’re fun to shoot, they’re versatile, it’s my right, and on and on are not good reasons for a weapon like that to be made available to the public.

So again I’ll ask, why does someone need an AR-15 or a similar weapon?
 
Varmints, AR-15s are needed to hunt varmints.

OIP.qordfgj23Rc3tDbWLE21RAHaFj


“They are a sporting rifle. It’s something that a lot of people [use] for purposes of going out target shooting — in my state, they use them to shoot prairie dogs and, you know, other types of varmints,” Thune said.


Damn, if Jed and Jethro Clampett had had easy access to an AR-15 assault rifle......
 
I’m still not getting a good answer here. They’re fun to shoot, they’re versatile, it’s my right, and on and on are not good reasons for a weapon like that to be made available to the public.

So again I’ll ask, why does someone need an AR-15 or a similar weapon?

Those are legitimate answers it's up to you if you think those reasons are enough for the AR-15 to continue to be sold widely.

But like I said I wouldn't necessarily oppose a new assault weapons ban but I just think it's not politically feasible. I would much rather go after universal background checks and responsibility requirements as I feel those are more likely to pass.
 
I’m still not getting a good answer here. They’re fun to shoot, they’re versatile, it’s my right, and on and on are not good reasons for a weapon like that to be made available to the public.

So again I’ll ask, why does someone need an AR-15 or a similar weapon?

Just because you don't like the answers, doesn't mean they are not good enough answers.

As of right now it is lawful and protected by the constitution for me and others like me to own these weapons.

Don't like the law? Change it.

You want to have a civil discussion about gun control, I am all for it and have shared ideas on here many of times about what I would do.
 
Practical purposes: hunting feral hogs and carrying out mass shootings

Gun nut rational: they think AR-15s will save them from a "tyrannical" government that has tanks and fighter jets.

Say for instance China decides to go on the attack. As they size up their targets, do you think their war planners take into consideration the existence of a heavily armed population vs one that has been disarmed?
 
I think you could pose this question to the people that have done the mass shootings, “why did you choose an AR-15 to kill people?”
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheCainer
Serious question. For those of you that defend ARs, where do you draw the line? Bazooka? Cannon? Tank?
 
You can't think of a reason because you know relatively zero about the platform.

I like the versatility of the platform. I can swap the uppers and optics depending on what type of shooting I'm doing.

If I'm deer hunting I use an upper in .450 bushmaster, if I'm varmint hunting I can use .223 and if I'm target shooting I can use 6.8 SPC. All of this while using the same lower unit. It is basically 3 guns in one.

The uppers are easily stored and are basically harmless without the lower unit. Just lake any other weapon, it's only dangerous if handled by someone intending to do harm.
The way you described that “platform” just gave me an erection. I feel so virile now. So confident. So powerful. I wanna go out there and dominate.

The truth is that the gun was designed for combat in Vietnam.

you are simply lying when you describe its usefulness for hunting. It was designed to hunt humans.

 
I’ve seen a lot of posts on social media from the gun crowd defending AR-15’s and other guns like it. Most are memes talking about how the gun has been around for a long time and was never a problem until recently. That, or something about the 2nd Amendment, which I think most level-headed people can agree could use some updating.

My question is, why exactly does someone need an AR-15 or a gun like it? Like, give me a realistic scenario where you might need one.

I ask because I can’t think of a single reason.
"Need" is not the right
 

See that's the problem with the left on this, they watched what amounted to basically armed civilians kick us out of Vietnam and Afganistan despite all of our military technology but can't admit that the same sort of thing could theoretically happen here.

For the record this sort of thing did happen in World War 1.


Mexican President Venustiano Carranza assigned a military commission to assess the feasibility of the Mexican takeover of their former territories contemplated by Germany.[15] The generals concluded that it would not be possible or even desirable to attempt such an enterprise for the following reasons:

  • Mexico was in the midst of a civil war, and Carranza's position was far from secure. A declaration of war by his regime would have provided an opportunity for the opposing factions to align with the United States and Allies in exchange for diplomatic recognition.
  • The United States was far stronger militarily than Mexico was. Even if Mexico's military forces had been completely united and loyal to a single regime, no serious scenario existed under which it could have invaded and won a war against the United States.
  • The German government's promises of "generous financial support" were very unreliable. It had already informed Carranza in June 1916 that it could not provide the necessary gold needed to stock a completely-independent Mexican national bank.[16] Even if Mexico received financial support, it would still need to purchase arms, ammunition, and other needed war supplies from the ABC nations (Argentina, Brazil, and Chile), which would strain relations with them, as explained below.
  • Even if by some chance Mexico had the military means to win a conflict against the United States and to reclaim the territories in question, it would have had severe difficulty conquering and pacifying a large English-speaking population which had long enjoyed self-government and was better supplied with arms than were most other civilian populations.[17]
  • Other foreign relations were at stake. The ABC nations had organized the Niagara Falls peace conference in 1914 to avoid a full-scale war between the United States and Mexico over the United States occupation of Veracruz. Mexico entering a war against the United States would strain relations with those nations.

So the Mexico passed on invading the US in World War 1 in part (but not entirely because of) the widespread availability of civilian arms.
 
Last edited:
But why do you need an AR-15 for deer hunting? You know, back in the day our ancestors used bow and arrows, single shot rifles, axes, etc. I consider their way of hunting deer manly. If you need an AR-15 to hunt deer, you’re cheating … and less manly.
I think a response would be because they can just have one adaptable rifle for deer and other prey. Of course, I would bet the farm that 99.9999% of hunters who own an AR-15 already own other hunting rifles...
 
Last edited:

You need to read up on guerrilla warfare and outcomes of successful campaigns. It bleeds the occupier dry, both mentally and physically. When dead troops start piling up and caskets start heading home it has profound effect on the homefront.
 
“During the Vietnam War, the U.S. conducted a survey into the impact of the AR-15 and its use on the battlefield. To put it bluntly, the survey found that the weapon, chambered with same .223 caliber rounds that Ramos used in Uvalde, was exceedingly good at killing human beings.

A copy of the survey, which was published in a Gawker story by my now-colleague Sam Biddle in 2016, shows that Viet Cong fighters hit with the weapon were frequently decapitated and dismembered, many looking as though they had “exploded.” A field report documented how an AR-15 had blown up a man’s head and turned another’s torso into “one big hole.” The weapon was lauded by soldiers on the battlefield for its effectiveness at killing adversaries and even cutting through dense jungle forest.
 
Say for instance China decides to go on the attack. As they size up their targets, do you think their war planners take into consideration the existence of a heavily armed population vs one that has been disarmed?
There’s no way you actually believe this. None.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nelly02
I would say countries would if they had designs on anything other simple nuclear annihilation. Given the volume and lethality of weapons in the hands of this country, and this country's size, it would be virtually impossible to invade and hold. That does not justify the volume and lethality of weapons we have, but this has to be in an adversary's assessment, even if it is a minor part of it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hoosierhawkeye
Say for instance China decides to go on the attack. As they size up their targets, do you think their war planners take into consideration the existence of a heavily armed population vs one that has been disarmed?

I would argue that while that theoretical possibility may exist it's mostly theoretical in the age of nuclear weapons. Before the US was conquered they would launch their nuclear weapons and China would launch theirs and the war would be over and no one would have won.

The other issue I have with this is that you don't need an AR-15 to accomplish this. Any fight against an invading force like that would be a hit and run guerilla warfare in which surprise quick attacks would mean much more than firepower. Besides after the initial hit and run attacks the insurgency would likely shift to looting and using the firearms off of the dead enemy because that the ammunition they would have more ready access to. It's unlikely that if your area of the country is occupied by a foreign power you are going to be able to go buy more Remmington 223 rounds at the gun shop so you can continue to fight them. Instead as soon as you can you will want to be getting your hands on whatever rifle they are using as your only supply of ammo will be captured enemy ammo.
 
I would say countries would if they had designs on anything other simple nuclear annihilation. Given the volume and lethality of weapons in the hands of this country, and this country's size, it would be virtually impossible to invade and hold. That does not justify the volume and lethality of weapons we have, but this has to be in an adversary's assessment, even if it is a minor part of it.

This is the best answer. . . Basically yes but it doesn't matter anymore in the age of nukes.

And even if it did as I detailed in my answer the insurgency would quickly switch to enemy firearms as captured enemy ammunition would be their only source of ammunition.
 
Say for instance China decides to go on the attack. As they size up their targets, do you think their war planners take into consideration the existence of a heavily armed population vs one that has been disarmed?
A heavily-armed population with Punisher logos on their phones and Molon Labe stickers plastered on their trucks?

Yeah, I’m not counting on those guys.
 
But why do you need an AR-15 for deer hunting? You know, back in the day our ancestors used bow and arrows, single shot rifles, axes, etc. I consider their way of hunting deer manly. If you need an AR-15 to hunt deer, you’re cheating … and less manly.
And this is why I hesitated to even comment as I knew you were not even close to serious.
 
A heavily-armed population with Punisher logos on their phones and Molon Labe stickers plastered on their trucks?

Yeah, I’m not counting on those guys.

Stereotyping the people who may have firearms because you look down on them is not an argument against that possibility.

There are good arguments against that possibility but that's not one of them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gimmered
ADVERTISEMENT