Why an AR-15?

[Hawkeyenuts66]

What other purposes do you need the AR platform for that you need to change the configuration heavily?

I have three different configurations, two for hunting and one for target shooting.

.450 Bushmaster cartridges for deer(legal for deer hunting in Iowa)
.223 for varmints such as fox, coyotes and the occasional groundhog.(illegal for deer hunting in Iowa)
6.8 SPC for target shooting.

 

[Gimmered]

Ok, it’s not as easy as buying a beer (assuming you’re 21), but it’s too easy in a lot of states.

Assuming no background check concerns your only issues are how crowded the shop is and how backed up the agency performing the background check is. Could be 30 minutes if the stars align. That’s too short, IMO.

Go buy one and get back to us.

 

[Formerly Rockymtnole]

Now do coyotes. Nebraska is cattle country. These cattle are raised on family farms to help farmers make a living. Coyotes will follow a cow giving birth and that calf will be dead before it hits the ground. Farmers rely on coyote hunters to help control the coyote population. The overwhelming first choice of any predator hunter is the AR -15 platform.

There’s another 1-2% actual use for ARs. Again, with other options.

 

[Formerly Rockymtnole]

Go buy one and get back to us.

What did I say that was incorrect? The only thing I left out is availability. Probably was a run on them after Uvalde and they may not be back in stock.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

Go buy one and get back to us.

He's pretty much accurate on this at least for Indiana.

First guns I bought took 15 minutes from walking into the store and walking out.

Second one took an hour but the store was busy and for some reason this store wanted to proof read my application 4 times. Didn't actually ask me to make any major corrections just a small handwriting correction. But for some reason 4 people went over the thing. Not a big deal but I thought it was weird.

**Note: Both times I went into the store knowing what I want so I didn't do a ton of shopping around. No problem with shopping around but that would add time."

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

If people truly understood why the 2nd Amendment exists, then this would not be a discussion.

There is not a single correct answer to this question.

I wish people would stop pretending only they and their side have the one correct view.

This is like the abortion argument. Each side makes an argument that totally convinces them, and assumes that's the end of the discussion. Yet the other side also has a different argument that they find totally decisive.

 

[Hawkeyenuts66]

How many people actually hunt deer with AR-style rifles? Less than 5%?

Anecdotal evidence only I know; but with all the hunters I encounter on an annual basis it tells me it's probably closer to 30% - 40%. I would like to see where you got your numbers.

 

[Gimmered]

There’s another 1-2% actual use for ARs. Again, with other options.

There's other means of travel that a personal car too, just not nearly as good.

People look at these rare events as reasons that I shouldn't own an AR-15, I see them as reasons why I should. An AR is a light weight very very accurate low recoil weapon that fires an inexpensive round. It's very easy to shoot. It is simply the best tool to have in the tool box.

 

[Formerly Rockymtnole]

Anecdotal evidence only I know; but with all the hunters I encounter on an annual basis it tells me it's probably closer to 30% - 40%. I would like to see where you got your numbers.

I’m just guessing. Maybe the hunting world has completely changed. Maybe it depends on the state and regs.

 

[runkpanole]

To the versatility argument...you can also use semi-automatic rifles for fishing

 

[Formerly Rockymtnole]

There's other means of travel that a personal car too, just not nearly as good.

People look at these rare events as reasons that I shouldn't own an AR-15, I see them as reasons why I should. An AR is a light weight very very accurate low recoil weapon that fires an inexpensive round. It's very easy to shoot. It is simply the best tool to have in the tool box.

You are a farmer or rancher?

 

[Gimmered]

He's pretty much accurate on this at least for Indiana.

First guns I bought took 15 minutes from walking into the store and walking out.

Second one took an hour but the store was busy and for some reason this store wanted to proof read my application 4 times. Didn't actually ask me to make any major corrections just a small handwriting correction. But for some reason 4 people went over the thing. Not a big deal but I thought it was weird.

**Note: Both times I went into the store knowing what I want so I didn't do a ton of shopping around. No problem with shopping around but that would add time."

Honestly if you are a law abiding adult citizen, it should be that simple. It is your right to own one.

 

[Gimmered]

You are a farmer or rancher?

No, this is why I don't own a tractor.

 

[littlez]

No.

He's just a law abiding citizen who likes to shoot guns I guess.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

Honestly if you are a law abiding adult citizen, it should be that simple. It is your right to own one.

I wouldn't mind demonstrating a little responsibility along the way. A simple 10 minute test, possibly written and at the range.

I mean you can make it about as hard to get as a driver's license and nearly every law abiding adult has one of those.

 

[LuciousBDragon]

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 do not believe an AR-15 is best for home defense. However, if home defense is your motivator, than I can understand the desire for an AR-15 because if the bad guys have them too, you need to be able to have the option for a similar or more powerful weapon. Much like an arms race or Malone in the Untouchables….”if he brings a knife, you bring a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue!”

 

[TylerJ76]

Last season was the first season I hunted deer with my AR, it's certainly better for the deer.

More accurate shot.
Falls dead on impact.

No more tracking a bleeding deer for hours through the woods.

 

[Gimmered]

I wouldn't mind demonstrating a little responsibility along the way. A simple 10 minute test, possibly written and at the range.

I mean you can make it about as hard to get as a driver's license and nearly every law abiding adult has one of those.

I view rights a little differently than you do. Would you make people prove they aren't hiding something before you grant the fourth amendment protections?

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

I view rights a little differently than you do. Would you make people prove they aren't hiding something before you grant the fourth amendment protections?

No because it's there to prevent fishing expeditions. You can still search someone's house, you just need to have some proof that they might be involved in a crime and get a court to approve it.

However there is no harm in requiring people to show responsibility with a firearm before being handed it. The 2nd amendment says a well regulated militia. If you can't make someone show that they are safe with a firearm then how is that a well regulated militia?

Even if you take it to mean "because" a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the people's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Which it wasn't always interpreted like this.) that still means that the state has some role in making sure it's militia is well regulated.

 

[Finance85]

Last season was the first season I hunted deer with my AR, it's certainly better for the deer.

More accurate shot.
Falls dead on impact.

No more tracking a bleeding deer for hours through the woods.

What was your rifle of choice for deer hunting before that?

 

[Gimmered]

I do not believe an AR-15 is best for home defense. However, if home defense is your motivator, than I can understand the desire for an AR-15 because if the bad guys have them too, you need to be able to have the option for a similar or more powerful weapon. Much like an arms race or Malone in the Untouchables….”if he brings a knife, you bring a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue!”

Home defense means different things to different people. I live in a pretty typical neighborhood. My go to gun for home defense is my .45 auto, hollow points at that. No sense in a double tap in an indoor situation, my hearing is bad enough. Home defense to my co-workers might be a 5 or 10 acre property 30 or 40 minutes from the nearest deputy. A .45 just wont cut it there.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

My question is, why exactly does someone need an AR-15 or a gun like it?

You are certainly entitled to ask "your" question.

But why are you focusing on "need"?

When you ask "why does anyone need _______" the implication is that if you don't need it, it's OK to ban it, or take it away.

I'm a lib and I favor better gun control. I wouldn't even oppose laws that ban some of the guns that I own (as long as I get fair market value for them). BUT when your reason for taking things away is "because you don't need that" then I get very nervous about what's next.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

Home defense means different things to different people. I live in a pretty typical neighborhood. My go to gun for home defense is my .45 auto, hollow points at that. No sense in a double tap in an indoor situation, my hearing is bad enough. Home defense to my co-workers might be a 5 or 10 acre property 30 or 40 minutes from the nearest deputy. A .45 just wont cut it there.

That sounds more like property defense than home defense. You don't need to be defending your property with deadly force.

 

[Bill Doak and 9 others]

Next-level idiocy, here.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

I wonder how many vegans are hunters.

I mean they certainly could be. Their dietary choices may not have a humane component, after all. But I would be surprised if there were very many vegan hunters.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

You are certainly entitled to ask "your" question.

But why are you focusing on "need"?

When you ask "why does anyone need _______" the implication is that if you don't need it, it's OK to ban it, or take it away.

I'm a lib and I favor better gun control. I wouldn't even oppose laws that ban some of the guns that I own (as long as I get fair market value for them). BUT when your reason for taking things away is "because you don't need that" then I get very nervous about what's next.

I don't necessarily oppose a ban either but to be fair the same arguments can be made and where made about alcohol. No one needs alcohol.

With me I think the focus on both guns and alcohol and drugs are on responsible use.

Unfortunately some people die unwittingly for freedoms. Not only do people die in mass shootings for gun freedoms but the victims of drunk drivers die for our alcohol freedoms.

 

[TylerJ76]

What was your rifle of choice for deer hunting before that?

Shotgun, last year was my first year rifle hunting, really enjoyed it.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

Next-level idiocy, here.

View embedded media

I doubt the exit wounds are a foot wide and they probably don't make heads literally explode.

But they do shatter bones and do cause organs to rupture.

The terminal ballistics of a 223 round are very different and far more deadly than a 9mm round.

 

[Gimmered]

No because it's there to prevent fishing expeditions. You can still search someone's house, you just need to have some proof that they might be involved in a crime and get a court to approve it.

However there is no harm in requiring people to show responsibility with a firearm before being handed it. The 2nd amendment says a well regulated militia. If you can't make someone show that they are safe with a firearm then how is that a well regulated militia?

Even if you take it to mean "because" a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the people's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Which it wasn't always interpreted like this.) that still means that the state has some role in making sure it's militia is well regulated.

We can beat the 2nd interpretation to death, that fact is, it is what the SCOTUS says it is and that's very well documented.

Ordinary law abiding adult citizens have the right to keep and carry arms. Including but not limited to arms that would be useful to the preservation of a militia.

People here want to add a need clause to a right. We don't need a computer to exercise free speech. It is just a better tool than the USPS. The founding fathers in no way could have envisioned that you and I could be communicating over 800 mile away in a matter of seconds, but they gave us the right to do that.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

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

Why are you mocking that argument?

The 2nd amendment may be poorly written and inappropriate for a civilized nation in this millennium but it IS part of the constitution and it DOES confer that right.

Instead of mockery, repeal 2A.

It's a whole lot easier to argue that 2A has outlived its usefulness and is now contributing to violence, maiming and death in America than to argue that government should be able to take away things they decide individuals don't need.

 

[Kinnick.At.Night]

I might buy one and post about it here regularly just to piss people off.

 

[Gimmered]

That sounds more like property defense than home defense. You don't need to be defending your property with deadly force.

Please don't try to walk up to a farm house in Nebraska after dark. You'll find out what home defense really means.

 

[Gimmered]

Why are you mocking that argument?

The 2nd amendment may be poorly written and inappropriate for a civilized nation in this millennium but it IS part of the constitution and it DOES confer that right.

Instead of mockery, repeal 2A.

It's a whole lot easier to argue that 2A has outlived its usefulness and is now contributing to violence, maiming and death in America than to argue that government should be able to take away things they decide individuals don't need.

Finally, someone else gets it.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

We can beat the 2nd interpretation to death, that fact is, it is what the SCOTUS says it is and that's very well documented.

Ordinary law abiding adult citizens have the right to keep and carry arms. Including but not limited to arms that would be useful to the preservation of a militia.

People here want to add a need clause to a right. We don't need a computer to exercise free speech. It is just a better tool than the USPS. The founding fathers in no way could have envisioned that you and I could be communicating over 800 mile away in a matter of seconds, but they gave us the right to do that.

SCOTUS has never ruled against responsibility requirements.

They have only ruled basically that law abiding citizens have the right to own one for self defense purposes and that restrictions on that right can not be done in an arbitrary manner. All of which I agree with by the way.

The only part of the SCOTUS rulings that I don't agree with is that they seem to set up the test for if you can ban a firearm based upon how popular that firearm is. I can't remember which ruling it was but it included some wording about a firearm being popular and therefore it must be legal.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

Please don't try to walk up to a farm house in Nebraska after dark. You'll find out what home defense really means.

Walking onto someone's property may be trespassing but it's not an excuse for deadly force in any state. Regardless of what the trigger happy owners of the property may feel.

 

[littlez]

Finally, someone else gets it.

Which goes back to my argument that something written almost 250 years ago is a little outdated in today's world.

 

[Gimmered]

Which goes back to my argument that something written almost 250 years ago is a little outdated in today's world.

See post 110.

 

[Formerly Rockymtnole]

Next-level idiocy, here.

View embedded media

I agree, exaggeration does not help the case for gun control. Advocates for gun control need to do a better job and educate themselves because the 2A folks live and breathe this stuff and also try to mislead.

 

[Formerly Rockymtnole]

Why are you mocking that argument?

The 2nd amendment may be poorly written and inappropriate for a civilized nation in this millennium but it IS part of the constitution and it DOES confer that right.

Instead of mockery, repeal 2A.

It's a whole lot easier to argue that 2A has outlived its usefulness and is now contributing to violence, maiming and death in America than to argue that government should be able to take away things they decide individuals don't need.

The thread is about need because that’s the question the OP asked. He didn’t say debate the 2A or whether it is absolute or should be repealed or whatever.

 

[LuciousBDragon]

Home defense means different things to different people. I live in a pretty typical neighborhood. My go to gun for home defense is my .45 auto, hollow points at that. No sense in a double tap in an indoor situation, my hearing is bad enough. Home defense to my co-workers might be a 5 or 10 acre property 30 or 40 minutes from the nearest deputy. A .45 just wont cut it there.

Yep, having options that fit the user and the situation are preferred!