Fallacy: The AR15 isn't good for hunting, competition, or self-defense, or children -

Status
Not open for further replies.

Aim1

member
Joined
Oct 24, 2015
Messages
2,310
We keep hearing so much about how the AR15 is a 'weapon of war' and that it is no good for hunting, self-defense, or competition and that it is only good for killing. We hear a few people say, "Some people use it for hunting." And then the anti-gunners come back with, "No one needs a 30 round clip/magazine for hunting deer!"

We need to better articulate how great the AR15 is to folks:


1.) It is not an 'Assault Weapon':

An assault weapon is fully automatic, the AR15 is a semi-automatic. 1 trigger pull, one bullet fired.

If the AR15 is a weapon of war how come no militaries use it?




2.) Hunting:

The AR15 is great for hunting, it can use a magazine that carries quite a few rounds which is good for hunting animals like hogs and coyotes and you can use it for deer however most will use a smaller magazine like 5 round mags for deer hunting. A lot of people don't realize that AR15 mags come as low as 5 rounds which is good for deer hunting, they assume all AR15s use 30 round magazines. Hogs and coyotes can come in high numbers so for hunting them you may need a larger capacity magazine. People need to realize that a 30 round magazine is a standard magazine for the AR15 and that anything more than that is high capacity, not 30 rounds.

So yes, sometimes you want 30 rounds for hunting.


3.) Competition:

The AR15 is great for competition such as 3 gun and even long range shooting. For some reason a lot of people do not believe that the AR15 is used in shooting competitions.



4.) Self-Defense:

A lot of people say that a pistol is better for self-defense and I agree.....if you are carrying outside your home. If you are home an SBR or shotgun is probably a better weapon for most. Look at police officers, many have never shot a gun before they became cops and many only shoot their service weapons once a year to qual but give them a patrol rifle with optic and anyone can become a very good, proficient shot. Why? Because the optic makes it so easy. So, in this case an AR15 can be much easier to shoot and become comfortable with for the shooter which is what you want for a self-defense situation. With it's soft recoil the AR15 is also a good weapon for self-defense as even a 9mm can be hard for some people to shoot.

If you have multiple suspects, an AR15 can be your best bet against them since it can have a larger capacity than a pistol.

If you are handicapped you may have a hard time changing magazines, so one weapon with a larger capacity magazine like an AR15 can be better for you than a pistol.

Also, when it comes to self-defense I don't want a fair fight. I want to over-match the bad guys so much that they have almost no chance.


https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/oklahoma-man-uses-ar-15-kill-three-teen-home-intruders-n739541

Oklahoma Man Uses AR-15 to Kill Three Teen Home Intruders

by AVALON ZOPPO MAR 28 2017, 6:29 PM ET


4.) Better for children:


The AR15 is great recreational shooting, hunting, and competition for children and smaller people. Why is that? Because most have an adjustable butt stock which allows changing the length of the butt stock from standard to very short. You used to have to buy different guns as a kid grew up to meet their length of pull requirements as they got taller and arms grew longer. Now you can use one gun the whole time which is more cost effective. As they grow older just keep adjusting the stock. You can also have 1 gun for people of all ages and sizes to shoot and you can even change calibers in some for hunting if you choose to. The soft recoil of the AR15 is also good for you shooters and can be lowered even more if you use a caliber like .300 blackout with a suppressor.


So, next time someone says "People don't need an AR15 for hunting, competition, or shooting, and it's only a weapon of war", we can explain it better.
 
I used to think only real men shot 30's. Then I found out how easy a AR is to shoot High power with. No kick. The AR doesn't move your position around.
 
  • "Assault weapon" has no fixed meaning. It's whatever some anti-gun cultist wants to ban at any given moment.
  • If it has military utility, it's probably suitable for self-defense. The converse may not be true.
  • All of this is moot since the anti-gun cultists don't want you to have ANY firearm, be it a wheel lock or a Barret .50.
 
All of this is moot since the anti-gun cultists don't want you to have ANY firearm, be it a wheel lock or a Barret .50.

Yes yes and don't forget, ''for me but not for thee.'' The high exalted potentates need advanced weaponry, armored vehicles, security detachments. ''They is important''
 
I'd not focus on distinguishing semi-automatic from select-fire amid calls for banning bump-stocks. Just sayin
 
0) Guns are used legitimately for defense
1) Defense against humans requires lethal force
2) ARs are cheap, easy to use, yet capable of delivering said force
3) "How do you (specifically) know how many rounds are needed for a given scenario?"

No one who requires a hunting explanation will come over to our argument. They've already missed these most basic points entirely. You're talking completely different issues with a common, ancillary object that is beside (both) topics. At best you could convince them they are wrong about a specific hunting issue; "308 vs 30-06 against elk" or some such.

Which still has nothing to do with the RKBA
 
An assault weapon is fully automatic, the AR15 is a semi-automatic. 1 trigger pull, one bullet fired.
No. Why is it that so many gun enthusiasts don't know the difference between the terms "assault rifle" and "assault weapon"?

The term "assault weapon" is a made-up political term that has no real fixed meaning outside various laws designed to classify and ban guns mostly by cosmetic features. An AR-15 is legally an "assault weapon" depending on where you are and how the rifle is configured. You're thinking of the term "assault rifle", which comes from the German "Sturmgewehr" and is a valid technical term referring to a select-fire, intermediate-powered carbine.
 
Last edited:
When someone says they’re not good for sport. It screams to me that have no clue. Or maybe I missed something but 3 gun and similar run and gun shooting are the fastest growing shooting sports.
 
We need to better articulate how great the AR15 is to folks:

If the AR15 is a weapon of war how come no militaries use it?

So, next time someone says "People don't need an AR15 for hunting, competition, or shooting, and it's only a weapon of war", we can explain it better.

The AR15 is a "weapon of war" and that in itself is exactly the reason that we should have it. What needs to happen is gun owners need to get it through their seemingly thick heads that the 2A has absolutely nothing to do with hunting or competition. Even self defense from civilian criminals is a side benefit, not the primary purpose. The 2A exists to protect the right of the people to own and train with weapons of war, so that the people remain capable of conducting war competently. I know a lot of gun owners try to do the whole "no militaries use it" bit, but when it comes down to it, that's only accurate in the most minor, unimportant details. Yes, our 2A right to own the exact same small arms as the military has been infringed, but the AR is a very good close second that shares almost every part in common with the M4. So close in fact that if a person had both in hand it takes just a few seconds to swap the AR upper onto the M4 lower and it'll run just fine.

There's no denying that the tactic of coming up with excuses has bought us time, and for that I am grateful. Eventually though, it's going to come back to bite us. I think we've gotten to the point where gun owners and organizations can no longer fool the general public with nonsense about needing 30 rd mags for hunting or competition or even defense from civilians. Seriously, can you cite an example of a civilian in the USA needing to fire 30 rds from a rifle in self defense? We should have these rifles because they're weapons of war, not in spite of it.
 
The AR15 is a "weapon of war" and that in itself is exactly the reason that we should have it. What needs to happen is gun owners need to get it through their seemingly thick heads that the 2A has absolutely nothing to do with hunting or competition. Even self defense from civilian criminals is a side benefit, not the primary purpose. The 2A exists to protect the right of the people to own and train with weapons of war, so that the people remain capable of conducting war competently. I know a lot of gun owners try to do the whole "no militaries use it" bit, but when it comes down to it, that's only accurate in the most minor, unimportant details. Yes, our 2A right to own the exact same small arms as the military has been infringed, but the AR is a very good close second that shares almost every part in common with the M4. So close in fact that if a person had both in hand it takes just a few seconds to swap the AR upper onto the M4 lower and it'll run just fine.

There's no denying that the tactic of coming up with excuses has bought us time, and for that I am grateful. Eventually though, it's going to come back to bite us. I think we've gotten to the point where gun owners and organizations can no longer fool the general public with nonsense about needing 30 rd mags for hunting or competition or even defense from civilians. Seriously, can you cite an example of a civilian in the USA needing to fire 30 rds from a rifle in self defense? We should have these rifles because they're weapons of war, not in spite of it.


You are correct. If we were to truly follow the 2nd Amendment which is to have weapons in defense of country and against our own government in case of tyranny we would be able to own fully automatic weapons easily....but I don’t see that happening
 
The people you are trying to explain to have no wish to hear your words. They only want to be rid of these terrible, terrible, death dealing machines (in their minds) and will only ignore anything that doesn't fit their agenda, no matter how wrong they are. They will pay no attention to you at all.
 
Last edited:
The people you are trying to explain to have no wish to hear your words. They only want to be rid of these terrible, terrible, death dealing machines (in their minds) and will only ignore anything that doesn't fit their agenda, no matter how wrong they are. They will pay not attention to you at all.

They also want to get rid of the First Amendment as they only want ideas and things said that THEY APPROVE.

Anything they don’t like they deem HATE SPEECH

They’re using this to weaken us so they don’t loose the next election and so they can complete eliminating our pesky rights.

And for those who thinks it’s paranoia, after the NRCC shooting one of the faculty there tried to get me to help her on her campaign. The one she got a year off with pay for. This was for total gun control and elimination of the Constitution.
 
Oh man, the ar15 really is a great kid's rifle, especially when it isn't junked up with a bunch of unnecessary addon crap. My 7yro boy handles one just fine.
 
Oh man, the ar15 really is a great kid's rifle, especially when it isn't junked up with a bunch of unnecessary addon crap. My 7yro boy handles one just fine.

Oh stop it
I saw that “reporter”who got PTSD from firing one. Didnt you see him say how powerful and loud it was. Now he’s a “reporter” so we must believe him, not the videos of little girls shooting ARs and not being scared nor shocked.
 
Discussing the difference between an assault weapon and rifle is useless in today's world. It is a choir argument. Sorry - get over it.
If you denigrate fully auto weapons by saying the AR is nice because it isn't full auto, well - let's confiscate all the legal NFA weapons out there and forget every opening up that registry.
Hunting has nothing to do with the RKBA, the slight chance you need 30 rounds for pigs won't convince anybody of anything outside of the choir. Same with competition. Have people not learned that the sports argument is a loser and irrelevant to the Constitutional issues?
Weapons of war - one might argue that defense against tyranny covers the ability to have a reasonable weapon of 'war' if it ever came to that. Patton described the M-1 Garand as the greatest battle rifle with 8 shots - so how is a 30 round gun, not that lethal. Also, police departments carry semi auto for their high intensity situations and militarizes sometimes limit their rifles to 3 round bursts and rarely use the full auto.

The best arguments are that you can need it for self-defense in extreme situations and its 'war' potential are necessary for defense against tyranny. Discussing hunting and competition is a trap for you to fall into. Please don't take away my toys - that's what you are saying.

The Modern Sporting Rifle mantra was extremely stupid if you knew anything about the Constitutional issues or psychology of persuasion.
 
The Modern Sporting Rifle mantra was extremely stupid if you knew anything about the Constitutional issues or psychology of persuasion.

That's for sure. I despise that term. I won't buy from a company that uses it. Way too defeatist.
 
Discussing the difference between an assault weapon and rifle is useless in today's world. It is a choir argument. Sorry - get over it.
If you denigrate fully auto weapons by saying the AR is nice because it isn't full auto, well - let's confiscate all the legal NFA weapons out there and forget every opening up that registry.
Hunting has nothing to do with the RKBA, the slight chance you need 30 rounds for pigs won't convince anybody of anything outside of the choir. Same with competition. Have people not learned that the sports argument is a loser and irrelevant to the Constitutional issues?
Weapons of war - one might argue that defense against tyranny covers the ability to have a reasonable weapon of 'war' if it ever came to that. Patton described the M-1 Garand as the greatest battle rifle with 8 shots - so how is a 30 round gun, not that lethal. Also, police departments carry semi auto for their high intensity situations and militarizes sometimes limit their rifles to 3 round bursts and rarely use the full auto.

The best arguments are that you can need it for self-defense in extreme situations and its 'war' potential are necessary for defense against tyranny. Discussing hunting and competition is a trap for you to fall into. Please don't take away my toys - that's what you are saying.

The Modern Sporting Rifle mantra was extremely stupid if you knew anything about the Constitutional issues or psychology of persuasion.


Yes the 2nd Amendment was made created for citizens to have arms to protect the country and against a tyrannical government, however that is not what people are doing with AR15s for when they are hunting, shooting for competition or fun, or for self-defense, it would only be if they are using them to practice for a war against an enemy or tyrannical government.

So, once you tell people what the second amendment is for protecting the rights of citizens to own arms to protect the country and against a tyranical government and they then say, "Yeah, but still, what do people use AR15s for, they aren't good for hunting, competition, or self-defense?" you can then answer them with all of the ways people legally use the AR15 and why it is a good choice for them.
 
You are correct. If we were to truly follow the 2nd Amendment which is to have weapons in defense of country and against our own government in case of tyranny we would be able to own fully automatic weapons easily....but I don’t see that happening

Bringing up going up againt own government elected through democratic process is foolish. Given disparity of force between government forces (military, police, private contractor armies,.....) and bunch of civilians with semi-auto small arms would mean very quick defeat.
 
I said they are good in self-defense but to play Devil's Advocate. Since the guns have such lethal potential, why cannot you hunt with something else. A single shot https://ruger.com/products/no1/models.html should be fine for the competent hunter. As far as competition is there not some kind of 'game' option that doesn't offer such risks outside of the game. Also, if it is for competition in some countries, sports guns are kept locked up at the gun club or range. You check it out for a competition or practice. Wouldn't that solve your need for competition.

Shooting competitions and hunting - I can tell people I do that - but it's not my main argument.

I shouldn't have looked at the Ruger page - now I want one. Just because. Sigh.
 
It is a good exempli gratia argument for the questioner that asks "Well, what practical uses does it have?" Yes we here know that it is well suited for the 2nd's real meaning, but many don't want to know or hear it. But if we explain the other uses, it might give them pause to think about it.


Bringing up going up againt own government elected through democratic process is foolish. Given disparity of force between government forces (military, police, private contractor armies,.....) and bunch of civilians with semi-auto small arms would mean very quick defeat.

OK there, Stalin. The Founding Fathers believed it inevitable at some point, due to human nature. We did here once sucessfully, the second time wasn't because it wasn't well thought out. NO one here wants to see battle between the US military and it's citizens. And don't be so sure about disparity of force. Lots of service people would switch sides, brining their armanant with them. All it would take is one sub captain, B-2 pilot, or missile silo commander and it would be a whole new ballgame........
 
The nuclear weapons don't work like that - so that's not relevant to the argument.

To go back to the main point - the divide between sporting use and the purpose of the 2nd Amend. I have said the former has no force in this argument. Here's a link to a NY Times letter:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/23/opinion/guns-nra.html
The author asks when the sportsmen and hunters will separate themselves from the NRA.

You can find quite a few 'gun' people denouncing the weapon. They are not necessarily bad people
but responding to the current horror. Sports and hunting don't do it.
 
I don't like to get involved in these conversations but when people have questioned why I need to have one I just tell them I don't need to have a reason. I bought it legally, I've never done anything wrong and neither has the gun, and you can't have it back.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
 
Another argument is/could be, just as the military is ultimately governed by the elected civilian population via our elected civilian officials, those very same civilians can also and in fact do also own militarily-similar firearms, for all lawful purposes.

I control the military (via Congress etc), and I control military style items (via personal ownership)

Hey... I didn't set it up that way but thats just how it is:p
 
So, next time someone says "People don't need an AR15 for hunting, competition, or shooting, and it's only a weapon of war", we can explain it better.

Next time someone says "People don't need an AR15 for hunting, competition, or shooting, and it's only a weapon of war," I say "People don't NEED to vote, either. So go cancel your registration."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top