Why an AR-15 or similar?

[Driveway]

I am looking for reasonable, logical responses. I have yet to hear anyone give me a good reason why I should spend around $1k for an AR-15 or the like. (I have considered M1A's though.) I've been asking this for several years. Now since the elections and the recent tragedies, the AR has been on the hotseat. Some of this is in response to various news media commentaries, of which critical thinking and respect for those whose opinions differ from theirs is lacking.

I have a number of guns. I live in bush Alaska where basically everyone has at least one gun. I've swayed peoples opinion from being rather anti-gun to where they were soon asking me for more range time. I've lived on the East coast and in the Mid-west, now Alaska. I've seen lots of perspectives.Sure, AR-15's are cool. If someone gave me one, I wouldn't turn around and sell it right away. But why do I have to own one? What benefit would it do to have one around? (I actually think the .223 is a little under powered.) Why not restrict them like full auto's? They DO make it very easy for an untrained person to cause a lot of problems.

Yeah, there's the argument about, "well if they take those, the next step is all guns." When were full auto guns restricted? The 30's? Al Capone and friends maybe? What if they put AR's into a similar category? It's not impossible to get a full auto, you just have to want it enough. How about giving everyone grenades/grenade launchers? Rockets? Artillery? Tanks? Fighter/bombers? Where do you draw the line? I know I don't want to have grenades running around everywhere like pistols are nowadays. You hunting deer with that grenade? Or maybe you're fishing.... "No I'm keeping it to lob at the cops who come to take my guns." (Please note sarcasm.) I fully recognize that the 2nd Amendment is not about hunting, but about keeping arms in the hands of the citizens, but where is the line?

I also recognize that banning or restricting guns is only trying to cure a symptom, and is not fixing the real problem. Here's an article from when they had the guys running around VA and MD taking pot shots at random people. Not too far from where I grew up, and in fact, I know one of the shooting locations quite well.

My viewpoint might be different than many of you, and that's fine, you don't have to agree with me. I will be happy to hear you and answer questions, but please, let's act like responsible, courteous citizens of a country that gives us room to disagree and discuss very emotionally and politically charged topics.

 

[TAKtical]

What are you asking exactly? Are you really suggesting that it would be a good idea to restrict AR's in the same manner that full autos are restricted?

 

[Solo]

I have yet to hear anyone give me a good reason why I should spend around $1k for an AR-15 or the like.

You shouldn't. A good AR-15 should cost no more than $800.

 

[BLB68]

If you don't want an AR, then don't get an AR. Kindly leave the option open for everyone else.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

Legally registered machineguns from 1934 National Firearms Act on, totaling 128,000 or so by 1986 were not a crime or law enforcement problem.

Then the Democrats to "poison pill" the 1986 Firearms Owners Protection Act which removed some of the 1968 Gun Control Act restrictions on ordinary guns and lawful gun ownwers tacked on the Hughes Amendment last minute no vote closing the NFA registry to new machineguns.

Why should I not expect the anti-gunners to do the same to semi-automatics? Get us to agree to a NFA registry scheme then pull a Hughes Amendment style end game?

And the camel's nose under the tent ain't just sniffing at ARs and AKs. The New Jersey Assault Weapon Ban labelled the Marlin Model 60 an assault rifle.

 

[Pilot]

The AR-15 is an accuarate, reliable rifle capable of self defense, hunting reasonably sized game, target shooting, and competition depending on configuration. It is a very versatile rifle in either carbine or full length. It is low recoil, easy to shoot well, with very good ergonomics.

There is no reason for you to get one other than if you see value in the platform for whatever uses you want. It is no more dangerous than other semi-automatic rifle, but bears a stigma because it cosmetically resembles a full auto capable military rifle.

While I would feel well armed with a lever action, pump action or even a bolt action rifle. I prefer the AR-15 for an all around rifle for many of the factors listed above. Plus it is just fun to shoot at the range.

 

[76shuvlinoff]

... Because you want one is a good enough reason, if you don't then no reason is good enough. Freedom is being able to enjoy life.

 

[Isaac-1]

The problem is even if you feel an AR is not legit for sporting use (as if that should matter) that there is an awfully slippery slope from an AR to a Browning BAR or Remington 750, they are what maybe a bit heavier, beyond that most of the differences are minor and mostly cosmetic, from there based on the "sporting" idea you quicky reach the somewhat British idea of single shot rifles and over and under shotguns being the only "sporting" guns...


Or taking a different approach:
On the topic of these occasional mass shootings, I have yet to hear of one where an AR, or other semi auto rifle was likely more effective than a Remington 870 or other pump shotgun, or even semi-auto shotgun would have been, as they almost all seem to happen at fairly short ranges with shooting dozens of people over several minutes, therefore loosing one of the major advantages an AR might have over a shotgun, so if and when the AR's are gone the next likely available choice to the nut cases out there will be pump shotguns, which the anti's will say must go next...

 

[Pilot]

If there were zero firearms available, criminals and crazies would just use IED's or something else. Look at Timothy McVeigh. He killed mmore kids than in Newtown, but the media didn't react like now because they are not anti-bomb, just anti gun.

 

[md2lgyk]

I don't own an AR simply because I don't want one. I carried an M16 for a lot of years, and that's enough "black rifle" for me. But anyone who does want one should be able to buy one.

 

[Bob2222]

They DO make it very easy for an untrained person to cause a lot of problems.

Not really. If it were, the AR would be favored by urban gangsters, and it's not.

It's not awfully easy to conceal a rifle, and rifles are used in very few homicides. According to FBI statistics, of 12,664 homicides in the USA in 2011, 323 were committed with rifles (all types of rifles, not just "assault rifles").

496 homicides were committed with blunt objects (clubs, hammers, etc.) and 728 with personal weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc.).

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/uc...s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8

The AR is so well liked because it's an ergonomically fine design, and it's fun to shoot.

 

[itchy1]

AR-15 is about as versatile as it gets. Adjustable stocks, optics, and a bazillion other accesories means that a person can highly customize their rifle the way they want to. Few other platforms if any offer such a high level of personalization.

 

[M-Cameron]

But why do I have to own one?

This is America, you dont have to own anything.......

hell, as far as rifles go, i personally dont even like the AR-15.....

and if im going to be honest, i personally am most likely not even going to be effected be any new regulations (1. because i live in MA and we already have a mag limit and AWB, and 2. because my interests are .22 match rifles, revolvers, and black powder)........

that still hasnt stopped me from petitioning to prevent another national AWB

 

[Carl N. Brown]

Why an AR? Civilian Marksmanship Practice, primarily in case of a call for volunteers in a national emergency.

Also the generation familiarized with guns in the military tend to want for civilian use a gun they don't have to relearn the operation and safety drill they already are familiar with, whether it was lever-actions after the Civil War, bolt actions after WWI, semi-autos after WWII, or ARs today.

.223 in civilian hunting loads for woodchuck 45 52 or 55gr are light for deer which is why many states don't allow .223 for deer.

But cartridges firing 60 to 70gr bullets at 3,000 fps are used in several European red deer rifles, and the 5.56 NATO ARs are rifled for the heavier bullets. I helped butcher two deer shot with .223/5.56mm AR, each one shot through the shoulder and spine, and except for the small entry, the damage was what I expect to seen from a .30-30 150gr hollowpoint. For whitetail deer the AR .223/5.56mm with the right bullet is a deerslayer.

 

[Apple a Day]

But why do I have to own one?

You don't. That's one huge difference between pro- and anti- gun people. We think you should have the choice because it's not about that you have, it's how the person uses it.

They DO make it very easy for an untrained person to cause a lot of problems.

No, not really. If you look at the Colorado theater shooting and the mall incident they both had ARs... and they both jammed. As for the Conneticut incident the psycho could have used a simple shotgun or just a pistol and gotten the same effect. Considering that it was him versus a bunch of UNARMED elementary school teachers and little kids it absolutely didn't matter what kind of gun he had.

When were full auto guns restricted? The 30's? Al Capone and friends maybe? What if they put AR's into a similar category?

Before 1935 you could walk down to the local hardware store and buy a full-auto Thompson submachine gun or order one from a cataloge. No background check, no restrictions. Yet you didn't see these mass shootings of innocent people. What changed? The guns? Nope. A semi-auto AR isn't any more deadly than a full auto Tommy gun. Society changed. People changed. If you want to fix the problem then ADDRESS the problem. Everything else is whistling past the graveyard.

 

[boatmanschneider]

In the Army I used the M16/A1, A4 and the M4. They are light and handy, reliable and easy to shoot.

If I were to buy a gun only for myself, I would have bought a GSR, M1a or Garand. But I wanted a gun the whole family would enjoy shooting. Something, light, handy, reliable and easy to shoot.

We bought an ultralight composite, pencil barrel AR(wow, it is ugly). My wife shot 30 rounds and she liked it so much we went out and bought a high quality AR. She has fired all her dads hunting rifles and this is her favorite. She is now interested in shooting rifles, she enjoys it as much as her pistol.

 

[G.barnes]

It's how America is now. People do things and then try to talk about how it's not their fault for whatever reason. Or when some thing happens and we have to blame an inanimate object rather than focus on the people who do the act. It's not anyone's responsability to protect you but you. Waiting for some cop to show up and save is stupid and insane and I don't feel bad for people who don't make they have a way to protect themselves. How can they take away people's rights at a school and then not even make safety measures to protect the people. We should make a section of the country that no guns of any kind are allowed. Then all the anti gun people can live there with no crime or violence. The ar is no different than many guns we have now that originated as a military weapon bolt action or semi auto. Looks should not determine legality of something. Should you get a ticket because your car looks fast. I'm sure almost everyone with a small collection has at least one gun that could be called a weapon of war.

 

[Hacker15E]

Nobody should have to convince you to buy anything.

Likewise, no American citizen should have to convince others why they want to own something.

 

[rbernie]

For some folk, they make really good hunting guns - the one is the pic is chambered in 7.62x39.

 

[beatledog7]

This is America, you dont have to own anything.......

Except health insurance. Chief Justice Roberts says so.

 

[Pilot]

Should you get a ticket because your car looks fast?

Wow, that is a great anology. Mind if I use it elsewhere?

As others have said it is all about the current will of society to avoid personal responsibility, and accountability due to the prevailing thoughts since the 1960's that it is all society's fault and not the indvidual enabling poor conduct and selfish, and often violent behavior.

It is behavior we must address, not the tool.

 

[Isaac-1]

OK, an AR is not the right gun for everyone, just like everyone does not need a pick up truck, or a mini van, but for some people it is the right primary choice, or even the right secondary choice, yet for others it would just sit there and almost never be used, this should have nothing to do with the right to own one. Can you imagine the public outcry if in the name of the enviroment that anyone that wanted to own a large pick up truck must prove a need for it?

 

[303tom]

You can get these AR`s for right around $500.00 in 7.5 French or 7.62 NATO...............
https://www.libertytreecollectors.com/productcart/pc/viewPrd.asp?idproduct=2131&idcategory=2

 

[Bushpilot]

But why do I have to own one? What benefit would it do to have one around? (I actually think the .223 is a little under powered.) Why not restrict them like full auto's? They DO make it very easy for an untrained person to cause a lot of problems.

No one (except for the "antis") cares whether you own an AR or not. I also don't care to convince you or any one else that they should own an AR. However, when gun owners like yourself take a wishy-washy stand on which guns are politically correct or socially acceptable and which aren't it opens the door for many other guns to be to considered unacceptable in the future. "Untrained persons" causing "problems"??? HUH??? They are CRIMINALS, not "untrained persons"!!! AR's aren't the problem. Criminals committing crimes are the problem!!! The fact that you and the Anti-gunners don't seem to comprehend is that basically AR 15's really differ only in appearance from many other more "traditional" guns, whose function/purpose you seem to feel is more acceptable. Most of all, "We" as gun owners should not need to justify, explain or rationalize owning guns, or anything else that is a Constitutional right. Unless a persons past behavior has proven them unworthy, they should be able to legally own any type of firearm they choose....

If you don't want an AR, then don't get an AR. Kindly leave the option open for everyone else.

BLB68 +1

 

[Derek Zeanah]

I don't expect a reply, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here.

But why do I have to own [an AR]?

You don't. Buy what you like, ignore what you don't.

What benefit would it do to have one around?

ARs are becoming (are?) America's most popular rifle for a few reasons:

• Easy to shoot. Compare the recoil on an AR-15 with the recoil on an M1 Garand with its larger cartridge and steel baseplate and you'll get this one quickly. Especially if you decide to shoot a few hundred rounds in a day. They're not intimidating for new shooters.
• Solid ergonomics. The controls are easy to reach and work well. It's easy to mount an optic on an AR, and most modern versions come prepped for that. If you want to hang all kinds of do-dads from it then you can do that too. Lots of rail space.
• Multi-caliber is easy. You can go from .22LR to .50 BMG on the same lower (and therefore the same firearm) if you like. If you've got a setup you like for home defense, and another you like for prairie dog hunting, it takes less than a minute to swap out. This makes a lot of sense for many people.
• Less dangerous that a shotgun or handgun for home defense. With the right ammo, there's a strong argument to be made that misses in a home defense situation place your neighbors in less peril than a 9mm. The bullet gets destabilized, snaps at the cannelure, and loses its ability to penetrate, so a few thicknesses of sheet rock stop penetration risk.

None of these might apply to you, but they are compelling arguments for lots of shooters.

(I actually think the .223 is a little under powered.)

Then get one in .243, .308, or one of the 6.5mm chamberings.

Why not restrict them like full auto's? They DO make it very easy for an untrained person to cause a lot of problems.

They also make it easy for minimally trained folks to defend their home and family. It takes more time to learn to run a 12 gauge shotgun well than it does an AR, and poses a greater risk from overpenetration to your family and neighbors. Why would you expose people to that?

When were full auto guns restricted? The 30's?

The National Firearms Act was '34.

How about giving everyone grenades/grenade launchers? Rockets? Artillery? Tanks? Fighter/bombers? Where do you draw the line? I know I don't want to have grenades running around everywhere like pistols are nowadays. You hunting deer with that grenade? Or maybe you're fishing.... "No I'm keeping it to lob at the cops who come to take my guns." (Please note sarcasm.) I fully recognize that the 2nd Amendment is not about hunting, but about keeping arms in the hands of the citizens, but where is the line?

What do you think the second amendment is about then?

I'd argue that in modern terms, the second amendment is the reset switch on the constitution. It allows the populace to say "this government has gone too far, demands too much, is too tyrannical," and do something about it.

Do you think that grenades, rockets, and artillery would be useful if it ever comes down to that?

Do you think the restrictions on grenades prevent hand grenade violence? Google "pipe bomb instructions" and you'll see just how easy it is to manufacture your own explosive devices. Elementary school kids can do it (don't ask me how I know.) It's not expensive. The Columbine shooters apparently detonated a homemade explosive to distract the police, and had a number placed around school that they ended up not using. Tim McVeigh turned a U-Haul into a big rolling bomb by purchasing fertilizer and diesel fuel.

The world is full of devices that can be used to cause mayhem and destruction, provided one reasonably intelligent man is devoted to it. Cheap, easy, anonymous -- much more frightening than an AR. And much easier in today's Internet era than it was two decades ago.

Why focus on the AR? The most deadly school massacre in history used explosives, after all...

Here's an article from when they had the guys running around VA and MD taking pot shots at random people. Not too far from where I grew up, and in fact, I know one of the shooting locations quite well.

Actually they were driving around, were completely anonymous, and were taking single shots with iron sights on a .223. A 50 year old scoped deer rifle would have been more dangerous.