AR-15s

[Beest]

I read the article, I just see wants and not needs.
In any picture of hunting I have seen, they are not shooting assault rifles.
I understand they are a bad choice for home defense because of over penetration, you miss the target and my shoot someone through the walls in the next room or outside.
Also any gun owner I know does not own one gun they reconfigure for different purposes, they own several, each suited for it's task.

I came to a realization recently after many years of playing paintball, that what a lot of people like about it is the shooting, pulling the trigger , feeling the action, seeing the splat, actually shooting people in a game was only an excuse to do that, many are happy to blast away on a range.

If you want to own an AR15 because it's fun to shoot and you like buying matching accessories for it (they call it tacticool in paintball, fairly useless accessories that just look cool) don't try and justify it as a need, people play Golf, but they don't need to.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Beest

I read the article, I just see wants and not needs.

He admits in the comment section he used Need in the title as click bait, because so many gun opponents claim nobody should own a gun because nobody needs a gun.

In any picture of hunting I have seen, they are not shooting assault rifles.

Possibly because there is no such thing as an assault rifle, that's a title the press made up for any rifle that's black and dressed up with military looking gingerbread. Many seem to use AR-15 interchangeably, and have the impression they are full auto. The asshole in Orlando used a Sig Sauer not an AR-15.
Many people hunt with an AR-15 because they are reliable and accurate, they just aren't all duded up. Most places it's illegal to hunt with a high capacity magazine, but they would just be a hindrance anyway.

I understand they are a bad choice for home defense because of over penetration, you miss the target and my shoot someone through the walls in the next room or outside.

You are misinformed, the AR-15 is no less suitable for home defense than any other gun. The choice of ammunition is critical, as a .22, .38, or 9mm will go through walls unless you buy frangible ammo. Personally I prefer a shotgun for chores around the house.

Also any gun owner I know does not own one gun they reconfigure for different purposes, they own several, each suited for it's task.

I agree, but what he said was in choosing a gun for each specific need want, there are multiple options and one option is the reliable AR-15 you're familiar with, optioned/configured for that specific task.

I came to a realization recently after many years of playing paintball, that what a lot of people like about it is the shooting, pulling the trigger , feeling the action, seeing the splat, actually shooting people in a game was only an excuse to do that, many are happy to blast away on a range.

Sure, the boner factor is always in play, that, and the satisfaction of improving your skill, explains target shooters that never hunt.

If you want to own an AR15 because it's fun to shoot and you like buying matching accessories for it (they call it tacticool in paintball, fairly useless accessories that just look cool) don't try and justify it as a need.

The need may come as needing physical outlet or hobby to keep you sane but it doesn't have to be guns.

...people play Golf, but they don't need to.

Whoa Nellie, just a damn minute ya commie, if people didn't play golf the golf courses would go broke, then the accessory makers, fertilizer companies and water companies would have profits slashed. That's heresy, that's anti-business, that's unpatriotic.

[tw]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

He admits in the comment section he used Need in the title as click bait, because so many gun opponents claim nobody should own a gun because nobody needs a gun.

Almost nobody says that. That statement is same emotion that justifies a 'need'.

If we need AR-15s, than all must also have bazookas and 155mm howizters. Since those are also 'needed'. At what point does something become excessive? Never discussed because 'need' (an emotion) trumps logical thought.

Everyone (virutally) says many need guns. But not guns that are only for killing people. That AR-15 (that comes under many names) is only for killing people. It is not even acceptable as a hunting rifle. And clearly not for sportsmen - unless your sport is mass murder.

What need is created by bullets that travel for thousands of feet?

Well a hunter in Allentown was hunting with that type of gun. He shot a pregnant woman in her driveway because he bullets traveled thousands of feet. At trial, he so needed that gun as to even refuse to apologize to the woman he shot. He refused even when asked by a reporter. That is the need.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by tw

Almost nobody says that. That statement is same emotion that justifies a 'need'.

That statement shows you are clearly out of touch with reality.

If we need AR-15s, than all must also have bazookas and 155mm howizters. Since those are also 'needed'. At what point does something become excessive? Never discussed because 'need' (an emotion) trumps logical thought.

There is no "we". I don't speak for you. You, despite your delusions of grandeur, don't speak for me. If you feel you need a bazooka then you're confirming your disconnect with the subject.

Everyone (virutally) says many need guns. But not guns that are only for killing people. That AR-15 (that comes under many names) is only for killing people. It is not even acceptable as a hunting rifle. And clearly not for sportsmen - unless your sport is mass murder.

That shows your virtual reality is created on misinformation and emotional hyperbole. Hmm... sort of like a child's fantasies.

What need is created by bullets that travel for thousands of feet?

You really should read before writing, kid.

Well a hunter in Allentown was hunting with that type of gun.

What exactly is "that type of gun"? Do you mean a semiautomatic rifle?

He shot a pregnant woman in her driveway because he bullets traveled thousands of feet. At trial, he so needed that gun as to even refuse to apologize to the woman he shot. He refused even when asked by a reporter. That is the need.

There was a drunk driver in MI last week who killed five people on bicycles with his truck. Should we outlaw trucks? Bicycles? MI? Driving? How about drunk driving? Oh, wait, we already did. How about against shooting people? Oh, wait, we did that too.
Since you're not part of the solution, that makes you part of the problem, boy.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

What exactly is "that type of gun"? Do you mean a semiautomatic rifle?
There was a drunk driver in MI last week who killed five people on bicycles with his truck. Should we outlaw trucks? Bicycles? MI? Driving? How about drunk driving?

It would be nice if guns and shooting were as regulated as cars and driving.

[xoxoxoBruce]

The only fault I find with that is the hoge poge of conflicting laws and regulations across the country. Some places you need high and low beams, turn signals, clearance lights, tail and brake lights, and license plate light. In another you need one tail light, period. The only way to avoid that is uniform federal laws, and that leads to the state's rights quagmire.

One year I bought a lever action .22 rifle as a Christmas present for a friend in New Jersey. I gave it to him and he took it home, no problem. I'd hate to see the red tape and expense of requiring us both go to a dealer, pay for a transfer, and arrange for an interstate transport permit. But that's what would happen if they tried to outlaw back alley Saturday night special sales. The irony is it would be a big hassle for me, and have no effect on the back alley deals at all.

One of the main reasons people are disgusted with the feds is they pass laws to do something good, but the collateral damage is intolerable.

For example, back home there is a river through the center of town, less than a hundred feet wide, less than three feet deep and moving pretty slowly in it's normal state. A guy living next to it had a lawn down to it with a couple trees along the edge. A storm blew one of the trees down and it fell into the river but still attached to the stump, so he yanked it out and cut it up for firewood.
The environmental cops fined him $10,000 because of some federal law to regulate loggers in the west.

That shit, and the current state of congress/politics creates a solid distrust of anything the feds do.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

One year I bought a lever action .22 rifle as a Christmas present for a friend in New Jersey. I gave it to him and he took it home, no problem. I'd hate to see the red tape and expense of requiring us both go to a dealer, pay for a transfer, and arrange for an interstate transport permit.

I wouldn't. If you buy a car as a gift, you have to do the title transfer.