Educate me on the AR-15

It looks scary.

/thread

There's a reason the military and all these mass shooters use it. It's an awesome rifle. I have 2 of them myself. Highly recommend if you're in the market.

There was a very good thread on this on the OB. I recommend going there for serious answers or go search for the thread already on it.

That's a typical left argument (No one needs these guns).

No one needs a corvette, Porsche, or Lamborghini either...I mean it's just a car, right...gets you from point A to Point B?

The gun does not do damage at all, and it's a poor blunt force trauma weapon if used. The .223/5.56 NATO round does the same amount of damage if it came out of a Ruger Mini 14 or bolt action rifle.

They are likely to argue the magazine capacity...and why people need 20-30 rounds. A simple answer is feral hog hunting in many states allows larger capacity magazines.

Bottom line: The 2nd Amendment doesn't say the "The NEED to keep and bear arms"...it says the "The RIGHT to keep and bear arms".

The NFA of 1934 states which types of weapons civilians have the right to keep and bear (for example a civilian without the proper stamp can not have a rocket launcher/bazooka...and then I'd think even if they do have the right to collect/display..it has to be rendered harmless).

Sounds like you need to find some new friends. I'm available for lunch.

quote:

---

One of my friends said (and I’m quoting her not me) that if you hunt with it it maims the animal so much you can’t eat it? That cannot possibly be true, any more so than any other kind of rifle???

---

No, it doesn't "Maim" any more than other rounds. It's less "lethal" against bigger game than other rounds though for sure.

I thought that was accurate. But I’m not a hunter.

Liberals are truly hysterical.

quote:

---

Wednesday

---

It is very recognizable and many people can associate what they hear as verbatim to the platform. It is no different than a Ruger Mini-14, an SKS, or the AK (the list goes on, SCAR, G36C, etc) but you never hear anything about those. The bore size of a .223 is actually just slightly bigger than a common squirrel gun, the .22cal (granted, there is a good bit more powder and a few grains more behind the .223). The .223 round is actually a terrible round. Many servicemen hate the round because it doesnt have a lot of "Stopping power" force behind it. You can watch videos on youtube of soldiers complaining that they have to shoot people multiple times with the .223. AK47 actually have slightly heavier bullets which typically do more damage.

My biggest gripe about the gun ban debate is that nobody actually has facts and they're just regurgitating what they hear. That is a terrible way to have an "open conversation." They're attacking this one now because it's very common and will usher in the next round of bans.

quote:

---

I am curious, because I legitimately do not know. Is there some characteristic about this type of gun that makes it any more dangerous than any other type of rifle? If so. What is that specifically?

I am particularly interested in hearing the answer to this question from people who want to ban or otherwise restrict these guns.

I had a conversation this morning with 2 friends of mine who gave me the “nobody needs” this type of gun. And it’s somehow more dangerous/does more damage than other types of guns. Frankly I dont believe that either one knew what the hell they were talking about. Any gun can be used to kill people.

---

Try this. Take the argument as you presented it and as your friends did and remove all emotional responses, phrases and aspects.

Now what is left of that argument? Any facts?

Define "more dangerous/does more damage".