Good Reason To Have An AR-15

[Roadrider]

Of course:

- whether you drive a Yugo or a Ferrari, you and the car both need a licence and (in many places) you have to get the car insured and inspected regularly.

- there are some cars (e.g. a Formula Vee or a Radical) that aren't legal for the road even though they're slower than a Ferrari.

And the point of your post is? be specific

 

[darkendless]

Did you cut off it's tail and grill it? it seems a delicacy among the Abos

Calling an Aboriginal an Abo is so terribly racist here FYI.

I do not eat native dog though, no.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Calling an Aboriginal an Abo is so terribly racist here FYI.

I do not eat native dog though, no.

Heh...you beat me to it on the racial thing.
I think he meant kangaroo tail, rather than dingo tail.

Kanga is readily available from any supermarket, but you'd probably find the tails in the pet food section. Kanga steaks are pretty good actually, and really healthy (extremely lean red meat). Gotta cut em thinner than beef, and eat them medium rare. Cook them well done, and you're chewing leather.

I've chowed down on cassowary as well, which is similar to emu, but I haven't actually done the 'eat the coat of arms' thing.

You can eat our country's 'Coat of Arms' this Australia Day | Sunshine Coast Daily

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

And the point of your post is? be specific

I'm just exploring the full implications of your analogy. Should firearms be treated like cars? If so, is an AR-15 more like a Ferrari (a legal fast car) or a Radical (an illegal fast car)?

And if not, then is your analogy relevant at all?

 

[McBell]

I'm just exploring the full implications of your analogy. Should firearms be treated like cars? If so, is an AR-15 more like a Ferrari (a legal fast car) or a Radical (an illegal fast car)?

And if not, then is your analogy relevant at all?

Ferrari

 

[Roadrider]

I'm just exploring the full implications of your analogy. Should firearms be treated like cars? If so, is an AR-15 more like a Ferrari (a legal fast car) or a Radical (an illegal fast car)?

What you read into the car analogy is completely on you and says more about your perceptions and motives than what I wrote, I wonder what the "full implications" would have been had I used high and low end golf club brands as an example. My point is there is no need for anyone at any time to explain to anyone else why one would choose one legal product over another or why they want or need it if they are legally capable of owning it, it's a matter of personal choice. Do I need a machine gun? well of course I don't "need" one but if I want one and can meet the Class III weapons license requirements and can pay all the taxes and fees that go along with it that's between me and the BATF and no-one else (I don't have a class III, this is an example)

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

My point is there is no need for anyone at any time to explain to anyone else why one would choose one legal product over another or why they want or need it if they are legally capable of owning it, it's a matter of personal choice.

This discussion is about what should be legal. If you're arguing "I should be allowed to have one because it's legal", then you're either making a circular argument or seriously missing the point.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

This discussion is about what should be legal. If you're arguing "I should be allowed to have one because it's legal", then you're either making a circular argument or seriously missing the point.

Exactly....

 

[esmith]

Well maybe I wouldn't need a AR-15 if I had one of these. Kind of expensive though at around $2500.00

SRM 1216 12 Gauge Semi-Automatic Fighting Shotgun

 

[Roadrider]

This discussion is about what should be legal. If you're arguing "I should be allowed to have one because it's legal", then you're either making a circular argument or seriously missing the point.

I wasn't arguing anything, I was making a statement but thank you for clarifying your view although I already had an inkling of what you were getting at. My first question in any gun discussion is are the people discussing what should be legal and not legal fully knowledgeable of the function of firearms? anti-gun representatives didn't seem so knowledgeable during the Clinton years nor do they now, some seem like bumbling fools grasping for any perceived band-aid for the wound that is displeasing to their eyes and what will get them voted in next go around. I could buy an M203 grenade launcher to mount under an AR15 if I wanted to, what are your thoughts on that? (it's the same device Tony Montana used in the 1983 movie Scarface when he said "say hello to my little friend")

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I wasn't arguing anything, I was making a statement but thank you for clarifying your view although I already had an inkling of what you were getting at. My first question in any gun discussion is are the people discussing what should be legal and not legal fully knowledgeable of the function of firearms? anti-gun representatives didn't seem so knowledgeable during the Clinton years nor do they now, some seem like bumbling fools grasping for any perceived band-aid for the wound that is displeasing to their eyes and what will get them voted in next go around. I could buy an M203 grenade launcher to mount under an AR15 if I wanted to, what are your thoughts on that? (it's the same device Tony Montana used in the 1983 movie Scarface when he said "say hello to my little friend")

I think that you don't have any legitimate need for a grenade launcher, but I also think these fringe cases are distractions from the central issues: the gun violence problem is mainly about handguns and mainly about suicide. Proliferation of handguns is much more of a problem than "assault weapons" will ever be.

 

[Roadrider]

I think that you don't have any legitimate need for a grenade launcher

Do some "undercover" field research, find any gun shop owner anywhere in the U.S. that will sell you AP or HE rounds for an M203 grenade launcher and give me a call if you score some. What is legally available is chalk marking rounds but give me a call anyway even though I would know such a business would be under government surveillance, or should be

 

[Roadrider]

I am curious as to how some parrots responsed

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Do some "undercover" field research, find any gun shop owner anywhere in the U.S. that will sell you AP or HE rounds for an M203 grenade launcher and give me a call if you score some. What is legally available is chalk marking rounds but give me a call anyway even though I would know such a business would be under government surveillance, or should be

I'm just an interested lurker really. Couple of things...
I'm no gun expert, but I have a fair bit of military literature, including handguns and assault rifles. I'd have to admit, most of it is circa 2000 and earlier, since the subject doesn't interest me as much now. Dunno if I count as a parrot or not...

I'm not American, either, so questions of availability, both legal and illegal are things I'm ignorant on.

But reading this I was trying to work out what you were arguing for. What is the point of being able to buy an M203?

In terms of availability, I did some quick reading. It was mentioned that it's possible to get a HE round for a 40mm launcher, but only if you get a Destructive Device permit for the round itself...

High Explosive Rounds
Yes, there is a legal way to own/purchase HE, however it counts as an individual DD. So a $200 tax stamp applies for each round that contains more than 1/4 ounce of explosive in the projectile, and or more than ??? oz propellant. This separate DD tax only includes these rounds, all other rounds i.e. blue-tip practice rounds do not require a separate NFA tax. You must also have an inspected explosives storage magazine. It's way too much trouble requiring multiple licenses, and is basically cost prohibitive.

37mm & 40mm Launcher FAQ - AR15.COM

I'm probably misunderstanding. American gun laws are (literally) foreign to me.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Howe exactly is it "much lower" though? How should we quantify it? They are all in the low single digits. Is it really meaningfull to use language like "it is twich as high" or "three times higher" when the absolute difference is only in the range of 2-3? When you get into small numbers, saying something is twice or three times larger tends to make things sound larger than they truly are. For example, say country A has a homicide rate of 0.5, and country B has one of 1.8. This means country B has a rate 3.6 times higher than A. Does B have a problem?

Whether it's a large number or a small number depends entirely on the arbitrary choice of what units you choose to use.

I know some posters here have compared Canada's rate to the US as an example that the US has a problem. Yet Canada has a murder rate that is over two and a half times larger than Austria, and over five times higher than Iceland. Does that mean Canada has a problem?

Sure... any murder is a problem. The question is how significant it is relative to other problems.

Going by these stats, if the US managed to reduce its homicide rate by 50%, it would mean that an additional 2.35 people per 100,000 per year would not be murdered. OTOH, if Canada reduced its homicide rate by 50%, we'd only save an additional 0.8 people per 100,000 per year.

And I might be going out on a limb here, but it seems to me that the lower the homicide rate, the more difficult it would be to lower it. With a high rate, the "quick win" measures are often apparent. When the rate is lower, it's the more difficult or less obvious steps that remain to be done.

... which, again, doesn't mean that murder isn't a problem in Canada, just that the priority should be proportional to the magnitude of the problem.

 

[Apex]

Whether it's a large number or a small number depends entirely on the arbitrary choice of what units you choose to use.

The absolute magnitude of a number is not dependent upon what units you use to represent it.

Sure... any murder is a problem. The question is how significant it is relative to other problems.

Going by these stats, if the US managed to reduce its homicide rate by 50%, it would mean that an additional 2.35 people per 100,000 per year would not be murdered. OTOH, if Canada reduced its homicide rate by 50%, we'd only save an additional 0.8 people per 100,000 per year.

So that 0.8 people is not worth it?

And I might be going out on a limb here, but it seems to me that the lower the homicide rate, the more difficult it would be to lower it. With a high rate, the "quick win" measures are often apparent. When the rate is lower, it's the more difficult or less obvious steps that remain to be done.

... which, again, doesn't mean that murder isn't a problem in Canada, just that the priority should be proportional to the magnitude of the problem.

But, again, Iceland has shown you that it is possible to reduce your homicide rate by another 5x. So shouldn't you be doing everything possible to get there? At least, that is the general feeling we have been getting from the anti-gun crowd here. Canada has a much lower rate than the US. Thus the US must do everything, up to and including outright bans, to equal our neighbors to the north.

No thought seems to go into the fact that the US may have other differences (cultural, gang, etc.) that make matching Canada's homicide rate extremely difficult, if not impossible.

 

[Revoltingest]

But, again, Iceland has shown you that it is possible to reduce your homicide rate by another 5x. So shouldn't you be doing everything possible to get there? At least, that is the general feeling we have been getting from the anti-gun crowd here. Canada has a much lower rate than the US. Thus the US must do everything, up to and including outright bans, to equal our neighbors to the north.

I don't know why Iceland is better. But suppose it can be shown to be their small size, uniformity of culture, & nasty weather.
We can't readily convert Americastan into a bunch of blond haired frigid island dwelling Norsemen. Effective, fair & legal
legislation is a great thing, but it might not do as much as we want.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The absolute magnitude of a number is not dependent upon what units you use to represent it.

You made a big deal out of it being "only 2"... but this is when it's expressed in deaths per 100,000 population per year. If we choose to express the same value in units of deaths per million per decade, suddenly it's 200 (enormous!). If we do it in terms of deaths per person per day, it's only 0.0000000547 (tiny!).

So that 0.8 people is not worth it?

No, it means that the potential benefit of anti-murder measures is less in Canada than it is in the US. Combatting murder isn't the only way that we can reduce early death. The less benefit we would get from some anti-murder campaign, the less likely it is that it will be the best way available to save lives.

But, again, Iceland has shown you that it is possible to reduce your homicide rate by another 5x. So shouldn't you be doing everything possible to get there?

Sure... if homicide was the only thing killing people. If our concern is preventing early death, then we should be attacking a range of causes... and homicide is going to be lower on the priority list for Canada (overall - we do have our problem areas) than it is for the US.

At least, that is the general feeling we have been getting from the anti-gun crowd here. Canada has a much lower rate than the US. Thus the US must do everything, up to and including outright bans, to equal our neighbors to the north.

I think it's more that it seems inconsistent that you have approximately the same number of people die every year in car crashes as by firearms, but you (as a nation, anyhow) seem a lot more complacent about the firearm deaths than you do about the motor vehicle collision fatalities.

No thought seems to go into the fact that the US may have other differences (cultural, gang, etc.) that make matching Canada's homicide rate extremely difficult, if not impossible.

We have gangs, too. And firearm death is predominantly suicide, anyhow.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

In the past couple days I've seen three threads dealing with guns and laws receive activity...Why?....This country hasn't really done much about the subject and I suspect it won't in the future....(smh)

 

[CMike]

Answering the OP...

What you need is irrelevant in a democrat society.

We don't need the New York Times. Why don't we ban it? I find it offensive.

We don't need liberal new statations. How about we ban it?

We have the consitutional right to own an AR-15.

Now I can answer what benefits to own an AR-15

1) it's an excellent home defense gun. With frangible rounds it has less penetration than even a handgun.

2) It has tremendous amount of knock down power. If G-D forbid I am in a gun fight I don't want a fair fight. I want to have more firepower than the person shooting at me.

3) The 30 round capacity is very important. You can't have too much ammo. What if there are multiple attackers?

Shooting and hitting people that are moving in low light conditions is very difficult. We need as much ammo as we can get into the magazine. Reloading takes precious time.