Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: The AR-15, you don’t need one and they are too dangerous to own.

Posted 1 year ago on Jan. 23, 2013, 2:25 a.m. EST by livingston9 (-154)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

By Jorge Amselle

Sadly, so called “assault rifles” are getting a lot of negative press lately and are being subjected to a great deal of misinformation. This is not just coming from the usual anti-gun crowd, whom one would expect to lack knowledge about firearms and how they function, but also from supposedly knowledgeable gun owners and hunters, some of whom favor “reasonable” controls on firearms freedoms. Here are a few of the fallacies.

Why do you need that?

I need an AR primarily for self defense. Could I use another gun for self defense? Of course I could and the AR may not be the best firearm to use in all defensive situations. I could use a shotgun or a pistol, I could use a baseball bat or a knife, I could use a tennis racket, a golf club, my bare hands, or I could just try playing possum.

It is not a question of what I use to defend myself but my right and desire to have the best possible tool for the job at my disposal. I want a semi-automatic rifle with an adequate capacity magazine for the same reason the police want them; to be able to quickly and accurately engage multiple assailants should the need arise.

The caliber is too weak to use for hunting.

The AR is traditionally chambered in the 5.56x45mm NATO (interchangeable with the .223 Remington caliber) cartridge. The U.S. Military has been using this round as their primary rifle caliber for 50 years, through many wars and other interventions. If it was not effective we would not still have it. As with any firearm, the weight and type of bullet can be easily changed to deliver better performance and while not all loadings may be ideal for hunting, many are used on deer, feral hogs, coyote, and other game animals.

That does not even include the fact that the AR is the single most versatile rifle available. It can be converted to a muzzle loader for black powder, a crossbow for archery hunting, an air rifle, and can be adapted to fire over a dozen different rifle and pistol calibers. The design makes it easy to install optics and scopes, the collapsible stock allows the length to be adjusted so different statured shooters can comfortably use the same rifle. All of these features are why it is so popular.

These guns are too dangerous for people to own.

Ignoring the fact that semi-automatic rifles are used to commit only a tiny fraction of all gun crimes and that gun crimes overall have been declining for the past 20 years, the AR and other similar rifles are no more dangerous than any other firearm. The AR is semi-automatic and fires once each time the trigger is depressed, like a double-action revolver, or any pistol, or many other rifles and shotguns.

If you believe that the AR is too dangerous to own then there is no rational limit to what firearms you will find too dangerous next. Politicians have attacked firearms as too dangerous because they are too small and easy to conceal, too cheap and easy for poor people to buy, too accurate and usable and sniper weapons, too powerful and usable against vehicles. The list of “too dangerous” can easily be expanded to cover most any firearm and making every firearm “too dangerous” is exactly the real agenda.

32 Comments

32 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 4 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

That's what I like to hear. Words written by the former Public Affairs Director of ALEC.

Pffffttttt

[+] -5 points by livingston9 (-154) 1 year ago

Just read the persons name and off you googled to try and smear the messenger so you could completely ignore the message.

Good job,now do you intend to stay this ignorant the rest of your life also?

[-] 3 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

You're the dumb ass that was desperate enough to post another crybaby bs article from another ALEC imbecile. How is it my fault that you didn't pay attention to what the hell you were posting?

The only ignorance here is yours. Again.

[+] -4 points by bigjoe (-117) 1 year ago

Oh, my friend, we are behind enemy lines. The enemy is all around us and will not see the light. They seek not truth nor justice. They seek only to further control and rule us in the holy name of OWS. They profess love of mankind, but only if the masses bend to their will.

I have tried in vain to bring knowledge to the uneducated. Alas, they only want our guns, they only want our ability to defend ourselves from both tyranny and those who would harm us. They cover their ears and deny the truth that would free them from the dark side.

Good luck to you my friend. I’m am battle weary and must rest now. Keep the good fight so all can see we are truly free and will not go quietly into the night.

I will persevere, I will not listen to the lies and vile they spew upon us. I will keep my guns and stay a free man.

By the way, I prefer my AK. Not as finicky about ammo and dirt. Although an AR-10, in a .308 would be a nice addition.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

Drama Queen, much?

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by DKAtoday (27542) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

LOL - littletoe is such a whining shill.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

You know, guys are way more Drama Queens than women are.

I can see the back of his hand placed on his forehead and a deep sigh writing all that.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (27542) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

LOL ............. wait a sec ............. GF ....... I'm a guy ..... well ... point taken . . . . sigh ................

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

Well, I was glancing down the screen and said to myself: Did the man just say that he was deep behind enemy lines? For real?

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (27542) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

AHHhahaha - that was really funny - especially when he says that he is not against OWS/Occupy . . . nice that shills are so stupid - Hey?

[Removed]

[-] -3 points by livingston9 (-154) 1 year ago

" AR-10, in a .308"

Roger that,it would be most excellent.

Yes we are behind them enemy lines trying to enlighten the dim witted and dull of mind. Truly an arduous and thankless task.

Actually there are some,what seem like intelligent people here but they are propagandized and have never known anything other then lefty ideology and their minds are like closed steel traps.

[-] 2 points by DouglasAdams (90) 1 year ago

Not really! In understanding the government’s response to 911 terror attacks can any American trust the US government is acting in the best interest of American citizens? What more evidence do we need? The Constitution gave us the right to bear arms and it is the duty of every American to defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.

Confronting the 911 Evidence

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXNEslOqBp8

Another Explanation

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dUFHjk0i2L4

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

you can argue with opinions forever
but facts are facts & numbers are numbers
many countries have experimented with austerity - it failed
many countries have experimented with gun control and the numbers PROVE it worked


Some real 2011 / 2012 gun statistics:

Americans own almost half of all civilian owned guns in the world.
Per 100,000: America: 88,880 guns owned ; 2.97 homicides Per 100,000
Per 100,000: England.…: 6,200 guns owned ; 0.07 homicides Per 100,000
Per 100,000: Austrailia: 15,000 guns owned ; 0.14 homicides Per 100,000
Per 100,000: Canada…: 30,800 guns owned ; 0.51 homicides Per 100,000
Per 100,000: France….: 31,000 guns owned ; 0.06 homicides Per 100,000
Per 100,000: Japan……..: 1,000 guns owned ; 0.08 homicides Per 100,000
Per 100,000: Israel……..: 7,300 guns owned ; 0.90 homicides Per 100,000


http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/crime-stats/crime-statistics/period-ending-march-2012/rft-annual-trend-and-demographic-tables-2011-12.xls
The above link is to England police statistics - see table D19

Is the nra & its trolls claiming that we will fail, where England & Australia succeeded in reducing gun deaths substantially by legislation?


Statistics clearly prove that the number of guns adds to the risk of homicides.
More complex is the effect of gun laws and restrictions.

When Australia had a massacre in 1996 when 35 people were killed, gun laws were substantially strengthened and a major buy-back was instituted.
There has not been an incident in Australia since then.
Of course, they did not have the benefit of the nra.

In 2011, there were 11,000+ gun homicides in America
In 2011, there were 35 gun deaths in England

For 2011, the average Murder Rate in Death Penalty States was 4.7,
while the average Murder Rate of States without the Death Penalty was 3.1

For 2011, the murder rates were highest in red state regions:
Per 100,000: South 5.5 Midwest 4.5 West 4.2 Northeast 3.9

VERY IMPORTANT:
The 1994 gun "ban" did NOT ban assault weapons.
It banned the MANUFACTURE of assault weapons.

Scalia - yes that Scalia - has ruled the AR15s are NOT “protected” by Article 2

[+] -5 points by livingston9 (-154) 1 year ago

"many countries have experimented with gun control and the numbers PROVE it worked"

You mean like Hitler's Germany,..Stalin's Russia,...Mao Tze Tung,..Pol Pot,..Idi Amin????

I suppose if you're inclined to sympathize with despots you might believe gun control works.

If you stood with the 99% you would have a different perspective.

You're still using the faulty premise of comparing the US with any other country regardless of the obvious impotence of the argument.

You obviously didn't read the article,was it over your head?

So you just spammed your usual response.

btw, this article is full of facts about the AR-15. You might not want to acknowledge them or even have read them but non the less they are there.

I'm guessing your're just too closed minded and don't have the courage to go outside your already prejudiced opinion and world of gun fear.

[-] 4 points by Buttercup (1067) 1 year ago

'Hitler's Germany,..Stalin's Russia,...Mao Tze Tung,..Pol Pot,..Idi Amin' - logical fallacy. False equivalency. None of those places had a democracy to begin with.

You're using the very false equivalence that you accuse bensdad of using. I find no false equivalence in his argument. In fact, it's the opposite. His statistics cross different countries and cultures and their results are consistent. Which strengthens the argument. Not weakens it. The way his argument could be a false equivalence would be to try to equate the US with one country/culture that is very dissimilar to our own. Not consistent results across many. Besides, our culture is not so different from those countries, comparatively speaking, amongst all the countries on earth. England, Canada are arguably the two most similar countries to our own. So it's absolutely not a false equivalence.

[+] -4 points by livingston9 (-154) 1 year ago

The United States is, indeed, a republic, not a democracy. Accurately defined, a democracy is a form of government in which the people decide policy matters directly--through town hall meetings or by voting on ballot initiatives and referendums. A republic, on the other hand, is a system in which the people choose representatives who, in turn, make policy decisions on their behalf.

You can't even get that right so how can you begin to really understand the implications and ramifications of gun control on our freedoms and liberties?

You and bensdad are dead wrong about the whole thing,nothing but pseudo intellectual babble.

[-] 4 points by Buttercup (1067) 1 year ago

Your point about Hitler et al. is still a false equivalency.

I was using democracy in the general sense. As a way to distinguish from the totalitarian, facist, dictatorships that you attempt to equate to. I thought that was obvious.

Whether we try to equate those dictatorships in the general sense of 'democracy' or with a more precise definition of our form of government - a representative republic using democratic principles - your Hitler et al. reference is still a false equivalency.

And your description of 'republic' is wrong. A republic means 'of the people', latin for 'public matter'. A republic can use either a direct democracy form or a representative form. A better way to describe our form of government is 'representative republic'. So as not to be confused with other 'forms' of republics that are entirely possible.

And by the way, ballot initiatives and referendums are available at some state and local levels, in limited forms, for limited types of decisions. They are not available at the Federal level. So in the most strict sense of the idea of 'representative' government, there are some decisions at the state and local level that bypass representatives. In fact, the state of California has a very loose form of 'representation' by their state legislature. Many many decisions are made using direct democracy measures.

Would you like to discuss 'forms' of government and definitions some more? Have you read Plato's Republic?

Or would you like to try to refute the fact that your reference to Hitler's Gemany et al. is a false equivalency.

None of those places had a representative republic using democratic principles to begin with. They weren't exactly models of democracy even before the guns were seized. I would say, in most of those cases, the seizing of guns was a mere formality. By the time that happened, those countries were already firmly totalitarian, facist, dictatorships.

[-] -3 points by auargent (-600) 1 year ago

pseudo intellectual babble from psuedo intellectuals.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

I did read the article - It has nothing to refute the truth -
gun control in England & Australia cut gun deaths - Do you not believe the numbers?
Or uyou don't understand them?
How many of Obama's plans ( or mine ) are advocating TAKING guns?

[-] -3 points by livingston9 (-154) 1 year ago

Obama's plans are to take the AR-15 and AK-47 and the mags that are used by these semi-automatic rifles. You ARE advocating for "TAKING guns".

From: Ed Chenel, A police officer in Australia

Hi Yanks, I thought you all would like to see the real figures from Down Under.

It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by a new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by our own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars.

The first year results are now in: Australia-wide, homicides are up 6.2 percent, Australia-wide, assaults are up 9.6 percent; Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!

In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent.(Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not and criminals still possess their guns!)

While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since the criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed. There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the elderly, while the resident is at home.

Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in 'successfully ridding Australian society of guns....' You won't see this on the American evening news or hear your governor or members of the State Assembly disseminating this information.

The Australian experience speaks for itself. Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws affect only the law-abiding citizens.

Take note Americans, before it's too late! Will you be one of the sheep to turn yours in? WHY? You will need it.

[-] 3 points by Buttercup (1067) 1 year ago

Your reference to the short term statistics in Australia is 15 years outdated. It has been 15 years since their assault weapons ban.

In the decade prior to Australia's assault weapons ban there were a dozen mass murders. In the 15 years since their weapons ban there have been zero mass murders.

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/gun-control-in-australia/

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

Please quote me
EXACTLY where did I say take guns ?
I stated - and proved AU & GB gun deaths declined substantially since their new laws were passed.
I did NOT bring up the issue of overall crime.
Honestly, it is not an issue I know much about and it is
not a key issue in Washington today.

[-] -1 points by livingston9 (-154) 1 year ago

"it is not a key issue in Washington today."

I completely disagree. It is a major issue. The MSM would have us believe otherwise but it is.

You've posted tirelessly about new regulations,fines,insurance and more restrictions on the right to bear arms then anybody on this site.

You're just not good at connecting the dots.

All that you advocate for is nothing more then another nail in the coffin of the 2nd Amendment. This is simple.

Anymore "gun control" tips the scale in favor of national private gun confiscation. You may not be able to see the big picture,but that's why I'm spending time trying to convince you of the error of your ways.

We,as free Americans are at the point that if the gun grabbers are successful it will mean the beginning of the end of this free republic.

That is the big picture. Live in denial at your own peril.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

Please quote me EXACTLY where did I say take guns ?
I stated - and proved AU & GB gun deaths declined substantially since their new laws were passed.

Do you have the courage to show where I made that statement?
Or why you don't believe the statistics on gun deaths?


Yes - I agree - it is much easier to attack me - in stead of attacking the truth.

[-] -2 points by livingston9 (-154) 1 year ago

Okay,so you don't care if a semi-automatic AR-15 with 30 round magazines are commercially available to the public without anymore regulations or restrictions then are in place currently?

You're completely fine with all the current gun laws and regulations and you don't believe any new laws or bans are required?

So all your other post's about enacting more insurance regulations,laws and financial jihad against current gun owners and future gun owners was just a hiccup?

Well, what the hell are we wasting time here for?

You should know that anybody can pull up "statistics" to bolster their point of view regardless of authenticity and accuracy.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

So Mr. Anybody - pull up a statistic that increasing gun ownership decreased gun deaths substantially.

Which of my statistics are not accurate?

[-] -1 points by livingston9 (-154) 1 year ago

Read this,since you're so adamant about statistic BS and you've lost the ability to google.

http://people.duke.edu/~gnsmith/articles/myths.htm

" increasing gun ownership decreased gun deaths "

Your premise is false (as usual).

I've never claimed that would be the case.

Gun deaths are irrelevant as long all the people dying are the Perps and criminals.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

Loved the link - especially the last two lines
Copyright October 1994, NRA Institute for Legislative Action.
This is the electronic version of the "10 Myths of Gun Control" brochure distributed by NRA.


I prefer to believe the published statistics rather than the nra crazies

[-] -2 points by livingston9 (-154) 1 year ago

Hoping you learned something from it. A very informative document,seems you've been a victim of many of these myths yourself. You'll come around eventually.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

when I believe the wayne lapierre - alex jones claptrap,
please let me out of my straight jacket

[-] 2 points by peacehurricane (293) 1 year ago

We do know this- no matter who does what or how the guns will not be removed from the citizens of this country no1 it would make no country no2 Oh that's it personally I have faced death everyday since at 13 I knew the C.I.A. would one day want to kill me and since God has seen to otherwise everything is just fine. I do not need any stinking gun however this country allows them theirs. Now what is a reasonable possibility : Get rid of ALL guns which would require our military branches and police to turn over the peoples arms and then ask the citizens again and they would decide until then it is what it is and the military/police have a much higher death toll than all the citizens since the country was born probably just last year.Defense: guard from attack- keep from harm!

[-] -3 points by auargent (-600) 1 year ago

Waste of time using facts when these people have an agenda that they will never deviate from.