No, it’s just about the least-powerful rifle that can potentially be deadly, in the right hands.
Hey, if you are enough of a toolbag to dutifully turn in your rifles when the gov’t demands it (don’t trust yourself with them?), more power to you. I sure as hell wouldn’t voluntarily turn in my firearms under just about any conceivable circumstances.
I know my abilities and know that I cannot effectively defend myself with a bat or a golf club. I also know from firsthand experience that locks are really effective for keeping honest people honest, but not very effective at all against someone determined to enter my home, or anyone else’s home.
Partly as a collector’s item, because it is actually a fairly old rifle and it has some historical value, but mostly because I enjoy target shooting with it.
You might as well also investigate why an accountant would need/want a Samurai sword or a high-powered computer with broadband Internet. People have interests and hobbies, and you’re not required to understand mine for me to enjoy them.
You could ask the same question of stamp collectors or car collectors. What does Jay Leno do with all of his cars?
If you think of it, target shooting (which is what I use my AR-15 for – not competitive, but just “plinking”) breaks down to this: You try to put a projectile in a certain place. In golf, you try to put a projectile in a certain place. Same thing, really. (So why don’t I like golf?) Why an AR-15? For me, I appreciate the history behind the firearms. Also, I like not having to reload after every five rounds. (Conversely, I enjoy the “ritual” of loading a muzzleloading Colt 1851 revolver.) If you ask about AR-15s, then you’ll have to ask about handguns eventually. Why do I have a Smith & Wesson Model 10 with a two-inch barrel? Because I collect flight gear, and this gun was issued to flight crews. It’s just as much a part of the collection as the LPU, G-suit, parachute harness, survival kit (with issue contents), helmet, oxygen mask, etc. The collection wouldn’t be complete without it.
There seems to be a perception that guns can only be used for A) hunting, B) self-defense, or C) going on killing rampages. None of my guns are for defense. I don’t hunt. I’m not going to go on a killing spree.
I can see how that might have been necessary a couple of hundred years ago but that it is still used now is insane.
In actual fact, I could have kept the rifles that where in my possesion and even bought more after the laws had changed because I still did contract work to an organisation that controlled feral animals, I handed them over because I didn’t need them/want them and thought the law was a good idea.
You dickhead :rolleyes:
Why are there so many firearms in th US? Because you can have them due to the constitution?
Doesn’t anyone think that this may be the reason why there are so many gun related crimes in the US?
The only government that finds it insane for the citizens to be the ulitmate repository of force is the one that can’t be trusted.
Are you attempting to say that there’s absolutely no threat today that the government could ignore the fact that it is in service to the people using power loaned by us and become tyrannical? If so, why do you think this isn’t a possibilty? What keeps the government from overstepping its bounds?
Because apparently there are more than eighty million of us who really like firearms, and they’re quite legal for us to own. You might as well ask why there are so many computers in the US? Is it purely because the Constitution protects our right to express ourselves?
Apparently Sarah Brady does. I think it’s because there are too many criminals on the streets.
Johnny L.A.
You use your rifle for plinking, I bet you could have more fun and become a much improved shooter with a target rifle at decent range. A semi auto isn’t going to be fantastically accurate rifle, it’s made to put out as many rounds as possible while still conforming to restrictions on classes of weapons.
Handguns…licensed, and locked up. Fine.
I’ve seen you at that Aussie message board before to, G’day.
Or perhaps one that, living in the real world, realises that not all of its citizens can be trusted with extremely dangerous tools.
I’m sorry, I don’t know what this means. Are you suggesting that the US Govt does not overstep its bounds because, and only because, the citizenry is armed?
What then regulates the governments of Europe, Japan and other democracies that are as open and fair as the US? Or are US leaders less trustworthy for some reason?
Nah. It’s because getting access to firearms is to easy. Simple.
You’re missing the point. Of course a purpose-made target rifle would be better for target shooting; but "plinking’ is a different activity. The fun of shooting an AR-15 is that you’re shooting an AR-15.
My handguns are no more of a threat now than if they were “licensed and locked up”. As I said, they’re basically for collecting. Some places outside of the U.S. require that firearms (I don’t like the word “weapons” when referring to most guns, because “weapons” implies an intent) be locked up at a club. In that situation my USN flight gear collection would not be complete because a piece of it would not be with the rest. Another piece of equipment I have is a radio. It’s illegal to use it. Using it could result in a massive search-and-rescue operation costing thousands of dollars and potentially endangering people. Should it be taken away? No. It’s just part of the kit, and it’s not used.
Define “easy”. In California, where I used to live, you had to have a background check, you had to provide a utility bill to prove residency (because a state-issued driver’s license isn’t good enough. BTW, this was something I noticed just before I left the state.), and you had to wait ten days before picking up your gun. Additionally, first-time handgun buyers have to undergo a training course. Private transfers in California must go through a dealer with the b.g. check, ten-day wait, etc.
G’day. 
THe last sentence of your post is the very reason that our citizens must continue to insist on impressing our rights to bear arms. If the government and the police have weapons and we don’t we’re sunk. Our country was founded on tyranny and overthrowing an oppressive government. Should a situation occur in the future, wherein the people feel oppressed enough to overhtrow our government, how on earth could we do it with single-shot weapons when the government has automatic(not semi-) weapons?
Sam
To even compare or contrast this, I’d like to know what country. It would make a whole helluva difference in situation. Australia? Britain? Some African state?
Sam
Ya, and most people shouldn’t me trusted with the keys to their fucking cars, but you don’t see people decrying the most powerful projectile on our streets as a danger and demanding their removal from the streets, do you?
This is a socilogical/political question that has been asked a billion times now. I don’t think there has ever been a good answer, but don’t you think the people of Germany would have been better off if they had been allowed to keep their guns in the 1930’s?
Sam
Johnny L.A.
Licensed and locked up…kept in a gunsafe (in your own house, how it works here) so that it is not as easy to steal and/or fall into less responsible hands. What are the laws regarding storage of weapons (c’mon, they’re made to kill or modelled on something that was) in the states.
Are the Californian gun laws the most strict?
Shouldn’t having somewhere to store the bloody things be involved in the purchasing process? Storing a firearm, safely (bolt out, mag and ammo seperate), in a safe place is the first rule of gun safety, If you can’t fulfill that first requirement, you don’t deserve to own a firearm. Here, you have to have a secure gun cabinet bolted to a concrete base (house pad usually) and a wall, 2 locks on the cabinet front door and seperate compartment for bolts and magazines/ammo.
Do you have to show ID, firearm registration or license when buying ammunition?
That’s pretty far-fetched.
GaWd
The Country from where I hail should not have any influnce on the topic, it’s the laws regarding gun control that are in question. If you must know, it’s a country established as a penal settlement for the scum of british society, murders, theives, whores, bank robbers etc. A country first settled by tyrants.
Overthrowing governments :dubious:
Hitler had popular support for most of the 1930s so I don’t think it would have made any difference except maybe to the Jews, who may have been wiped out faster.
It was pretty far-fetched the first time it happened, too.
But of course it does. You live in a country with a population of just less than Texas(20.2million vs. 22 million), that has an area of almost the size of the whole U.S. You have a population density of 6.4 people/mi, whereas we have a population of 76 people/mi. You live in a country that is mainly bush with a few densely populated areas, and we have a pretty urbanized way of life.
If you look at international violent death statistics, our two countries aren’t that far off. Per capita stats place the US at 18.57 and Aus at 14.65(1993/4 stats, couldn’t find newer stats). That means that there was a mean difference of 3.92 deaths per 100,000. We have almost twice the amount of homes owning a firearm in the US, yet by these stats, less than 4 additional violent deaths.
Your country recently tried to ban broadswords and other swords, too. If you ban one weapon, another will take it’s place.
Cite cite cite: GunCite-Gun Control-International Homicide and Suicide Rates
Cheers, mate!
Sam
I disagree. And after some thought into your whole “Europe doesn’t support gun ownership and it’s leaders don’t take advantage”, line of reasoning-only the last 50 years or so have had european leaders who didn’t take advantage of, oppress, or outright abuse their populations. Even then, there are several countries whose leaders are STILL perpetrating misdeeds on their populations and subjects.
Sam
You could have just said Austrailia, you know. :rolleyes:
At first, I thought this guy may have been related to Aldebaran.