# Why I Keep AR-15 Platform Rifles **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [March 8, 2018, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-i-keep-ar-15-platform-rifles/810269 "2018-03-08T23:54:23Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![charkbite](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/dc4da7/32.png) [@charkbite](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/charkbite)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2018, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-i-keep-ar-15-platform-rifles/810269/221 "2018-03-14T20:29:10Z")
See my previous post. I’d like to mention this topic was covered in my training. Letting people know you are carrying makes you a target. Don’t show the gun, don’t even mention you have it. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2018, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-i-keep-ar-15-platform-rifles/810269/222 "2018-03-14T20:57:23Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Are you also opposed to cities and states being prevented from banning abortion or gay marriage? In other words, is your desire for federalism consistent even when those cities and states make choices you don’t like? Would you support Utah allowing the manufacture and sale of new machine guns to its citizens? You are comparing things that don’t have the potential to effect anyone not concerned with the decision with things that do effect people not concerned with the decision. If my GF gets an abortion, does that in any way put your life in danger? If I marry my BF, is there any possibility of you getting shot because of that? As far as what Utah does with its sales of armaments, I don’t really care, as long as other states have the ability to make laws against any unauthorized weapons entering into their borders. > [@](#): > > I’m not sure I follow. There were zero casualties. I don’t know how we’d get fewer than that. That’s my point. No one died in the interaction. Had there been a gun involved, that may have had a different resolution. > [@](#): > > Those statistics didn’t work out in the Petit family’s favor. They thought they were just dealing with a robber (and at first they were - until one of them decided to strangle the mom and the other one decided to rape one of the daughters). There will always be anecdotes like that, and while sad, it needs to be recognized that those are not the norm. Preparing for extremely unlikely events, especially when that preparation is not risk free itself, is not a rational response. It is the sort of response one gives when they see the extremely out of the ordinary on the news, not realizing that the reason it is on the news is because it is so unlikely and out of the ordinary. > [@](#): > > I’m not intimately familiar with the details (I heard there’s a diversity training requirement :rolleyes:), but I’m generally supportive of movement in that direction, so I consider it an improvement over the status quo ante. I didn’t see anything about a diversity requirement in the bill, maybe I missed that. No, what the requirements are are 144 hours of training, psychological evaluation, and annual recertification. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2018, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-i-keep-ar-15-platform-rifles/810269/223 "2018-03-14T21:16:47Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > … There will always be anecdotes like that, and while sad, it needs to be recognized that those are not the norm. Preparing for extremely unlikely events, especially when that preparation is not risk free itself, is not a rational response. It is the sort of response one gives when they see the extremely out of the ordinary on the news, not realizing that the reason it is on the news is because it is so unlikely and out of the ordinary. … I agree that what happened to the Petits was not “the norm”, but I don’t agree that it’s irrational to prepare for unlikely events. I have a fire extinguisher and smoke detectors in my home, even though the odds of it catching fire are slim. I wear a seat belt every time I get in the car even though the odds of me being involved in a serious car crash are rather slim. I anchored my water heater to the wall, even though the odds of an earthquake tipping it over are probably slim. > [@k9bfriender](#): > > … I didn’t see anything about a diversity requirement in the bill, maybe I missed that. No, what the requirements are are 144 hours of training, psychological evaluation, and annual recertification. [This article from the Tampa Bay Times](http://www.tampabay.com/florida-politics/2018/03/05/live-coverage-guns-arming-teachers-up-for-vote-in-florida-senate/) says: > [@](#): > > SB 7026 … creates the “marshal program” that allows school districts, if they choose, to allow teachers to arm themselves if they undergo 132 hours of training for the purpose of responding to an active shooter. They also must take 12 hours of diversity training. “diversity training” is 1/12th of the training requirement :smack:. Seems silly to me, but like I said, overall I agree with the idea of arming teachers, and if they lay out some silly hoops that the teachers must jump through first in order to do so, I still consider it a step in the right direction. If Utah wanted to add 132 hours of training and / or 12 hours of diversity training as an additional requirement on top of what we already have, I would oppose it. ETA: I’m not well-versed in Florida’s legislature’s website, but [this appears to be the link to the bill text](https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2018/7026/BillText/er/HTML): > [@](#): > > 329 (1) Sheriffs, in their respective counties, in person or by > 330 deputy, shall: > 331 (k) Establish, if the sheriff so chooses, a Coach Aaron > 332 Feis Guardian Program to aid in the prevention or abatement of > 333 active assailant incidents on school premises. A school guardian > 334 has no authority to act in any law enforcement capacity except > 335 to the extent necessary to prevent or abate an active assailant > 336 incident on a school premises. Excluded from participating in > 337 the Coach Aaron Feis Guardian Program are individuals who > 338 exclusively perform classroom duties as classroom teachers as > 339 defined in s. 1012.01(2)(a). This limitation does not apply to > 340 classroom teachers of a Junior Reserve Officers’ Training Corps > 341 program, a current servicemember, as defined in s. 250.01, or a > 342 current or former law enforcement officer, as defined in s. > 343 943.10(1), (6), or (8). The sheriff who chooses to establish the > 344 program shall appoint as school guardians, without the power of > 345 arrest, school employees who volunteer and who: > 346 1. Hold a valid license issued under s. 790.06. > 347 2. Complete 132 total hours of comprehensive firearm safety > 348 and proficiency training conducted by Criminal Justice Standards > 349 and Training Commission-certified instructors, which must > 350 include: > 351 a. Eighty hours of firearms instruction based on the > 352 Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission’s Law > 353 Enforcement Academy training model, which must include at least > 354 10 percent but no more than 20 percent more rounds fired than > 355 associated with academy training. Program participants must > 356 achieve an 85 percent pass rate on the firearms training. > 357 b. Sixteen hours of instruction in precision pistol. > 358 c. Eight hours of discretionary shooting instruction using > 359 state-of-the-art simulator exercises. > 360 d. Eight hours of instruction in active shooter or > 361 assailant scenarios. > 362 e. Eight hours of instruction in defensive tactics. > 363 f. Twelve hours of instruction in legal issues. > 364 3. Pass a psychological evaluation administered by a > 365 psychologist licensed under chapter 490 and designated by the > 366 Department of Law Enforcement and submit the results of the > 367 evaluation to the sheriff’s office. The Department of Law > 368 Enforcement is authorized to provide the sheriff’s office with > 369 mental health and substance abuse data for compliance with this > 370 paragraph. > 371 4. Submit to and pass an initial drug test and subsequent > 372 random drug tests in accordance with the requirements of s. > 373 112.0455 and the sheriff’s office. > 374 5. Successfully complete ongoing training, weapon > 375 inspection, and firearm qualification on at least an annual > 376 basis. > 377 6. Successfully complete at least 12 hours of a certified > 378 nationally recognized diversity training program. > 379 > 380 The sheriff shall issue a school guardian certificate to > 381 individuals who meet the requirements of subparagraph 2. The > 382 sheriff shall maintain documentation of weapon and equipment > 383 inspections, as well as the training, certification, inspection, > 384 and qualification records of each school guardian appointed by > 385 the sheriff. > 386 Section 6. The Division of Law Revision and Information is > 387 instructed to change references from “school marshal program” to > 388 “Coach Aaron Feis Guardian Program” and references from “school > 389 marshal” to “school guardian” wherever those terms appear in > 390 this act. ---
**Author:** ![johnod](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/dc4da7/32.png) [@johnod](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/johnod)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2018, 11:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-i-keep-ar-15-platform-rifles/810269/224 "2018-03-14T23:50:18Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > Again, the problem is that, unless the theory is that Americans are uniquely prone to insanity or evil (which I do not believe), other countries (such as my own) have folks with exactly the same issues with “mental illness, sociopathy, revenge or some other similar aberrant mindset”. > > What they by and large lack, is the ability to translate those insane or evil impulses into mass casualties - because guns are simply easier for the average person to use in killing people that bombs (most people can’t get ahold of), knives (hard to kill large numbers of people with), cars, etc. > > This is a significant reason why Canada, a country in many ways similar to the northern US states it borders, has less in the way of mass killings by crazy and/or evil people. > > In short, guns don’t create the impulse, they just enable the impulse to be acted upon with much greater ease - making what would otherwise be impossible, or at least very difficult, easy. > > The fact that guns are good at making killing people easy is a major reason why people want them! I think you’re wrong. I think that American society has made them more prone to going nuts than Canadians, ( so far) I don’t imagine we’re far behind though. I don’t think it’s because we have tougher gun laws. As has been said many times before, only the law abiding , pay any attention to the laws. ---
**Author:** ![Bear\_Nenno](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bear_nenno/32/3358_2.png) [@Bear\_Nenno](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bear_Nenno)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2018, 6:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-i-keep-ar-15-platform-rifles/810269/225 "2018-03-15T06:14:46Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > As for wanting to make a fashion statement, always having to wear a baggy jacket to cover an oddly-placed bulge seems pretty wardrobe-limiting, not to mention that it gets in the way of a quick draw. But you do you. This is the problem with trying to have a reasonable conversation about these things. I don’t have to wear baggy clothing to keep a firearm concealed. The human body has natural curves and indentions that are capable of concealing firearms, such as the small of the back. There are tons of options such as the ankle, under the shoulder, whatever you call the space where your thigh meets your torso, off to the side of the mons pubis. There are lots of ways to carry a firearm that do not involved wearing baggy, shitty clothing, or wearing the gun exposed. And also, there are plenty of degrees between “making a fashion statement” and simply, “dressing appropriately for the situation”. I mentioned the latter, but for some reason you had to use the extreme of “making a fashion statement”. In fact, what I am talking about is the exact opposite of “making a statement”. Wearing a firearm exposed would be “making a statement”. I’m talking about wearing normal fucking clothes that a responsible, professional adult should be wearing. Also, you mentioned a “quick draw”. This isn’t the wild west, and people are not out there having to “quick draw” at high noon. The benefit of having access to a firearm does not require a split second draw. In every situation I can think of, and practically any situation I can imagine, a person in need of a firearm has plenty of time to assess the situation and unhulster before shooting it. Split second decisions followed by split second draws are not really a thing. For cops, sure. For someone at the movie theatre? No way. If an active shooter comes in there tearing up the place, an armed citizen will have plenty of time to access his/her firearm if that’s the course of action he/she chooses. Ironically, in many situations, people who have the pistol exposed on the belt, would be less likely to get the chance to draw it. They will be a target. People, including any criminals, will be eyeing that firearm from the second he enters the room. He would be the first one shot, or at least disarmed. > [@](#): > > The claim that people other than gun-carriers are going to think gun carriers are \*themselves \*a danger perhaps needs to be pondered a little more. Other people can be put off by the presence of an exposed firearm. It causes them distress, and not necessarily because they think the person carrying it is a danger. They think the gun itself is dangerous. People from states, and especially other countries, that do not have a big gun culture are going to be very uncomfortable with people wearing guns everywhere. Polite, civilized society (especially one whose economy revolves so much around making guests and visitors feel welcome and comfortable) should take other people’s attitudes, opinions, fears, and joys into consideration. A reasonable compromise between those who are fearful of guns and uncomfortable around them, and those who feel better always having one available, is simply letting lawful citizens carry them concealed. It’s completely reasonable. Unlike most gun discussions. > [@](#): > > The one about the Bad Guys not knowing who’s carrying doesn’t make sense - they’re \*going \*to be deterred if they see a gun, but may not be if they don’t. If I were a criminal, I would feel much more confident knowing where all (most of) the guns were. > [@msmith](#): > > This may be covered under “tacky” but people who carry a firearm around openly look like assholes. Like they are either so paranoid that they need to project force constantly or they simply want to project force for its own sake. Agreed. The only time I carry an exposed firearm–outside of work–is in the wilderness. Grizzlies can come out of nowhere! It’s all about dressing appropriately for the location. Walking around Best Buy or WalMart with a gun in a tactical drop-leg holster just makes the wearer look like an asshole. I roll my eyes when I see shit like that. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2018, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-i-keep-ar-15-platform-rifles/810269/226 "2018-03-15T17:09:15Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I agree that what happened to the Petits was not “the norm”, but I don’t agree that it’s irrational to prepare for unlikely events. I have a fire extinguisher and smoke detectors in my home, even though the odds of it catching fire are slim. I wear a seat belt every time I get in the car even though the odds of me being involved in a serious car crash are rather slim. I anchored my water heater to the wall, even though the odds of an earthquake tipping it over are probably slim. I looked for some stats, but was unable to locate any, so I’d say the number is pretty much zero fatalities from fire extinguisher accidents. (There was one where it failed to work). If fire extinguishers had nearly the rate of accidental deaths as guns do, would you still consider it prudent to keep in in your house? > [@](#): > > [This article from the Tampa Bay Times](http://www.tampabay.com/florida-politics/2018/03/05/live-coverage-guns-arming-teachers-up-for-vote-in-florida-senate/) says: > > “diversity training” is 1/12th of the training requirement :smack:. Seems silly to me, but like I said, overall I agree with the idea of arming teachers, and if they lay out some silly hoops that the teachers must jump through first in order to do so, I still consider it a step in the right direction. Hard to say exactly what they mean by diversity training, but I would see it as more of a screening, anyway. There are racists out there, and there are racist teachers out there. We don’t need armed racist teachers. > [@](#): > > If Utah wanted to add 132 hours of training and / or 12 hours of diversity training as an additional requirement on top of what we already have, I would oppose it. My understanding is that you just need the 8 hour ish CCW class to carry in Utah. Maybe 144 hours is more than is needed, and I get that you roll your eyes at any effort to try to prevent the people that are carrying guns in the schools from having racial or other forms of bias, but I certainly would not feel comfortable sending “my” kids to a school that had armed teachers with little or no training. > [@](#): > > ETA: I’m not well-versed in Florida’s legislature’s website, but [this appears to be the link to the bill text](https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2018/7026/BillText/er/HTML): > [@Bear\_Nenno](#): > > Also, you mentioned a “quick draw”. This isn’t the wild west, and people are not out there having to “quick draw” at high noon. The benefit of having access to a firearm does not require a split second draw. In every situation I can think of, and practically any situation I can imagine, a person in need of a firearm has plenty of time to assess the situation and unhulster before shooting it. Split second decisions followed by split second draws are not really a thing. For cops, sure. For someone at the movie theatre? No way. If an active shooter comes in there tearing up the place, an armed citizen will have plenty of time to access his/her firearm if that’s the course of action he/she chooses. This is very different from what I have heard from pro-DGU posters, as well as the DGU videos that they link to. In those, yeah, it is a fast draw that allows the DGU’er to shoot and kill the antagonist. If they had to fumble for it, it would not have worked out well for them. I’m not sure that if an active shooter is firing a semi auto into the crowd at a theater, I would really consider it to be “plenty of time” to react. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2018, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-i-keep-ar-15-platform-rifles/810269/227 "2018-03-15T17:33:49Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Perhaps you just misunderstood. I gave that (“it makes the snowflakes cry”) as one of the reasons I do NOT open carry. In other words, if I wanted to make snowflakes cry, I would open carry. I do not, and therefore (at least part of the reason) I do not open carry. I’m honestly not sure why you’d be concerned about your gun making republicans cry. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2018, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-i-keep-ar-15-platform-rifles/810269/228 "2018-03-15T17:42:00Z")
> [@Bear\_Nenno](#): > > There are lots of ways to carry a firearm that do not involved wearing baggy, shitty clothing, or wearing the gun exposed. Fair enough. But don’t they all inhibit accessibility to some degree? > [@](#): > > The benefit of having access to a firearm does not require a split second draw. All the situations we hear described where you might need one involve a “bad guy” already threatening your life. A slow draw seems likely to get you killed before you can complete it, no? > [@](#): > > For someone at the movie theatre? No way. If an active shooter comes in there tearing up the place, an armed citizen will have plenty of time to access his/her firearm if that’s the course of action he/she chooses. In the Colorado theater massacre, since that’s what you’re referring to, patrons who did have guns chose not to use them at all, since they didn’t know who to shoot. If cops came in, they’d have been within their rights to consider anyone holding a gun to be the “bad guy”. > [@](#): > > Ironically, in many situations, people who have the pistol exposed on the belt, would be less likely to get the chance to draw it. They will be a target. Once again, that’s only after the situation starts, and you can only react. Showing a weapon deters it from starting. You mention that the gun-carrier will be the first one shot or disarmed, since the “bad guy” is going to proceed anyway - well, how is that going to happen? Doesn’t that make the gun worse than useless? > [@](#): > > Other people can be put off by the presence of an exposed firearm. It causes them distress, and not necessarily because they think the person carrying it is a danger. They think the gun itself is dangerous. That’s a misrepresentation. It’s the \*combination \*of the gun and some stranger whose background and training and mental health etc. are unknown to you, except for the fact that he wants to carry one, that creates the sense of danger. As well it fucking _should_. It’s called sanity, and most of the world has it. > [@](#): > > If I were a criminal, I would feel much more confident knowing where all (most of) the guns were. Or try a softer target. Where does this notion of every crime being some kind of a Hollywood hostage situation, not just a street mugging by some junkie, come from? Is it part of the culture and training, by people whose livelihoods depend on it, to be ready for unlikely but dramatic situations rather than the common ones that your gun won’t help you with? > [@](#): > > Walking around Best Buy or WalMart with a gun in a tactical drop-leg holster just makes the wearer look like an asshole. I roll my eyes when I see shit like that. But nobody ever tries to rob or assault _them_, right? Maybe you should try it too. You might be able to drop that elevated awareness of danger that must get awfully tiring. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2018, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-i-keep-ar-15-platform-rifles/810269/229 "2018-03-15T17:44:12Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > I’m honestly not sure why you’d be concerned about your gun making republicans cry. Something to do with the drop in gun sales since Trump got elected, maybe. The manufacturers’ stockholders and non-bonus-getting management are at least figuratively crying that they can’t use Obama or Clinton to scare the gun people anymore. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2018, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-i-keep-ar-15-platform-rifles/810269/230 "2018-03-15T17:51:52Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Where does this notion of every crime being some kind of a Hollywood hostage situation, not just a street mugging by some junkie, come from? Is it part of the culture and training, by people whose livelihoods depend on it, to be ready for unlikely but dramatic situations rather than the common ones that your gun won’t help you with? The notion probably comes from Hollywood. Seriously, gun owners partake of popular culture too, and the only times common muggings take place in movies are when a superhero swoops in and stops it, saving the day with no problem and no risk to themselves. Carrying a gun, whether you carry it openly, concealed, or inaccessibly concealed, has the primary benefit of making its carrier feel like one of those superheros. Prepared, powerful, indestructible. Descriptions of the hypothetical crime scenarios all start from this foundation - it is assumed that the gun owner will be able to draw their gun and aim it without difficulty or interference from the criminal, and the criminal will not react with deadly force at the sight of someone going for their gun. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2018, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-i-keep-ar-15-platform-rifles/810269/231 "2018-03-15T17:59:38Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > The notion probably comes from Hollywood. Well, sure, that’s why I used the word. But the notion may - \*may \*- be perpetuated by the gun-owning culture you speak of, and by the CCW-permit training industry who depend on it and train applicants for situations in which they can be heroic with their guns. > [@](#): > > it is assumed that the gun owner will be able to draw their gun and aim it without difficulty or interference from the criminal, and the criminal will not react with deadly force at the sight of someone going for their gun. Do the CCW types even take self-defense training that covers what happens when the gun is seized or is inaccessible? Ima gonna guess usually no; that the gun is always assumed to win in the hands of a sufficiently trained individual (that’s the Advanced class, another $500 please). ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2018, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-i-keep-ar-15-platform-rifles/810269/232 "2018-03-15T18:58:26Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Something to do with the drop in gun sales since Trump got elected, maybe. The manufacturers’ stockholders and non-bonus-getting management are at least figuratively crying that they can’t use Obama or Clinton to scare the gun people anymore. I think that is the reason for the current crop of fear mongering NRA ads. They are not targeted towards gun owners. They already have guns, they might like buying more, but they don’t actually need more. You can encourage them to buy more guns with new features and such, but when it come to threatening them with civil unrest and murders and all that, they are already good. However, when I see those ads, they make me think, “Man, those people are all crazy, and they all have guns, that means that I need one.” ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2018, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-i-keep-ar-15-platform-rifles/810269/233 "2018-03-15T19:09:18Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > I’m honestly not sure why you’d be concerned about your gun making republicans cry. Are you “honestly not sure” what the common slang usage of the term “snowflake” refers to? ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2018, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-i-keep-ar-15-platform-rifles/810269/234 "2018-03-15T19:13:30Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > … In the Colorado theater massacre, since that’s what you’re referring to, patrons who did have guns chose not to use them at all, since they didn’t know who to shoot. … Do you have a cite for this? I’ve never heard that, but I’m interested. I didn’t think anyone there actually had a gun besides the shooter. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2018, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-i-keep-ar-15-platform-rifles/810269/235 "2018-03-15T19:15:16Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > … Do the CCW types even take self-defense training that covers what happens when the gun is seized or is inaccessible? … Some do, some don’t. I don’t have stats on the %'s. ---
**Author:** ![Tired\_and\_Cranky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/a87d85/32.png) [@Tired\_and\_Cranky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tired_and_Cranky)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2018, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-i-keep-ar-15-platform-rifles/810269/236 "2018-03-15T19:53:22Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Something to do with the drop in gun sales since Trump got elected, maybe. The manufacturers’ stockholders and non-bonus-getting management are at least figuratively crying that they can’t use Obama or Clinton to scare the gun people anymore. > [@k9bfriender](#): > > I think that is the reason for the current crop of fear mongering NRA ads. > > They are not targeted towards gun owners. They already have guns, they might like buying more, but they don’t actually need more. You can encourage them to buy more guns with new features and such, but when it come to threatening them with civil unrest and murders and all that, they are already good. > > However, when I see those ads, they make me think, “Man, those people are all crazy, and they all have guns, that means that I need one.” The NRA did plenty of scare mongering during the Bush administration. I remember reading articles in the NRA’s magazine suggesting that the United Nations was going to ban America’s guns. The NRA always needs people to be so fearful of their neighbors that they cling to guns and so distrustful of the government that they will believe conspiracy theories that they might be denied those guns. Both of these fears conveniently drive gun sales, which as near as I can tell, is the NRA’s principal objective. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2018, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-i-keep-ar-15-platform-rifles/810269/237 "2018-03-15T19:58:43Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Do you have a cite for this? I’ve never heard that, but I’m interested. I didn’t think anyone there actually had a gun besides the shooter. I’ll retract that one - it comes from news interviews with police (who weren’t there, admittedly) saying that’s what would have happened, and with other gun owners saying they wouldn’t have tried using it. But hey, maybe the chance to be a hero would have come up, for a brief moment, you never know. > [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Are you “honestly not sure” what the common slang usage of the term “snowflake” refers to? Of course he does. He wants to get you to admit it. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2018, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-i-keep-ar-15-platform-rifles/810269/238 "2018-03-15T20:30:52Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > I looked for some stats, but was unable to locate any, so I’d say the number is pretty much zero fatalities from fire extinguisher accidents. (There was one where it failed to work). If fire extinguishers had nearly the rate of accidental deaths as guns do, would you still consider it prudent to keep in in your house? Yes. The rate of _accidental_ deaths from firearms is actually pretty small. People have all sorts of things in our homes that kill people occasionally: ladders, swimming pools, cars, cleaning chemicals, electrical outlets, etc. I understand that a gun brings with it some small risk of accidental death. I do my best to mitigate those risks, for example by securing them in a safe, and striving to always follow rules for safe gun handling, but the risk of an accidental death is actually quite modest, enough that I still consider it prudent to keep them in my house. > [@k9bfriender](#): > > Hard to say exactly what they mean by diversity training, but I would see it as more of a screening, anyway. There are racists out there, and there are racist teachers out there. We don’t need armed racist teachers. Yes, I was having a bit of fun pointing out that it really was in the bill, but I suspect that you’re right that it comes more from a mindset of “please don’t shoot the brown kid for being brown”, and like I said, overall I see the program as a step forward for Florida, so I’ll take the bad (probably not really the right word here - I don’t think it’s necessarily bad - just a bit goofy) with the good. > [@k9bfriender](#): > > My understanding is that you just need the 8 hour ish CCW class to carry in Utah. Maybe 144 hours is more than is needed, and I get that you roll your eyes at any effort to try to prevent the people that are carrying guns in the schools from having racial or other forms of bias, but I certainly would not feel comfortable sending “my” kids to a school that had armed teachers with little or no training. And you shouldn’t be forced to. I suspect that if arming teachers becomes more common, the average required training would probably fall somewhere between Utah’s and Florida’s examples. In reality, there will almost certainly be some states that prohibit it altogether, at least for many years in the future. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2018, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-i-keep-ar-15-platform-rifles/810269/239 "2018-03-15T20:52:55Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Are you “honestly not sure” what the common slang usage of the term “snowflake” refers to? “Snowflake”, when used as you used it, is a term coined by assholes intended to criticize their opponents for being too sensitive to criticism of themselves and the things they seek to endorse or protect. The aforementioned assholes use this term in a fallacious way to attempt to discredit the concerns of the people who disagree with them - generally because the aforementioned assholes can’t outright say that those concerns are invalid without revealing themselves as sociopaths or otherwise heartlessly callous about real people’s problems. Use of the term actually indicates that it’s _less_ likely that the asshole has a point and the target of the term is overstating the problem, because if the asshole had a point they wouldn’t feel forced to resort to discredited slurs to make their case, such as it is. But, putting the blatant fallacious and ad hominemy nature of the slur aside, it remains the case that the term, as used, is _intended_ to indicate that the person in question is a whiny baby who is oversensitive to legitimate criticism of their pet causes. As noted, the sort of assholes who use the term tend to be making fallacious arguments trying to discredit their opponents’ causes. These arguments against their opponents being fallacious, this suggests (and is often the case) that the asshole is themselves arguing a position that is stronger than it really should be. And, humorously enough, the type of assholes who use this term tend to be _very_ sensitive to criticism of their (weak) positions. Whether it be defending Trump, MAGA, racism, sexism, or anything else, people who feel pressured to use terms like “snowflake” whine a _lot_, because they feel their positions should be unassailable (often due to history) and can’t really handle people challenging them. So the term “snowflake” tends to apply _extremely_ well to the very people who use it. It’s deliciously ironic. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2018, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-i-keep-ar-15-platform-rifles/810269/240 "2018-03-15T21:18:58Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > … people who feel pressured to use terms like “snowflake” whine a _lot_, because they feel their positions should be unassailable (often due to history) and can’t really handle people challenging them. > > So the term “snowflake” tends to apply _extremely_ well to the very people who use it. It’s deliciously ironic. In this case, I’m the one that used the term (and without feeling any ‘pressure’ to do so). Do you feel it’s accurate to say I’m one of the people that “can’t really handle people challenging them”? Do you imagine that’s why I hang around the SDMB? For the safe spaces and non-confrontational acceptance with which my views are so often met? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-i-keep-ar-15-platform-rifles/810269.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-i-keep-ar-15-platform-rifles/810269.md?page=13)