Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Why Young Women Want AR-15s

page: 2
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsipprell
Christ, if I could just get a Howitzer in my front yard, nobody would dare come near my home … or my neighborhood.

Also, those guys in the next town would start to seriously worry about pissing me off.


I've always wanted to park an M18 Hellcat in my driveway.




posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
In other words, any fully automatic rifle is an assault rifle. Semi-automatic is not an assault rifle.



Assault weapon?


In discussions about gun laws and gun politics in the United States, an assault weapon is most commonly defined as a semi-automatic firearm possessing certain features similar to those of military firearms.

Source



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hefficide
reply to post by projectvxn
 
My position is to not give into hyperbole and to be rational. I don't think that assault weapons should be banned. But I wouldn't disagree with a law that made it necessary to go through specific training to own most firearms. Especially those with the potential for high velocity and penetration rounds.
This idea is something that I would hope both sides of the argument can come together and agree on. No one can have too much training/education, especially if it is an alternative to a flat out ban.

A ton of questions come to mind when considering this, but I am surprised that such a logical idea hasn't been discussed much, especially by the MSM/politicians. Cheers!



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 06:19 PM
link   
Why not buy a tank and land mines around your house, bet you all would feel safe then? Such a happy and great place you live in. Fart and you are blown away! Come to the UK and see what happens if you have a gun, end of story! Must be great to live in fear all the time, afraid to argue with anyone in case you have your head in your hands to play with

Has any of you actually killed anyone? I have in the Army and it is not a nice thing to go through with, believe you me.
edit on 26-1-2013 by scotsdavy1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hefficide
reply to post by projectvxn
 


You said it eloquently my friend. The key is education. The downfall - and the argument that the folks who want to take guns away will use - is that there are too many unqualified people in possession of said weaponry. People without the training, knowledge, or skills to effectively and safely use those weapons.

That is how they will win the argument.

My position is to not give into hyperbole and to be rational. I don't think that assault weapons should be banned. But I wouldn't disagree with a law that made it necessary to go through specific training to own most firearms. Especially those with the potential for high velocity and penetration rounds.

Those who enjoy liberty need to be smarter than just braying and screaming that guns prevent tyranny. Because, quite frankly, one look at most of the third world - where AK-47's are about as cheap as the cost of a meal and are more common than fleas - pretty much shoots that argument down.


Chance favors the prepared mind - not the loudest voice.

~Heff


Yeah but these same people argue that while you need 'special training' to use certain weapons like the AR, in the same breath they argue that the AR is so simple that it makes effective mass murder easy..

I am certainly a proponent of more education. But listening to these people makes my ears ache at the level of stupidity they tend to display.



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 06:37 PM
link   
reply to post by projectvxn
 


That argument seems irrational to me. I can grab a straight razor and go to town, swinging it wildly and in all directions - but that doesn't make me a trained barber.

The other argument that those against training tend to use is that most of the bad people who use guns for malicious purposes are using black market or stolen weapons anyway. THAT, IMO, could be largely mitigated by training and licensing. You, as you've stated, are a highly trained weapons handler. Thus it is extremely unlikely that you ride around with an unsecured AR-15 in your truck, plainly visible, and ripe for stealing.

THAT is what I am talking about. Some basic training about gun safety, securing weapons, and a course on how to clean, handle, operate, and shoot. The kind of stuff I had to do in the Boy Scouts to get my marksman badge. It took less than a week and taught me lessons that have stuck with me my entire life.

~Heff



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 06:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 


People have to be licensed to drive cars and that hasn't stopped unlicensed criminals from stealing automobiles. Licensing does next to nothing except keep a list that can be abused later. Like that newspaper in NY who put licensed gun owners in danger for political purposes.

Training is readily available for anyone who wants it. There are TONS of gunshops and ranges that offer tactical pistol and rifle courses. There are also books and, dare I say it, YouTube videos that are very informative.

Indeed, in the age of information, ignorance is a choice.
edit on 26-1-2013 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 10:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 



That's horsehockey. SWAT teams are a totally different subject. They are highly trained and organized units. Not some yahoo shooting wildly at his front door because he heard a bump in the night.


Your argument was that an AR15 would penetrate walls and could possibly harm someone else. Tell me how does that make any difference if it is swat team firing in a house or a homeowner? Did you know there is a higher crime rate among police officers then legal gun owners? So the highly trained stuff does not fly. What's horse hockey is the idea that anyone with an AR15 would shoot wildly at the front door from hearing a bump in the night. Stop repeating media propaganda. Stuff like that is so rare it's not even worth discussing.

Also while an AR15 has high velocity coming out of the barrel it is only .22 slug and the velocity drops quickly especially if it hits something. A tree limb twig has been known to throw a .223/55.6 bullet off course. Ar15's being highly accurate and easy to shoot it is not likely a women who knows how to shoot one will miss her target and the rounds tend to stay in the target.


This thread is specifically about young women and home defense. No? If so then the weapon that most experts would suggest would be a 32 or possibly even a 9mm handgun for that purpose. Not an AR-15.


What experts would that be? Don't believe every propaganda piece you hear or read. How many weapons do you own and what is your experience with guns? As someone who grew up with guns I can tell you as an expert that most experts agree an AR15 is an excellent home defense weapon. A 32 or 9mm takes much more skill to learn to shoot correctly and does not have as much stopping power so it is critical to know how to shoot it correctly to stop an assailant. And some yahoo could fire wildly at the door when hearing a bump in the night with a 32 or 9 just as easily and it would penetrate the door no problem it has nothing to do with the type of weapon it has to do with whether the person is a yahoo or not.


One of my weapons - the one I'd use to defend my home, is a 12 gauge. I have it loaded with birdshot so that if I did use it, it is highly unlikely that the pellets would penetrate a wall and travel far. The last shell in the feed is a slug.


Shotgun is an good home defense weapon also. I would recommend .oo buck. However for most women a 12 gage kicks to hard. An AR with low recoil is an excellent choice for women.


I beg to differ, I actually do know what I am talking about here.


Then perhaps you could quote some of these so called experts that you cite?


edit on 26-1-2013 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)
edit on 26-1-2013 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 10:53 PM
link   
I do think that the .12 Gauge pump is the best weapon for home defense in most circumstances mainly because of the deterrent factor of the sound of one going into the chamber. I also like the hand to hand versatility should an assailant close before you've woken good. A butt-stroke-to-the-head is a viable defensive maneuver and my Mossberg has the mass to make it hit hard.

That being said, I can understand the ladies liking the AR. It's accurate, has little recoil, and the magazine capacity to leave a bit of room for error when there is little. I agree that choosing the right ammo can mitigate the dangers of over penetration greatly. Also, if I'm going to have to take a shot where there could possibly be screaming children running around or, god forbid, in a hostage situation I'd rather use the AR than the 00 buck or my pistol.



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 11:02 PM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye
 


One that doesn't mention AR-15's
Two that don't
Three.

Another
Another
Another
Another

I could go on, but I have a short attention span.

Oh, and as to my qualifications? I was born on a military base, raised by a veteran of both the Korean and Vietnam Wars, handled my first gun when I was about 6 or 7 and have spent the forty odd years since in constant ownership of them.

~Heff



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 11:14 PM
link   
First to the poster who is still trying to act like "assault weapon" is a real class of firearm:


Prior to 1989, the term "assault weapon" did not exist in the lexicon of firearms. It is a political term, developed by anti-gun publicists to expand the category of "assault rifles."


No such class as "assault"

While a 12 gauge is most effective deterent (I'm with Vixen on the 870 tactical), they are not the best choice for women. That said, I guess the question is to you have faith that anyone discharging any weapon has the training to be aware of where those rounds will end up, if they miss or pass through the assailant? Seeing as I'm not hearing about, and we would, stray .223 rounds flying into suburban houses by idiots shouldn't be shooting a gun . . . I guess the answer is that those that own an AR do refrain from wildly shooting up the neighborhood and know how to control their weapon.

I'd actually be more fearful of a neigbor shooting at someone with a rifled 12G slug. Those will pass through a couple people and will definitly pass through foundation block and drywall.

Also, Vixen . . . I don't see any model of 870 on Feinstein's list . . .



SHOTGUNS:

Franchi LAW–12 and SPAS 12
All IZHMASH Saiga 12 types, including the following: IZHMASH Saiga 12, IZHMASH Saiga 12S, IZHMASH Saiga 12S EXP–01, IZHMASH Saiga 12K, IZHMASH Saiga 12K–030, IZHMASH Saiga 12K–040 Taktika; Streetsweeper; Striker 12




posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 11:19 PM
link   
reply to post by canucks555
 


That cruise missile is one sweet piece of kit. I could see building a bunker in my back yard and stocking it with those.



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 11:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hefficide
reply to post by hawkiye
 


That's horsehockey. SWAT teams are a totally different subject. They are highly trained and organized units. Not some yahoo shooting wildly at his front door because he heard a bump in the night.


Thank you for clearing that up. Your opinion of gun owners clearly has no bias. Your opinion in the matter is now worthless.



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 11:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

Thank you for clearing that up. Your opinion of gun owners clearly has no bias. Your opinion in the matter is now worthless.


Oh this is spiffy. I live for these moments. I really do.

I am a gun owner so the idea of my being biased against them is probably a bit flawed. What I am biased against, as a resident of one of the highest homicide areas in the US is the idea of irresponsible and untrained gun owners creating problems for the rest of us who happen to exercise common sense.

As for my opinion being of merit or not. thank you so very much for appointing yourself arbiter of what does and does not have worth. The membership of ATS thanks you for taking up such a difficult and ardent task.

/sarcasm



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 12:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hefficide

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

Thank you for clearing that up. Your opinion of gun owners clearly has no bias. Your opinion in the matter is now worthless.


Oh this is spiffy. I live for these moments. I really do.

I am a gun owner so the idea of my being biased against them is probably a bit flawed. What I am biased against, as a resident of one of the highest homicide areas in the US is the idea of irresponsible and untrained gun owners creating problems for the rest of us who happen to exercise common sense.

As for my opinion being of merit or not. thank you so very much for appointing yourself arbiter of what does and does not have worth. The membership of ATS thanks you for taking up such a difficult and ardent task.

/sarcasm


So that requires an AR-15? They can't do that with a pistol? Your concern has nothing whatsoever to do with an AR-15. Any gun can be used improperly. So I completely fail to understand your logic. A 'yahoo' can misuse ANY gun, so we must ban AR-15's so 'yahoo's' don't misuse guns. What happens when a 'yahoo' misuses a pistol? Seems to me the real solution is not banning AR-15's, but educating people so they don't act like yahoos.

ETA: Saying you are a gun owner so you can't be biased is like saying I have a black friend so I can't be racist. Sorry, you portrayed gun owners in a certain light. Your words, not mine.
edit on 27-1-2013 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 02:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hefficide
reply to post by hawkiye
 


One that doesn't mention AR-15's
Two that don't
Three.

Another
Another
Another
Another

I could go on, but I have a short attention span.

Oh, and as to my qualifications? I was born on a military base, raised by a veteran of both the Korean and Vietnam Wars, handled my first gun when I was about 6 or 7 and have spent the forty odd years since in constant ownership of them.

~Heff


So you send me to a bunch of message boards with people giving thier opinions on what they think is the best home defense weapon and because they don't mention AR15's you equate that to experts agreeing that AR15's are not good home defense weapons? Come on Heff...

Your first link the poster on the message board Identifies himself as an enthusiast. So how does that equate to expert? And really his mom a non-shooter has decided she wants a hand gun so I fail see how this is evidence for experts agreeing that AR15's are not good home defense weapons.

I looked at one more article after the first 3 links you posted and that guy has the AR15 as number 2 on his list of top home defense weapons LOL! You really should read the articles you post Heff LOL
I didn't bother looking at the rest of the links you posted..

Soooo I did a search on "AR15 home defense weapon" (That some people apparently failed to do) and guess what came up?

At least a dozen links talking about AR15's as home defense weapons... I only looked at the first couple links but here is a quote from the first one...


As a home defense gun, a properly set up AR-15 is easier to shoot accurately and delivers more firepower than a handgun, is more precise than a shotgun, more controllable than a subgun, and is easily configured with lights, lasers and other accessories to give you further advantages over any uninvited guests who may come calling after visiting hours.


www.boatmanbooks.com...

Oh and by the way your link that picked the AR15 as number 2 on his list of top home defense weapons came up in my search too... LOL!


What I am biased against, as a resident of one of the highest homicide areas in the US is the idea of irresponsible and untrained gun owners creating problems for the rest of us who happen to exercise common sense.


And I am sure that place also has some of the strictest gun control proving it doesn't work. I live in one of the freesest states in the US and it has almost zero gun control full automatic weapons and silencers are legal etc and have one of the lowest homicide rates... Banning certain type weapons licensure etc. are not the answer and never have been all it does is punish law abiding citizens! It stops no crime it saves no lives and it extorts money from citizens why we have not learned this from alcohol and drug prohibition etc. is beyond me. Even the politicians pushing for gun prohibition know this they have another agenda.

edit on 27-1-2013 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 06:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by solomons path
First to the poster who is still trying to act like "assault weapon" is a real class of firearm:

No such class as "assault"


I'm guess that you're referring to me because I posted the following:



Assault weapon?


In discussions about gun laws and gun politics in the United States, an assault weapon is most commonly defined as a semi-automatic firearm possessing certain features similar to those of military firearms.

Source


You'll notice how I made no assertions regarding the term "Assault Weapon" being technical firearm nomenclature and that the embedded link-quote quite specifically states that the term is defined only in the context of law/political discussions. Thus, like it or not, in a discussion about the future of firearms regulation in the United States (which a portion of this thread is referencing) it is an appropriate term.
edit on 28-1-2013 by jsipprell because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsipprell

Originally posted by solomons path
First to the poster who is still trying to act like "assault weapon" is a real class of firearm:

No such class as "assault"


I'm guess that you're referring to me because I posted the following:



Assault weapon?


In discussions about gun laws and gun politics in the United States, an assault weapon is most commonly defined as a semi-automatic firearm possessing certain features similar to those of military firearms.

Source


You'll notice how I made no assertions regarding the term "Assault Weapon" being technical firearm nomenclature and that the embedded link-quote quite specifically states that the term is defined only in the context of law/political discussions. Thus, like it or not, in a discussion about the future of firearms regulation in the United States (which a portion of this thread is referencing) it is an appropriate term.
edit on 28-1-2013 by jsipprell because: (no reason given)


Well, since there is no definition to what "assault weapon" means and the fact that they keep expanding what constitutes or falls under "assault weapon", I'd say that it is not an appropriate term. DC knows this and is why they have to name these "assault weapons" by name and model, in any legislation. Why is an AR an "assault" and not a Ruger Mini-14? Why is a Ruger Mini-14 Tactical listed in Feinstein's bill and and a Mini-14 Ranch not? They are the exact same gun only one is black and has a Picatinny rail.

It's clear everything the gov claims is "assault" was determined by googlin' pictures of "scary" black guns, as there is no rhyme or reason (functionality, leathality) to ban "scary" guns. Which sounds like something that should be "illegal" to the uneducated masses and politicos . . . "assault weapons" or "defensive weapons"?

EDIT - not necessarily directed at you personally. The quoted post was directed at all posters who keep acting like an assualt weapon is anything based in reality, not media/gov propaganda that started in the late eighties.
edit on 1/28/13 by solomons path because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by solomons path

Originally posted by jsipprell

Originally posted by solomons path
First to the poster who is still trying to act like "assault weapon" is a real class of firearm:

No such class as "assault"


I'm guess that you're referring to me because I posted the following:



Assault weapon?


In discussions about gun laws and gun politics in the United States, an assault weapon is most commonly defined as a semi-automatic firearm possessing certain features similar to those of military firearms.

Source


You'll notice how I made no assertions regarding the term "Assault Weapon" being technical firearm nomenclature and that the embedded link-quote quite specifically states that the term is defined only in the context of law/political discussions. Thus, like it or not, in a discussion about the future of firearms regulation in the United States (which a portion of this thread is referencing) it is an appropriate term.
edit on 28-1-2013 by jsipprell because: (no reason given)


Well, since there is no definition to what "assault weapon" means and the fact that they keep expanding what constitutes or falls under "assault weapon", I'd say that it is not an appropriate term.


I quote-linked the exact definition. It's right there ^^^, you included it in your response to me. Here it is again:


In discussions about gun laws and gun politics in the United States, an assault weapon is most commonly defined as a semi-automatic firearm possessing certain features similar to those of military firearms.

Source



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 04:35 PM
link   
reply to post by jsipprell
 


Well, sure then . . . if somebody added it to wiki, I guess it legit.

From your same soure:

Whether or not assault weapons should be legally restricted more than other firearms, how they should be defined, and even whether or not the term "assault weapon" should be used at all, are questions subject to considerable debate.[3][4][5][6][7] As a political and legal term, it is highly controversial. Critics have asserted that the term is a media invention,[8] or a term that was intended by gun control activists to foster confusion with the public over differences between fully automatic and semi-automatic firearms.[9]



Original definitions and uses of the term for assault rifles in German, Sturmgewehr, literally "storm" (or assault) "rifle", included capability of fully automatic function. Later definitions from the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban only specified semi-automatic weapons.[7][12] Actually possessing the operational features, such as full-auto, is not required for classification as an assault weapon; merely the possession of cosmetic features is now enough to warrant such classification as an assault weapon.[


Wiki showing the very ambiguous political definition doesn't not discount the truth that before 1989 there was no political term "assault weapon" Assault rifle . . . yes. And they were banned. I was alive and remember full well the invention of this term, at the time.

It's a made up definition that suits only the political agenda of demonizing "scary" looking guns, in order to shape public perception about bans. If this definition is "accepted" then why, in the last decade, as it grown to only mean one characteristic, instead of three? Why were characteristics that made an "assault weapon" in 94, not considered characteristics today? Please answer the questions in my last post about the diffence between the AR platform, a Mini-14 tactical, and a Mini-14 ranch? Why are handguns now "assault weapons"?

You know why . . . so they can move the goal posts in any direction they choose to make something "scary" or "dangerous". Most Americans (and even some gun owners) don't know what it means, so they take the media and gov's word on it. Nothing they are banning is due to functionality or lethality . . . it's all perception and simply meant to demonize firearms that are effective defense weapons. Notice, they don't list any semi-auto "long guns", why? You know why . . . they make poor defensive weapons under 100yds.






top topics



 
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join