Advertisements

No One Needs an AR-15

Scary, scary assault gun.

No one needs assault weapons. Why do you need an AR-15? Only criminals need these high-powered assault guns designed to kill a lot of people very quickly!

That’s what gun grabbers will tell you. As arbiters of what you need, they arrogantly remind you that this evil, high-powered assault gun, which you can spray fire indiscriminately and consequently kill multiple nuns and small children, should be banned, because no one needs it.

Until one does.

Three would-be robbers were shot and killed Monday when an Oklahoma homeowner’s son opened fire on them with an AR-15, authorities said.

Wagoner County sheriff’s deputies were called to the home in Broken Arrow, southeast of Tulsa at around 12:30 p.m. local time. When they arrived, they found the three dead suspects and two uninjured residents.

[…]

Mahoney said the suspects encountered the homeowner’s 19-year-old son, who opened fire after an exchange of words. Two of the suspects died in the home’s kitchen while a third was found in the driveway.

Subsequent updates to the story say the shooter was actually 23 years old, and the suspects were armed, with one wielding a knife, and another brass knuckles. To give the Washington Post credit, they did not hyperventilate over “assault” weapon use in this incident. They didn’t even mention the word. It’s nice to see.

Meantime, the Demented Mommies, Bloomberg, and other assorted gun-grabbing trash, I’m sure, are assiduously ignoring this story.

Advertisements

36 responses

  1. Hi, can see where you are coming from with the Ar-15 argument. haven’t shot a gun, dont own a gun, and dont really plan on it.. But if nearly 90% of all murders in the U.S. are done with Hand guns… why should the AR-15 matter? The worst attacks on U.S. soil have been done via plane, and fertilizer.. Pitbulls account for the a large amount of attacks on humans i suppose we should put restrictions on them? Its not an “assault” weapon.. We should start by addressing the mental health issue, because if we get rid of guns, these people now have to figure out more devastating ways of attacking people. Also you realize the states and cities with the most strict gun laws also have the highest rates of violence? Because making something illegal never opens up a black market or anything right? Like that alcohol prohibition sure saved so many lives from that dangerous bottle of poison!

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Thanks for coming over and commenting. People who advocate bans have no understanding of economics or how black and grey markets operate.

      You should go plink at a range with an experienced shooter – just for fun! It’s really a good time. Just sayin’. 🙂

      Liked by 2 people

    2. The reason for banning them is that they are the most effective weapons for those who wish to resist the violence of the Holy State Almighty.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. Trash clean-up on Aisle 5!

    Liked by 2 people

    1. I would think it was a spillage. *eg*

      Liked by 1 person

  3. Great read, thanks for showing some people some logic on issues that always go unreported!

    Like

  4. Paul (Drak Bibliophile) Howard | Reply

    A little off-topic but elsewhere somebody was talking against using hand-guns for self-defense against those “evil” terrorists.

    His idea was that hand-guns would be useless if the terrorist was carrying one of those evil assault rifles.

    Not because of the range difference but he had this idea that “only users of assault rifles can stop other users of assault rifles”.

    He tried to claim later that he meant that the terrorists would wearing “body armor” but that wasn’t his first claim.

    It really came across that the talk about “assault rifles” gave him the idea that using them made you extremely difficult to kill/stop. 😦

    Liked by 1 person

    1. The “magic wand” theory of fire arms. Not really accurate in any world where there aren’t actually magic wands.

      Like

  5. For years, I’ve maintained that the word “need” should be treated in politics like the four-letter word it is, and politicians who use it should have their mouths washed out with soap.
    In public.
    With the worst-tasting soap you can find.
    (Think of it as waterboarding with suds.)

    Liked by 1 person

  6. “Meantime, the Demented Mommies, Bloomberg, and other assorted gun-grabbing trash, I’m sure, are assiduously ignoring this story.”

    Oh, they won’t ignore it. As V the K put it: Follow up. “Will the three dead thugs be counted as “Gun deaths” when the liberals are rounding up their anti-gun talking points.”

    +3 to the “Total Gun Deaths in America” column.

    http://www.gaypatriot.net/2017/03/28/oh-noes-moar-gun-violences/

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Of course they will be consider “gun deaths.” Not only that, but they will be considered “children killed by gun violence,” given how British press has reported on it, stressing their ages.

      Liked by 1 person

    2. If the 3 wayward yutes were rendered DRT within 4 blocks of an institution of learning, it will be added to the inflated list of “school shootings”.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Oh fuck. Probably.

        Like

  7. Why don’t we just implement sensible bans on violent crime and be done with it?

    Like

  8. Does anyone here know a piece of writing with a good, in depth, discussion from a gun-person about why weapons like the Ar-15 offer strong benefits for civillian self-defense?
    Because the “But assault rifles!” thing always comes up when i discuss the topic of liberal gun laws with anti-gun people. And beeing a newly converted pro-gun european….that is everyone i know.

    Like

    1. If the people you’re attempting to convince are typical liberals, you’re probably wasting time trying to explain any position on firearms. Calibers, types, mechanisms, ballistics, and any other in depth information is ignored. Civilian defense, to most liberals, is better handled by police officers, who they demonize, when they have the opportunity.

      AR-15 is more of a configuration than a single type of firearm. Calibers vary, the type of round varies, and even the barrel length varies.

      With a scope, and the right barrel, an AR-15 can be accurate enough for competition shooting. With a night vision scope, it can be very effective against packs of feral hogs, or coyotes that plague ranchers. Without a scope, it’s very effective home protection firearm, but anyone that knows firearms, also know a shotgun is more effective, or a handgun with frangible rounds that don’t pierce walls. Still, just the appearance of an AR-15 is a strong deterrent. Those facing one know it probably has more rounds than they want to try to dodge.

      Google AR-15 and spend some time reading about the rifle. You’ll find it’s made by many, and part of a large collection of semi-automatic rifles. All are as safe as the user, and if criminals can have access, it only stands to reason honest citizens need to have as powerful of a firearm for protection.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. Thanks for the replies from both of you. It is really appreciated.

        “If the people you’re attempting to convince are typical liberals, you’re probably wasting time trying to explain any position on firearms. ”

        It’s really funny….when i talk to people on the OTHER side of the political spectrum, they very often tell me the same thing about conservatives. Ok, american conservatives. But irony aside.
        I am a member of a political fraternity( yep, still a student) and have friends with vastly differing opinions and political views. It’s just that the people i pick to discuss things with are used to discussions, defending their view with arguments and generally, activly trying to move out of echo chambers. It is kind of the point of the whole enterprise.

        It’s just that, in germany atleast, “those-wacky americans and their guns” is the default position. Most people here know that: a) you have a shit load of guns and that b) (because of that) your murder rate is an order of magnitude higher than ours. Case closed. There is factually no pro gun activism here. Most people have nether actually encounterd anyone intelligently arguing for more liberal firearm laws. I have actually had several people conceed that the pro gun-side has really solid arguments. And one of those was an actual self-described “democratic socialist”.

        Like

        1. I agree about the German views of Americans. My German friends laugh at us lightly about it. Here’s the thing. This.

          Most people here know that: a) you have a shit load of guns and that b) (because of that) your murder rate is an order of magnitude higher than ours.

          This is garbage. It’s a correlation vice causation thing. Our gun ownership has been on the rise, and yet, our murder rates have been on the decline, so to say it’s because of guns is an outright lie. There are reasons for our murder rate, including cultural ones. The problem is that people are used to hearing what they’re used to hearing.

          Liked by 1 person

        2. Discussion disappeared many years ago in the United States. To make matters worse, logic seems to have disappeared with many on all sides of political beliefs.

          When it comes right down to it, the writers of the Constitution made the keeping, and bearing, of firearms a right that can’t be removed without amending the Constitution. This is unacceptable by many, yet most peaceful citizens are not dangerous, and realize when seconds count, such as in a home invasion, the police are minutes away. The Constitution allows this, and the fight over government meddling in the right has been a struggle since the founding.

          Those that oppose the right are usually ignorant of the dangers in all societies, believe a central power should mandate the ownership, and surprisingly can’t grasp the irony in finding armed guards for celebrities acceptable, but condemn private citizens for providing their own security with a firearm.

          Liked by 1 person

        3. “This is garbage. It’s a correlation vice causation thing. Our gun ownership has been on the rise, and yet, our murder rates have been on the decline, so to say it’s because of guns is an outright lie. There are reasons for our murder rate, including cultural ones. The problem is that people are used to hearing what they’re used to hearing.”

          I know that NOW. But had never really looked at the issue before.
          The positive thing is that neither have most people i argue with and between these stats, and the fact gun bans influenced the murder-rate fuck-all in england and Australia that is usually enough to get people realising that they have never actually read a good pro-gun point of view.
          As said…the people i discuss with tend to have a thing for intellectual honesty. And they would never let this kind of lazy correlation/causation error fly in areas that they DO know about.

          Liked by 2 people

        4. This is a good thing. My point was that when you’re told something over and over is true, it becomes engrained. Hard to change.

          Liked by 1 person

        5. “Discussion disappeared many years ago in the United States. To make matters worse, logic seems to have disappeared with many on all sides of political beliefs.”

          I am obviously not a U.S. citizen, nor have ever been there for any extended period of time, but i DO know people using the same kind of rethoric in germany.
          And frankly it is garbage. Yeah, social media has had a terrible net influence on the way we do political discussion on a large scale. But if you feel that rational discussion and intellectual rigor are dead, that is simply you using the wrong sources and keeping the wrong company. Atleast in my experience.
          And it’s not like the majority of peoples politics mostly beeing decided on slogans, superficial arguments and appeal to emotion is something new and we just left the era where everyone had deep, intellectually honest opinions backed by self-reflection and fact.

          Liked by 1 person

    2. I would also recommend this article as well. Larry has years of experience regarding firearms and backs up his arguments very thoroughly.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Thanks, that is actually the article that Started my “conversion” in the First place.
        Basically i got hooked in MHI, wanted to Check out the author and it all went “downhill” from there.

        Like

        1. LOL! Good on you! Larry is beyond awesome!

          Liked by 1 person

  9. Never have understood why the AR platform is an “evil assault rifle”, but the Browning Automatic Rifle (Civilian hunting rifle based on the BAR) isn’t.

    Like

    1. Because gun grabbers are dumb?

      Liked by 3 people

      1. I think it’s the clothes the guns wear, but hey, I like your answer too.

        Liked by 1 person

    2. I hate the term “assault rifle”. If I’m using my rifle to punch holes in paper, it’s a target rifle. If I’m stocking the freezer, it’s a hunting rifle. “Assault” is something that can be done with a rifle. A rifle never assaulted anyone. If I stab somebody with a #2 Eberhard Faber, it is now an “assault pencil” and should be banned. For the children.

      Liked by 2 people

  10. I’m still hoping for the repeal of anti 2nd amendment laws in New York. But not holding my breath.

    Like

  11. Belt fed machine guns are a better deterrent.

    Liked by 2 people

  12. I could actually make a better argument requiring adult American citizens to own an AR-15. 8 USC s311 makes all able-bodied men between 18-45 y.o. members of the militia. Let’s say equal protection extends that to women too. (s312 exempts some people such as the V.P., which was necessary when Joe Biden was in the job.)

    No the AR-15 is the civilian version of the M-16, and I’ll be reasonable with the gun control crowd and keep it at semi rather than select fire, so if we had to go to a WWII type draft, at least the draftees would have some familiarity with the basic firearm. And standardize on the caliber so if there was an invasion there’d be an ability to share ammo (yes, there is not going to be an invasion, but Donald Trump had no path to the presidency).

    Plus there is precedent in English common law at least as far back as 1285 requiring men to own arms for the common defense.

    Liked by 1 person

  13. Yeah, the Demented Mommies and Bloomers are assiduously ignoring it, but out here in the PDRK, ABC News (A Disney subsidiary), used raised voices to imply that he used one of those assault EBRs (“eeeevil black rifle”), even though they were pretty straight with the rest of the story, though I don’t know if they mentioned that the invaders had a knife and brass knuckles.

    My wife bought the lie, and asked me why he needed such a big gun as an AR15 assault rifle. Well, I peeled myself off the ceiling, and explained that the AR15 is just a regular rifle, dressed up military style, and anyway, if I were in that situation, I’d rather have too much gun than too little.

    Like

  14. They’re right.

    No one needs an AR-15.

    After all the CZ 805 BREN is now available as a rifle. Shoots the same caliber, accepts the same mags.

    Like

We Want To Hear What You Have To Say

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: