Export thread

Because Charlie's thread sucks, and, you know, Charlie...

Not in response to that thread, but to idiocy in my local paper's letters page, I pose this question: To what end would the average West Virginian, American, or even Canadian, actually *need* a Kalashnikov? That's NEED, not want. Target shooting is a luxury, so that's out.

Before anyone starts trotting out "home defense", answer this. Why would one need something like that over any other option available? Same for hunting. There are other, better options.

It's probably an easier question in Europe, where borders are so much closer together and the odds of someone dropping some insurgents into your interior are greater. In the States, it's a lot harder to make any headway into the interior of the nation without being noticed.

In Starcraft terms, you equip every houshould with an assault rifle for the same reason you build and stock bunkers with marines inside your perimeter...if the enemy gets past your line, you don't want to allow them free run of your base. This is something less relevant in the ICBM generation, though.

--Patrick

Because they are fucking awesome and as a responsible adult I should be able to use one.

Define need. Please use terms that would clearly demonstrate which of the following are needs vs wants, and to what degree they are needs vs wants:

Birth control
Hardwood flooring
Free medical care
Internet access
Abortion
Marriage
Prescription drug coverage
Electricity
Computers
Fertilizer
Ammonia
Bleach
Alarm clocks
Cell phones
Mobile Internet access
Public Road systems
Toll roads
Three wheelers
Motorcycles
Bicycles
Private airplanes
Publics schools
Private schools

Once you've successfully convinced us all to agree on what the word need means, then we might be able to approach the question as to whether a particular type of firearm can be needed or not.

The problem I have with the "Why do I need one?" argument is that's it's just as draconian and unreasonable as the 2nd ammendment thumpers argument. The answer imho falls between. My biggest bugbear is the lack of registration involved with weapons, and how easy and legal it is to just hand someone a wad of cash and get an AK47. No shit, this is completely legal (edit: semiauto, full auto requires a 200$ permit to buy, and they are registered/tracked). And no one knows that I now have this AK47. This I have problem with. Fix this and you will make major headway. These things need to be registered and tracked ffs.

Necronic said:

The problem I have with the "Why do I need one?" argument is that's it's just as draconian and unreasonable as the 2nd ammendment thumpers argument.

Click to expand...

The problem I have with it is the same problem I have with the "If you are innocent then you have nothing to hide" argument, which is a bit like saying, "If you are a vegan, then you have nothing to eat."

--Patrick

Eh. I don't give a fuck if people are innocent. When it comes to a gun I would rather look into it ahead of time than reconstruct the situation after the fact. I think that with high powered rifles comes high powered responsibility.

To assault.[DOUBLEPOST=1343793987][/DOUBLEPOST]

Magister Moonie said:

To assault.

Click to expand...

RIFLES? Yes, to assault rifles. It is an anti-rifle weapon. God.

So stienman is clearly in the "don't need" group.

DarkAudit said:

So stienman is clearly in the "don't need" group.

Click to expand...

I never shoot blanks, and I always hit what I aim for...

stienman said:

I never shoot blanks, and I always hit what I aim for...

Click to expand...

giggity

What makes an assault rifle an assault rifle? Just how they look?

Short answer? It doesn't matter, the constitution says nobody gets to determine my need to keep and bear arms.

Long answer I've given so many times I'm sure you know it, but here goes the abridged version: The 2nd amendment has nothing to do with hunting or home defense. It is about making government hesitant to oppress with armed force.

Shakey said:

What makes an assault rifle an assault rifle? Just how they look?

Click to expand...

An assault RIFLE actually has a fairly standard definition. An assault WEAPON does not (And it was an assault "weapon" ban that happened.. many assault rifles were not illegal under the assault weapon ban). An assault rifle is an automatic rifle using an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine.

The assault weapons ban described an assault weapon as any semiautomatic weapon with a detachable magazine that could hold 10 or more rounds and any two or more of the following accessories:

*A folding or telescoping stock
*A threaded barrel for attaching a silencer
*A barrel shroud (to protect your hands from heat)
*A pistol grip on a non-pistol
*A second forward grip

It made no mention of the actual deadliness of the weapon. Notice none of the above features actually change how much firing the weapon will kill somebody. It also did not put a blanket ban on fully automatic weapons, which while heavily regulated, were and are still legal in some cases.

Shakey said:

What makes an assault rifle an assault rifle? Just how they look?

Click to expand...

This. Is it the ammo capacity? Caliber? Rate of fire? The addition of a scope, pistol grip, laser sight, suppressor or other accessory? There are literally dozens of tiny things you can do to a gun to make it better, some of which don't even change how it looks all that much.

Make some (intelligent) universal standards for what an assault weapon is before you even think about banning them.

GasBandit said:

An assault RIFLE actually has a fairly standard definition. An assault WEAPON does not (And it was an assault "weapon" ban that happened.. many assault rifles were not illegal under the assault weapon ban). An assault rifle is an automatic rifle using an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine.

Click to expand...

Except most people use assault rifle to define semi-auto rifles that look like military weapons. I'm guessing that is what the OP is talking about. These weapons are no different from regular hunting rifles, other than looks. If you try to ban them, you'll end up banning most hunting rifles.

(double ninja'd as I was replying to forum-lawyering by GB) None of which has any bearing on the question I asked. The question is to what purpose would the average person need a Kalashnikov or similar weapon (see? we've got the hair-splitting bullshit out of the way already).

I am not interested in the semantics of the 2nd amendment, the assault weapons ban, or the like. So what if the Constitution says you can have it. Why would you need it? Defend your purchase to the person that controls the pursestrings (if you have any sort of family or other relationship, you know damn well it's not you).

DarkAudit said:

(double ninja'd as I was replying to forum-lawyering by GB) None of which has any bearing on the question I asked. The question is to what purpose would the average person need a Kalashnikov or similar weapon (see? we've got the hair-splitting bullshit out of the way already).

I am not interested in the semantics of the 2nd amendment, the assault weapons ban, or the like. So what if the Constitution says you can have it. Why would you need it? Defend your purchase to the person that controls the pursestrings (if you have any sort of family or other relationship, you know damn well it's not you).

Click to expand...

Did you read my post or just skim it? I answered you.

GasBandit said:

Long answer I've given so many times I'm sure you know it, but here goes the abridged version: The 2nd amendment has nothing to do with hunting or home defense. It is about making government hesitant to oppress with armed force.

Click to expand...

That is the reason right there. The little woman likes the home defense angle. But the real reason we need these weapons, the reason for the second amendment, is because an armed populace is prerequisite to guarantee the continuance of a free state.

Ok, then. Why is a full-auto Kalashnikov your only option when there are so many handguns and rifles out there to choose from? Are you expecting the Black Helicopters or something?

Your reasoning is the same as the letter writer in my local paper... "they're coming for our guns!!!!!11111elebenty!!!"

First off the full auto Kalashnikov is not really legal. It requires a Type II permit, which can be hard to get. Second off, I need it because it's awesome and I am a responsible adult.

The most honest answer to "Why do you need an assault weapon?" is pretty simple: Because there are other people out there who have them that we can't always trust and the people who are sworn to protect us aren't always able, so we want to be able to defend ourselves. The chances of such a confrontation happening are remote in most of the US, but you really only need to look at what is happening on the border with Mexico to know it's possible.

Yeah, I hear the whole "But you'd never be able to defend yourself anyway" arguments already, but that's kind of like saying you shouldn't have an emergency/disaster kit because your likely to die before help arrives. Just because it might not help isn't an excuse to leave yourself at something's mercy.

But the question remains, with so many other options out there, why would the average Middle American need something as extreme as a Kalashnikov over anything else? Outside of the border areas, are there really that many armed gangs roving around ready to burst into someone's home? I'm talking Morgantown here, not Mogadishu.

DarkAudit said:

Ok, then. Why is a full-auto Kalashnikov your only option when there are so many handguns and rifles out there to choose from? Are you expecting the Black Helicopters or something?

Your reasoning is the same as the letter writer in my local paper... "they're coming for our guns!!!!!11111elebenty!!!"

Click to expand...

And your reasoning is the same as every bleating, blinkered leftist: "HICKS WANNA KILL PEEPS!!!!oneoneonefour!!!

And no, the full auto kalashnikov is not my only option. There is the M-16, the QBZ-95, the G36, the SA80, the SCAR, the TAR-21....

DarkAudit said:

But the question remains, with so many other options out there, why would the average Middle American need something as extreme as a Kalashnikov over anything else? Outside of the border areas, are there really that many armed gangs roving around ready to burst into someone's home? I'm talking Morgantown here, not Mogadishu.

Click to expand...

Because they want it. It's like trying to explain why someone would want a vehicle that only gets 5 mpg. There are tons of cheaper and better alternatives, but they just want it.

Well, this has been happening here in Ohio a lot lately...


3 people arrested in SW Ohio Home Invasion

2 Home Invasions in less than a week for Columbus neighborhood

Victim Fatal Shot during Home Invasion

1 Dead after Hilltop Home Invasion

That's in central OHIO. Gang violence is a serious problem around here.

GasBandit said:

And your reasoning is the same as every bleating, blinkered leftist: "HICKS WANNA KILL PEEPS!!!!oneoneonefour!!!

Click to expand...

I'd like to point out that I'm pretty far left myself and think this is worth fighting for...

AshburnerX said:

I'd like to point out that I'm pretty far left myself and think this is worth fighting for...

Click to expand...

there were two words before leftist. And I have to say, I have seldom heard animal noises from you.

But this thread is even more pointless than Charlie's... it's the same thing, just dressed up in righteous indignation and apoplexy. There is nothing. Nothing. That can be said that will make DarkAudit reply "Well, Gee, you've got a point there, I guess assault rifles are OK." He'll just get madder, and louder, and madder, and louder. He didn't ask the original question because he wants to know, he asked the question because he thinks he can shoot down all comers. /ironic choice of words

It's like this survery I saw once:

Do you think that it's ok for illegal immigrants to sneak into our country at night

1) No, I think our borders are sacred and should be treated as such.

2) Yes, I it's totally fine for them to get all of our jobs and murder americans without restriction.

My God DarkAudit you're right? There's no feasible reason why I need a fully automatic assault rifle! You have opened my eyes by presenting an incredibly specific and narrow question that pretends to offer up the chance of debate while really only serving to lead people to the answer you want to hear.

Ban ALL the Guns!

AshburnerX said:

Well, this has been happening here in Ohio a lot lately...


3 people arrested in SW Ohio Home Invasion

2 Home Invasions in less than a week for Columbus neighborhood

Victim Fatal Shot during Home Invasion

1 Dead after Hilltop Home Invasion

That's in central OHIO. Gang violence is a serious problem around here.



I'd like to point out that I'm pretty far left myself and think this is worth fighting for...

Click to expand...

I've lived in two neighborhoods in the past that had home invasion gangs. That makes you a tad bit paranoid.

But, I don't own an assault rifle. Those are a tad bit dangerous to your family and neighbors if you open up with one. Personally I have a high capacity .40sw pistol for home defense.

Also until recently I can not afford an AR-15. But, the price has dropped by a good $800 since the ban ended.

Covar said:

My God DarkAudit you're right? There's no feasible reason why I need a fully automatic assault rifle! You have opened my eyes by presenting an incredibly specific and narrow question that pretends to offer up the chance of debate while really only serving to lead people to the answer you want to hear.

Ban ALL the Guns!

Click to expand...

Did you notice that sixpackshaker actually answered the question without resorting to hyperbole, semantics, or just plain hair-splitting?

It's a simple question. There are many options to choose from, and this happens to be on the extreme end of them. Has the country as a whole really become that dangerous that the first choice would be automatic weapons fire? wouldn't a well-placed double tap do just as well?

DarkAudit said:

Did you notice that sixpackshaker Has the country as a whole really become that dangerous that the first choice would be automatic weapons fire? wouldn't a well-placed double tap do just as well?

Click to expand...

That's what you do with an assault rifle... precise semi-automatic shots... not full auto spray and pray.

I'm not sure what the regulations are in the USA about fully automatic weapons but I was under the impression that they are the exception rather than the norm.

How about I answer your question with another question:

Why do people need alcohol?

This kills more people than guns. It serves zero purpose other than entertainment. Why is it legal? The answer is better stated in yet another question: Why shouldn't it be legal.

And that's the real question you need to be asking yourself. What is it about guns that means that they shouldn't be legal? In America, liberty comes first. We don't start with the assumption of it being banned, then move on to justifying it's legality. We start with an assumption of legality and then justify banning it.

So, instead of asking us why it should be legal, explain to me why it should be banned.

Necronic said:

How about I answer your question with another question:

Why do people need alcohol?

Click to expand...

Studies have shown that drinking 2-3 beers a day, makes life tolerable.

Azurephoenix said:

That's what you do with an assault rifle... precise semi-automatic shots... not full auto spray and pray.

Click to expand...

I'm with AP on this one. Spray and pray is impressive, but it is ultimately a waste of ammo unless you are dealing with a massed force or armor.

--Patrick

The question then boils down to,

"What features does an assault rifle have that differentiate it from other weapons and when are those features useful to the average American?"

Assault weapons are typically rifles with specific features, including semiautomatic fire and magazine ammo storage. In addition, as gas pointed out, they must have a few other features, such as a folding or telescoping stock, a pistol grip rather than a rifle grip, a barrel shroud, provisions for a silencer, etc.

Each of these things take a normal rifle and make it easier to fire multiple rounds quickly and to conceal it. The barrel shroud ensures that even if you fire a dozen rounds, you won't get burned by the barrel. The folding stock and silencer allow you to more easily hide the weapon, or your use of the weapon. The pistol grip and forward grip make it easier to control the weapon without steadying it against a shoulder or using a mount.

The only time in recent history when I think someone would have a valid reason, according to your particularly narrow definition of need, to have wanted one is if they lived in new Orleans during and shortly after Katrina hit. The mere sight of an assault rifle would have sent scavengers skittering away, and it would be relatively trivial to scare them away further by shooting multiple rounds in a way that wouldn't hit or hurt them but would cause them to rethink their plans. This would work even for those scavengers carrying guns, rifles and even assault weapons. In a situation where there is no authority or law, the person with the most frightening looking weapon wins. You would not get the same response from a rifle, shotgun, or handgun.

Yes, there are lessor weapons that often meet the needs without having the all in one design that an assault weapon provides. If you think that this is a problem, then you must also agree that no one needs an iPhone or android phone, and instead people should carry a music player, a video game machine, a cellular phone, a PDA, a laptop, and a 3G Internet router with them rather than combining many of the strengths of each product into one device.

Keep in mind that fully automatic weapons are a completely different class altogether, and they are heavily restricted and licensed. Assault weapons are NOT fully automatic. Fully automatic weapons do not fall under the assault weapon classification. It has been unlawful since 1934 for civilians to own machine guns (guns which fire more than one shot per trigger pull) without special permission from the is treasury department, and are subject to a $200 tax every tme they transfer ownership from one legally registered machine gun owner to another. Since 1986 no new machine guns can be sold to civilians at all. Older guns are grandfathered into the national firearms act and can be transferred from owner to owner with the tax, but no new weapons can be sold to civilians.

So let's keep this question narrow and only discuss semi automatic assault rifles.

Another fun fact - any semi-auto "hunting" rifle that can accommodate a detachable magazine of standard size (call it 5 rounds) is perfectly capable of accommodating a 30, 50, or even 100 round magazine. And because in general they are much higher power, they then become much scarier than the most malevolent-appearing AR-15.

But, because there's usually springs involved, the larger magazines also have more problems with causing the gun to jam. From what I've read, that actually did happen in Aurora. He had a 100 round drum that jammed up on him, obviously rather quickly.

Here's what that looks like, incidentally.

He still shot 70 people. So the jam happened at the latest 50 bullets in.

sixpackshaker said:

He still shot 70 people. So the jam happened at the latest 50 bullets in.

Click to expand...

One thing I haven't found is how many people he shot with which guns. He had two other guns with him as well.[DOUBLEPOST=1343851946][/DOUBLEPOST]But in the frame of reference of what people "need," that spring fatigue figured into my own decision process when deciding between an automatic and a revolver in my last firearm purchase... If you load your magazines and then leave them to sit for extended periods (especially years, on a shelf say), you are courting jams. But a revolver's rest state has no stress on any springs, and 6 shot speedloaders don't suffer that problem either.

stienman said:

The only time in recent history when I think someone would have a valid reason, according to your particularly narrow definition of need, to have wanted one is if they lived in new Orleans during and shortly after Katrina hit.

Click to expand...

...except that the local authorities went around depriving citizens of their 2nd amendment rights collecting all firearms to cut down on trouble, with some of them not being returned for up to 3 years (or more, assuming any still remain unreturned). A law was subsequently passed which reaffirmed and guaranteed the right for a citizen to keep and bear arms in just such an emergency, presumably because the meaning of the 2nd amendment was sufficiently unclear on the concept.

This still ranks for me as one of the most "you've got to be kidding me oh wait you aren't kidding" moments that has occurred during my lifetime.

--Patrick

In short, I don't need one. What happens if I do ultimately need one, though? Is there a way to ensure that I can have access only when necessary AND that the government (which may be the cause of my need) still grants me that access in my time of need?

The government has a conflict of interest in regulating weapons, since one of the oft-cited reasons for freedom of weapon availability is to keep the government at bay. Unless my enemy is guaranteed to provide me with weapons (which is never the case!) then this discussion will never be resolved. I hope to never have to fire such a weapon, but I have often thought about what I would do in a situation akin to Germany circa late 1930s (i just totally Godwin'd this thread!) and it is a hard question to answer. As long as there is a place to run, I would probably do that, but a world where I would have to fight, I hope I am not having to do so with my kitchen knives.

So what do we do about weapons? I don't know. The founding fathers did not envision the weapons we have today. But we are also more in communication with the rest of the world than ever before as well, which makes a big difference in a society that allows it (and will likely continue allowing it). The framers left it to us to change our government and create our laws as we see fit. Ideally we would find honest, intelligent men to reason this problem out. What are the odds of that happening?

GasBandit said:

Another fun fact - any semi-auto "hunting" rifle that can accommodate a detachable magazine of standard size (call it 5 rounds) is perfectly capable of accommodating a 30, 50, or even 100 round magazine. And because in general they are much higher power, they then become much scarier than the most malevolent-appearing AR-15.

But, because there's usually springs involved, the larger magazines also have more problems with causing the gun to jam. From what I've read, that actually did happen in Aurora. He had a 100 round drum that jammed up on him, obviously rather quickly.

Here's what that looks like, incidentally.

Click to expand...

I'll be honest, I do have a problem with large capacity magazines. Those should fall under Title II (if they don't already.) A high quality 25-50 round mag makes a weapon ridiculously more dangerous than the same weapon with a 10 round clip.

....if borderlands tought me anything

Necronic said:

I'll be honest, I do have a problem with large capacity magazines. Those should fall under Title II (if they don't already.) A high quality 25-50 round mag makes a weapon ridiculously more dangerous than the same weapon with a 10 round clip.

....if borderlands tought me anything

Click to expand...

Yeah, to say nothing of those ammo regenerating mods!

I agree with stienman. Keep the focus narrow. I'm not interested in super-magazines, what the government is or is not planning, or what the Aurora shooter did. For the sake of argument, you have the weapon in question. By the laws of the land, you are allowed to have it. Be it a Kalashnikov, AK-47, AR-15 or what have you. What the "definition" is is beyond the scope of this discussion. The discussion is do you need one? Is it practical? In the close quarters of home defense is that what you want to be toting around? Sure it's damn intimidating, but when you have to put rounds downrange, will it get the job done without getting hung up on something or other? Varmint hunting? Do you really want to turn your target into an unrecognizable splat?

I see it like this. I'm not going to use a Cray just to surf HF. I'm not going to take a McLaren MP27 just to drive to work and back.

DarkAudit said:

I'm not going to take a McLaren MP27 just to drive to work and back.

Click to expand...

Like any of us could afford this car in the first place...


Besides... comparing that car to an assault rifle isn't fair... it's more like a 30mm GAU-8/A Avenger gatling cannon.

DarkAudit said:

I'm not going to take a McLaren MP27 just to drive to work and back.

Click to expand...

If I could, I absolutely would.

DarkAudit said:

I agree with stienman. Keep the focus narrow. I'm not interested in super-magazines, what the government is or is not planning, or what the Aurora shooter did. For the sake of argument, you have the weapon in question. By the laws of the land, you are allowed to have it. Be it a Kalashnikov, AK-47, AR-15 or what have you. What the "definition" is is beyond the scope of this discussion. The discussion is do you need one?

Click to expand...

What are you looking for an answer? If you want the answer, Gas already did it. To stage your own defense against the government you need to at least have assault weapons. Just ask how much these weapons have helped those in the middle east against their government.

Do I think that's a valid excuse, no. I think it's silly. But that's the excuse we get, and its backed up by the 2nd amendment.

DarkAudit said:

I agree with stienman. Keep the focus narrow. I'm not interested in super-magazines, what the government is or is not planning, or what the Aurora shooter did. For the sake of argument, you have the weapon in question. By the laws of the land, you are allowed to have it. Be it a Kalashnikov, AK-47, AR-15 or what have you. What the "definition" is is beyond the scope of this discussion. The discussion is do you need one? Is it practical? In the close quarters of home defense is that what you want to be toting around? Sure it's damn intimidating, but when you have to put rounds downrange, will it get the job done without getting hung up on something or other? Varmint hunting? Do you really want to turn your target into an unrecognizable splat?

I see it like this. I'm not going to use a Cray just to surf HF. I'm not going to take a McLaren MP27 just to drive to work and back.

Click to expand...

You see my response was that I don't need one this moment, but, unless you can present another option, I may need one available to me.

The root of the question is pointless anyway. There are only a few differences between a rifle and an assault weapon. So what if I want a folding stock and a pistol grip? Why should that be a reason I cannot own the gun? If I prefer those features, why shouldn't I have a gun with them?

It's like saying that civilians don't need hummer vehicles, or jeeps with snorkels! And those people should be perfectly content with a truck or a jeep without a snorkel. There is literally a very short list of differences between a rifle and an assault weapon, and they are merely features. They both still have triggers, magazines, semi automatic actions, rifled barrels, and the ability to successfully hit targets near and far.

Why do you think that a pistol grip on a rifle should be banned? A shield on the barrel to avoid burns? They are merely features.

stienman said:

The root of the question is pointless anyway. There are only a few differences between a rifle and an assault weapon. So what if I want a folding stock and a pistol grip? Why should that be a reason I cannot own the gun? If I prefer those features, why shouldn't I have a gun with them?

It's like saying that civilians don't need hummer vehicles, or jeeps with snorkels. There is literally a very short list of differences between a rifle and an assault weapon, and they are merely features.

Click to expand...

Weeeell...that's getting close to a Ship of Theseus problem. It's sort of along the long of a slippery slope fallacy. I'm not sure we want to go down that road, since it is likely to be unfruitful.

That's possible, but I think people don't fully understand that there is already very little difference between an assault weapon and a rifle. We can't take the next big step to fully automatic weapons since they are effectively unavailable to civilians.

So the slippery slope can only go so far, and no more than a handful of chip parts are changing.

You couldn't, for instance, say that if we allow folding stocks then we might as well allow grenade launchers.

stienman said:

That's possible, but I think people don't fully understand that there is already very little difference between an assault weapon and a rifle. We can't take the next big step to fully automatic weapons since they are effectively unavailable to civilians.

So the slippery slope can only go so far, and no more than a handful of chip parts are changing.

You couldn't, for instance, say that if we allow folding stocks then we might as well allow grenade launchers.

Click to expand...

Only because you are highlighting the vast difference between the two without acknowledging the potential features that bridge that gap. If you discuss the features along the continuum, then you could probably slide from one of the spectrum to the other, feature by feature.

All I keep think about in this thread is WHEN DID BUMBLE GET SO POLITICAL?

And then I remember, you all exist to confuse me.

MindDetective said:

Weeeell...that's getting close to a Ship of Theseus problem. It's sort of along the long of a slippery slope fallacy. I'm not sure we want to go down that road, since it is likely to be unfruitful.

Click to expand...

That's sort of why I posed the question in the first place. The letter writer to my local paper was shouting "oppression!" and "the gub'mint wants to take all our guns away!" over the assault weapons ban. So I thought I'd take a different approach and just look for justification beyond "it's awesome and I wants it."

Besides, the more noise made about the ban, the more the Striesand effect comes into play. People will want one just to stick it to the opponents. IMO, they're just too impractical and expensive for the average American suburban dweller. The marketplace would keep them out of most homes anyway.

Tl;dr: why ban if no one is likely to buy one otherwise?

DarkAudit said:

Tl;dr: why ban if no one is likely to buy one otherwise?

Click to expand...

Well, I don't support a ban but I will also say that something being expensive is not tantamount to a de facto ban. Plus, they're not THAT expensive. It's fairly easy to find an AR-15 for $800, and while not dirt cheap, that is by no means out of reach of the "average American suburban dweller."

stienman said:

Why do you think that a pistol grip on a rifle should be banned? A shield on the barrel to avoid burns? They are merely features.

Click to expand...

The barrel shield I don't get. The collapsable/folding stock and pistol grip I completely understand. There are basically only two things you can improve on a weapon. Safety and deadliness. Barrel shield increases safety. Collapsable stocks and pistol grips increase deadliness. So yes, they are "merely features", but features that have a specific purpose and increase certain aspects. It's not the same as painting it pink.

There's a reason these things are included on military grade weapons. Large cap magazines are bar none the most deadly "feature" that can be added to a gun imho though, that or the folding stock (as it allows easier transport/concealment, plus it takes 2 AP off the ready state in JA 1.13).

When I retire and buy 50 acres in Colorado, yes, I'll buy an AR-15 or similar rifle. They are handy little guns that work pretty well for dropping wolves and feral hogs.

sixpackshaker said:

When I retire and buy 50 acres in Colorado, yes, I'll buy an AR-15 or similar rifle. They are handy little guns that work pretty well for dropping wolves and feral hogs.

Click to expand...

I suppose it won't surprise you in the least that at first glimpse I thought that said "federal hogs."

Is entertainment not a "need"?

Necronic said:

Is entertainment not a "need"?

Click to expand...

That depends on how far up the hierarchy you want to go.

I don't see a gun there. But I do see one on this, far superior, pyramid:

Why do women need so many shoes? Why do rich people need so many cars? There's my answer to you.

Ermac said:

Why do woman need so many shoes? Why do rich people need so many cars? There's my answer to you.

Click to expand...

You forgot golf clubs, fishing lures, hand tools, kitchen knives, analgesics, and camera lenses.

--Patrick

Personally I do not, living in a normal suburban neighborhood. The worst crime that happened here is one time a kid stole a jar of quarters....which he gave back. And even if I did want a gun, I'd just want a normal hand-gun. Big assault rifles just seem to big to handle, a waste of money, and unnecessary.

Stop taking Thread Necromancer 's schtick.

Oh crap, sorry I thought this thread was more recent. I didn't check the date and I apologize.

bad yoshimickster! No assault rifle for you!