Current Events > Yet to hear a compelling argument that the AR-15 is necessary for home defense

(+) Yeah! (+)

Or semi-autos in general, really.

If I wake up, hear someone trying to break into my house, grab my trusty bolt action rifle (just an example), and yell that Im armed, I feel extremely good about my chances that anyone trying to rob me is gonna fuck right off or worst case Ill get the drop on them no matter what theyre carrying. The only scenario in which I see this being insufficient for defense is one where multiple assailants carrying (hypothetically illegal) semi-autos are all trying to break into my house with the sole intent of killing me, in which case Im pretty good and fucked even if I have a bazooka.

You dont need a semi-automatic to hunt.

You dont need a semi-automatic to scare off a home invader, or even blast him to Kingdom Come if need be.

What am I missing? What is the hypothetical where you need this?
---

>need
Get fucked.
---

Look at Canada or any other first world countries in the world except the US if you want proof that citizens dont need fucking Rambo arsenals to live their daily lives.

Americans who live their lives by an outdated document are no different than radical Islamists who also live their lives by outdated writings.
---

Banning semiautomatic guns because of a very small percentage of gun owners is fucking stupid
---

545x39 posted...

>need
Get fucked.

Great answer, really bringing a lot to the table.
---

DarthAragorn posted...

Banning semiautomatic guns because of a very small percentage of gun owners is fucking stupid

We ban or severely limit plenty of dangerous things that the vast majority of Americans would be able to handle responsibly. Part of living in a society.

Also didnt answer my question.
---

i gotta have more boom bow so i can make sure the burglar is dead
---

And those things shouldn't be banned either
---

DarthAragorn posted...

And those things shouldn't be banned either

So your ideal societal construct is anarchy? Anything goes because only a small minority abuse things?
---

Well you jumping to need in the first place requires an argument in and of itself. Why do I have to need something in order to obtain it?
---

You can make that argument for literally anything. Why do you need *insert whatever item here*? From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs, right?
---

Mr_Biscuit posted...

DarthAragorn posted...

And those things shouldn't be banned either

So your ideal societal construct is anarchy? Anything goes because only a small minority abuse things?

Should we ban cars because some people are shitty drivers?
---

mD_atheist posted...

Well you jumping to need in the first place requires an argument in and of itself. Why do I have to need something in order to obtain it?

Well it would be better than insulting and sending death threats to school shooting survivors just because you want something.
---

The trick to dealing with home invaders is to keep quiet and get the drop on them. In your home you have the home field advantage and know the layout better than they do. One of the things keeping you alive is the element of surprise. By announcing your position, you lose that.

And if you need to take a shot you want something that can land you a quick follow up if needed. Unless you are tommy2clutch and practice with that bolt action on the reg, you are gonna just fumble in the dark under pressure. With a semi auto you don't really have that worry.
---

Chicken posted...

Look at Canada or any other first world countries in the world except the US if you want proof that citizens dont need fucking Rambo arsenals to live their daily lives.

Americans who live their lives by an outdated document are no different than radical Islamists who also live their lives by outdated writings.

Said outdated document birthed freedom into the world and is why so many countries now have some kind of democracy... But sure it's outdated that's logical

Americans that defend owning semi autos literally sound like addicts.

Oh I dont need to smoke crack...
---

mD_atheist posted...

Well you jumping to need in the first place requires an argument in and of itself. Why do I have to need something in order to obtain it?

StucklnMyPants posted...

You can make that argument for literally anything. Why do you need *insert whatever item here*? From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs, right?

Okay, first decent counters ITT.

Overall I would say need enters the equation here (beyond just an abstract concept) when we are talking about an instrument designed with the sole intent of killing other people. I fully understand the need for a means of self-defense. That said, is it so unreasonable to have a perspective on what is overkill and ultimately has greater potential to be used for harm than for good?

Essentially, cant think of too many home defense good guy with a gun stories that wouldnt have been the same with a gun that wasnt semi-auto, but can think of a ton of stories where there wouldve been fewer casualties if a shooters weapon wasnt semi-auto.
---

Chicken posted...

Oh I dont need to smoke crack...

holy false equivalencies batman
---

Chicken posted...

Look at Canada or any other first world countries in the world except the US if you want proof that citizens dont need fucking Rambo arsenals to live their daily lives.

Americans who live their lives by an outdated document are no different than radical Islamists who also live their lives by outdated writings.

Who's using the Constitution as justification to kill those they see as inferior again?
---

Chicken posted...

Americans that defend owning semi autos literally sound like addicts.

Oh I dont need to smoke crack...

Are you aware that semi autos make up like 99% of the guns that people own nowadays?
---

DarthAragorn posted...

Mr_Biscuit posted...

DarthAragorn posted...

And those things shouldn't be banned either

So your ideal societal construct is anarchy? Anything goes because only a small minority abuse things?

Should we ban cars because some people are shitty drivers?

This is the dumbest argument.

a) Its a significantly more arduous process to get a license and a vehicle than a gun
b) Cars are not, by design, killing machines
---

Mr_Biscuit posted...

DarthAragorn posted...

Banning semiautomatic guns because of a very small percentage of gun owners is fucking stupid

We ban or severely limit plenty of dangerous things that the vast majority of Americans would be able to handle responsibly. Part of living in a society.

Also didnt answer my question.

Cars definitely apply there, buddy
---

It doesn't have to be "necessary" you punks.

It's legal and it's my right. And you can have my guns over my dead body you freedom hating vampires.
---

Gun violence is just a symptom of a culture in rapid decline.
---

RE_expert44 posted...

The trick to dealing with home invaders is to keep quiet and get the drop on them. In your home you have the home field advantage and know the layout better than they do. One of the things keeping you alive is the element of surprise. By announcing your position, you lose that.

And if you need to take a shot you want something that can land you a quick follow up if needed. Unless you are tommy2clutch and practice with that bolt action on the reg, you are gonna just fumble in the dark under pressure. With a semi auto you don't really have that worry.

I suppose. That still feels a little delusions of grandeur to me. Again, is the guy stalking you with the hope of killing you, and thats why you need this specific type of gun? If thats your life, I guess I get it, but I dont think the majority of home invaders are gonna hear I have a gun or a warning shot and think THE HUNT IS ON, I think theyre gonna get the fuck out and look for an easier mark.
---

TrollSlayer11 posted...

It doesn't have to be "necessary" you punks.

It's legal and it's my right. And you can have my guns over my dead body you freedom hating vampires.

This is that addict mentality.

Doesnt matter if it makes sense, I want it and its mine, fuck you thats why is not a good argument.

Its my right and therefore it should never be discussed is dumb too when Jefferson is directly quoted as saying the constitution must constantly be open to amendments and changes with the times.
---

but if you want a serious answer.

theyre highly ergonomic. come in a multitude of calibers (including stuff that can be used for hunting like 6.5creed and 300blackout and changing the barrels out to use them is immensely easy), can be highly customized (as well as come in "pistol" variants), different ammo is varied including stuff that wont penetrate highly. the .223/556 specifically tends to tumble and actually penetrate less than a higher powered 9mm making for less collateral damage. they are more compact than a standard rifle or shotgun making close quarters easier to manage. they have hardly any recoil so anyone can use them including a 5' woman, 12 year old and an 80 year old grandma. they can hold a lot of ammo so a lot of firepower if need be. while i wouldnt say they are the best at certain things they can fill multiple roles including target shooting, hunting, home defense ect. they are probably the most versatile weapon in the world which is why its as popular as it is not just in the US but the whole world next to the AK, but even then russian special forces are also starting to outfit them selves out with AR variants.

Dark_Spiret posted...

but if you want a serious answer.

theyre highly ergonomic. come in a multitude of calibers (including stuff that can be used for hunting like 6.5creed and 300blackout and changing the barrels out to use them is immensely easy), can be highly customized (as well as come in "pistol" variants), different ammo is varied including stuff that wont penetrate highly. the .223/556 specifically tends to tumble and actually penetrate less than a higher powered 9mm making for less collateral damage. they are more compact than a standard rifle or shotgun making close quarters easier to manage. they have hardly any recoil so anyone can use them including a 5' woman, 12 year old and an 80 year old grandma. they can hold a lot of ammo so a lot of firepower if need be. while i wouldnt say they are the best at certain things they can fill multiple roles including target shooting, hunting, home defense ect. they are probably the most versatile weapon in the world which is why its as popular as it is not just in the US but the whole world.

i do understand that they are quite nice guns in general and have a considerable degree of convenience. To be clear, this topic is more about semi-automatic weapons on the whole than specifically the AR-15 but I was running out of room in the title. I do think banning specifically the AR-15 and nothing else is the most pointless thing you could do and its not what Im proposing.
---

StucklnMyPants posted...

Chicken posted...

Americans that defend owning semi autos literally sound like addicts.

Oh I dont need to smoke crack...

Are you aware that semi autos make up like 99% of the guns that people own nowadays?

And thats part of the problem.
---

in terms of semi-autos, getting rid of them would effectively ban ~85% of firearms in the country. thats a double edged sword in that that is what you want if you wanted to get rid of guns, but its also the biggest hurdle and it is something that will make the pro-2a people fight viciously for and furthers their cause that liberals want to take away guns (which isnt far from the truth with wanting an 85% ban).

semi-autos give you a tactical advantage in high adrenaline situations where even cops dont remember how many shots they fired and each extra bullet you have and can fire means a higher chance of making it out of an encounter. bullets also dont work like you think unless you get someone in the spine or head and even heart shots dont kill instantly especially if someone is drugged up. not to mention if there is multiple threats. it also means atleast keeping on a more even keel to the government and deterring authoritarian rule. you can argue that a bunch of yocals with AR's cant do anything to the government, but who do you think can be deemed more of a threat, a 1000 people with a double barrel or a 1000 people with an AK?

the US also has a legacy of people willing to do crazy shit if they feel wronged so the chances of someone actually doing something tends to be higher.

Mr_Biscuit posted...

DarthAragorn posted...

Mr_Biscuit posted...

DarthAragorn posted...

And those things shouldn't be banned either

So your ideal societal construct is anarchy? Anything goes because only a small minority abuse things?

Should we ban cars because some people are shitty drivers?

This is the dumbest argument.

a) Its a significantly more arduous process to get a license and a vehicle than a gun
b) Cars are not, by design, killing machines

a) no. Felons cant get guns but can get all the cars they want

b) guns are defense machines. It is in fact illegal to use a gun to commit a crime such as murder someone just as it is illegal to use a car to murder someone.
---

545x39 posted...

>need
Get fucked.

This. It's literally the only right that leftists make a 'need' argument about.
---

darkjedilink posted...

545x39 posted...

>need
Get fucked.

This. It's literally the only right that leftists make a 'need' argument about.

Americans defend their right to guns more than they defend their right to clean drinking water. Guns are literally more important to them than drinking water.
---

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, . . . .
---

Chicken posted...

StucklnMyPants posted...

Chicken posted...

Americans that defend owning semi autos literally sound like addicts.

Oh I dont need to smoke crack...

Are you aware that semi autos make up like 99% of the guns that people own nowadays?

And thats part of the problem.

Very few people NEED an abortion, so we can ban all abortions not done specifically for the mother's help, right?

Oh, and NOT have the government give abortion clinics billions of dollars every year, since they don't give gun shops money?

Oh, and you don't NEED to be able to call government officials you don't like fascists, so let's ban anti-government speech, too.

See how stupid it is to restrict a right based on 'need?'
---

Chicken posted...

darkjedilink posted...

545x39 posted...

>need
Get fucked.

This. It's literally the only right that leftists make a 'need' argument about.

Americans defend their right to guns more than they defend their right to clean drinking water. Guns are literally more important to them than drinking water.

What are you talking about?
---

I don't need to give a compelling argument because the 2nd exists. My rights don't end where your feeling begin.
---

voldothegr8 posted...

I don't need to give a compelling argument because the 2nd exists. My rights don't end where your feeling begin.

And theres the comparison with the Quran. An outdated document tells us its okay so its okay.
---

Mr_Biscuit posted...

TrollSlayer11 posted...

It doesn't have to be "necessary" you punks.

It's legal and it's my right. And you can have my guns over my dead body you freedom hating vampires.

This is that addict mentality.

Doesnt matter if it makes sense, I want it and its mine, fuck you thats why is not a good argument.

Its my right and therefore it should never be discussed is dumb too when Jefferson is directly quoted as saying the constitution must constantly be open to amendments and changes with the times.

Do you hold this exact same view to other rights, like abortion or voting or free speech?

If you don't, you're a hypocrite.
---

Chicken posted...

voldothegr8 posted...

I don't need to give a compelling argument because the 2nd exists. My rights don't end where your feeling begin.

And theres the comparison with the Quran. An outdated document tells us its okay so its okay.

What does religious text have to do with the Bill of Rights, specifically the 2nd? Oh right you're just flinging fallacies around.
---

Because people riot and loot.
---

only cops should have guns
---

Chicken posted...

voldothegr8 posted...

I don't need to give a compelling argument because the 2nd exists. My rights don't end where your feeling begin.

And theres the comparison with the Quran. An outdated document tells us its okay so its okay.

Without that 'outdated document,' you'd be in prison for this comment.
---

Why do you need a race car when at most, you will ever go 70 MPH on the freeway?

You dont need that. Get a shitty Ford or Honda and drive them til they die
---

Caution999 posted...

Why do you need a race car when at most, you will ever go 70 MPH on the freeway?

You dont need that. Get a shitty Ford or Honda and drive them til they die

How many racecars do you actually see on a daily basis?
---

Tmaster148 posted...

Caution999 posted...

Why do you need a race car when at most, you will ever go 70 MPH on the freeway?

You dont need that. Get a shitty Ford or Honda and drive them til they die

How many racecars do you actually see on a daily basis?

I see more race cars a week than guns, and I live in bumfuck, Louisiana.
---

545x39 posted...

>need
Get fucked.

---

darkjedilink posted...

Tmaster148 posted...

Caution999 posted...

Why do you need a race car when at most, you will ever go 70 MPH on the freeway?

You dont need that. Get a shitty Ford or Honda and drive them til they die

How many racecars do you actually see on a daily basis?

I see more race cars a week than guns, and I live in bumfuck, Louisiana.

I don't see many race cars around Shreveport, but I do see a large number of cars built to go above the legal speed limit. Maybe that is a better counter point to the anti-semiauto argument. Sure, you don't NEED a gun that can fire more than one round every couple of seconds. You also don't NEED a car that can go over 80mph. Let's restrict fast cars to only those who have occupational requirements. That will stop all car accidents and fatalities.
---

darkjedilink posted...

Chicken posted...

voldothegr8 posted...

I don't need to give a compelling argument because the 2nd exists. My rights don't end where your feeling begin.

And theres the comparison with the Quran. An outdated document tells us its okay so its okay.

Without that 'outdated document,' you'd be in prison for this comment.

OBJECTION!!!
I demand proof that we would live in a police state where we get thrown in prison for what we say online without that outdated document.
---

Why do libs obsess about AR-15s when they're responsible for well less than 1% of all gun homicides? Is it just because they "look big and scary" or something?
---