15-Year Old Boy Uses AR-15 to Defend Himself, Sister Against Home Invaders

[LickingGravity]

maybe because that was not the gun that was easiest to grab. Well that combined with the article did not mention the kid had a choice and decided to go with the AR15

You are missing the point. The point is twofold;
1) Is a weapon like a AR-15 really necessary as opposed to a pistol;
2) Do you think it is a good idea for teenagers to have unrestricted access to these dangerous weapons.

 

[Shiek]

Explain to me why a .38 wouldn't have been enough and then you might have a valid point.

All I see in this story otherwise is yet another example of teenagers having access to extremely dangerous weapons - exactly what is wrong. If you think it's okay to give teenages access to these weapons and increase the possibility that they wake up one day and decide it's time for their 15 minutes of noteriety then your opinionds have zero worth to me and one hopes that you have minimal influence on law makers.

The AR-15 fires a bullet that measures .223 of an inch. across, the .38 is a bigger, heavier and more destructive. .38's and 9mm are the two bullets of choice in law enforcement. It's easier to aim a rifle than a handgun not to mention more accurate with the longer barrel. The kid was educated with firearms and taught to be responsible with it. You assume all teenagers are the same. My kids have been taught how dangerous firearms can be, just like how dangerous cars can be. The vast majority of people with firearms make sure they are respected and not handled with carelessness. So dont presume to think you know it all. All I know is from what I see and make a point to learn.

A .223 is not as destructive as a 38 or 9 mm. More are killed with heavier calibers. A .223 is more likely to zip thru your body causing less damage than a 38.

A pistol can be concealed whereas a rifle is more difficult.

 

[papasmerf]

Repo would you mind my owning this??

or this

bump

 

[LickingGravity]

You assume all teenagers are the same. My kids have been taught how dangerous firearms can be, just like how dangerous cars can be. The vast majority of people with firearms make sure they are respected and not handled with carelessness. So dont presume to think you know it all. All I know is from what I see and make a point to learn.


.

At least when I presume I would be erring on the side of safety and the kids wouldn't have weapons. Your presumptions are much more dangerous. We aren't talking about carlessness here , although I am sure there are a bunch of unfortunate accidents every year as well. It's clear from the recent history of young adults and teen agers using these weapons you don't know it all either and there is at least enough nutbars out there that your weak arguments are just no longer sufficient justification to continue to do nothing about this problem.

 

[jumpingjackflash]

bump

Mr. Smerf (that's funny to say), Piers would be yelling at me "stop laughing" !

When I google ar 15 this is what I get. https://www.google.ca/search?q=ar+1...u4DQBg&sqi=2&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAA&biw=1241&bih=606

so please both of you stop preaching they are only simple hunting rifles because in the end we all know what the end product turns into.

 

[papasmerf]

Mr. Smerf (that's funny to say), Piers would be yelling at me "stop laughing" !

When I google ar 15 this is what I get. https://www.google.ca/search?q=ar+1...u4DQBg&sqi=2&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAA&biw=1241&bih=606

so please both of you stop preaching they are only simple hunting rifles because in the end we all know what the end product turns into.

yet neither gun I asked about is what you present.

yes they were 2 different guns

 

[jumpingjackflash]

yet neither gun I asked about is what you present.

yes they were 2 different guns

I don't believe anyone is trying to stop people from owning regular guns, or enjoying hunting or target shooting. It's a lame argument when you can't accept military weapons should not be in the hands of regular folks.

 

[papasmerf]

I don't believe anyone is trying to stop people from owning regular guns, or enjoying hunting or target shooting. It's a lame argument when you can't accept military weapons should not be in the hands of regular folks.

the first picture is a .223
the second was a .3006

the .223 is what you called an AR15

The problem here is you are only taking your info from the anti-gun nuts and not finding things out for yourself.

 

[Shiek]

Lets see, I see a semi automatic rifle that has been dressed up with sights, lights, a heat shield (to keep from burning your hand on the barrel) A few of them have 10 round clips and 30 round clips. I notice a couple have legs on them to allow more stability in long shots.

They are no different than any other semi automatic rifle out there. I can take my pellet rifle and dress it up so it's "scary".


An assault rifle is a firearm that is fully automatic, only the military has access to them, the general public does not.

 

[Cardinal Fang]

Can you say the same thing for the anti-gun crowd that they believe people have the right to own guns and should have the right to decide on the number and type of guns they own?

I can actually.

And your characterization of the "anti-gun crowd" once again is overly simplistic. You know....the same way you dislike when gun owners are characterized as nutcases? There are many in the U.S. that believe in Gun Control and that YOU do have the right to have guns. They just want regulations in place that would place limits on gun ownership based on a person's background and proven record. The same way government limits how YOUR liberty based on laws. That is not unreasonable. They would also like to see these so called "hobby gun dealers" that account for 40% of all gun sales to have the same restrictions as do gun shops (ie mandatory background checks). Anyone at a gun show can buy a weapon from these dealers with no questions asked. Does that make sense?

And yes papa there are people in the U.S. who are anti-gun period, full stop. But I place them in the same boat as those on the far right that believe the government needs to be overthrown through violent means. The majority of people are somewhere in the middle however the most vocal arguments being made are from extremes on both sides.

 

[papasmerf]

I can actually.

And your characterization of the "anti-gun crowd" once again is overly simplistic. You know....the same way you dislike when gun owners are characterized as nutcases? There are many in the U.S. that believe in Gun Control and that YOU do have the right to have guns. They just want regulations in place that would place limits on gun ownership based on a person's background and proven record. The same way government limits how YOUR liberty based on laws. That is not unreasonable. They would also like to see these so called "hobby gun dealers" that account for 40% of all gun sales to have the same restrictions as do gun shops (ie mandatory background checks). Anyone at a gun show can buy a weapon from these dealers with no questions asked. Does that make sense?

And yes papa there are people in the U.S. who are anti-gun period, full stop. But I place them in the same boat as those on the far right that believe the government needs to be overthrown through violent means. The majority of people are somewhere in the middle however the arguments being made are from extremes on both sides.

I stand by the fact laws are in place and we need to enforce them

 

[Cardinal Fang]

I sttand by the fact laws are in place and we need to enforce them

Agreed. And by your statement above you also seem to acknowledge that the current loop holes and shortcomings in those laws meant to skirt legitimate gun ownership should remain as is?

 

[papasmerf]

Agreed. And by your statement above you also seem to acknowledge that the current loop holes and shortcomings in those laws meant to skirt legitimate gun ownership should remain as is?

actually you are putting words in my mouth.

There are Federal and State laws in place as well as background checks as required by law.

Enforce the laws.

The only exception might be if I were to gift you or sell you a rifle in a private sale. That is to say one on one not as a vendor.

 

[Cardinal Fang]

actually you are putting words in my mouth.

I'm not. That's why I placed a question mark at the end of my post as a way of asking you to confirm or disagree with?

There are Federal and State laws in place as well as background checks as required by law.

Enforce the laws.

If you own a gun shop you fall under those laws and I have no objection to that.

The only exception might be if I were to gift you or sell you a rifle in a private sale. That is to say one on one not as a vendor.

I understand and the current laws allow for this. However you do realize that there are so called "vendors" at gun shows that hide behind this loophole to sell guns? They claim because they are not full time sellers and only do this as a hobby that they are in essence individuals conducting a private sale as you mention and in doing so curtail the laws on the books.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_shows_in_the_United_States

This is the entire argument I'm making and the reason for asking you the question papa. It's all fine and well to demand the laws be enforced but you also have to look at the current laws and see how they are inaffective because of the loopholes placed in them by politicians at the behest of the gun-lobby.

 

[papasmerf]

Fang

I agree with closing the retail loophole but not necessarily denying my ability to give my son-in-law a 30/30 for his birthday.

 

[train]

Lets see, I see a semi automatic rifle that has been dressed up with sights, lights, a heat shield (to keep from burning your hand on the barrel) A few of them have 10 round clips and 30 round clips. I notice a couple have legs on them to allow more stability in long shots.

They are no different than any other semi automatic rifle out there. I can take my pellet rifle and dress it up so it's "scary".


An assault rifle is a firearm that is fully automatic, only the military has access to them, the general public does not.

The above is all just background "noise". The simple question is whether the access to weapons which give anyone the ability to kill 26 people in a matter of minutes should be allowed to the same extent is now.

No one care that the majority of gun owners in general are responsible or not. It's the minority that worries me.

It is clear that there are enough nut cases out there that another way has to be found on this issue. It's not as if it is rocket science people other countries have done it. As long you continue to have ostriches that are content with the status quo you can look forward to more of these mass shootings. As long as you have people that think owning these types of weapons is their constitutional right to protect themselves from their own elected government you have no hope for meaningful change. It scares the shit out of me that its the nutjobs (Ted Nugent et al) that actually believe this are the ones that own most of these weapons.

A handgun or shotgun for personal protection fine as long as access is strictly restricted ? Fine. A hunting rifle with one or two shots - fine as long as it's locked up. I don't think you can justify anything else no matter how much you babble on about it.

 

[papasmerf]

The above is all just background "noise". The simple question is whether the access to weapons which give anyone the ability to kill 26 people in a matter of minutes should be allowed to the same extent is now.

do an internet search on bus crash

tell me how hard that would be to cause

 

[papasmerf]

The above is all just background "noise". The simple question is whether the access to weapons which give anyone the ability to kill 26 people in a matter of minutes should be allowed to the same extent is now.

better yet do one one terrorist bombings

 

[Shiek]

Criminals will be criminals, lets enforce the law and anyone that uses firearm in the commission of a criminal act have the book thrown at them. I'm talking seriously hard labour, not just 3 meals and a cot in a country club.

The school shooting in CT was done with handguns. Not an AR-5 or any other rifle. Yes there was a rifle found in the vehicle but it wasnt an ar-15 according to the video evidence I saw but I digress.

Anyone with a motor vehicle can kill numerous people and it has happened far more often than shootings. I'm more scared of being run down than shot in the US.

We're going to have to agree to disagree on some things. I dont think banning firearms is the solution when theres 280 million of them in private hands.

Education and training has been shown to have a far more effective success rate than making something illegal. Case in point, look at Switzerland which requires every citizen be trained in use of firearms.

Violent crime in the US account for about 450 out of 100,000 population compared to the UK which has a violent crime rate of more than 4 times that despite firearms being prohibited.

 

[Jawbone]

The school shooting in CT was done with handguns. Not an AR-5 or any other rifle. Yes there was a rifle found in the vehicle but it wasnt an ar-15 according to the video evidence I saw but I digress.

I believe you are misinformed . He did use an AR 15 but like many who believe guns are man's best friend you're buying into the false information being distributed by the pro gun lobby.

https://www.cnn.com/2012/12/18/us/connecticut-lanza-guns/index.html