@engineer,
engineer wrote:Reasons you don't. (Excerpts below, full text at the link)
The author you are quoting is a liar who hates America's freedom.
CNN wrote:The AR-15 has the dubious distinction of being America's most popular semi-automatic rifle. I'm more familiar with the gun than most people: I own one. And one thing I know for sure is that this weapon doesn't belong in the hands of the average civilian.
There is no actual reason for banning them.
Progressives only want to ban them because they think it's fun to violate people's civil liberties.
This hatred that progressives have for the American people is why progressives belong in concentration camps.
CNN wrote:Some gun buyers have been misled into thinking that the AR-15 is somehow practical for self-defense. But frankly, it's the last gun that I would recommend for that purpose.
There is a reason why no one goes to progressives for advice on guns.
If the AR-15 is of no use in defense, why do police officer use them to defend against criminals?
CNN wrote:I've pressed some customers about why they want an AR-15, but no one could ever come up with a legitimate justification for needing that particular weapon.
That's the great thing about being free. We don't have to justify our choices.
If we want a certain gun, we go buy it, and no freedom-hating scumbags get to tell us we can't do it.
CNN wrote:The bullet that comes out of the barrel of an AR-15 style semi-automatic rifle can easily penetrate the target -- the intruder or whatever person you are using deadly force to defend yourself or others from. But it also will go through the wall behind that person, and potentially through that room and into the next wall.
The rounds that an AR-15 typically fires actually penetrate walls
less than rounds that are typically fired from most other guns.
CNN wrote:That power and accuracy are useful for military purposes, which is obviously what they were designed for. But it's far more power than should ever be in the hands of the average civilian.
The power and accuracy in question is standard for all long guns.
That this freak thinks that civilians should not be allowed to have long guns is one more reason why progressives belong in concentration camps.
CNN wrote:The bullet fired by the AR-15 is capable of defeating the average police officer's body armor, like a knife slicing through butter.
Just like any other centerfire rifle.
CNN wrote:SWAT teams and some of the more specialized units typically are equipped with level IV Kevlar or steel-plated armor, which would stop maybe two or three direct hits, but eventually body armor breaks down after being hit with multiple rounds.
There is no such thing as level IV Kevlar.
Some steel armor is level IV.
CNN wrote:A person wielding an AR-15 has a range beyond 300 yards.
Just like most centerfire rifles.
CNN wrote:A bullet fired by an AR-15 travels at three times the velocity as one fired by a 9 mm handgun.
Just like most centerfire rifles.
CNN wrote:And magazines that can feed dozens of rounds into the weapon in the space of minutes clearly were meant for use only on the battlefield.
Strange how police use them for defense against criminals.
CNN wrote:The prevalence of these weapons means police sometimes are overmatched, as we saw with the mass shooting in Uvalde, Texas, last month. In a situation where you have small children near the shooter, you want to remove the threat as quickly as possible. But we all saw the tragic consequences at that elementary school, where police waited for more than an hour before engaging with the teenage gunman armed with an AR-15 who killed 19 young children and two teachers.
I have no doubt that police in Uvalde wish they had had weapons as powerful as the one carried by the shooter who snuffed out the lives of the victims in that school.
The police did have such weapons.
CNN wrote:But a far better outcome would have been if the shooter didn't have an AR-15 in the first place.
Wrong. That would have made no difference at all.
