Maybe for some people, but I would say you're way off base in my experience. I own an AR-15 and know a lot of other people who do. Practically every one of us bought one or (in my case) built one for the same general reasons, none of which have to do with "looks" for Pete's sake:And it appears 'empowering' to those who flock towards it.
You have to admit that it looks menacing, intimidating. That is a big draw for many, especially those like this guy.Maybe for some people, but I would say you're way off base in my experience. I own an AR-15 and know a lot of other people who do. Practically every one of us bought one or (in my case) built one for the same general reasons, none of which have to do with "looks" for Pete's sake:
1. The AR platform is a mil-spec platform. Parts are (mostly) interchangeable from rifle to rifle and readily available.
2. AR-15s are extremely easy to maintain, clean, etc.
3. The AR platform is modular in nature. Upgrades are easy to add without major modifications required (in most cases) and without the need to buy a whole new rifle. Simple economics, you can buy/build a basic rifle and upgrade as you go with incremental costs for new stocks, sights, scopes, lights, etc. Repairs are usually simple and parts plentiful/economical.
4. The platform is extremely reliable overall. AR-15s can often fire when extremely dirty, wet, even sandy.
5. The AR-15 (chambered in the traditional .223/5.56 caliber anyway) has very manageable recoil and follow up shots can be put on target quickly and accurately (especially if you choose a good muzzle break).
6. Accessories - cases, slings, etc. - are plentiful and somewhat standardized due to above mentioned modularity.
For a shooter hobbyist/enthusiast or even some short-range hunters the platform has a ton to offer. Sure, you have a few "tacti-cool" idiots, but the popularity of the AR-15 and related weapons (like the AR-10) have much much more to do with the flexibility, economics, and reliability of the platform than you make it sound.
So you want to ban "looks?" What good is that going to do?You have to admit that it looks menacing, intimidating. That is a big draw for many, especially those like this guy.
Well actually you're just flat wrong. Polls are varied, but some (CBS/NYTimes in 2016) say gun ownership is down quite a bit. Others say it dipped but went back up a bit the last couple of years. This data set shows gun ownership at about 42% in 2017 - about the same as it was in 1972. So try again.It has increased greatly since then. I'm sure this incident will register another uptick in gun sales in fear that the jackbooted goons will be closing down the gun shops.
One man's "menacing" is another man's practical. What if I find tattoos and dreadlocks "menacing"? Should we ban half of the NFL from walking the streets?You have to admit that it looks menacing, intimidating. That is a big draw for many, especially those like this guy.
Actually, new purchases are plunging and have been since Trump was elected. Remington Arms, main factory here, has filed for bankruptcy protection...Well actually you're just flat wrong. Polls are varied, but some (CBS/NYTimes in 2016) say gun ownership is down quite a bit. Others say it dipped but went back up a bit the last couple of years. This data set shows gun ownership at about 42% in 2017 - about the same as it was in 1972. So try again.
https://www.statista.com/statistics...eholds-in-the-united-states-owning-a-firearm/
Did I say that?:conf2:So you want to ban "looks?" What good is that going to do?
Dreads and tats dont kill anybody.One man's "menacing" is another man's practical. What if I find tattoos and dreadlocks "menacing"? Should we ban half of the NFL from walking the streets?
And the next time a dem is elected sales will soar again.Actually, new purchases are plunging and have been since Trump was elected. Remington Arms, main factory here, has filed for bankruptcy protection...
So you say. j/kDreads and tats dont kill anybody.
He's not advocating legislation based on looks.So you say. j/k
Seriously though, that wasn't my point. My point is if we start regulating stuff based on "looks", who gets to decide what "looks menacing"? You? Me? The local police chief? Congress (God forbid)? Sorry, but it's an asinine argument in my opinion. The anti-gun - or pro-gun control if you prefer - folks on this board love to speak with data (questionable or not) when it fits the narrative, but then throw out things like this with no basis at all.
Well, what do you mean by this? What's your remedy?You have to admit that it looks menacing, intimidating. That is a big draw for many, especially those like this guy.
It was novel in the 60s and 70s. I think it was just no one could afford them in the 40s and 50s...Can't argue with your experience, but as far back I can remember (early 80's) guns (including handguns) were everywhere.
Perhaps his gun wasn’t scary.Wasn't there an armed "resource officer" at this school?
You didn't answer my question, and we've already established that the second amendment is not an absolute right.To be honest, you're coming at the this from the wrong direction.
What you're really asking is "why should the government curtail a citizens legal use of his 2A rights?"
Remember, 2A limits the government, not the people. Somewhat trivial point to some, but not to everyone.
Only the half that doesn’t stand for the anthemOne man's "menacing" is another man's practical. What if I find tattoos and dreadlocks "menacing"? Should we ban half of the NFL from walking the streets?
Perhaps, but it does not therefore follow that the Federal government has been delegated any power over the subject.You didn't answer my question, and we've already established that the second amendment is not an absolute right.