Why do people want/need AR-15s?

[Mercury01]

A gun isn't really for when you're expecting trouble, but rather for when there's a reasonable chance of trouble

Such as?

[Darth Wedgius]

A gun isn't really for when you're expecting trouble, but rather for when there's a reasonable chance of trouble

Such as?

One example would be having a store in a neighborhood where robberies happen. This is not an exhaustive list.

[excalibur]

My friend has a saying. Beverly Hills can happen anywhere. Meaning even if you are in the most richest neighborhood with the lowest possible chance, there will always be a chance. Never make assumptions that you are safe. Ensure your safety personally.

A gun is the last resort when all other measures have failed. In the case of your home, it's when the lights outside don't deter the criminal, or the camera in front of your door, or the door lock itself or the alarm company. If all those things don't stop someone from breaking into your house then you have no choice but to fight because you don't know this person and why they are there and you can't just assume they are going to just take things and leave or that their purpose is to steal your stuff. IF you got a spouse in the house or worse, kids, that is what you are worried about, not stuff.

[Karha of Honor]

I am a firm believer in the 2nd amendment, but i also do not object to gun regulations. The constitution gives you the right to protect your life, family and property; but you don't need a heavy machine gun to keep a burglar out of your house and you don't need an auto-cannon to keep varmints out of your garden.

There is a certain thrill at handling semi-auto or full-auto weapons. I remember the first time i fired my dad's AK-47(not an original it's a civilian replica) and it was amazing just capping off round after round. Granted, out of 20 rounds i hit the target twice, but it was fun, like shooting bottle rockets or riding a roller coaster.

The riots are an example of how such weapons can be necessary, but unless you are expecting to face a riot every do you really need that kind of fire power?

There is still the government turning really bad...

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

I am a firm believer in the 2nd amendment, but i also do not object to gun regulations. The constitution gives you the right to protect your life, family and property; but you don't need a heavy machine gun to keep a burglar out of your house and you don't need an auto-cannon to keep varmints out of your garden.

There is a certain thrill at handling semi-auto or full-auto weapons. I remember the first time i fired my dad's AK-47(not an original it's a civilian replica) and it was amazing just capping off round after round. Granted, out of 20 rounds i hit the target twice, but it was fun, like shooting bottle rockets or riding a roller coaster.

The riots are an example of how such weapons can be necessary, but unless you are expecting to face a riot every do you really need that kind of fire power?

There is still the government turning really bad...

If the government turns really bad, an AK47 isn't going to help matters much. Hard to aim when you're choking on tear gas or passing out from radiation poisoning. Also very unlikely to help you against a tank.

In the long-ass history of firearms and bad governments, I have not seen much to suggest that the ownership of the former is enough to stop the latter.

[Admiral X]

It might not help much, but it's better than nothing. The thing to keep in mind about rebellions and the like is that they usually aren't fought as stand-up fights. The Maquis (as in the real ones) wouldn't have one in a straight-up fight, but they did everything they could to challenge their occupiers, and getting their hands on firearms was a big part of that.

[Robovski]

I feel the real response to ''that gun won't do you much good against the government'' is that we are not living to the standard espoused by the Forefathers to be able to resist the government. We clearly need missiles and drones and more besides so we can adequately resist should it be necessary.

[Karha of Honor]

I am a firm believer in the 2nd amendment, but i also do not object to gun regulations. The constitution gives you the right to protect your life, family and property; but you don't need a heavy machine gun to keep a burglar out of your house and you don't need an auto-cannon to keep varmints out of your garden.

There is a certain thrill at handling semi-auto or full-auto weapons. I remember the first time i fired my dad's AK-47(not an original it's a civilian replica) and it was amazing just capping off round after round. Granted, out of 20 rounds i hit the target twice, but it was fun, like shooting bottle rockets or riding a roller coaster.

The riots are an example of how such weapons can be necessary, but unless you are expecting to face a riot every do you really need that kind of fire power?

There is still the government turning really bad...

If the government turns really bad, an AK47 isn't going to help matters much. Hard to aim when you're choking on tear gas or passing out from radiation poisoning. Also very unlikely to help you against a tank.

In the long-ass history of firearms and bad governments, I have not seen much to suggest that the ownership of the former is enough to stop the latter.

Tear gas mostly works against non gun wielding protesters and footbal huligans.

Permanently radiating areas is a bad idea for the side who has those weapons.

Tanks can be avoided, they are not that many of them.

How many countries had as wide spread gun ownership as the US has today?

[excalibur]

For those who don't think a bunch of civilians that is much of a military can't take on the US. Remember we lost Vietnam to a bunch of pajama wearing rice farmers in the jungle after dropping more bombs than WWII and then the fruitless war on terror we've been waging for nearly 2 decades against random unorganized militants in the middle east.

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

I am a firm believer in the 2nd amendment, but i also do not object to gun regulations. The constitution gives you the right to protect your life, family and property; but you don't need a heavy machine gun to keep a burglar out of your house and you don't need an auto-cannon to keep varmints out of your garden.

There is a certain thrill at handling semi-auto or full-auto weapons. I remember the first time i fired my dad's AK-47(not an original it's a civilian replica) and it was amazing just capping off round after round. Granted, out of 20 rounds i hit the target twice, but it was fun, like shooting bottle rockets or riding a roller coaster.

The riots are an example of how such weapons can be necessary, but unless you are expecting to face a riot every do you really need that kind of fire power?

There is still the government turning really bad...

If the government turns really bad, an AK47 isn't going to help matters much. Hard to aim when you're choking on tear gas or passing out from radiation poisoning. Also very unlikely to help you against a tank.

In the long-ass history of firearms and bad governments, I have not seen much to suggest that the ownership of the former is enough to stop the latter.

Tear gas mostly works against non gun wielding protesters and footbal huligans.

Permanently radiating areas is a bad idea for the side who has those weapons.

Tanks can be avoided, they are not that many of them.

How many countries had as wide spread gun ownership as the US has today?

Have you seen it tried against people with guns? The reason tear gas isn't used in wars is that, as a chemical weapon, it's considered a war crime.

Canada has lots of guns because they live with Moose. Australia has lots of guns because it's fucking Australia.