3 ms·

I don't own an AR-15. I don't want an AR-15. I fully support civilians owning AR-15 guns. I wish it was politically correct to come out and say "shit happens"

I don't own an AR-15. I don't want an AR-15. I fully support civilians owning AR-15 guns. I wish it was politically correct to come out and say "shit happens" when it comes to these things like Jeb! Bush said about another incident. Let's face it. Politicians on both sides of the gun issue are using this issue for nothing other than to advance their career or the party platform. I think we need to move beyond mass shootings and get I to real reasons why we need gun reform and that is gun safety. I want people to not have accidents. However, we are not in a common sense world. Neither side can advocate proper gun training. The left can't legitimize guns by saying civilians with proper training can have guns. The right will kick out anyone who suggests recommend ding or requiring gun safety training to own a gun. Nobody needs an AR-15. Not police officers, not civilians. That doesn't mean we should ban it though. Can you imagine if we started banning things because we didn't "need" them? Does anyone "need" television?

nness 10y ago
If you are talking about needs from a Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs perspective, the yes, we technically don't need many things at all. I think that's just picking on the definition of one word. I don't think the argument to ban them stems from a lack of need, but rather, the negative use has so far unmeasurably outweighed the benefits. In which case, yes, I'd argue something so inherently negative should not be available.
mpbm 10y ago
The "need" from the article refers to why the AR-15 standard is the right one to own, compared to all of the other guns available. He meant that, assuming you are going to own a gun, you "need" to get something AR-15 compliant because it's the best engineered option. It's analogous to someone saying that they "need" the right cocktail of drugs to execute a prisoner on death row, because assuming you're going to execute a prisoner you should do it with the best tools. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lethal_injection#Conventional_lethal_injection_protocol https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lethal_injection#Conventional_...

nness 10y ago

If you are talking about needs from a Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs perspective, the yes, we technically don't need many things at all. I think that's just picking on the definition of one word. I don't think the argument to ban them stems from a lack of need, but rather, the negative use has so far unmeasurably outweighed the benefits. In which case, yes, I'd argue something so inherently negative should not be available.

mpbm 10y ago

The "need" from the article refers to why the AR-15 standard is the right one to own, compared to all of the other guns available. He meant that, assuming you are going to own a gun, you "need" to get something AR-15 compliant because it's the best engineered option. It's analogous to someone saying that they "need" the right cocktail of drugs to execute a prisoner on death row, because assuming you're going to execute a prisoner you should do it with the best tools. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lethal_injection#Conventional_lethal_injection_protocol https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lethal_injection#Conventional_...