Hacker News Reader

Comment by cyberax | Hacker News Reader

> I'm not a 1A guy, I think that for inference people with a history of domestic violence shouldn't be armed

Whut? How the fuck did you make that jump?

AR-15 rifles are useless for hunting. They are too small to reliably kill large game (deer) and too large for small game (rabbits). Sure, they're fine for coyotes, but if you're buying an AR-15 to hunt coyotes, then you should just stop.

AR-15s are also useless for self-defense. They are too bulky for indoor use, and the bullets can penetrate multiple walls. A regular semi-auto handgun is far superior if you're looking to protect yourself against domestic violence.

View on HN

The domestic violence thing was about a potential gun regulation, not a scenario. People with domestic violence convictions are overrepresented among murderers and mass shooters. So it would make sense to prevent them from obtaining guns.

It's useless for hunting, but you identify circumstances it's useful in. You say it's useless for self defense because it's bulky, I've heard a hundred people say it's ideal because it's easier to be proficient with a rifle than with a pistol.

Say whatever you want, but when you make absolute statements like that, it damages your credibility. That's my feedback for you.

I think you may have very differing views of what "self-defense" situations you and the other poster are talking about.

Could you describe a specific scenario one of those hundred people might be imagining?

I don't really care to have an in depth discussion of self defense scenarios because I don't think that helps us understand common sense gun regulation any better. I'm sure you can find people making that argument if you are curious. My point is not that the AR-15 is an appropriate self defense weapon but that there are better arguments you could have made, and that the one you did make lost someone who is already sympathetic to your position.

You're a bot, likely.

I guess what I'm saying doesn't compute.

I did find someone making that argument, you. I don't think asking for one example out of a hundred is asking for an in depth discussion, but if you claim this is too much for you then I won't push the issue.

It's just not what I'm talking about it the point I'm trying to make. I wasn't making that argument.

"it's ideal because it's easier to be proficient with a rifle than with a pistol"

So a shotgun then?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com