Gun Control & RKBA
In reply to the discussion: Gun-control mistakes [View all]krispos42
(49,445 posts)I don't have one and don't plan on getting one; my place is small and my property is virtually nil. I have handguns instead.
If we assume some sort of self-defense gun, then an AR-15 would give you longer range and more accuracy than a shotgun (although the shotgun is much more powerful per shot), and faster shooting with more capacity than a Model 700 in the same caliber. The AR-15 is also more accessory-friendly. I like accessories; I have a combination flashlight/laser on my handguns. I can see where somebody with a larger property might prefer something with more reach than a handgun or a shotgun. Aside from the standard .223 round, a self-defense AR-15 could be in a variety of handgun cartridges like .45 auto, 10mm auto, .40 S&W, and 9mm Luger.
If we're assuming some sort of hunting gun, then the AR-15 in .223 would be very effective for taking care of varmints like gophers, racdoons, woodchucks, coyotes, etc. 500 yard shots is not out of the question for the .223 on critters. An AR-15 in something heavier, like .243 WSSM, 6.8 SPC or .300 Blackout, would be good for deer or wild boar at short to medium range, maybe 250 to 300 yards. They do go even bigger, with "heavy and slow" cartridges in .458 and .50 caliber that probably wouldn't be good past 150 or 200 yards.
I'm not saying that bolt-action or lever-action gun can't do what an AR-15 does, but the AR-15 offers better ergonomics, high accuracy, extensive accessory and customization options, detachable magazines for easy loading and unloading, and semi-automatic operation.
I could go brush-hunting for wild boar with a lever-action in .45-70, and I could go deer hunting with a Savage bolt-action in .243, and I could defend myself with a 9mm pistol. Doesn't mean they are more effective at the job, though.
Are you saying it's okay to own semi-auto rifles that feed from detachable magazines, as long as they aren't AR-15s?