| > But usually what you typically have is a person who enjoys guns and is trying to think about a situation where it might possibly be useful to own an AR-15. Yeah, usually. An AR would be effective in lots of situations, but it's just a semi-auto rifle at the end of the day. If I had no guns and wanted something for defense, I'd probably get a full-size handgun with decent capacity before a rifle of any kind. Probably a Glock 17 or similar. After that, a rifle is a great thing to have, and ARs are cheap and accessible. > It's a terrible self-defense weapon in an urbanized area (compared to a shotgun or handgun), and they're illegal to hunt with in lots of areas. I disagree here, completely. A shotgun's penetration is more than sufficient to have all of the same problems an AR has in that regard, while having a much lower capacity, rate of fire, and being much more difficult to employ due to its substantial recoil. See here for some realistic evidence of a shotgun's penetration through walls: https://www.theboxotruth.com/the-box-o-truth-14-rifles-shotg... As for hunting, that's pretty much irrelevant to me as I've not been hunting in over a decade. When I did hunt, I used a 1970s-era Colt SP1 Sporter, a relatively early AR-15. I took several deer with it, and had no issues with suitability for that purpose. |