[pppppiiiiiuuuuu]

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.

[consz]

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?

[pppppiiiiiuuuuu]

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.

[consz]

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.

[pppppiiiiiuuuuu]

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

[cyberax]

You're a bot, likely.

[pppppiiiiiuuuuu]

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

[JKCalhoun]

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

So a shotgun then?