# I don't think banning AR-15s would make a dent in mass shootings. **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [February 27, 2018, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-think-banning-ar-15s-would-make-a-dent-in-mass-shootings/809700 "2018-02-27T21:28:57Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2018, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-think-banning-ar-15s-would-make-a-dent-in-mass-shootings/809700/221 "2018-03-09T19:31:38Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I disagree, but your opinion seems rather set on this matter so I doubt we’ll progress further by going back and forth again. Probably not, but I have run through all the scenarios, and in each of them, I find having a smaller, more compact weapon that is easier to bring to bear on a target, easier to maneuver with, easier to fire from very close quarters to be preferable. They few advantages an AR-15 has over a handgun aren’t relevant in such close quarters fighting. Just so we are clear, if you hear the sound of breaking and entering in your house in the dead of night, and you have equally convenient access to a handgun (it can be any handgun you like) and an AR-15, you would choose the AR-15? ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2018, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-think-banning-ar-15s-would-make-a-dent-in-mass-shootings/809700/222 "2018-03-09T19:54:44Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > … Just so we are clear, if you hear the sound of breaking and entering in your house in the dead of night, and you have equally convenient access to a handgun (it can be any handgun you like) and an AR-15, you would choose the AR-15? Yes, without a doubt. Sitting in my quick-access safe I have four semi-auto pistols, two AR-15s, and two shotguns, all loaded. If I heard breaking glass in the kitchen or downstairs, I’d put a pistol in a holster on my waistband and take one of the AR-15s in my hands to face the threat. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2018, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-think-banning-ar-15s-would-make-a-dent-in-mass-shootings/809700/223 "2018-03-09T20:24:47Z")
No shotgun? God gave you two hands; can you take the risk of being outgunned by the intruder? ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2018, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-think-banning-ar-15s-would-make-a-dent-in-mass-shootings/809700/224 "2018-03-09T23:57:58Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > Probably not, but I have run through all the scenarios, and in each of them, I find having a smaller, more compact weapon that is easier to bring to bear on a target, easier to maneuver with, easier to fire from very close quarters to be preferable. They few advantages an AR-15 has over a handgun aren’t relevant in such close quarters fighting. What in the hell are you talking about when you say “close quarters” . Do you live in a closet? An 18" sewer pipe? What? On what planet is semi-automatic rifle not useful for self defense? ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2018, 12:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-think-banning-ar-15s-would-make-a-dent-in-mass-shootings/809700/225 "2018-03-10T00:00:06Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > What in the hell are you talking about when you say “close quarters” . Do you live in a closet? An 18" sewer pipe? What? > > On what planet is semi-automatic rifle not useful for self defense? I keep thinking: somebody really should tell all those door-kickers in Afghanistan and police SWAT teams here in the USA that they’re using the wrong tool for the job. I nominate **k9bfriender** to do it. ---
**Author:** ![Sjoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/278dde/32.png) [@Sjoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sjoe)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2018, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-think-banning-ar-15s-would-make-a-dent-in-mass-shootings/809700/226 "2018-03-10T00:06:19Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > You can > > Isn’t that fertilizer? At Walmart ? ? ? Yes . . . ---
**Author:** ![FoieGrasIsEvil](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foiegrasisevil/32/16638_2.png) [@FoieGrasIsEvil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FoieGrasIsEvil)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2018, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-think-banning-ar-15s-would-make-a-dent-in-mass-shootings/809700/227 "2018-03-10T01:07:49Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I keep thinking: somebody really should tell all those door-kickers in Afghanistan and police SWAT teams here in the USA that they’re using the wrong tool for the job. I nominate **k9bfriender** to do it. What are you talking about? All they have is flowers, some pamphlets on Jesus and an old, toothless service dog to help calm them down. Man, have you got it wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Lamoral](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lamoral/32/16078_2.png) [@Lamoral](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamoral)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2018, 2:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-think-banning-ar-15s-would-make-a-dent-in-mass-shootings/809700/228 "2018-03-10T02:18:53Z")
I really don’t think the “AR-15 is not useful for defense” argument is ever productive in these gun debates, the fact of the matter is, any firearm is useful for self defense if it’s the firearm you choose to use. If a guy served as an infantryman in the military and carried his rifle everywhere, ate with it, slept with it, took it apart, put it back together over and over, had it be an extension of his body, then I don’t think it would be unreasonable for this person to keep the civilian version of that weapon for home defense as a civilian. It’s the weapon he’s comfortable with, has the muscle-memory connection with, and so forth. Also, I’m pretty sure there is ammunition available for them which are made to disintegrate upon impact and therefore not over-penetrate through walls and potentially hit someone else with a stray bullet. The reason the AR-15 is so popular is really, really simple. 1. It’s a version of the weapon used by everyone who was in the military, for the past 50 years. 2. It’s easy to customize with modular parts. Essentially, it’s an “open-source rifle.” When gun hobbyists discuss it (and I’m not really one - I do have guns, but not an AR-15), they usually call it “the AR Platform.” This is a good term, in my opinion, because it accurately describes the functionality of the rifle. It can be modified to suit virtually any purpose. It can be used with any caliber. You can easily switch out whatever kind of hand grips, accessories, and stock, that you like. The stock is adjustable so that the rifle fits ergonomically with whoever is shooting it regardless of their body type and the length of their arms. Essentially, the AR-15 represents the most up-to-date evolution of the basic item that is a rifle. And so most people who use it, would question, “why should we have to go backwards?” When you detach from all the emotional rhetoric about murder, assault, penis extensions, and the like, that’s really all it boils down to. I think the toothpaste is out of the proverbial tube with this weapon. I do not believe that attempting to ban them is politically feasible. Now, to make this mildly political - and I know we’re still in “opinions”, not “debates” - I wouldn’t really give a damn if attempts were made to limit the availability of this weapon _if_ the Democrats weren’t currently operating from a position of vulnerability. For the time being, I wish they would just leave it alone. It’s only likely to give political capital to the Republicans. ---
**Author:** ![Nzinga\_Seated](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/b5ac83/32.png) [@Nzinga\_Seated](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nzinga_Seated)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2018, 3:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-think-banning-ar-15s-would-make-a-dent-in-mass-shootings/809700/229 "2018-03-10T03:03:23Z")
> [@QuickSilver](#): > > A.D.D.?? I be like, “why do I come back here? Why can’t I let go?” and then I be like, “oh yeah. They cracks me up” ---
**Author:** ![ExTank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@ExTank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ExTank)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2018, 4:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-think-banning-ar-15s-would-make-a-dent-in-mass-shootings/809700/230 "2018-03-10T04:14:18Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > But you (the NRA and gun rights advocates, I don’t recall your posting history quite well enough) do lobby for people to have the ability to be armed all the time. You may not recommend it, but when people show up at a Chili’s open carrying and the NRA first makes a statement condemning the practice, then corrects themselves that condemning open carry in a Chili’s [“was a mistake” and “it shouldn’t have happened.”](https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2014/06/04/318763239/nra-retracts-statement-calling-open-carry-rallies-downright-weird) it completely undercuts your claim. IMO, it’s a negotiation. Gun control advocates favor an incremental approach to posing anything from severe restriction to total bans and confiscation. The NRA, SAF counter with, “all guns, anywhere, everywhere, all the time.” Reality meets in the middle. And my take on the article you linked was the NRA saying that the staffer’s comment was the mistake, and shouldn’t have happened. Taking a page from someone else, I do think these “Open carry” demonstrations are counterproductive to a certain extent. However, given the incrementalist approach of gun control advocates, an “in-your-face” counter movement may be necessary to preserve an existing right from becoming, "Yeah, sure you can Open Carry wherever you want, **so long as you don’t take a single step outside your front door!** I’m not huge on the whole Open Carry thing, but get the “Never Give An Inch!” negotiating tactic. > [@k9bfriender](#): > > I respect the property owner’s choice in the matter. It just seems a bit odd that they talk so much about gun culture, about responsibility, about how guns are so great that they get blessing from god, but then don’t want them to be around loaded. If a restaurant owner asks for someone to not bring their gun in, then they are vilified as a hoplophobe, and their property rights are considered secondary to the gun owner’s rights, but when a church shows concern over having loaded weapons, even as they are blessing them, it demonstrates a bit of a cognitive disconnect. > > And, as far as why one may care, anyone who brings their AR-15 in to get blessed is probably a single issue gun voter, and this is just showing the hypocrisy of their views. Again, and just IMO, contradictory and irrational viewpoints are part-and-parcel of religion. ---
**Author:** ![FoieGrasIsEvil](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foiegrasisevil/32/16638_2.png) [@FoieGrasIsEvil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FoieGrasIsEvil)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2018, 4:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-think-banning-ar-15s-would-make-a-dent-in-mass-shootings/809700/231 "2018-03-10T04:30:21Z")
The funny thing about these arguments about guns is how alike they are, every time, and how the same sets of people argue for the same things all the time. Gun nuts, banners of guns, moderates, unsure, etc. It’s a nice cross section of American society. Fact is, many (or even most) red-blooded gun owners would never post their feelings on here, or perhaps anywhere. They grew up with them, it’s a part of their lives, it’s Constitutionally protected, and they prefer to not broadcast their opinions like the fevered NRA, even if they quietly support them. It’s amazing to me how polarizing this issue is, and how pro gun banners cite crime stats from countries (England) that have severe gun control. Well…we’re not England. Those stats are meaningless. A lot of urbanites seem to forget about the vast rural population of the USA. Grew up with guns, whacked jackrabbits on their cattle grazing grounds, hunt for food, live on vast tracts of land that most city dwellers cannot imagine… Just because YOU find guns abhorrent is just your opinion. They have been a part of rural culture since this nation was founded. These people don’t brag about their guns, they just use them when necessary. ---
**Author:** ![Lamoral](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lamoral/32/16078_2.png) [@Lamoral](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamoral)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2018, 5:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-think-banning-ar-15s-would-make-a-dent-in-mass-shootings/809700/232 "2018-03-10T05:00:36Z")
Agree we are not like England, or France or Germany or anywhere else in Europe about this issue. Hunting and the use of firearms is _extremely_ class-stratified in those countries - it doesn’t just extend to only hunting too, it even relates to fishing, if you can fucking believe that. There’s “rough fishing” for perch, pike, carp, flounder, haddock, etc, for lower class people and true “angling” for upper class people, which only involves certain classified “game fish” as trout and various varieties of salmon. To do the latter kind of fishing, you have to have access to exclusive streams, pay membership dues to upper-class fishing clubs, or know influential friends who can allow you to fish on the Chalk Stream or the rivers of Scotland. And with guns and hunting: there’s a huge divide in England between “poaching” and “sporting”, and I have to assume it extends into France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Greece, and beyond. (It might even be true of Eastern Europe too, but I strongly doubt it, as once you’re in that territory you start getting into the traditions of warlike nomads, very different atmosphere.) To Brits, the idea that average Americans can just go hunting for the hell of it, whenever they feel like it, is bizarre. To Brits, the idea that Americans can buy guns and carry around on the shoulder in public, is equally bizarre. And I admit, as an American, it is also bizarre to _me._ Yet there’s more common ground between the two than you might think. I’ve known numerous conservative Britons who have expressed a desire to restore a degree of gun rights to the UK. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2018, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-think-banning-ar-15s-would-make-a-dent-in-mass-shootings/809700/233 "2018-03-10T18:32:32Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > What in the hell are you talking about when you say “close quarters” . Do you live in a closet? An 18" sewer pipe? What? > > On what planet is semi-automatic rifle not useful for self defense? I realize that I don’t have the biggest house in the world, but my hallway is not much wider than an AR-15 is long. The rifle is about 39ish inches, and most hallways are around 44. Turning around and maneuvering, bringing the gun to bear on target, all of that is complicated with having a longer gun. Anything that can put holes in other people can be used for self defense. I am just saying that there are things that are better suited for it. > [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I keep thinking: somebody really should tell all those door-kickers in Afghanistan and police SWAT teams here in the USA that they’re using the wrong tool for the job. I nominate **k9bfriender** to do it. No, that would be entirely wrong. They are kicking in doors and assaulting people and places. In that case, an assault weapon is a great tool for the job. It is pretty much the sort for thing that it was built for. If you are planning on kicking in doors and assaulting people, then your desire for an AR-15 to accomplish that task would be perfectly reasonable. > [@ExTank](#): > > IMO, it’s a negotiation. Gun control advocates favor an incremental approach to posing anything from severe restriction to total bans and confiscation. The NRA, SAF counter with, “all guns, anywhere, everywhere, all the time.” Reality meets in the middle. That’s my point. It’s not a negotiation, because there is no middle ground with second amendment absolutists. They take any efforts to make any gun anywhere less convenient for anyone to own and buy as a direct attack on their rights, and will fight against it. I try taking a middle ground approach, and am met with the position that as long as there is anyone who may want to expand gun control ever in the future, they refuse to come to the table. I mean, it’s not incremental steps that gun control advocates are taking, it is incremental steps that society is taking. And if society ends up desiring to ban guns entirely, then that’s what society has decided. If society decides that guns should be more prevalent, then that is what society decides. Personally, I think that we will come to a compromise somewhere in the middle, eventually, but that is not possible when gun rights advocates refuse to come to the table unless the outcome of a negotiation is more guns in society. > [@](#): > > And my take on the article you linked was the NRA saying that the staffer’s comment was the mistake, and shouldn’t have happened. That was my take too. One “staffer” said that open carry of AR-15’s into a Chili’s was unacceptable, and that staffer’s higher ups corrected them on that. I am not sure what to take away from that, except that the NRA’s position is that open carry of an AR-15 into a chili’s is acceptable. I remember when that came out, and I heard the NRA’s statement, and I thought, “How reasonable. Maybe the NRA has some sense to it after all.” Then the NRA corrected the statement. I thought less of them after that. > [@](#): > > Taking a page from someone else, I do think these “Open carry” demonstrations are counterproductive to a certain extent. I’d agree, but the NRA wouldn’t. I am not sure what you mean by counterproductive. If you mean counterproductive from the standpoint of making more people ask “WTF are we doing with our gun laws that people are carrying assault weapons\* into family restaurants.”, then I agree. If you mean counterproductive from the standpoint of making the wielder and those around them less safe than they would have been had they not brought their arsenal to lunch, I would agree with that as well, though I don’t know if that was what you were going for. \*I use “assault weapons” here because that is the term that most of the people in the Chilis would use when they see this armed gang come in > [@](#): > > However, given the incrementalist approach of gun control advocates, an “in-your-face” counter movement may be necessary to preserve an existing right from becoming, "Yeah, sure you can Open Carry wherever you want, **so long as you don’t take a single step outside your front door!** I don’t get this “incrementalist approach” thing. What exactly is it that you are terrified of? The incrementalist approach is actually the best way to address and solve all problems. You identify a problem, identify a solution, and implement it. Then you see how that worked, and continue. It is why car fatalities are decreasing, even as car ownership and miles driven increase. It is how air safety has gone from pretty much a russian roulette when you get on a plane to making it the safest way to travel. The goal is not no guns, the goal is less gun violence. Only in the case that it requires getting rid of all guns to decrease gun violence would it be a matter of taking all the guns, unfortunately that is often the case that is made by gun rights advocates, that we cannot do anything to decrease the gun violence without getting rid of all the guns. I disagree, I think we can decrease gun violence substantially, and still allow people who are responsible and stable to continue to have these tools. The goal is also not “no gun violence”, even though the idea of no one being harmed by any sort of violence would be aspirational. It is impractical, if not outright impossible to have no gun violence. Even Japan, with it’s extremely strict gun laws, had 1 gun murder last year. > [@](#): > > I’m not huge on the whole Open Carry thing, but get the “Never Give An Inch!” negotiating tactic. I’m don’t. I do quite a bit of negotiating these days with all sorts of people, in business, finance, political, and social settings. What I have discovered is that the never give an inch people don’t get invited to the table, and things get decided by the adults that actually are interested in coming to an agreement. > [@](#): > > Again, and just IMO, contradictory and irrational viewpoints are part-and-parcel of religion. No, they are part and parcel of humans in general. Religion is just one manifestation of human irrationality. Gun worship is another. It is just interesting to see how the two clash, even among those that worship at both alters. > [@FoieGrasIsEvil](#): > > A lot of urbanites seem to forget about the vast rural population of the USA. Grew up with guns, whacked jackrabbits on their cattle grazing grounds, hunt for food, live on vast tracts of land that most city dwellers cannot imagine… And a lot or ruralites seem to forget that the majority or the population actually lives in cities. It is fine to have laws for rural areas that are less restrictive. It is when the ruralites tell the cities that they cannot have more restrictive laws that the clash occurs. > [@](#): > > Just because YOU find guns abhorrent is just your opinion. They have been a part of rural culture since this nation was founded. These people don’t brag about their guns, they just use them when necessary. And just because YOU find guns to be awesome is just your opinion. They are a part of crime and accidents and oppression in urban areas since longer than the nation has existed. (Not to mention genocide and oppression in the rural areas as part of their cultural heritage) Urbanites don’t care about your guns, they just don’t want them in their cities. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2018, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-think-banning-ar-15s-would-make-a-dent-in-mass-shootings/809700/234 "2018-03-10T20:38:33Z")
> [@Jacquernagy](#): > > To Brits, the idea that average Americans can just go hunting for the hell of it, whenever they feel like it, is bizarre. The idea is also bizarre to Americans who know about hunting licenses, seasons, and bag limits. A different adjective might apply to what the sheriff thinks of it. Did you know you typically need to have a fishing license to go fishing in the US too? True fact. ---
**Author:** ![Lamoral](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lamoral/32/16078_2.png) [@Lamoral](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamoral)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2018, 1:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-think-banning-ar-15s-would-make-a-dent-in-mass-shootings/809700/235 "2018-03-11T01:50:54Z")
I know about all this, I am an avid fisherman, I have hunted a bit though never cared for it much, I KNOW WHAT YOU ARE SAYING but it’s still doesn’t mean that America is in any way comparable to England. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2018, 3:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-think-banning-ar-15s-would-make-a-dent-in-mass-shootings/809700/236 "2018-03-11T03:14:33Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > I realize that I don’t have the biggest house in the world, but my hallway is not much wider than an AR-15 is long. The rifle is about 39ish inches, and most hallways are around 44. Turning around and maneuvering, bringing the gun to bear on target, all of that is complicated with having a longer gun. > > Anything that can put holes in other people can be used for self defense. I am just saying that there are things that are better suited for it. > > No, that would be entirely wrong. They are kicking in doors and assaulting people and places. In that case, an assault weapon is a great tool for the job. It is pretty much the sort for thing that it was built for. If you are planning on kicking in doors and assaulting people, then your desire for an AR-15 to accomplish that task would be perfectly reasonable. … Either I’ve misunderstood your point, or you have. I thought you were arguing that the AR-15 is not a good choice when fighting indoors. You said things like this: > [@k9bfriender](#): > > Probably not, but I have run through all the scenarios, and in each of them, I find having a smaller, more compact weapon that is easier to bring to bear on a target, easier to maneuver with, easier to fire from very close quarters to be preferable. They few advantages an AR-15 has over a handgun aren’t relevant in such close quarters fighting. … and this: > [@k9bfriender](#): > > … he would have had an easier time shooting them using a handgun than an AR-15. … That’s obviously false, and the example I gave was the plethora of SWAT team members and door-kickers that choose an AR-15 over a handgun when they’re entering a home where they think they might end up in a gunfight. If you’re trying to make some more nuanced argument that differentiates between the intruder and the defender in an indoor gunfight, you’re doing a bad job of that too, because it’s not coming through clearly at all, and it’s not obvious to me how their role as intruder or defender might change the dimensions of hallways or corners. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2018, 3:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-think-banning-ar-15s-would-make-a-dent-in-mass-shootings/809700/237 "2018-03-11T03:21:27Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > … I mean, it’s not incremental steps that gun control advocates are taking, it is incremental steps that society is taking. And if society ends up desiring to ban guns entirely, then that’s what society has decided. If society decides that guns should be more prevalent, then that is what society decides. Personally, I think that we will come to a compromise somewhere in the middle, eventually, but that is not possible when gun rights advocates refuse to come to the table unless the outcome of a negotiation is more guns in society. … We’ve already come to a compromise. That’s what the NFA, GCA, and Brady bill are: a middle ground, where we have some restrictions on the RKBA but not outright bans. > [@k9bfriender](#): > > … Urbanites don’t care about your guns, they just don’t want them in their cities. This may be a majority opinion in some cities, but it is not a unanimous one. There are some urbanites that would like to be able to carry a gun to defend themselves. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2018, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-think-banning-ar-15s-would-make-a-dent-in-mass-shootings/809700/238 "2018-03-11T14:48:15Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Either I’ve misunderstood your point, or you have. I thought you were arguing that the AR-15 is not a good choice when fighting indoors. You said things like this: > > and this: > > That’s obviously false, Are you arguing the dimensions of an AR-15 here, or of hallways? > [@](#): > > and the example I gave was the plethora of SWAT team members and door-kickers that choose an AR-15 over a handgun when they’re entering a home where they think they might end up in a gunfight. And I said that that is a time when they are not defending, they are attacking. They are assaulting, in fact. Assault weapons make sense. > [@](#): > > If you’re trying to make some more nuanced argument that differentiates between the intruder and the defender in an indoor gunfight, you’re doing a bad job of that too, because it’s not coming through clearly at all, and it’s not obvious to me how their role as intruder or defender might change the dimensions of hallways or corners. What are the differences between you, alone in your skivvies in the middle of the night, half awake, full of adrenaline and shock, not in any way aware of exactly who or what it is that you will be encountering different from a trained group of organized men who are communicating and watching each other’s backs, who are the ones very energetically initiating the contact with a reasonable idea of what to expect, you mean? I can think of a few that are less than just nuanced. > [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > We’ve already come to a compromise. That’s what the NFA, GCA, and Brady bill are: a middle ground, where we have some restrictions on the RKBA but not outright bans. And the 2Aer’s are constantly complaining about them and trying to get them overturned by court or legislature. Meanwhile, they are not doing the job of decreasing gun violence. I think we could come to a compromise that would make both sides happier, but that cannot happen unless your side is willing to come to the table. > [@](#): > > This may be a majority opinion in some cities, but it is not a unanimous one. There are some urbanites that would like to be able to carry a gun to defend themselves. Then they should have the right to vote to put people into office that will pass laws that allow them to do so. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2018, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-think-banning-ar-15s-would-make-a-dent-in-mass-shootings/809700/239 "2018-03-11T16:25:36Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > Are you arguing the dimensions of an AR-15 here, or of hallways? > > And I said that that is a time when they are not defending, they are attacking. They are assaulting, in fact. Assault weapons make sense. > What are the differences between you, alone in your skivvies in the middle of the night, half awake, full of adrenaline and shock, not in any way aware of exactly who or what it is that you will be encountering different from a trained group of organized men who are communicating and watching each other’s backs, who are the ones very energetically initiating the contact with a reasonable idea of what to expect, you mean? > > I can think of a few that are less than just nuanced. If the narrow dimensions of a hallway and the need to maneuver around corners makes an AR-15 a poor choice for home defense (this appears to be what you’re claiming), those same dimensions and needs would apply to a SWAT team entering a home. Just because they’re energetic and in a group doesn’t mean they don’t also have to maneuver around corners and down hallways. They do! And in spite of that, they often choose to take an AR-15 instead of a handgun, because it’s a great rifle for shooting bad guys, even indoors, and that truth is just as applicable to the home owner as the SWAT team member. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2018, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-think-banning-ar-15s-would-make-a-dent-in-mass-shootings/809700/240 "2018-03-11T17:19:15Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > If the narrow dimensions of a hallway and the need to maneuver around corners makes an AR-15 a poor choice for home defense (this appears to be what you’re claiming), those same dimensions and needs would apply to a SWAT team entering a home. Just because they’re energetic and in a group doesn’t mean they don’t also have to maneuver around corners and down hallways. They do! And in spite of that, they often choose to take an AR-15 instead of a handgun, because it’s a great rifle for shooting bad guys, even indoors, and that truth is just as applicable to the home owner as the SWAT team member. The need to maneuver around hallways and corners, with no one watching your back, is what makes an AR-15 a lessor choice for self defense. You don’t need to be able to bring your gun around to bear on target, because your buddy already has him in his sights. They are going in one direction, IN. They are clearing everything in front of them as they go. You, in the dark house, need to worry about attacks from any direction, with no one to watch your back. And, I am pretty sure that, in addition to the rifle, they are also bringing a handgun. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-think-banning-ar-15s-would-make-a-dent-in-mass-shootings/809700.md?page=11)