# 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:** 3
**Author:** ![Orwell](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/dfb087/32.png) [@Orwell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Orwell)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2018, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-think-banning-ar-15s-would-make-a-dent-in-mass-shootings/809700/41 "2018-02-28T18:54:09Z")
And as far as availability goes, prior to 1968 you could actually purchase guns by mail order without ever setting foot in a gun store or having a background check. I remember my dad buying hunting rifles and shotguns for my brother and I by mail order, and they came to our house. I am bewildered how the conversation is about guns this time around, given the facts regarding the shooter. He was repeatedly in trouble with the school and with the law. The local police and FBI both dropped the ball on this guy. But, yeah, it’s because of guns. ---
**Author:** ![Orwell](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/dfb087/32.png) [@Orwell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Orwell)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2018, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-think-banning-ar-15s-would-make-a-dent-in-mass-shootings/809700/42 "2018-02-28T19:10:23Z")
> [@senoy](#): > > Firstly, a .223 is a terrible hunting round for almost anything in the mainland US. Feel free to challenge me on it, but it’s really only good for yotes and I personally would use a 22-250. I know that some people use them for deer, those people are either cruel, idiots or just trying to prove a point. People use .223 for more than coyotes. It’s a good round for groundhogs and similar size pests. But, yeah, I agree that few deer hunters use a .223. I wouldn’t. But don’t forget that you can buy an AR in other calibers, such as .308, .300, 6.5MM, etc. Lots of AR-style rifles are .22LR, too. > [@](#): > > I’m still old enough to remember that the old hunters thought that the AR series was a joke. When they were coming out in the 70s and 80s they called them ‘plastic guns’ and I can remember specifically hearing, “If you want to play soldier, join the army” in reference to people that bought them. The prevailing belief was that a bolt action was more reliable and more accurate (I still think that’s true) and that wood was a superior material (not as true.) The rise of the AR and assault rifles was really post-ban when yuppie suburbanites and militia types started buying them up in fear of a renewal of the ban and future scarcity. Real hunters don’t use them and if they own them it’s for a toy at the range and not the field. > > As for home defense, unless you’re defending against the zombie hordes, you’re better off with a shotgun with #4 buck. It’s not zero aim, but it’s slightly more forgiving than a rifle. The wall penetration is a myth, but it certainly has less penetration than a .223 and in a home with plaster walls likely won’t penetrate at all, and likely becomes sublethal with drywall after two walls, not perfect, but decent. A lot of hunters still feel that way. Most of the guys I hunt with have said much the same. But I live in a state where semi-auto rifles are not approved for hunting. I understand that’s not true in many states. Setting hunting aside, people are buying AR rifles because they can relatively easily change sights, stocks, triggers and other components, making it a hobby of sorts. I agree with you that a .223 isn’t great for home defense as one usually thinks of it. But it might be for a rancher who wants to be able to go out and defend his livestock and property. I bought an AR rifle a few years ago because I worried that they might one day be outlawed. I bought it when prices settled down after they were so high several years ago. So you can chalk up at least one sale to the gun control crowd, and I doubt I’m the only one. I also bought it because I was curious, and ammo is widely available and not too expensive. I have tried different sights on it, and it’s fun to shoot. ---
**Author:** ![Ashtura](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ashtura/32/2963_2.png) [@Ashtura](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ashtura)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2018, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-think-banning-ar-15s-would-make-a-dent-in-mass-shootings/809700/43 "2018-02-28T19:28:39Z")
> [@McDeath\_the\_Mad](#): > > As a Canadian looking in how opposed would he US be to implementing gun control like Canada? > > Here’s how it could work: > > If you want to purchase a firearm, you need a permit (In Canada this is a Possession and Acquisition License [PAL]). To get this permit you take (and pass) a 1 day safety course then send you application to the RCMP. They do a background check and if you pass you get your PAL. > > This permit allows you to purchase non-restricted firearms and ammunition. > > If you already own guns and don’t see yourself buying any more guns you could get your “Possession Only License”. This allows you to possess firearms (non-restricted) and buy ammunition. When this system was introduced in Canada in the late 90’s anyone could get their POL, but after a certain date (12 months I believe) they no longer offered it. > > Restricted firearms include all handguns and I believe certain semi-automatic weapons. > > If you want to own/purchase restricted weapons, you get your restricted permit. This is another 1 day course you have to pass, and another background check. I believe this check is deeper (you have to include contact information for your current spouse, and any past spouses, significant others etc.). > > Now every time you want to purchase a firearm (at a gun shop, supermarket, gun show, private sale, etc.) you need to present your permit before you can purchase your firearm. The seller should record your PAL information for their records and that’s it. > > Will this stop all nut-jobs from getting their hands on firearms? No. But I think it could significantly cut down on the number of people who don’t own guns that go off the deep end from getting them in the first place. The whole process probably takes 4-8 weeks to get your PAL. If you’re unstable that should show up in the background and reference check. > > I agree this doesn’t stop someone who already has their PAL and decides to go on a rampage, but you’re not going to find a solution that fixes your gun problem all in one shot. > > And before people start spouting off with “this is my constitutional right to own a gun, I don’t need to register!”. Well it’s my understanding in the United States, you need to register to vote in an election. How is this different? Yes you need to take a 1 day course and pass a test and a background test is done. But even your own President when asked why he wants to arm all teachers said “I don’t want to arm ALL teachers, not everyone is adept at handling a firearm”. This process would keep the non-adept people from owning firearms. > > I think this along with outlawing high-capacity magazines would make a huge difference. You want an AR-15? Sure here you go! But the magazine can only hole 5 rounds. If you can’t stop a “deer” with 5 rounds when you “hunt” with your AR-15 you better spend more time at the range. Because that’s what you want an AR-15 for right? > > MtM I’m personally okay with making guns a little more of a, um, “pain in the ass” to get? As long as you CAN get them. Then again, we’ve never had a home invasion in my neighborhood, so I’m not particularly passionate about the idea of getting a gun asap. I don’t feel like in immediate danger. That might change. I don’t own a gun, but I think there are two conditions that would personally push me to buying one: Feeling in danger, and a piece of legislation that would make me feel like I couldn’t get a gun in a timely matter if I _did_ feel like I was in danger. As such, a Canadian style system coming down the pike would probably drive me to get a gun, and probably more than one. ---
**Author:** ![Tired\_and\_Cranky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/a87d85/32.png) [@Tired\_and\_Cranky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tired_and_Cranky)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2018, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-think-banning-ar-15s-would-make-a-dent-in-mass-shootings/809700/44 "2018-02-28T19:30:12Z")
> [@Orwell](#): > > I am bewildered how the conversation is about guns this time around, given the facts regarding the shooter. He was repeatedly in trouble with the school and with the law. The local police and FBI both dropped the ball on this guy. But, yeah, it’s because of guns. What did the shooter do that would have allowed the local police or the FBI to legally intervene? I’m sincerely curious. We don’t want to the authorities to take people’s guns away just because, in their opinion, they are scary. ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2018, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-think-banning-ar-15s-would-make-a-dent-in-mass-shootings/809700/45 "2018-02-28T19:32:23Z")
This pundit says that nibbling around the edges is futile, that it’s time to overturn the Second Amendment. I’ll give him points for honesty. > **[Opinion | Repeal the Second Amendment (Published 2017)](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/05/opinion/guns-second-amendment-nra.html)** > > It sounds like political Mission Impossible. But it’s the only meaningful way to stop the killing. ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2018, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-think-banning-ar-15s-would-make-a-dent-in-mass-shootings/809700/46 "2018-02-28T19:34:10Z")
> [@aceplace57](#): > > Mass shootings are primarily a product of our nation’s failure at identifying and treating mental disease. > > That guy in Florida is a textbook example. Dozens of police calls and no one cared or did jack shit until he massacred people. Hell, that guy with a shotgun back in 1915 was a textbook example, except that I don’t think the textbook had been written yet. ---
**Author:** ![senoy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dbc845/32.png) [@senoy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/senoy)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2018, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-think-banning-ar-15s-would-make-a-dent-in-mass-shootings/809700/47 "2018-02-28T19:36:59Z")
> [@Orwell](#): > > Setting hunting aside, people are buying AR rifles because they can relatively easily change sights, stocks, triggers and other components, making it a hobby of sorts. I agree with you that a .223 isn’t great for home defense as one usually thinks of it. But it might be for a rancher who wants to be able to go out and defend his livestock and property. > > I bought an AR rifle a few years ago because I worried that they might one day be outlawed. I bought it when prices settled down after they were so high several years ago. So you can chalk up at least one sale to the gun control crowd, and I doubt I’m the only one. I also bought it because I was curious, and ammo is widely available and not too expensive. I have tried different sights on it, and it’s fun to shoot. I don’t disagree on why people by AR-15s. Like I said, its rise was largely the result of the assault weapons ban lifting and it is certainly customizable and a fun shoot. My problem with that logic is that I don’t see where the government has to defend a ‘hobby’ at the cost of people’s lives. I don’t think that weapons used for hunting should be outlawed, but weapons used to plink at the range? That’s a different story. A tool is a tool and a toy is a toy. Government banning tools is a problem, banning toys though? I don’t have an issue with it. Bottom line is that if you could magically do away with semi-automatic weapons (I include pistols in that category. Honestly, I’m not sure that pistols have much of a place at all outside of use in trapping, but a revolver can defend you almost as well as a Glock (actually Glock’s suck, but I digress.)) these mass shootings would still happen, but they’d not be as deadly. Las Vegas with a guy with a bolt action rifle and five round clips would not have ended up with 1000 people hit. 17 dead with a bolt action rifle and five round clips in Florida would not have happened. I’m under no illusion that it’s guns that cause these crimes, but limiting guns and especially guns with no real use outside of shooting cans can make many of them less deadly and saving lives matters to me. ---
**Author:** ![Ashtura](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ashtura/32/2963_2.png) [@Ashtura](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ashtura)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2018, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-think-banning-ar-15s-would-make-a-dent-in-mass-shootings/809700/48 "2018-02-28T19:40:44Z")
> [@Tired\_and\_Cranky](#): > > What did the shooter do that would have allowed the local police or the FBI to legally intervene? I’m sincerely curious. We don’t want to the authorities to take people’s guns away just because, in their opinion, they are scary. Well, I assume you the kid’s circumstances lead up to this shooting? If not, read the news. > **[Sheriff says he got 23 calls about shooter’s family, but records show more | CNN](https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/27/us/parkland-shooter-cruz-sheriff-calls-invs/index.html)** > > Amid criticism for missing warning signs, sheriff Scott Israel insists his office got 23 calls about school shooter Nikolas Cruz or his brother. Records show 45. If that doesn’t qualify for an intervention, I can’t think of what would. The only thing they didn’t have was a date and time. ---
**Author:** ![Orwell](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/dfb087/32.png) [@Orwell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Orwell)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2018, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-think-banning-ar-15s-would-make-a-dent-in-mass-shootings/809700/49 "2018-02-28T19:41:36Z")
> [@Tired\_and\_Cranky](#): > > What did the shooter do that would have allowed the local police or the FBI to legally intervene? I’m sincerely curious. We don’t want to the authorities to take people’s guns away just because, in their opinion, they are scary. I agree with your concern. But this guy was widely recognized as worrisome for many years, at home, at school and on the internet. [Teachers say Florida suspect’s problems started in middle school](https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/teachers-say-florida-shooters-problems-started-in-middle-school-and-the-system-tried-to-help-him/2018/02/18/cdff7aa6-1413-11e8-9065-e55346f6de81_story.html?utm_term=.467e67b87f7d) [Shooter could have faced charges before massacre — had cops done their job](http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/broward/article201887629.html) As for the FBI: [Tipster’s Warning to F.B.I. on Florida Shooting Suspect: ‘I Know He’s Going to Explode’](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/23/us/fbi-tip-nikolas-cruz.html) > [@](#): > > The tip that the F.B.I. received in early January from someone close to Mr. Cruz suggested that he owned a gun and had talked about carrying out a school shooting. But the bureau failed to investigate, even though the tipster said Mr. Cruz had a “desire to kill people, erratic behavior and disturbing social media posts.” > > That information should have been sent to the Miami F.B.I. field office, the bureau said. > > The F.B.I. also received a tip from a bail bondsman in Mississippi in September about a suspicious comment left on his YouTube channel by a “nikolas cruz” who professed a desire to be a “professional school shooter.” The bondsman notified YouTube, which promptly took down the comment. > > The F.B.I. said it did not have enough information to determine if “nikolas cruz” was a real name or a pseudonym, and the bureau said it could not justify keeping a file on the tip open and closed it in October. > > When the second tip reached the F.B.I. in West Virginia in January, a specialist was able to view the earlier tip, too. But even then, the specialist, in consultation with her supervisor, decided that there was not enough evidence to pursue it and that it did not appear to be an imminent threat. > > The acting F.B.I. deputy director, David L. Bowdich, briefed congressional staff members about the case on Friday and acknowledged the bureau’s failure to investigate, according to three people with direct knowledge of the meeting. ---
**Author:** ![aceplace57](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aceplace57/32/3500_2.png) [@aceplace57](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aceplace57)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2018, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-think-banning-ar-15s-would-make-a-dent-in-mass-shootings/809700/50 "2018-02-28T19:43:38Z")
> [@Tired\_and\_Cranky](#): > > What did the shooter do that would have allowed the local police or the FBI to legally intervene? I’m sincerely curious. We don’t want to the authorities to take people’s guns away just because, in their opinion, they are scary. Taking that Instagram post and his history of violence seriously could have saved a lot of lives. I have no problem removing guns from a person with this history. > [@](#): > > Calls relating to Nikolas Cruz include descriptions of fights with his brother, cursing at his mother, and throwing her against the wall for taking away his Xbox. The issues brought to the sheriff’s attention worsen over time. In 2014, someone accused him of shooting a chicken with a BB gun. > > Records show that in 2016, a neighbor warned the sheriff’s office of an Instagram post in which Cruz said he “planned to shoot up the school.” This week, Joelle Guarino told CNN she placed the 911 call and had begged the sheriff’s office to intervene. She was told there was nothing deputies could do until Cruz actually did something, she said. ---
**Author:** ![Orwell](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/dfb087/32.png) [@Orwell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Orwell)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2018, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-think-banning-ar-15s-would-make-a-dent-in-mass-shootings/809700/51 "2018-02-28T19:48:45Z")
> [@senoy](#): > > My problem with that logic is that I don’t see where the government has to defend a ‘hobby’ at the cost of people’s lives. I don’t think that weapons used for hunting should be outlawed, but weapons used to plink at the range? That’s a different story. A tool is a tool and a toy is a toy. Government banning tools is a problem, banning toys though? I don’t have an issue with it. Well, now you are getting at the heart of the 2nd Amendment. It is included in the Bill of Rights not to protect hunting in the US, but to protect the right of citizens (regular people) to keep and bear arms to protect themselves. Protecting ourselves from the US government was repeatedly stated by the Founding Fathers, who had just violently ejected the previous government with the use of the most modern, advance weapons of the day. So, as distasteful as it sounds to many, we should be able to own AR rifles specifically because they are efficient tools to protect ourselves from a government run amok. ---
**Author:** ![Ashtura](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ashtura/32/2963_2.png) [@Ashtura](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ashtura)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2018, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-think-banning-ar-15s-would-make-a-dent-in-mass-shootings/809700/52 "2018-02-28T19:56:55Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > This pundit says that nibbling around the edges is futile, that it’s time to overturn the Second Amendment. I’ll give him points for honesty. > > [https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/05/opinion/guns-second-amendment-nra.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/05/opinion/guns-second-amendment-nra.html) I think that many gun rights activists are aware that that is the “ultimate solution” (or at least their perception of a gun control activist’s real agenda is), which is why the won’t give an inch, and why sales of guns spike after a shooting. It’s not the shooting that makes the sales to go up itself, it’s a fear of what lawmakers might do in reaction to the shooting. ---
**Author:** ![senoy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dbc845/32.png) [@senoy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/senoy)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2018, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-think-banning-ar-15s-would-make-a-dent-in-mass-shootings/809700/53 "2018-02-28T20:23:51Z")
> [@Orwell](#): > > Well, now you are getting at the heart of the 2nd Amendment. It is included in the Bill of Rights not to protect hunting in the US, but to protect the right of citizens (regular people) to keep and bear arms to protect themselves. Protecting ourselves from the US government was repeatedly stated by the Founding Fathers, who had just violently ejected the previous government with the use of the most modern, advance weapons of the day. So, as distasteful as it sounds to many, we should be able to own AR rifles specifically because they are efficient tools to protect ourselves from a government run amok. I actually have a disagreement with this line of thinking as well. My main disagreement is that ARs aren’t going to protect anyone from a government run amok. We know what happens to untrained groups with small arms that go up against a well-armed government-they end up in many pieces from aircraft and actual military hardware. If we look at the Syrian Civil War where small arms are a dime a dozen, it’s really anti-tank weapons, MANPADs and IEDs that keep rebel armies afloat. When only armed with small arms, they just die…handily. A bunch of guys with ARs against the US government are a dead bunch of guys. If you want to actually pose some sort of ‘defense against tyranny’ from the US government, you need to open up the US to sales of T-14s, Kornets, S-400s and Su-35s, not small arms. You and a bunch of like minded patriots going to your gun cabinets grabbing your ARs and overthrowing the government is about as likely as my cat learning to speak Chinese and becoming Xi Jinping’s second in command. In other words if the contention is that the second amendment is there to periodically ‘water the tree of liberty,’ then it has already failed at its job. By banning the sales and ownership of actual military hardware, we have decided that the 2nd amendment doesn’t exist for the sake of overthrowing Trump. From there, it’s only a question of where we draw the line on what constitutes a ‘Constitutionally protected arm.’ If we can say the guns on a tank aren’t constitutionally protected, why can’t we say a semi-automatic rifle? ---
**Author:** ![GusNSpot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gusnspot/32/436_2.png) [@GusNSpot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GusNSpot)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2018, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-think-banning-ar-15s-would-make-a-dent-in-mass-shootings/809700/54 "2018-02-28T20:29:54Z")
The whole history of guns, the second amendment, is not about hunting, fun, hobby but that the citizens are the boss which the kings, dictators etc. seem to forget. Our right to self defense is not a gift from our government… The second amendment is about the people protecting themselves from any form of government, especially our own, that forgets they are not going to become absolute rulers despite: The gradual leading the populations to believing that the government does not want total control. The gradual control of elections as seen most recently. The giving up of responsibility for safety & for free handouts which are not free. Etc., Etc… Right now, how many LEO’s will help in an action that is completely counter to the Constitution? Even to the point of killing unarmed and non resisting citizens? ( Way too many and they are protected by the supposed good LEO’s to much of the time. ) Even the Supreme Court says that the LEO’s do not have to serve or protect the citizens. You know, that lettering on their vehicles that say “Serve and Protect?” So far, the good LEO’s out number the bad but the percentage is quickly reversing so that the majority will soon just be ‘Enforcers with a gun.’ Talk of having tanks & major war weapons is just silly. All that is needed is the citizens ( Including the government people, soldiers, & LEO’s etc. who are all willing to use the gun they have personally to forcefully fight for freedom from the government when it finally comes out in the open with it’s bid for total control. The saying that disarmed people are subjects, not citizens is 100% correct. Lack of responsibility is not freedom. Freedom requires personal responsibility. For everything… Including your right to life. ---
**Author:** ![Jophiel](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jophiel/32/66_2.png) [@Jophiel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jophiel)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2018, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-think-banning-ar-15s-would-make-a-dent-in-mass-shootings/809700/55 "2018-02-28T20:35:32Z")
> [@GusNSpot](#): > > The whole history of guns, the second amendment, is not about hunting, fun, hobby but that the citizens are the boss which the kings, dictators etc. seem to forget. You know what I worry about more than the US government or Princess Kate taking over my neighborhood? Someone murdering my kid in school. Funny that I get to be the boss of one thing and not the other. ---
**Author:** ![Orwell](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/dfb087/32.png) [@Orwell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Orwell)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2018, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-think-banning-ar-15s-would-make-a-dent-in-mass-shootings/809700/56 "2018-02-28T20:36:23Z")
> [@senoy](#): > > From there, it’s only a question of where we draw the line on what constitutes a ‘Constitutionally protected arm.’ If we can say the guns on a tank aren’t constitutionally protected, why can’t we say a semi-automatic rifle? Many believe that all arms are/should be protected by the 2nd amendment, including all of the military weapons you mention in your post. Since the 2nd Amendment protected the most advanced weapons when it was written, it still does/should. By this line of reasoning, not only are AR rifles protected, but so are tanks, machine guns and everything else. As with any constitutional argument, it comes down to who draws the line. ---
**Author:** ![senoy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dbc845/32.png) [@senoy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/senoy)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2018, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-think-banning-ar-15s-would-make-a-dent-in-mass-shootings/809700/57 "2018-02-28T20:37:27Z")
> [@GusNSpot](#): > > The whole history of guns, the second amendment, is not about hunting, fun, hobby but that the citizens are the boss which the kings, dictators etc. seem to forget. > Our right to self defense is not a gift from our government… > > The second amendment is about the people protecting themselves from any form of government, especially our own, that forgets they are not going to become absolute rulers despite: > > The gradual leading the populations to believing that the government does not want total control. > The gradual control of elections as seen most recently. > The giving up of responsibility for safety & for free handouts which are not free. > Etc., Etc… > > Right now, how many LEO’s will help in an action that is completely counter to the Constitution? Even to the point of killing unarmed and non resisting citizens? ( Way too many and they are protected by the supposed good LEO’s to much of the time. ) > > Even the Supreme Court says that the LEO’s do not have to serve or protect the citizens. You know, that lettering on their vehicles that say “Serve and Protect?” > So far, the good LEO’s out number the bad but the percentage is quickly reversing so that the majority will soon just be ‘Enforcers with a gun.’ > > Talk of having tanks & major war weapons is just silly. All that is needed is the citizens ( Including the government people, soldiers, & LEO’s etc. who are all willing to use the gun they have personally to forcefully fight for freedom from the government when it finally comes out in the open with it’s bid for total control. > > The saying that disarmed people are subjects, not citizens is 100% correct. > > Lack of responsibility is not freedom. > Freedom requires personal responsibility. For everything… Including your right to life. This is a simple enough thing to test, why don’t you get a bunch of your buddies with your ARs and try to take over a federal building. I’ll give you either 2 hours or 2 days depending upon whether they decide to kill you or try to do it peacefully. If you’re advocating a civil war where a large portion of the military decides to pack up its stuff and join you, then you have no need of ARs since they’ll bring their own hardware. Your toys that you take to the range to pretend you’re shooting at G-Men while dodging black helicopters aren’t going to make a lick of difference, so again I ask, why should they be legal? The only people they seem to be “protecting us from” are kindergartners, concert goers and school children. I think I’m comfortable with saying that I’d rather have the kids alive than the theoretical ‘protection.’ ---
**Author:** ![senoy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dbc845/32.png) [@senoy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/senoy)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2018, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-think-banning-ar-15s-would-make-a-dent-in-mass-shootings/809700/58 "2018-02-28T20:40:21Z")
> [@Orwell](#): > > Many believe that all arms are/should be protected by the 2nd amendment, including all of the military weapons you mention in your post. Since the 2nd Amendment protected the most advanced weapons when it was written, it still does/should. By this line of reasoning, not only are AR rifles protected, but so are tanks, machine guns and everything else. As with any constitutional argument, it comes down to who draws the line. Sure, you can argue that all you want, but the courts have come down against that argument and it’s likely they will continue to do so. Since the precedent is set that firearms can be regulated, I see no legal obstacle to banning semi-automatic weapons. ---
**Author:** ![Tired\_and\_Cranky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/a87d85/32.png) [@Tired\_and\_Cranky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tired_and_Cranky)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2018, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-think-banning-ar-15s-would-make-a-dent-in-mass-shootings/809700/59 "2018-02-28T20:45:25Z")
Thanks Orwell, Ashtura and aceplace. I haven’t been reading much about the school shooter and I didn’t know his history included chargeable offenses for which he was not charged. > [@Orwell](#): > > Many believe that all arms are/should be protected by the 2nd amendment, including all of the military weapons you mention in your post. Since the 2nd Amendment protected the most advanced weapons when it was written, it still does/should. By this line of reasoning, not only are AR rifles protected, but so are tanks, machine guns and everything else. As with any constitutional argument, it comes down to who draws the line. There are others who read that text of the 2nd Amendment which says you have a right to “keep and bear arms” in order to preserve a well-regulated militia. The militia were individuals who provided their own weapons that they could operate by themselves. That suggests to me that the line is drawn at weapons that can be carried (i.e., borne). No tanks, aircraft carriers, or crew-served weapons for you. Of course, even under this theory, machine guns should be legal. ---
**Author:** ![Orwell](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/dfb087/32.png) [@Orwell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Orwell)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2018, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-think-banning-ar-15s-would-make-a-dent-in-mass-shootings/809700/60 "2018-02-28T20:45:46Z")
> [@Jophiel](#): > > You know what I worry about more than the US government or Princess Kate taking over my neighborhood? Someone murdering my kid in school. Funny that I get to be the boss of one thing and not the other. Not to be flippant, but if you are really (truly) worried about your kid being murdered in school, you should do a little probability analysis. The odds of your kid being killed in school is miniscule, infinitesimal. He/she is in more danger traveling to and from school. [Schools are safer than they were in the 90s](https://news.northeastern.edu/2018/02/schools-are-still-one-of-the-safest-places-for-children-researcher-says/) > [@](#): > > Mass school shootings are incredibly rare events. In research publishing later this year, Fox and doctoral student Emma Fridel found that on average, mass murders occur between 20 and 30 times per year, and about one of those incidents on average takes place at a school. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-think-banning-ar-15s-would-make-a-dent-in-mass-shootings/809700.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-think-banning-ar-15s-would-make-a-dent-in-mass-shootings/809700.md?page=4)