Let’s get something out in the open: gun owners aren’t primarily focused on hunting (the ones who are and would be fine with banning everything else are derisively called “Fudds”). Their interest in target shooting is usually secondary. All but the loony fringe don’t spend their time imaging that they’re going to get to play Red Dawn for real. The point of guns, including handguns and a rifle patterned after a military rifle optimized for killing man-sized targets, is that on rare occasions shooting someone dead is the right thing to do. On many more occasions, being prepared to shoot someone dead is the right thing to do. On an uncountable number of other occasions, the widely known fact that many people are prepared to shoot someone dead turns out to be the right thing to do.
Every state in the Union has laws governing justifiable homicide. Those laws wouldn’t exist if we were never, ever supposed to resort to deadly force and instead cede that authority to a cadre of trained experts- who notoriously failed this time. As for revolvers being almost as good as a semi-automatic, for some reason police departments around the country disagree with you, having universally traded in their venerable .38 Specials for semis. If I have to fight for my life I want the best tool for the job.
People in rural areas are not likely to have the types who scare them breaking in. Sorry they won’t have the fun of shooting them whenever. My brother fired a machine gun at a range in Vegas, and thought it was great, but that’s not a reason to make them generally available.
I can see people thinking they need one for home invasions, but unless you are likely to be under siege, I doubt it is too effective. If you are likely to be under siege, you’re probably a criminal who shouldn’t have one.
I’m not a hunter but I think hunting is a sport that requires skill. If you need a semi-automatic weapon to hunt, you probably shouldn’t get a license.
Unless Bambi gets one too, that is.
That there are people out there whose idea of having a good time is blowing apart a rabbit doesn’t mean we have to satisfy their urges.
How much more effective is an AR-15 with a 30 round magazine than an AR-15 with a 10 round magazine at self-defense? If the difference isn’t significant, and if we could somehow eliminate all 30 (and others >10) round magazines from civilian hands, would the more frequent pausing for reloading time for future school shooters, resulting in more time for targets to escape or overwhelm the shooter be worth it to you for the loss of high-capacity magazines?
I’d be okay with special licensing for cases like this. Defending livestock against predators isn’t a sport, so the tools required would be different. It is just like the way high explosives are regulated, so that people needing them for a valid purpose can get them while the clown on the street who wants to hear a big bang can’t.
Eh…if small arms weren’t an important part of warfare, we wouldn’t equip infantrymen with them. It’s often said that everything else the military does is ultimately in support of the infantry. How true this actually is, is up for debate, but the infantry are critical, and the infantry are equipped with small arms - regulars and irregulars alike. Partisans held their own against the Nazis with small arms. Many of them racked up substantial dead-Nazi counts and survived the war to tell about it. Yeah, these guys also had grenades and bombs. But the guys guarding the place where the bombs are made, the guys going on scouting missions to assess the position of the enemy, the guys raiding warehouses to steal shit to make bombs or to eat or whatever, these guys need to be equipped with small arms. It’s foolish to say that small arms alone are the backbone of asymmetrical warfare, but it’s equally foolish to deny their importance.
I’m aware of Fudds and I wear the label proudly. It’s just more of the urban/rural divide. Gun owners get painted as rural rednecks, but the reality is that the real power behind the gun movement is suburban. Rural people use their guns for a purpose. Suburban gun owners play out masculine power fantasies in their minds while pretending that they are great white hunters protecting their womenfolk and young’uns.
The reality as you yourself admitted is that you have ARs for the sole purpose of killing other people. You have in your mind which people it is that you’re itching to kill, but they are still people. The truth is that those weapons aren’t just to kill people, but to kill lots of people. How many imaginary intruders do you dream are breaking into your home anyway?
Fudds are gun owners that actually use their firearms to accomplish non-imaginary tasks. People that know what it’s like to take something’s life and know the responsibility that comes with that. We’re not play acting soldier or creating fantasy worlds where we’re Trumpian heroes rushing into danger’s way guns blazing. You’ll forgive me if maybe I think the government has a vested interest in regulating these kinds of fantasies.
The power behind the gun movement, which is suburban as you say, has as much to do with handguns as with rifles. In between the very practical and realistic scenario of hunting weapons for sporting or subsistence purposes, and the very outlandish scenario of rebels fighting “tyranny” with AR-15 and AK-47 type rifles, is a middle ground of simply keeping a firearm for personal defense. This can be the defense of a home, or the defense of one’s person when out and about. For some people, it’s undoubtedly fuel for fantasies of heroism, such as stopping a mass shooter (probably unlikely without having been tested under fire before). But for others, it’s just a practical matter of defense. I know Realtors who carry a small pistol. Why not? A woman, alone, meeting a stranger in an empty house…or a truck driver who has to make frequent stops in dicey areas…or someone being stalked by an abusive spouse…there are legitimate uses for a handgun in self defense. I have a S&W .357 here in my desk…just in case. I doubt it will ever be fired in anger, but it’s there just in case. I don’t feel the need to carry a weapon out and about, but it’s not inconceivable that my home could be burglarized. My first course of action would be to call the police, as I would rather leave the situation to them, but in the meantime, I have my weapon just in case.
This attitude is shared by virtually all of the conservative people I know (perhaps 25% of my social circle) and perhaps half of the rest, who range from centrist to far-left.
I know this is a digression, but it’s important to note that there is a significant ideological component to the pro-gun movement which is unrelated to AR-15s.
I would posit it’s the combination of both easy-access and mental illness issues combined that’s responsible for the upsurgence in mass shootings.
There’s definitely a psychological component, and human beings are notorious for taking the path of least resistance. We’re a lazy species. We seek to make things even more convenient and easier every year!
My personal opinion (and heavily ignorant) is the violence is related to the lack of rites of passage and social structure in young white male culture. Young white men don’t know where they belong and they’re frustrated. (Though some shootings aren’t committed by the necessarily young, there’s a prevalence.) White culture in general in the US is this amalgamous blob of people with a lack of a sense of respect for their own heritage, a cultureless culture.
Human beings are an innately social and interdependent species, and when a person feels inept or somehow disconnected, I think there’s retaliation. Violence to me (except in cases of survival) is a retaliation for a perceived lack of connection.
It would be a waste of time to single out individuals and treating for mental illness, arming the teachers, etc because what is needed is for the tipping point to be found and dealt with. This is obviously a systemic pattern of behavior and preventative measures can be taken if the issue is evaluated from an informed and understanding perspective, rather than a merely sympathetic perspective.
For instance, it will solve nothing to increase punishments. (“You won’t shoot us because we’ll arm the teachers and you’ll die, and you won’t want that, right?!”)
It might do something if we increase (in my ignorant opinion) social cohesion for young men. (For lack of a better example, mandatory military service.)
I totally understand this and I’m on board with it. My question is then “Why do we need semi-automatics for that purpose?” I think that most people would agree a shotgun is better suited for home defense than a rifle and while a semi-auto handgun is certainly an excellent concealed carry weapon, a revolver is capable of doing the job and high capacity magazines are completely unnecessary. A semi-automatic and high capacity magazine ban would not infringe heavily on a right to self defense while it would help save lives.
No, people who own AR’s are not “itching to kill” :mad:. A thankfully low-probability but not absurd scenario is a temporary breakdown of social order (disaster, riot, etc.) and having to deter the lawless. A famous example is shop owners protecting their stores during the 1992 L.A. riots.
[ul]
[li]If the difference isn’t significant - it is.[/li][li]If we could eliminate all magazines with a capacity greater than 10 rounds from civilian hands - we can’t.[/li][/ul]
What is the difference in self-defense capacities? Under what circumstances is a 30 round clip significantly better than a 10 round clip, and how frequent are those circumstances?
More rounds available, obviously. Less time spent reloading. Ergonomically a larger magazine is easier to wield and manipulate, IMO. A 10 round magazine on an AR doesn’t protrude much out of the receiver.
I don’t know how frequent the circumstances are. How frequent would they have to be to change your mind?
If it was needed for more than 5 or 10% of DGUs I’d at least concede that they had some significant usefulness for self-defense. If physical size is a consideration for ergonomics, then I certainly have no problem with a 10 round magazine that’s enlarged for ergonomic purposes.
How many DGUs include more than 10 shots fired by the defender?
I don’t know. I don’t subscribe to the theory that fundamental rights are subject to interest balancing. But to the extent they are useful for defensive purposes, I adopt any and all reasons police choose to deploy these weapon platforms and magazines to their officers. If they felt it was better to disarm, that would be more persuasive.