You said the difference in effectiveness for self-defense is significant (or challenged my hypothetical that it is not). How are you measuring this?
As far as legality goes, this fundamental right is already subject to many considerations. There are plenty of regulations that are constitutional, and that even conservative justices like Scalia said were constitutional.
You probably replied before my edit, but to the extent that there is a choice in weapon platforms and magazine size, police all over the nation have determined that their officers are best served by having available rifles with standard capacity magazines. That’s the metric I’m using.
Okay, that seems pretty different than challenging as factual my hypothetical that there is no significant difference between large and small magazine sizes for self-defense purposes.
And frankly, that’s an incredibly weak answer. The need for rifles for cops is very different than the need for rifles for civilians in home defense. We’re just talking here, not politicking – I know I’m not going to influence you or other gun rights supporters to change your position. I’m not even trying to.
You’re a smart person. If you can’t come up with some reasonable scenarios in which it’s very important that a home defender have 30 shots rather than 10 between reloads, then I have trouble believing that such scenarios are anything other than incredibly rare. If your best justification is “the police can and so should we”, then that’s not much of an actual justification, IMO.
I have a longish post I’m drafting on why I own AR-15 platform rifles so I’m holding on expanding too much. I was trying not to divert this thread about potential impacts.
But temporary civil unrest is the scenario I could see them being useful. Multiple persistent targets at distance, and for newish shooters a rifle will often be more operate accurately than a pistol. If I didn’t have kids present a rifle would be my go to weapon at home. But since the size makes them less convenient to secure I’ve chosen a pistol.
Given most attackers will require multiple rounds to incapacitate, and some shots will miss , then even if a person has a hit rate of 30% and it takes 3 shots to get the job done, then any scenario where multiple attackers are present would necessitate magazines greater than 10 rounds. A determined mass shooter will be able to carry multiple mags. It’s not practical to carry multiple magazines all the time so if I need a weapon it should be the most effective possible and I will likely have one magazine - i want it as large as practical.
Okay, “temporary civil unrest”. Though thinking about it, in what civil unrest scenario would someone seriously have “multiple persistent targets at distance”? That sounds like warfare. Looters and burglars aren’t “persistent” – they’d scatter at the first indication they were being fired upon. Are you thinking race war? A terrorist uprising of multiple sleeper cells?
And how does “targets at distance” go with “multiple rounds to incapacitate”? I can understand multiple rounds in the home – a charging attacker might not go down with one bullet, and they might have enough strength to harm or kill when they fall on you or your wife. But at distance? What attackers, at distance, are going to keep coming after you after you hit them with a bullet? And if they’re at distance, can’t you swap magazines if they do?
I’m seriously trying to imagine this scenario. Are you thinking hurricane Katrina – your neighborhood is flooded, and you’re on the roof with your family and a handful of supplies, and desperate looters are creeping towards you? So let’s say there are a dozen of them, slowly making their way from cover to cover, after your fresh water and food. When you see one you fire, and they duck back down. Occasionally you hit one.
You really think they’re going to keep coming, and fast enough that you don’t have time to swap magazines? Even this incredibly-rare Hurricane Katrina scenario doesn’t seem like it would require 30 round magazines.
And this part - it’s not exactly true. Recent events especially in FL have given me pause. I’m not sure where that will end up but there have been a lot of conversation at home.
Fair enough. I hope you’ll explore these thoughts with us on this board.
It’s greater than the chance of civil warfare against the US government or invading Redcoats though so maybe all the people whining about that should check the odds instead.
Great. Think about this aspect also. By making it easier for you to get this type of weapon, you are also making it easier for the theoretical attackers to get them. And you are going to want to avoid hitting your family during an incident, they won’t. Plus you are making things worse for the substantial fraction of people who do not want powerful weapons at the ready in their home or business.
Even in the scenario of a riot, if you are forced to fire at someone who is threatening, how many innocents are you going to hit? Do you think protecting your property is going to excuse you from criminal and civil litigation?
Remember, those killed at Kent State were victims of this kind of thing, and victims of those who were theoretically trained. I’m sure you would be careful, but the clown who buys guns so the evil looters won’t get him won’t be.
Is is also fairly easy to avoid civil unrest.
How’d that work out at Fort Hood, a military base? 1 person with a pistol. Were the black helicopters all out for repairs?
IMO debating (and your assertions are debatable) the technical characteristics of particular calibers is almost entirely beside the point. It’s for fun talk about guns. On the socio-political issue of guns if all you do is restrict people to larger caliber (or smaller, or somewhat higher or lower muzzle velocity etc) ammunition that is virtually gteed to have no serious effect on either legitimate or illegitimate use of guns. Annoy people who prefer certain calibers for certain legitimate uses yes, but that’s about all.
When you broaden it to semi-automatic it begins to be a relevant discussion. However the basic stumbling block in your argument is that hunting is simply not the reason so many people in the US believe so strongly in minimally fettered gun rights. Maybe it should be, and maybe people focused on hunting can tut-tut that those aren’t real gun people etc. But it’s just not the issue. And IMO pro-gun control hunters aren’t actually that common, though there are exceptions to every rule. Hunters agree IME feel the right to self defense, with guns, as essential, along with a much larger number of people who feel similarly about that right and don’t hunt.
Of course the number of people who don’t own guns or hunt (with or without them) is larger still, even in the US, but they feel much less strongly on average and if that is really changing it’s yet to be proved. Point is, how one should hunt for wild pigs is just not very relevant. And ‘nobody should need X’ to defend their home isn’t very convincing to a significant and passionate portion of the electorate. And back to ‘AR’ there’s no real reason anyone who doesn’t already agree should change their mind for a silly proposal like banning guns of a particular caliber or appearance, if they aren’t actually any more lethal (if as lethal) than nicer looking guns, which was the case with the former federal ‘assault weapon’ ban and is the case in a number of existing state ones.
Talking about limiting legal magazine capacities is also a rational discussion, as are limits on all basically similar, ie semiautomatic rifles (or perhaps weapons, limits on handgun magazine sizes make sense if rifle limits do). Although likewise there’s the basic doubt whether repeated assertions ‘nobody should need’ are really going to change minds of people who say ‘well yes thanks I feel I do’ (hypothetically, I’m a lever action man myself 
). Then even if those limits were imposed (as various ones are in quite a few US states) any reasonable person IMO should have major doubt whether they’d make a big difference, although it’s a fair opinion (not automatic moral superiority) to say ‘I want them if they make any positive difference in mass shootings’.
Banning AR-15s for being used in mass shootings is like banning F-150 pickups for being driven in accidents. There are a lot of both, they are both ubiquitous in their groups.
The difference, of course, is that people don’t seek out Ford pickups for the express purpose of getting into accidents.
Well they certainly could, but if so it’s not a big problem. Just like deaths from AR-15s specifically are statistically a big deal. IIRC the humble .22 caliber pistol does the most killing.
Am I wrong in assuming that people saying they want to ban AR-15s are just using “AR-15” as shorthand for all assault rifles?
Because an AR-15 specific ban would accomplish nothing if AK-47 style rifles are still legal.
I’ll bite:
Yes having easy access to AR-15s and similar guns probably has an effect on both the frequency of mass shootings and their severity.
It’s a weapon that’s very effective for mass shootings and we would expect that some percentage of crazy folk, if they couldn’t get hold of this or a similar weapon, would either be deterred or use something that would deliver a smaller body count.
I don’t think a ban is necessarily the right approach but in an ideal world there would be licensing for guns and another, more difficult, license and waiting period for SMGs.
Firstly that hasn’t always been the prevailing interpretation of the second amendment, and it should still be challenged in my view.
Secondly of course if there’s no line of common-sense here, then why not rocket-propelled grenades or biological weapons, say? Or are you not serious about fighting the government?
The actual goal wouldn’t be to take ALL of the semi-autos. It would be to buy them back from the citizens in an amnesty period then ban them. Plenty of people would abide by the ban and plenty of people wouldn’t. The people in the last group who have kept their weapons will lock them up in a box and bury it in a hole in the back paddock. Those buried guns are very unlikely to be used in any murders.
Phrases like “We Can’t” are so un-American. Sure you can. You guys can do anything.
Gun nuts take exception when you call them “assault rifles”. They prefer the term “adventure guns”.
They’re an offshoot of the Moonies, who think they’re crazy.
Speaking as someone who favors comprehensive reform of firearms laws in this country, I would absolutely agree that it’s not solely AR-15s that are to blame for mass shootings. Their are indeed social factors at play - bad ideas spread more easily and are therefore imitated more widely. There’s more social isolation. Mental health problems are under-reported and it’s difficult for those with serious mental illness to get confined to long-term treatment facilities.
But that doesn’t change the fact that access to guns is a major problem and that we’re going to be an unnecessarily violent society until we can give up the notion that we need to be armed to the teeth to protect ourselves. And it’s not entirely coincidental that mass shootings have increased in a time of liberalization of firearms access, beginning with an expansion of concealed carry permits, the introduction of stand your ground laws, and the expiration of the assault weapons ban back in 2004. And if we’re going to blame the internet and social media for poisoning our minds, it’s also fair to blame the internet for the expansion of firearms commerce, which allows people to buy and sell weapons on sites like E-Bay.
The bolded part is significant.
Yes, they were incompetent bomb makers. It takes specialized knowledge to make operational explosives. Not just any person can make a bomb, and the average person doesn’t have access to bombs, as instruments of destruction are prohibited strictly by federal law. What does that tell you?
And yet, a weapon that effectively kill 59 people, and could have actually killed twice that amount in the hands of a better trained individual, is still legal. What’s the rationale for allowing ordinary people access to an instrument that was designed for largely military purposes?