Why I Keep AR-15 Platform Rifles

In My Humble Opinion
21

You’re shrugging about making millions of law-abiding people potentially felons at the swipe of a pen. Not for anything they’ve done, but for things they own.

At least my solution for the asylums is a solution people until roughly the 1960s found appropriate for housing and caring for the mentally ill. My solution allows for a hearing, with counsel, and due process for the prospective committed. My solution allows for treatment of their condition, or at the least, three squares and a roof, which is more than the outpatient insane—or to use a shorter phrase, “the homeless”—are getting now.

Because I am not a utopian, I acknowledge that the solution is going to likely be over-inclusive and there will be abuses. There will always be abuses when it comes to government action. At least, having had the experience in this country before of establishing and operating hospitals for the clinically insane, we can perhaps avoid the more hideous ones that partially led to their being largely shut down in the 50s and 60s. The real reason—that they’re expensive as hell to run—we’re just shit out of luck on. Finally, my solution has a chance of actually working at keeping the violent and the insane with violent tendencies, incapacitated and incapable of causing the kinds of harm you’re trying to instead stop with a gun ban.

22

on the other hand, you didn’t have a president repeal a law providing for mental health facilities (under the usual auspices of “let the states handle it.” ) only to have state governments then proceed to gut their own programs and institiutions. There’s an abandoned one in Northville, MI which was closed years ago and sits decaying ever since.

the US policy on mental health is “he/she is the parents’ problem until they’re 18, then if they harm someone we’ll throw them in prison.”

23

Again, the problem is that, unless the theory is that Americans are uniquely prone to insanity or evil (which I do not believe), other countries (such as my own) have folks with exactly the same issues with “mental illness, sociopathy, revenge or some other similar aberrant mindset”.

What they by and large lack, is the ability to translate those insane or evil impulses into mass casualties - because guns are simply easier for the average person to use in killing people that bombs (most people can’t get ahold of), knives (hard to kill large numbers of people with), cars, etc.

This is a significant reason why Canada, a country in many ways similar to the northern US states it borders, has less in the way of mass killings by crazy and/or evil people.

In short, guns don’t create the impulse, they just enable the impulse to be acted upon with much greater ease - making what would otherwise be impossible, or at least very difficult, easy.

The fact that guns are good at making killing people easy is a major reason why people want them!

24

Our mental health policies are disgraceful as well. Basically, we have no idea how to handle the mentally ill. They end up on a revolving door of being hospitalized and discharged.

25

Look at the murder rate in the United States as broken out by race of victim, and of the offender, for a partial solution to your statement about why the murder rate is much lower in Canada. It also contradicts your statement about our cultures not being all that different. I posit the culture that commits a disproportionate amount of murder in the US is in fact very different than the culture within Canada.

Keep in mind also that the term “school shooting” can be very elastic depending on what message you’re trying to convey. A drug deal gone bad, with a firearm-related homicide, near the school grounds and at a time when there aren’t any students around, can count. One of the shootings in the list I cited from wiki lists a riot/demonstration where the cops fired into the crowd, causing 3 deaths and 27 wounded. Well, Kent State counts if we’re including those.

There are more shootings in Canada than you cite—here’s a 2016 list from the CBC. I don’t have the time to go through and see how that compares per capita to US school shootings. I suspect it’s a good deal lower. How does Canada deal with its insane, both criminally adjudicated as violent, and non-violent, yet with significant deficits in their ability to function and thrive in society? EDIT: And I see you’ve answered my question above. Which sounds pretty much like how the US chooses not to deal with the problem.

I do think you have fewer firearms per person in Canada than we do in the States, and a lower availability of those firearms to someone who doesn’t already own one. But I hesitate to attribute any differences in crime rate to that lack of availability.

26

Why do you say this (about cars, specifically)?

In 2016, the Bastille Day attacker in France killed 86 and injured hundreds with a vehicle.

In August 2017, terrorists killed more than a dozen people with a van.

Also in 2017, London suffered a pair of vehicle attacks in March (5 dead, 49 injured) and June (8 dead, 48 injured) - and in between those there was an explosives attack in Manchester Arena that killed 22 and injured hundreds more.

Those are casualty numbers on par with shooting sprees.

27

You’re absolutely right. Let’s also ban planes, cars, tools, knives, rocks & sharp sticks while we’re at it. It’s not like those things have any utility other than dangerous weapons.

28

This happened in Barcelona, Spain. Missed the edit window.

29

Don’t have too strong of an opinion re: guns right now, as I see essentially zero chance of anything intelligent and meaningful happening on that issue.

But I don’t oppose certain citizens’ rights to possess certain firearms. Haven’t tried to come up with any workable/defensible limits.

Personally, I became more supportive of gun rights under W. I found the Patriot Act and other “law and order” and surveillance actions scary enough that the idea of government jackbooted thugs impressed me as not as crazy as it did before. I no longer trusted my gov’t as I had before, and as I saw civil liberties being trampled, the idea that government actors might not know what was behind every door didn’t bother me.

More importantly, tho, however you interpret it, the damn thing is in the Constitution. I tend to value free speech extremely highly. And privacy - which is only a penumbra. Tho I don’t agree with a gun rights supporter, I can’t deny that they have some legitimate basis for their position. As I saw the rights I valued most highly come under attack, I developed some empathy for folk who simply favor OTHER rights.

Also, given the hundreds of millions of guns out there, well, the horse seems to be out of the barn.

But then, we can get to costs and benefits. What benefit do law abiding gun owners derive, and how is that set off against the harms from badguys accessing guns? I don’t know how to compose that equation.

Gun supporters tend to lose me, tho, when they suggest there should be no limitation of folk anonymously amassing arsenals. And then selling them anonymously. Should be able to allow people to register as collectors, license their individual weapons, restrictions on private sales.

But, like I said, nothing meaningful is going to happen, and people are going to continue to get shot. Same as health care - the US will claim it is incapable of doing what every other developed country does routinely. There’s exceptionalism for ya! So I’ll just protect myself by living and recreating in relatively gun-free areas.

30

The point he made (that “guns are simply easier for the average person to use in killing people” [than cars]) is what I was refuting. I’m not suggesting we ban anything, just noting the inaccuracies in his claim.

31

Question for Bone:

Granted that a gun, AR-15 will do for this example, offers you an advantage in the cases of civil unrest etc… as you described. Does it still confer the same advantage if the people you are trying to protect yourself and your family against also carry AR-15’s? Or does that level the playing field?

32

I hear the civil unrest argument a lot and it’s always given by white guys who then immediately follow it up with the 92 LA riots (which is actually a spurious comparison because the Korean shopkeepers then were largely armed with bolt action rifles and pistols.) My response to that is that perhaps it would be better if you started treating brown people nicer rather than arming yourself in case they get uppity.

Of course, the other argument against the civil unrest excuse is that if you fire into a group of rioters(which is really the only practical thing you would need an AR for in times of unrest, a revolver can intimidate a crowd or protect you against a single person threatening your life quite well), you’re not protecting yourself, you’re guilty of murder and after the civil unrest abates, you will likely find yourself in jail for a long time.

33

Mateen didn’t drive a car through a disco in Florida. Paddock didn’t drive a truck through the concert in Vegas.

We all understand that vehicles can be used as weapons and that in countries where weapons are hard to get, determined bastards will find other means. Still, there is no case to be made for guns being less purpose built for killing or less dangerous in the hands of people with bad intent. Acquiring them should be much more difficult, ideally impossible.

34

The L.A. riots had nothing at all to do with how nice (or not) Reginald Denny was to brown people.

Did these guys find themselves in jail for a long time?

35

I don’t think that’s true. I don’t think Malthus understands it. Or at least, he doesn’t believe they can be as effective as firearms at killing lots of people. Neither he nor I were talking about the purpose behind the thing, only whether they “are simply easier for the average person to use in killing people”. Your response is a tangent I’m not interested in chasing.

36

I wasn’t claiming that the school shooting I mentioned was the ONLY one in Canada! :smiley: It’s just a very infamous example. The others on the list aren’t anything like as serious … and the list proves my point: they are comparatively rare.

Also, you will see I was claiming that Canada is similar to your Northern states - the ones which actually border Canada.

Are you claiming that Canada is racially homogenous, and that is the difference? It is far from it - Toronto, where I live, is very mixed: it is considered one of the most mixed cities on the planet. It is true that Canada does not have the racial relations history that the US has, but I don’t see much of a straight line between such issues and (say) school shootings.

37

Not even close. Moderate approaches when the opposition pushes extremes is a failure of strategy. Until the idea of bans is dead, I’ll be a single issue voter pushing for the opposite extreme.

I would not be opposed to such a system in the same way I wouldn’t be opposed to unicorns taking a dump on my lawn. Both outcomes are about as equally likely. If that calculus changed then yes I’d be opposed.

I’m declining to respond to the rest of your post because separating the substantive comment from the snide remarks doesn’t seem like it would be productive.

I’m focusing on my personal ownership. When I think of the cost benefit analysis, the chance of my weapons being used for mass shootings is virtually zero. The cost of them sitting in my safe is virtually zero. Yeah I have to spend time cleaning them, practicing, etc. but marginally it’s not something that weighs on the decision making. The chance of having to use them defensively is also quite low. But since it costs virtually nothing to keep, and has a potential benefit, I’m better off keeping them. If there was a proposal or way to disarm the bad actors and retain the ability of people like me to possess these weapons, then I’m all ears. But the idea that says because there are these few bad actors all others must be restricted is a non-starter.

The rifle provides a benefit, not necessarily an advantage and yes that benefit exists regardless of the actions of the people meaning to do harm. The relative value of that benefit increases with the disparity in arms between myself and the attacker(s).

CA Penal Code 197:

38

This is a very silly argument.

Certainly cars CAN be used to kill lots of people (as can planes - the single largest terrorist attack in US history, 9/11, used planes).

However, it clearly isn’t easier to kill large numbers of people with a car or plane, or for that matter, a bomb. doing so involves skill, planning and coordination - which is why these are all examples of attacks by terrorist groups, who in fact planned and coordinated attacks to inflict this sort of horrific damage.

Moreover, cars, planes etc. are useful for other things. Banning or restricting them imposes considerable costs.

In contrast, guns aren’t all that useful for anything - some hunting, some target shooting; relatively limited uses. Societies can, and around the world do, function just fine without many of them.

39

Regarding that quote from the penal code, I would think that the “lawfully” part of that would be the rub - how certain can you be that the judge will agree that your only reasonable response to the mob marching down the street was to hose it down with bullets?

Not that you really need to worry about this, I wouldn’t think - with the go-to example of a riot being 26 years in the past it seems they’re not exactly a daily occurrence. You could just as reasonably say you’re keeping the rifle to shoot at out-of-control cars that are careening towards your living room window.

40

The third sentence is true, the second is unnecessary snark.

Cars (and planes) aren’t as “effective”, if by “effective” you mean “easy”. All the examples you cite are of carefully planned terrorist attacks.

Certainly, you could get into your car and run down some random person. What you can’t do is what you can with a gun - kill someone you specifically want to kill.