Why I Keep AR-15 Platform Rifles

[k9bfriender]

@Bone

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.

What is the criteria to this? Are you saying that you will be pushing for the opposite extreme as long as there is someone, somewhere, who has considered banning guns?

It does prevent any sort of useful progress, if those who want much less extreme measures to attempt to curb gun violence are met with absolutists who will only agree to make more guns more readily available to the public.

There will never come a time when there is no one at all that doesn’t want to ban all guns, just as there will never come a time when no one at all will not want to make automatic rifles and machine guns available at the corner store.

If your position is that as long as there are people who will take an extreme view, then you will take an extreme position, do you recognize that there will be people who will dig in their heels and take the extreme position on the other side, specifically because of the extreme position you take?

I’ve seen this several times, here and elsewhere, and felt the temptation myself. When the gun advocate crowd says that there is nothing that they will accept as a compromise in order to reduce gun violence, and then there is another mass shooting, and another, people start changing their minds. People start thinking that, if all the gun advocates are just taking extreme positions, then they have to as well, and they start to advocate for actually banning guns, and even taking them away.

In negotiation, the only rational position to take against someone with an extreme position is one of your own. The only reasonable response to a ridiculous condition is one of your own. There are many who have no interest in banning all guns, just finding practical ways of reducing gun violence, but the gun advocates refuse to even engage them, refuse to find any common ground, which just pushes them into the position where they have to take an extreme position.

It really is the people in the middle that you need to be reaching out to for support here, and taking an extreme position because someone on the other side has an extreme position doesn’t actually get their support. The majority of the country wants stricter gun controls. Not enough to get an amendment passed or modified, not yet anyway. But ignoring the will of a growing majority, and digging in on an extreme position protected by words on a parchment will give the “gun grabbers” more allies every day, and unfortunately, at every mass shooting. It is in your interested to come to the table now, rather than later, when 2A doesn’t give you the shield it does, without it, your position is completely untenable.

[HurricaneDitka]

@Malthus

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

My apologies. I was trying to be clear to QuickSilver, not snarky to you.

@Malthus

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

The Vegas shooter “carefully planned” and prepared for his attack too, as do most of the really deadly spree shooters. The ones who don’t carefully plan and prepare much, regardless of their method, usually don’t end up killing as many as those that do.

@Malthus

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.

We weren’t talking about killing a specific person. We were talking about “the ability to translate those insane or evil impulses into mass casualties” (which is what I meant by “effective”) and whether cars or guns are “easier for the average person to use in killing people”. The average person has more access to vehicles. They’ve got more familiarity and comfort with their operation, and they’ll, I think, generally arouse less suspicion as they equip and position themselves for their attack (meaning that buying a car / driving around in a car is really normal and mundane vs buying guns or carrying them around is a bit less mundane). For what reasons do you think guns are easier for the average person than cars?

[Chefguy]

@Orwell

I bolded the bold part above. The guns and/or ease of access is **NOT **the root cause of mass killings. Guns can be used as tools in mass killings, just as some use bombs, cars, knifes and other objects. But the guns do not cause the violence. It seems utterly apparent that the root cause is mental illness, sociopathy, revenge or some other similar aberrant mindset.

I’ll concede that mental illness or other cause is what triggers the mayhem. I’ll also stand by my comment that ease of access enables a person to act out on his issues much more easily. Better screening, substantial waiting periods, and eliminating weapons that are designed to kill other humans would at least slow down the slaughter of innocents.

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

@Dinsdale

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.

It’s ironic to me that the party that gun nuts and NRA types cling to is generally speaking the very same party that is most responsible for increased invasions of privacy, beating the drums of racism/immigration, etc.

[bucketybuck]

@Bone

I’m a firearm owner, but I do not hunt, collect, or compete. I have firearms for defensive purposes, only.

As a non-American I can’t even read past this part, it breaks my brain a little.

What the hell has you people living so scared?

[HurricaneDitka]

@bucketybuck

As a non-American I can’t even read past this part, it breaks my brain a little.

What the hell has you people living so scared?

You should keep reading. He explains it quite well in the rest of the OP. And I personally wouldn’t use the phrase “living so scared” to describe Bone and don’t think it’s accurate.

[ElvisL1ves]

@Alessan

There may be more good guys with guns than bad guys with guns, but gunfights are usually won by whoever shoots first, and in civilian situations, that’s usually the bad guys.

So, if you shoot first, it’s pretty hard to explain how you’re actually the good guy.

@Bone

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.

Those of us pushing for gun sanity could say the same thing, couldn’t we?

Blaming *other *people for repugnant positions *you *choose to take is really not an effective way to to convince them you’re defending a well-considered principle, any more than straw-manning them is. Just a thought.

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.

Stephen Paddock’s friends and family thought the same about his guns, too.

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.

Seriously: How do we know which one of those you are? How do YOU even know?

But the idea that says because there are these few bad actors all others must be restricted is a non-starter.

Yet you offer no starts of your own, instead assuming an extremist position and claim that anyone *else *offering any ideas is an extremist who must be ignored and opposed. Well then.

[Ravenman]

@Bone

When I hear proposals to ban the AR-15 or things along those lines, I am reminded of this quote:“The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles.”.

I like and respect you, and I appreciate the thought you put into your post. I must ask a question on this, though.

Do you think there is any weapon that has moral stature or a will of its own? Seems to me that this statement could, as written, be applied to even things that societies have banned for being inhumane, like nerve agents. If a statement applies equally to something like a rock and something like Sarin, I am personally unmoved by it, because I see it as providing no insight.

[iiandyiiii]

Bone, I don’t have a problem with you or any other law abiding person buying any legal weaponry. My response was about whether or not certain weapons should be legal, not whether it’s reasonable for anyone to want a specific weapon.

[k9bfriender]

@bucketybuck

As a non-American I can’t even read past this part, it breaks my brain a little.

What the hell has you people living so scared?

Haven’t you heard about all the guns around here?

[Mdcastle]

@bucketybuck

As a non-American I can’t even read past this part, it breaks my brain a little.

What the hell has you people living so scared?

We’re not constantly scared of driving, but we wear our seatbelts just in case. We’re not constantly scared of criminals either, but we own guns just in case.

[HurricaneDitka]

@Alessan

… gunfights are usually won by whoever shoots first, and in civilian situations, that’s usually the bad guys. …

How many examples of someone shooting second and winning the gunfight would it take to convince you that this is wrong?

@ElvisL1ves

So, if you shoot first, it’s pretty hard to explain how you’re actually the good guy. …

How many examples of good guys shooting first would it take to convince you that this position is wrong?

[ElvisL1ves]

@bucketybuck

What the hell has you people living so scared?

It’s only some of us. For them, it seems to come from listening only to each other.

[begbert2]

@HurricaneDitka

You should keep reading. He explains it quite well in the rest of the OP. And I personally wouldn’t use the phrase “living so scared” to describe Bone and don’t think it’s accurate.

I kept reading, and noticed that he immediately started talking about CCW permits. (Which is particularly bizarre in connection with a thread about AR-15s - how do you casually conceal those?)

Not that CCW permits don’t have a purpose - they’re useful if you want to reduce the chances of getting mugged for your security gun or if you want to be able to more easily murder people. But when the argument is about defense they seem a little out of place. He paints a picture of hiding out in his house peeking out through the windows to shoot at the zombie hordes, but the CCW thing really casts doubt on his claims that the guns will spend most or all of their time locked safely up in their safes.

[Czarcasm]

@HurricaneDitka

How many examples of someone shooting second and winning the gunfight would it take to convince you that this is wrong?
How many examples of good guys shooting first would it take to convince you that this position is wrong?

What do examples tell us about statistics? You could find ten or one hundred examples that are in your favor, but if you don’t compare them to all the examples that aren’t in your favor then all you’ve got are a pile of stories that tell you what you like to hear.

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

When Bone states “personal defense both at home and when I’m out and about” (paraphrasing) then immediately follows up with commentary regarding CCW’s, he is no longer talking about AR-15’s when he’s “out and about”. He’s talking about conceal carrying a handgun. You can’t conceal an AR-15 (not well, anyway).

[ElvisL1ves]

@FoieGrasIsEvil

He’s talking about conceal carrying a handgun. You can’t conceal an AR-15 (not well, anyway).

The only reason to conceal is to shoot back. If you actually want to deter crime, you need to carry openly, and the sight of an AR-15 would do that more effectively than the sight of a .38 anyway. No, if you carry concealed in case there’s trouble, the one looking for trouble is you, right?

[HurricaneDitka]

@Czarcasm

What do examples tell us about statistics? You could find ten or one hundred examples that are in your favor, but if you don’t compare them to all the examples that aren’t in your favor then all you’ve got are a pile of stories that tell you what you like to hear.

I don’t know if we’ve got good statistics on either of those matters. Does this mean we shouldn’t draw any conclusions (such as “usually” or “it’s pretty hard”) at all?

[HurricaneDitka]

@ElvisL1ves

The only reason to conceal is to shoot back. … No, if you carry concealed in case there’s trouble, the one looking for trouble is you, right?

Wrong. I CCW every day and am not “looking for trouble”, and if at all possible I don’t intend to wait until an aggressor has shot at me before shooting back. I’d shoot first in various circumstances were a reasonable person would feel threatened, even when the bad guy hadn’t yet fired a shot. ETA: There’s certainly no legal requirement that you wait until someone has shot at you before you shoot back.

[Czarcasm]

@HurricaneDitka

I don’t know if we’ve got good statistics on either of those matters. Does this mean we shouldn’t draw any conclusions (such as “usually” or “it’s pretty hard”) at all?

Just presenting one side tells us only one thing-that it is the side you support.