[Bolding mine]
Unfortunately, there will be many who will not, though they will be part of the catalyst for that change.
Basically a civvie-legal clone of the US infantryman’s standard-issue rifles of the last 50 years (M16, M16A*, M4) so it’s widely made and tested and a lot of people are familiar with it and there will be easy access to parts and ammo and accessories – in this last aspect, it lends itself to quite a bit to customization and there’s oodles of aftermarket accessories both to improve reliability and performance for the serious shooter as well as for when the urge to Pimp My Gun strikes your Joe Tacticool type.
True, Lucas Jackson’s friend could have been just as well served by getting herself any variant of a FAL, CETME (G3, C308), Kalashnikov (-47, -74, Galil), or Garand (M1A, Mini-14) family weapon, but I suppose except for the last one maybe she’d find it un-American 
Yes. I’m not afraid of anyone.
I agree with you 100% here. It’s taken us on the gun control side far too long to realize this. But I think we’re about to leave behind our proposals that were on the ‘let’s close the gun show loophole’ level, that we couldn’t even get traction for. We’ll be OK with those too, but it’s time to match the NRA’s extremes with very substantial measures at a minimum.
You’re wrong on several points here. First off, not all gun laws exist at the national level, as I’m sure Bone could elaborate on further, or any gun owner living under the NY SAFE Act, etc.
Secondly, “you could make your own calculations and do what you wanted to do if you would let me do the same” is missing my point. I want to be free to choose whether I want to own a gun or not, I want you free to choose for yourself, and I want your neighbors free to choose for themselves. Wherever you live, there are almost certainly some people nearby that would choose to avail themselves of effective means of self defense if given the option. Some cities and states want to prevent them from having that option. I’m opposed to that.
Yes, it certainly could have. I’m happy it was not.
I’m happy for you. Thankfully, many of our countrymen find themselves in similar circumstances. Sadly, not all of them do.
If we could just convince criminals to wear black hats and white hats, to help us distinguish the violent ones from the ones that are just stealing property, we could know which ones we need to shoot and which ones we can safely give our wallet to. Unfortunately, they don’t tend to wear neon signs saying “I’m just after your plasma TV, pinky swear” vs “I’m a shitbag that’s going to rape and strangle your wife and tie up your daughters and leave you all to burn to death. The world would be a better place if you just shoot me now” so we’re left to guess, and when I play such a guessing game, I tend to err on the side of caution.
And just in time for the 2018 election. The RNC thanks you.
I’m not afraid of anything, but do try following the flow of the conversation: I did NOT “bring it up”. QuickSilver asked me a direct question in post #86 and I answered it sincerely in post #90. If it’s a really great example, it will get dismissed as a mere anecdote, and if it’s only a mediocre or bad story it will be nitpicked to death. Or both of those things will happen. Either way it doesn’t seem like something worth wasting my time on.
“Accessed my firearm” is hardly “on the verge” of taking a life. Would it have been worth it? Not given the way the events played out, which is why I didn’t shoot anyone. Yes, the situations either didn’t escalate further or I was able to leave the area. That’s what I availed myself of. That outcome may not always be available.
I support teachers being free to choose for themselves whether they want to be armed or not.
This is a thoughtful post with a good question. Thank you. Unfortunately, I don’t have an answer to your very good question. I would hope we could find some steps we could take to effectively address both of those sets of anxiety, but I don’t know what they are. At the moment, it seems that most things that get proposed address one at the expense of the other.
Bone, let’s say you’re totally right. I’m going to assume you have your shit together, and you and your whole family are very safe with their guns. If anything bad ever happens, you and your whole family will respond admirably and take out the threat in a textbook manner. That your guns are all stored properly, away from small children, and are not going to send rounds flying in the event of a fire. (a chambered round, if it cooks off inside the barrel, will exit with full lethal velocity, while loose ammunition will not have that kind of velocity)
So my question to you is : what percentage of American adults around you do you feel are responsible enough to have a gun? What percentage do you feel are so incompetent that them being allowed to have guns is in fact making *you *less safe.
If that percentage is high, then by letting the mass of idiots around you *also *have guns may in fact be making you a bunch less safe. An effective gun control policy might be “Bone and people like him are the only ones, besides military and police, who are allowed to have guns”.
Would you agree that if you had a magic way to determine if an American adult is as responsible as you are, and only issue guns to them, this would be a much safer society than we have today? Let’s say that’s just 10% of the population.
So disarming 90% except for the safe and responsible 10% is a superior policy to what we have now. With me so far?
I’m going to reply to both of these at the same time because they raise similar points. But first, let me clarify that I do not think the risk of such an event is non-trivial. Not sure how you are using trivial, but I would be unsurprised if such a civil unrest situation were to come to pass in my lifetime, or my children’s lifetime. I can’t quantify any odds, but I think the chances of this type of threat coming to pass are very low. I think it’s much more likely that services get disrupted like water, power, phones, roads, etc. but even that the chances are fairly low, IMO.
When we talk about public policy, I think it’s important to contextualize that with realistic outcomes. That being said, here’s the possible outcomes I see in order of my personal preference:
[ol]
[li]There is no need for firearms and no one has them.[/li][li]There is a need for firearms and only those with good intentions possess them.[/li][li]There is a need for firearms and those with good intentions have them, and we try to screen for those who would commit crimes so they may be prohibited. Those prohibited do not have them, and they are available for others.[/li][li]There is a need or firearms and anyone who wants them can get them, for good or ill intent.[/li][li]There is a need for firearms, and only those with ill intent possess them.[/li][/ol]
I take it as a given that there will be firearms in our society. That rules out #1. My view is the proposals that are most often proffered in terms of gun control would push towards #5, the worst possible outcome. I think #2 is unrealistic so #3 is the next best option. I think there is room to maneuver within #3 to improve the current situation. That’s a roundabout way of addressing both of the posts above - yes #3 is worse than #1, and prevalence of arms in the hands of those who would commit crimes is bad. But there is no changing that so I am better off being well armed. It’s a lot like driving an SUV – the increased prevalence of SUVs made injuries and damage from road accidents more severe, especially when there is a vehicle size mismatch. I could choose to drive a smaller car so that in the event I am involved in an accident I can reduce the severity of the impact. But no one else is going to do that, and I’m much better off in a larger vehicle.
This isn’t to say nothing should be done. I outlined some things I think could improve the current situation in the OP. I’m sure there are more.
Yes of course. I would never want a fair fight with those who would do people harm. Separating those groups is the challenge.
Sure that’s possible. It’s even true to some extent now in the current legal landscape depending on the fact pattern. Currently involuntary commitment is a lifetime prohibition in most cases. That could be changed on both ends - make the prohibition attach earlier in the spectrum of treatment, and relax the prohibition based on new circumstances.
You do realize that Isamu lives in a country with a murder rate about 1/10th of the US murder rate.
Bone, I mostly agree with your rankings. I don’t agree that we have to throw out #1 because it’s impossible and I don’t agree that #3 is a particularly realistic option, though I’d be happier with that than where we are today. I’d also carve out a niche for proper sporting rifles (and home defense shotguns) within #1. Civil unrest isn’t exactly the emergence of a zombie horde, you can probably get by without the ability to shoot a couple dozen rounds into a crowd.
nm
“Accessed”, means what? Drew it from its holster but did not raise and point it? Moved your jacket out of the way to make sure everyone knew who needed to know that you were carrying?
Were you in direct conflict with the threat or was the threat in proximity but not directed at you specifically?
I’m asking because I’m trying to imagine a time in my life where a gun would have been a correct response to any threatening situation I’ve been in. FWIW, I’ve lived in big cities most of my life. I’ve even been in a couple of situations where I was attacked completely without provocation and I’ve had to fight my way out. One where I was outnumbered. Not trying to make myself into some sort of hero, but just to say that I’ve never looked back on those situations and found myself thinking how much better off I’d have been if I’d had a gun.
Bone, if it could be shown to your satisfaction that there was a very good chance that more deaths are caused by the uber-effectiveness of AR-15 style rifles in school shootings than prevented by those very, very rare scenarios in which an AR-15 style rifle is the only defense option that could save a life, would you support (or at least not defend) legislative efforts meant to get those weapons out of private hands? Would this change your view, in any way, on gun control efforts aimed at AR-15 styles weapons?
To a certain extent, I suppose they are analogous in that both are still relatively rare events. However, the fact is that the easy availability of guns is in large part responsible for these shooting sprees. I would submit that a society that is less armed is one in which people are more likely to be tempted to use less violent means to respond to some perceived grievance or slight. That is essentially the reason why I believe we need more gun control. I get that having an AR-15 or a 9mm makes people feel safer, and gives them a ‘fighting chance’ (or at least the false sense of security of having one), but in reality, an armed society puts more people in greater danger.
Let me put it this way: should every country on earth, including North Korea, have an arsenal of nuclear weapons? Would that make us all feel safer?
Effective gun laws. State laws don’t have much to do with actually keeping guns out of hands of people, as anything actually effective gets overturned in the courts. Bone can tell you that he is upset that there are certain guns he can’t get, and occasional mods, but he, and everyone else in cali, can still get nearly any gun plenty easy.
Even these ineffective measures are fought against in both the courts and the legislature.
That’s why we have laws that are made by elected officials. They evaluate what is best for their localities, and don’t worry what is best for others. In some cities, having guns may make sense, in others, it doesn’t. You want to prevent cities and states from having that option, I’m opposed to that.
So am I, else we could not have these scintillating conversations. So, as there were no dead bodies on the floor with the resolution of these situations, do you feel that had a gun been involved, that would have meant fewer casualties?
There are far more robberies and home invasions than there are murders. The chances that you are dealing with a murderer, not a robber, are actually pretty small. You will know that you are dealing with a murderer, as they don’t give you a chance to draw your own gun or anything, they just shoot you. If they give you a chance to draw your gun, then they weren’t going to.
It is the people that are calling on the politicians to pass laws in response to recent spree shooters. If the RNC has anyone to thank, it is those spree shooters. They say that you are very welcome.
Do you support Florida’s requirements for arming teachers that they just passed?
The gun policies that are pushed by the NRA and by gun advocates like yourself tend toward #4. #4 is in fact the status quo, and you are advocating for making guns easier to get. #3 is just as unrealistic as #2, as those who are prohibited from having them can easily get them through theft or unregistered sale from those who are not.
A #3 makes sense, if those screening measures are actually thorough, rather than just making sure that you haven’t already shot up a convenience store. People can be sold a weapon they have no idea how to use, and have no idea how to secure. They can be sold a weapon for the sole reason that it was what was used in the last mass shooting, and even give that as the reason to the gun store owner, and they won’t bat an eye, they’ll just ask cash or credit.
If someone with a clean record came into a gun store, and asked for the best weapon with which to shoot up a school, do you think the gun store owners would report him to the police, or sell him the gun? Now, that depends on the gun store owner’s personal conscience, they may or may not, I suppose, but they would not be held liable if that customer took his purchase, walked out of the store, drove down the road, and then shot up a school.
And this is where we certainly have different moral compasses. I would not make a decision that I knew endangered others, even if I knew it would slightly increase my safety.
When it was determined that this was a problem, and that SUV’s in accidents were riding up over cars and decapitating the passengers therin, there was also a move to lower the bumper and even install devices under the bumper to prevent this. Did you actually do research to find which SUV’s were less likely to ride up over other cars and kill the people inside in even fairly low speed collisions, or did you just buy a big SUV?
You did, but you prefaced them by saying that you wouldn’t consider them, becuase
You are crowding out the moderates on the other side of the aisle too.
You say that you would be okay with a number of reasonable things that I agree would probably do quite a bit to lower gun violence, but you also say that you refuse to consider them.
As someone who advocates for less gun violence, I would be more than okay with that, but, as you say, if your opposition takes an extreme position, then moderate approaches fail. That means that any attempts to come to a compromise will fail, by definition, and we can only go straight from one extreme to the other.
I think the problem is, is that the extremists ignore the moderates, who make up the vast majority of the population, and go against the extremists in order to justify their position. This also allows them to lump any moderates who are not on their side in with the opposition, and then write them off as extremists.
I’ve seen this happen a number of times, both on this board, in politics, and IRL. Where someone goes from the position of just wanting better background checks, but when they see the types of extreme positions that are taken, they say “Fuck it, the can’t be responsible with their toys, we should take them away.” I’m tempted to move in that direction myself given the refusal to “give an inch” by the 2Aer’s. But I don’t, as I do think that a moderate voice is needed, and I have the agency to choose to stay moderate, and not allow people from the opposition to “make” me take an extreme position. At the end of the day, it is going to be the moderates negotiating, and I’d like to have a voice, rather than being an extremist on either side, and ignored.
As is, they can get anything you can get. And they won’t be fighting fair, as they are apparently coming for you and your family, which they can do, any time, day or night, with whatever numbers they need to muster to breach your fortifications.
I’d certainly agree with that, but is that something that is within that inch that you are not willing to give? Unlike trump, I do want due process before the guns are taken away, I just want due process to be expedited, and allowed to temporarily make someone ineligible for guns until it has been determined that they are safe to have them again. Sometimes people go through temporary issues, then they get better.
I am now unfortunately more confused Bone.
If I understand your position as you attempted to clarify right then you believe there is at most a trivial risk of an event in which you think an AR-15 platform rifle could be, by your assessment, useful to you and your family for self-defense.
I read that as stating that you do not in fact perceive any “need” to own the weapon. One does not feel a “need” to protect themselves from something they see no real risk of. I don’t “need” shark repellent to go swimming at the beach in New Jersey, for example. But this whole thread is predicated upon your assessment that you have a need for the weapon for self-defense from civil unrest. Hard to square that circle.
Maybe it’s more a desire? You like having the sense of feeling some marginal degree safer against some risk that you feel is very improbable.
Perhaps the unqualified term “need” is not best used in this thread?
With that in mind I would like to address the list you’ve put up, with modifications for precision, and something added:
-
There is no one who feels strong desire for firearms and no one has them … Yes ruled out. A nonstarter. People want them for many reasons.
-
There is a desire for firearms and only those with good intentions possess them … Also agreed unrealistic and simplistic view of “good” and “bad” people.
-
There are those who believe they need and definitely strongly desire firearms, those with good intentions and who will handle them responsibly may have them, and we try to screen for those who would commit crimes or be reckless so they may be prohibited. Those prohibited do not have them (or more realistically at least do so less frequently), and they are available for others. … I would also like to add this one. This does not need to be a one size fits all for all firearms. The degree of screening and the bar for ownership can range from mostly prohibited (think true machine guns and bazookas) to the level it is now for basic hunting guns to perhaps more extensive background checks with limitations and renewable licensing for possession such as for an AR-15 platform. I’d further include in this section some compromise between what would maximally reduce your anxiety and what would maximally reduce the anxiety of kids now scared to go to school and the anxiety their parents feel as well. Yes controls on magazines of a certain size fall into this group. This is the option that the best chance of satisfying your desire to have the disparity advantage. In this regard I wonder about “smart gun” technology for this sort of class in which only those registered as having been licensed to be a user that specific weapon can fire it (which can be several household members).
-
There is a desire for firearms and anyone who wants them can get them, for good or ill intent. … Pretty close to what we have now. (Between legal means to avoid screening, poor screening, people who can pass screening buying large volumes and reselling to those who cannot, and the easy ability of those who would not pass screening to gain access to the unsecured weapons of friends and family or those easy to rob.) This is not a great option.
-
There is a strong desire for firearms, and only those with ill intent possess them. … Clearly a silly option. The standard NRA position that any attempt to improve regulation and move off of 4 into 3 means this one (the slippery slope) is their intentional poisoning of the well. That extreme position has so far resulted in maintaining 4 but it creates more polarization and causes great harms. It results in greater support for the “gun grabber” side as well.
How far off is my version of 3 from something you could sign on to?
I get from your op that you think restrictions on magazine capacity is a nonstarter as your desire for the platform includes the ability to kill many people rapidly in case of the civil unrest that you see as very unlikely to occur. I’d submit that killing five, let alone the ten that was the limit, people rapidly is enough and that you should compromise with not being able to kill 15 or 30 people as efficiently.
What do you mean by “re-introduction” of the AR-15?