what “arms race?” the AR-15 has been civvie available since the 1960s.
That’s what I was going to say. It’s been around forever but was unpopular and thought to be an “ugly gun” back in the day. It’s popularity started really surging in the 1990’s and 2000’s.
I’ve found a few things that hint at the AR-15 being banned during the '94-'04 AWB, but nothing firm. I know at the very least it could not have a collapsible stock, bayonet lug, or flash hider, because that would have put it over the “assault weapon” threshold.
It was my impression that the AR-15 type weapon was prohibited for a period of time until '04 when they did not renew the restrictions on these kinds of weapons. If I’m mistaken, then I stand corrected.
The ones that were being manufactured in 1994 were banned. They made some cosmetic changes and sold them under slightly different names.
For instance, the beltway sniper used an XM-15, a cosmetic variant of the AR-15 that got around the bans.
First, I’m highly skeptical this data would be available. Second, the phrasing “is the only defense option” is not a characterization I would acquiesce to. Third, even if this were to come to pass, it would put us in #5 again, the worst possible scenario. Legislative efforts should focus primarily o getting those weapons out of the wrong hands, not the whole of private hands.
All laws, federal, state, and local are effective at restricting the law abiding. The idea that I can get nearly any gun easily is not even close to accurate. The assault weapon ban that started in CA never left and for a while we were stuck with stupid modifications to satisfy the restrictions like bullet buttons and featureless. And beyond long guns, every single new model semi handgun is banned in CA, let alone the standard mag capacity. So yes, I abide by these laws and they are successful in keeping these guns out of my hands. Not so for the criminally inclined.
I think this is a key disagreement. I think we are closer to #3 than #4, and it seems you think the converse. Probably colors a lot of general perception.
To be clear, I never used the phrasing, “need”. The OP is an elaboration on the reasons I keep the rifles but if I didn’t have them I’d be materially the same, I’d wager so it’s not a need. Ultimately the chance that I would use the rifles defensively are very very low. The risk they present are even lower since they are locked in the safes, etc. The OP is a response to those who would say there is no legitimate use for these rifles, no way they can be used defensively, they are only useful for criminal activity, etc.
But yes, your rephrased #3 is something I would go for - details matter of course. But once bans get proposed that’s #5 and a hard no. I submit that was contributory to Machin-Toomey failing after Sandy Hook - because it was proposed only after the bans by Feinstein et al. were rejected. If Machin-Toomey was the first and only thing to be introduced, it would have passed easily after Sandy Hook, IMO. And here we have more bans proposed, so go figure.
And as an aside, I think Smart Gun tech would be awesome if it worked. But since my state and other states have passed laws that would ban all non-smart guns once the tech is available, the well is poisoned and it will probably be a very long time before they materialize, if ever. Right now the tech is at the interesting phase, but not even close to usable.
In 1994, President Clinton included a 10-year trial ban of "assault weapons’ and high capacity magazines in the **Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act. **Nobody had to surrender the assault weapons or magazines they already owned. Everything was grandfathered. You could still go to the gun store and buy an AR-15 “assault weapon”, brand new, provided it was manufactured before 1994. Same with high capacity magazines. Anything made before the ban was perfectly legal to possess, use, sell, etc.
And, if you didn’t want to pay a small premium for a true “assault weapon”, you could still pay the normal prices for a “SPORT” version of the AR-15. Your SPORTER was limited to a fixed butt-stock, no flash suppressor, and no bayonet lug. While the gun would not come with a high capacity magazine, you could still purchase pre-1994 magazines for dirty cheap and use them legally in your rifle.
If you were a criminal, then putting a collapsible stock on your rifle was trivial. So it was a joke to think that this somehow prevented crime in any way.
The AR-15 never went away. The sales of pre-1994 AR-15s remained legal, and the post-ban AR-15s weren’t in any way meaningfully different than the pre-ban version.
To be perfectly honest, the only people who actually talk as if there was ever a ban are either being intentionally disingenuous or they are simply ignorant. For example, someone who says “There was a ban on AR-15s and it didn’t work!!! Look at the crime from 199-2004!” Those people probably know damn well that there was never really a ban, they’re just using that “fact” to push their agenda.
I’m not making any comment about weather a ban would be a good thing or a bad thing. Or whether it would have any effect on crime at all. I’m just saying, as someone who was an arms dealer during the Clinton Ban time period, and someone who currently owns five AR-15s, most of which are SBRs with suppressors… that there was never a time where AR-15s were unavailable. There was no real ban.
And that’s part of the problem with any talk about a future ban. It’s either going to be a ridiculous non-ban like it was in 1994, being nothing more than a pain in the ass for legal gun owners and nothing more. Or it’s going to be a huge ban involving turn-in/confiscation.
That’s the biggest reason so many otherwise reasonable people are against a ban. It’s because for the ban to actually be affective, it would have to ban a lot more guns than just the AR-15, and it would have to actually BAN them. It is impossible to actually ban just the AR-15 without also banning hundreds of legitimate gopher-hunting, plinking, or competition sport shooting rifles. The 1994 Bill tried to restrict people to just “sporting” rifles. So they made tiny cosmetic changes and called it an AR-15 Sporter. And the changes did not affect criminals because adding the evil features was trivial. Or they could just buy a preban one. It was a worthless ban.
Any future ban would have to be a COMPLETE, TOTAL BAN or it would be pointless and nothing more than an inconvenience to legal owners. There’s no middle ground that could not be circumvented with semantics and/or minor changes to form or function. The arm braces that are currently being sold to circumvent the restriction on having buttstocks and short barrels together on a weapon. “It’s not a buttstock, it’s an arm brace!!! It just happens to look like a butt stock, function like a buttstock, collapse and extend like a buttstock, fit in my shoulder pocket like a buttstock… oh, but it’s an arm brace”. That’s the kind of creativity and asshattery that is involved in “GUN BANS”.
Deterrence is best, agree. I’ll keep mine concealed, and will draw it as needed which, hopefully, is never. But if it’s needed, I will have it, and if the criminal is smart, then s/he will choose to flee.
Crime deterred.
If the criminal is not smart, and if I’ve been smart myself, then s/he will be dead. Again, crime deterred. Deterrence is a good thing.
For an unarmed and untrained person, if God forbid they’re ever in that situation, well, that person might easily become a victim. Hopefully they will live and ideally be unharmed.
I live in one of the safest cities. I don’t live in fear, I live in the real world and crimes do happen. It is human nature, unfortunately.
No, and thanks, but the point is that murders do happen, whether at 1/10th the rate of the USA, or higher in other places. Once a population gets to a certain level, crimes will happen. Again, human nature and all that.
When seconds count, rest assured that the police are only a few minutes away.
What if the criminal is faster than you?
If deterrence is best, why is it not your first option?
What if he draws first? And, if he doesn’t, how do you know he’s someone whose life you need to take to save your own?
More likely not, just escalated.
You’ll have taken a life. You’ll have to be able to say you needed to. Will you?
Aren’t they more likely to become victims if they present a threat to the alleged criminal? Such as by showing a weapon, for instance?
Here’s the thing, even if Bullitt succeeds, he’s still living in a society where he’s more likely to become the victim of gun violence as long as there are policies that do nothing about the availability of guns - or worse, increase their availability. He can feel comfortable knowing that he has a fighting chance, and yet the chances are very, very much against CCW holders that they would be prepared for an assault, and b) we would react in time and accurately enough to stop an attack once it unfolded. On the contrary, it’s more likely that he and everyone else - lawful gun owner or not - will be the victim or a bystander to a violent confrontation.
Is this claim based off some sort of statistical analysis you or someone else performed, or just guesswork on your part? You use phrases like “the chances are very, very much against” and “more likely”. Do you have a cite to support them?
I, as a person who recognizes guns exist primarily for shooting innocent people, actually will admit that in many situations a CCW carrier will get the chance to at least attempt to carry out their heroic fantasies of killing Bad Guys[sup]TM[/sup]. This would be because in many cases, the CCW is not alone and is not the only person the Bad Guy[sup]TM[/sup] will have to pay attention to. Thusly the Good Guy[sup]TM[/sup] will be able to (in theory) find a moment when the Bad Guy[sup]TM[/sup] isn’t looking at them to whip out their piece and unerringly put one between the Bad Guy[sup]TM[/sup]'s eyes, as one does.
Of course, this only applies if the weapon is concealed. If the weapon isn’t concealed, then the cowboy in question won’t get a chance to get it out of their holster.
Which reminds me that the thread is, officially, about AR-15s.
I think we can agree that the AR-15 isn’t a concealed-carry weapon. In fact the very idea that it is a defensive weapon at all is quite dubious. I mean, the facts. You’re not going to be carrying this thing around outside the home, unless you’re an asshole. (And if you do then you’ll have no element of surprise and will get shot in the back, should anyone be inclined to do you harm.) So you’ll only have it while you’re in the home. But is it a defensive weapon even inside the home? Would you grab your AR-15 to take with you if you hear a suspicious noise downstairs in the middle of the night, sweeping and clearing rooms like a member of seal team six? I’m thinking not. Unless you’re a douche the AR-15 will be locked up in a safe somewhere, and you have a loaded magnum under your pillow for such an occasion anyway. Plus the handgun is a lot less likely to trash your house should you actually find a legitimate target - firing the rifle indoors is probably on nobody’s list of good ideas, not if they own the house anyway.
In the hands of a civilian an AR-15 has one purpose - slaughtering crowds of people, specifically in circumstances where you have advance warning. It’s a murder tool - or a tool to bolster murder fantasies. And that’s all it is.
Now, yes, it is possible to contrive circumstances where you would legitimately find yourself faced with an advancing horde. Civil unrest is the one mentioned in the OP - admittedly without it being real clear why the mobs would be advancing on his house. But it’s a lovely scenario for imagining that you might have an excuse to gun down waves of clearly-labeled Bad Guys[sup]TM[/sup], video game style. It’s it’s also about the only such lovely, or even slightly plausible, scenario. Well, unless you’re in a crime-ridden neighborhood (or a criminal yourself) and are facing the possibility of gang warfare. Or zombies. Always a possibility, zombies.
But regardless of whichever scenario one imagines, AR-15s are not defensive tools. They’re weapons of slaughter. That’s what they’re for. They’re for murder and Rambo fantasies about murder. And that’s pretty much it.
Long rifles have the legitimate use of hunting game. Shotguns/pellet guns have the legitimate use of killing varmints. Handguns have the dubious-but-arguable use of “personal defense” (read: killing threats as they appear). But the only productive purpose for the AR-15 platform is as a three foot long penis symbol - and for playacting murder fantasies. Or, well, real-acting murder realities.
That’s what I meant by “and if I’ve been smart myself” — positioning myself so as to not be vulnerable. But if I am vulnerable, then I don’t draw, and my weapon remains concealed.
Deterrence is my first option. Why do you day it is not?
If he draws first (or she), then I am at their mercy. (I may also have made mistakes up to that point, but that’s another story.) But he does not know I have a gun, and that is to my advantage.
If he doesn’t draw first, then if he acts such that I have reasonable fear for my life (or my wife’s life), then I may choose to draw and take control of the situation.
If, God forbid, I’ve had to take a life, then I better be damn well certain that a jury of my California peers would also agree that it was warranted.
Yes, an untrained and unarmed person might be more of a victim if s/he tries to present a threat. Or they might be able to take control of the situation and impose their will on the alleged criminal.
Why the focus on taking away guns, and not, instead, on doctors who prescribe psychotropic drugs to teens?
Your point is? 99.9% of teens taking these drugs don’t hurt anyone. Plus you’d have to consider what they would do if they were off the drugs.
If you are saying, however, that anyone on one of these drugs should not be permitted near a gun, you might have something. It would probably reduce the suicide rate a lot more than the murder rate, but it’s still good.
What if #5 does happen, but due to restrictions and such only 5 people in the entire country of ill intent possess weapons? Better or worse than today?
There have been many situations where power and phones are out. Look at the Napa fires. Was it necessary for civilians to use weapons in these cases?
If you got an evacuation order, would you stay in your house to protect it, or would you try to bring your weapon with you to the shelter? Do you think you would need it there? How would the other evacuees feel about it?
If you stayed, and avoided getting burned to death, what to you think might happen if you popped out of your house (which you should have left) with the weapon hearing a noise - and finding it was an LEO posted to protect the neighborhood? Do you think you might look like an armed looter?
You seem to be visualizing a limited set of circumstances, and ignoring those equally or more likely that could come out badly for you.
Anyhow most civil unrest is very local. I lived in New York during the Harlem riots, but in Queens, and I assure you that we would not have gotten out a gun even if we owned one.
BTW, #5 and the claim that gun control efforts move us to #5 is just a restatement of the bogus “If guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns” propaganda turd from the NRA. In fact many of us would be thrilled to have laws like those of England, which clearly have not led to situation #5.
Yes, but this particular country is deterring 90% of murders. They just don’t happen there. How are they doing this, when their population is denied the opportunity for personal defense weaponry?
Every other “non-shithole” country in the world has figured out how to deter 50-90% of the murders we live with here. We are a country awash in personal defense weapons, and it hasn’t deterred jack-all.
As I suggested in my prior posts, on an individual level, in your personal bubble, a gun may reduce your chance of being murdered, but once you get outside your bubble, the reality is that your ability to buy a gun to defend yourself makes it a hell of a lot more likely that you’re going to get shot at by some asshole.
For those that say that the owning/use of personal firearm deters murders-Would you mind telling us what you think the murder rate would be if we didn’t currently have 2nd Amendment rights?