Banning AR-15's Doesn't Make Sense To Me

[KevinWestern]

However, I don't think this is how it will go down. Even with assault rifles, private guerrillas are no match for the U.S. Army, and so the revolutionaries would have to get a lot of the Army on its side. That's after all what happened last time (the Civil War: the South had the better army, of course), and bids fair to happen again ---- Texas is not likely to side with New England! I see a split-up coming, it's amazing we have lasted this long, very unhistorical.

Thanks for having a discussion. As a reply, I will say that the main problem with your reasoning (in my view) is that historical examples don’t support it.

If we look back on very recent history, we will find numerous cases of a lightly armed population succeeding at fending off a heavily armed aggressor.

How about Iraq? Despite the US having the most sophisticated weaponry on the planet, unlimited funding, and Iraq being just a fraction of the size of the US, we were still unable to take control of the country after 10 years of war. Why?

Too, what about Vietnam? Isn’t that too a case of a decentralized civilian army with crude weapons being able to fend off a complete Superpower? Again, Vietnam is a fraction of the size of the United States.



.

 

[Circe]

[Thanks for having a discussion. As a reply, I will say that the main problem with your reasoning (in my view) is that historical examples don’t support it.

If we look back on very recent history, we will find numerous cases of a lightly armed population succeeding at fending off a heavily armed aggressor.

How about Iraq? Despite the US having the most sophisticated weaponry on the planet, unlimited funding, and Iraq being just a fraction of the size of the US, we were still unable to take control of the country after 10 years of war. Why?

Too, what about Vietnam? Isn’t that too a case of a decentralized civilian army with crude weapons being able to fend off a complete Superpower? Again, Vietnam is a fraction of the size of the United States.

Good points; Hmmmmmm, I see what you mean. Yeah, guerrilla warfare can be very effective.

Well, I don't think either Iraqis or the Viet Cong had assault rifles in every bedroom before the war started: they got arms from allies. Or they made them -- the IEDs in Iraq and their suicide bomber weapons, highly effective but somehow....not American. The Viet Cong had pitfalls and many odd improvised weapons.

I see your point, but I'm sort of a law-and-order person myself; a revolution would interfere with my grocery shopping, I suspect. I think I'd like to stop the crazies shooting down me and mine first and let any revolution take care of itself later; nothing ever stopped a revolution, you can count on them.

 

[Nosmo King]

There are a couple of paranoid fears that drives the pro gun argument.

They are:

1) a fear of confiscation of their beloved guns by what they see as a tyrannical state.

and

2) gun control laws only affect those who obey the laws and therefore are ineffective in stemming the tide of gun violence.

Both of those fears are fears held by individual gun owners and collectively ginned up by pro gun special interest groups.

But what if the gun control laws were targeted at the gun manufacturers? What if there was a federal law against the manufacture, sale, distribution and importation of assault weapons? What if it was legal to make only bolt action rifles, revolvers and pump action shot guns? The legal sportsman and target shooter would bear none of the responsibility to comply. The tide of deadly assault weapons would dry up and the only folks affected by the law are gun makers unwilling to comply.

Two questions:

1.) Is it crazy to fear the possibility of your Gov't becoming tyrannical (ie has it ever happened before in countries like England, France, or Germany)?

2.) Is it fair to say that our gov't has proven itself capable of using violence to achieve strategic and monetary goals (ie what was the purpose of Iraq)?. If you answered yes, then why again are you so eager to let this entity go unchecked?


.

We have had tyranny here in America, and within my own lifetime. But that tyranny was suppressed by peaceful means, not by violence and gun play.

It was at one time mandated by the state that a class of Americans could not shop, eat, stay, ride or buy whatever any other American could. Lynchings were ignored by justice systems. A tax payer could not avail himself of an education at tax payer supported schools.

With all that state sanctioned tyranny, the people oppressed did not rise up in armed insurrection. They fought that tyranny through peaceful protest and civil disobedience.

When Rambo wannabes see tyranny, their thinking goes no deeper than violence. When the truly oppressed see tyranny, their actions were peaceful and effective.

When the militants see tyranny, we get Timothy McVeigh. When African Americans see tyranny, we get Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Take your pick.

So, in short, if tyranny is your justification to flood American streets with assault weapons, you simply don't understand what real tyranny is. If you think that 30,000 gun deaths per year is nothing more than the price of your freedom to own a weapon meant for a theater of battle, your freedom is too expensive and intruding on the freedoms of the victims.

 

[KevinWestern]

I see your point, but I'm sort of a law-and-order person myself; a revolution would interfere with my grocery shopping, I suspect. I think I'd like to stop the crazies shooting down me and mine first and let any revolution take care of itself later; nothing ever stopped a revolution, you can count on them.

Hey, I'm in no way encouraging violence or a preemptive revolution of any sort. I don't think there's a need for it now, anyways. I'm more or less speaking on the shortsightedness of giving up your second amendment rights now and not considering any of the possibilities to come in 50-100 years.

People are very, very quick to take our quality of life in the USA for granted, from a benevolent Gov't to a seemingly unlimited food supply. Again, if we look at historical examples, both of those things can change in a relative instant due to a slew of different causes - am I not correct?

.

 

[KevinWestern]

So, in short, if tyranny is your justification to flood American streets with assault weapons, you simply don't understand what real tyranny is. If you think that 30,000 gun deaths per year is nothing more than the price of your freedom to own a weapon meant for a theater of battle, your freedom is too expensive and intruding on the freedoms of the victims.

Woa, woa, woah, slow down a minute there!

"Assault Weapons" account for approximately 50 murders a year in the United States (rifles as a group are around 350 total according to FBI statistics).

Toting a 30,000 "gun death" statistic in a conversation about Assault Weapons specifically is just a tad misleading, don't you think? Lets try to stay honest and straightforward here, agree?

Here's the truth:

The Grand majority of gun violence in the United States happens in the inner cities, and is directly related to poverty. You cure poverty, and gun violence will virtually disappear overnight in many regards.

Why is it that there's virtually no violent crime in the Northside of Chicago, but in the poor Southside there are murders every week?

If Obama was sincere at reducing gun violence, instead of going after an' Assault Weapon' that kills less than 50 people every year, he (in my opinion) would instead be tough on the big banks for sending our economy into a downward spiral and putting millions of Americans out of work. When the economy tanks, people get desperate and violent crime goes on the rise.

If these kids on the southside were raised in a stable community with the promise of a good job once they graduate school, they would have no need to shoot one another over petty drug issues and "territory" disputes... right? This is where the true gun problem is in America, yet no one really seems to care. In fact, our recent approach has been sort of blatantly racist.

Hundreds of minority children in the inner cities can die from handguns and MSNBC remains silent. No solutions, no commentary, just total silence. But then when 20 people from a wealthy background die, all of a sudden we have an all-out, 24/7 media campaign to ban "Assault Weapons" and our very own President dropping everything else to spearhead the new initiative. Do you see where I'm coming from?


.


.

 

[Nosmo King]

So, in short, if tyranny is your justification to flood American streets with assault weapons, you simply don't understand what real tyranny is. If you think that 30,000 gun deaths per year is nothing more than the price of your freedom to own a weapon meant for a theater of battle, your freedom is too expensive and intruding on the freedoms of the victims.

Woa, woa, woah, slow down a minute there!

"Assault Weapons" account for approximately 50 murders a year in the United States (rifles as a group are around 350 total according to FBI statistics).

Toting a 30,000 "gun death" statistic in a conversation about Assault Weapons specifically is just a tad misleading, don't you think? Lets try to stay honest and straightforward here, agree?

Here's the truth:

The Grand majority of gun violence in the United States happens in the inner cities, and is directly related to poverty. You cure poverty, and gun violence will virtually disappear overnight in many regards.

Why is it that there's virtually no violent crime in the Northside of Chicago, but in the poor Southside there are murders every week?

If Obama was sincere at reducing gun violence, instead of going after an Assault weapon that kills less than 50 people every year, he (in my opinion) would be tough on the big banks for sending our economy into a downward spiral and putting millions of Americans out of work. When the economy tanks, people get desperate and violent crime goes on the rise. Again, you fix that and murder rates will go down significantly. If these kids on the southside were raised in a stable community with the promise of a good job once they graduate school, they would have no need to shoot one another over petty drug issues and "territory" disputes... right?


.

Who's being disingenuous here? You tout tyranny, yet you grasp the 30,000 gun deaths per year as a thin reed to support your argument.

 

[eflatminor]

We have had tyranny here in America, and within my own lifetime. But that tyranny was suppressed by peaceful means, not by violence and gun play.

Exactly. Tyrants are reticent to impose their will on an armed populace, which means more suppression by peaceful means. Why would you want to change that by disarming the populace, thereby removing any obstacles for the tyrant?

 

[Nosmo King]

We have had tyranny here in America, and within my own lifetime. But that tyranny was suppressed by peaceful means, not by violence and gun play.

Exactly. Tyrants are reticent to impose their will on an armed populace, which means more suppression by peaceful means. Why would you want to change that by disarming the populace, thereby removing any obstacles for the tyrant?

I never said anything about 'disarming' the populace. I advocate laws making the manufacture, sale, distribution and importation of assault weapons illegal. The populace can still maintain arms in the form of bolt action rifles, revolvers, and pump action shot guns.

Just as the populace is prohibited from bearing rocket propelled grenade launchers, bazookas, flame throwers, artillery pieces and nuclear, chemical or biological weapons, the populace should not have semi-automatic rifles and pistols which can be fitted with magazines holding greater than 10 rounds.

 

[Nosmo King]

There are a couple of paranoid fears that drives the pro gun argument.

They are:

1) a fear of confiscation of their beloved guns by what they see as a tyrannical state.

and

2) gun control laws only affect those who obey the laws and therefore are ineffective in stemming the tide of gun violence.

Both of those fears are fears held by individual gun owners and collectively ginned up by pro gun special interest groups.

But what if the gun control laws were targeted at the gun manufacturers? What if there was a federal law against the manufacture, sale, distribution and importation of assault weapons? What if it was legal to make only bolt action rifles, revolvers and pump action shot guns? The legal sportsman and target shooter would bear none of the responsibility to comply. The tide of deadly assault weapons would dry up and the only folks affected by the law are gun makers unwilling to comply.

OK, let's go with some of your assumptions:
1. "Assault rifles" (as vaguely defined by the gun-grabbing lobby) are the problem, being the weapon of choice for these nuts that decide to go on killing sprees.
2. Suppose you manage to push through a manufacturing ban of all "assault rifles" and the "high capacity magazines" (as arbitrarily defined by the gun-grabbers).

Describe exactly how this move will decrease or eliminate the mass killings?
What action should be taken when the number of mass killings are not decreased by your "assault weapon" ban?

While I have little doubt that many individuals are motivated by the best, most noble intentions when they call for limitations and bans of firearms, I have grave doubts about the motivation of the government that uses the good intentions of its constituents to further a much darker and far less noble agenda.

The key adjective is "mass" when talking about "mass shootings". What puts the "mass" into the discussion? Weapons that fire as many bullets as possible as quickly as possible. For our discussion, let's define an "assault weapon" as one with a semi or fully automatic firing system and can be fitted with a magazine loaded with more than 10 rounds. Other than the battle field, is there a reason to hold such weapons in civilian hands strong enough to justify "mass shootings"?

And suspicion, mere suspicion of the motives of the state are not strong enough to put weapons designed for war on American streets. No Rambo wannabe is going to win the day against an Abrams A-1 tank or an F-17. The movies don't make a case to have weapons on the streets, not in a 'well regulated militia'.

 

[KevinWestern]

Who's being disingenuous here? You tout tyranny, yet you grasp the 30,000 gun deaths per year as a thin reed to support your argument.

Nosmo, I'm being reasonable here.

We're having a conversation about an Assault Weapons ban, right (check the title of the thread)? Now isn't it a bit misleading to bring up the 30,000 gun death statistic without breaking it down first?

1.) About 20,000 of those deaths are due to suicide; an assault weapons ban will have no effect on this stat.

2.) Of the 10,000 remaining deaths (homicides), only about 350 are related to rifles. Of the 350 related to rifles, only about 50 are related to the so called "assault weapons".

So what's disingenuous here is you bringing up 30,000 gun death stat in a conversation about Assault Weapons when Assault Weapons are only responsible for ~0.16% of that total number. Surely, you can agree with me here - right?




.

 

[M14 Shooter]

In my opinion, these gun nuts with assault rifles...

Fact: This statement only demostrates your ignorance of the issue and completely devalues any opinion you might have.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You should jettison the assault rifles, IMO: before you get hit by bans on ALL guns. Assault rifles are what the crazies are mostly using, along with costumes and high-capacity magazines and so much ammo in their special backpacks and costume pockets they can hardly walk.

Fact:
You cannot cite a single crime that was committed with a legally-owned assault rifle.

 

[KevinWestern]

No Rambo wannabe is going to win the day against an Abrams A-1 tank or an F-17. The movies don't make a case to have weapons on the streets, not in a 'well regulated militia'.

I brought up the point before:

Did the insurgency in Iraq and Afghanistan have A-1 tanks and fleets of F-17?

Over 6,000 US soldiers perished in Iraq despite the opposition having a significantly inferior armory. The country is still in turmoil 10 years later.

With your reasoning, Iraq - which is significantly smaller than the US - should have been a breeze, right?



.

 

[Nosmo King]

Who's being disingenuous here? You tout tyranny, yet you grasp the 30,000 gun deaths per year as a thin reed to support your argument.

Nosmo, I'm being reasonable here.

We're having a conversation about an Assault Weapons ban, right (check the title of the thread)? Now isn't it a bit misleading to bring up the 30,000 gun death statistic without breaking it down first?

1.) About 20,000 of those deaths are due to suicide; an assault weapons ban will have no effect on this stat.

2.) Of the 10,000 remaining deaths (homicides), only about 350 are related to rifles. Of the 350 related to rifles, only about 50 are related to the so called "assault weapons".

So what's disingenuous here is you bringing up 30,000 gun death stat in a conversation about Assault Weapons when Assault Weapons are only responsible for ~0.16% of that total number. Surely, you can agree with me here - right?




.

Are you limiting any discussion to assault rifles, or all weapons, including hand guns, featuring a semi-automatic firing system and fitted with high capacity magazines?

It would be a simple thing to dismiss the assault rife as insignificant when discussing gun deaths. But the handgun with the same firing system and with a high capacity clip are really to be factored in when a serious discussion of gun violence in America is proffered.

 

[Nosmo King]

No Rambo wannabe is going to win the day against an Abrams A-1 tank or an F-17. The movies don't make a case to have weapons on the streets, not in a 'well regulated militia'.

I brought up the point before:

Did the insurgency in Iraq and Afghanistan have A-1 tanks and fleets of F-17?

Over 6,000 US soldiers perished in Iraq despite the opposition having a significantly inferior armory. The country is still in turmoil 10 years later.

With your reasoning, Iraq - which is significantly smaller than the US - should have been a breeze, right?



.

When, God forbid, the weapon of choice on the streets is an improvised explosive device, we'll talk about the availability of high explosive. But today America is awash with guns and suffering from an epidemic of unnecessary gun deaths.

 

[eflatminor]

We have had tyranny here in America, and within my own lifetime. But that tyranny was suppressed by peaceful means, not by violence and gun play.

Exactly. Tyrants are reticent to impose their will on an armed populace, which means more suppression by peaceful means. Why would you want to change that by disarming the populace, thereby removing any obstacles for the tyrant?

I never said anything about 'disarming' the populace.

Okay. That's Senator Feinstein plan, but I happy to see you're more reasonable.

I advocate laws making the manufacture, sale, distribution and importation of assault weapons illegal. The populace can still maintain arms in the form of bolt action rifles, revolvers, and pump action shot guns.

Can you point to a single example of assault weapons used by a criminal?

I can think of only one.

Just as the populace is prohibited from bearing rocket propelled grenade launchers, bazookas, flame throwers, artillery pieces and nuclear, chemical or biological weapons, the populace should not have semi-automatic rifles and pistols which can be fitted with magazines holding greater than 10 rounds

Setting aside those are not assault weapons, my question is why? I assume you're not one of those folks that think criminals will begin obeying the law and will not possess these ubiquitous weapons, so why would you want to put law abiding citizens at a disadvantage when facing criminals that don't care about the rules?

We know no law is going to prevent a bad guy from getting a semi auto firearm (Norway anyone?). By "banning" them, you're only giving an edge to the criminals and crazies. Why would you want to do that?

 

[KevinWestern]

Exactly. Tyrants are reticent to impose their will on an armed populace, which means more suppression by peaceful means. Why would you want to change that by disarming the populace, thereby removing any obstacles for the tyrant? I never said anything about 'disarming' the populace. I advocate laws making the manufacture, sale, distribution and importation of assault weapons illegal. The populace can still maintain arms in the form of bolt action rifles, revolvers, and pump action shot guns.

Just as the populace is prohibited from bearing rocket propelled grenade launchers, bazookas, flame throwers, artillery pieces and nuclear, chemical or biological weapons, the populace should not have semi-automatic rifles and pistols which can be fitted with magazines holding greater than 10 rounds.

In an effort to reduce gun violence, why use all of your resources to go after the type of weapon involved in only 0.16% (not even 1%) of all gun deaths in the United States?

Why don't you focus your campaign on handguns and keeping them out of the hands of gangs in the inner cities? Wouldn't that make just a tiny bit more sense?

The approach is illogical Nosmo, that's my point.


.

 

[eflatminor]

But today America is awash with guns and suffering from an epidemic of unnecessary gun deaths.

An "epidemic" that has been steadily decreasing. The murder rate, the violent crime rate, and the mass killings rate are all on the decline in America. Can you really call something on the decline an "epidemic"? Shouldn't it be getting worse to use that word?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Banning 'assault weapons' in general, and the AR-15 in particular, should not make sense to anyone for 2 indisputable reasons:

- Given Miller and Heller, the AR-15 is about the best example of a firearm protected by the constitution
- After machineguns, 'assault weapons' are the class of weapon used -least- for crime, especially murder

I fyou think you can create s ound argument for banning 'assault weapons, and can do so while accounting for these facts, I'd be happy to see it.

 

[KevinWestern]

When, God forbid, the weapon of choice on the streets is an improvised explosive device, we'll talk about the availability of high explosive. But today America is awash with guns and suffering from an epidemic of unnecessary gun deaths.

I don't disagree that we have an epidemic of unnecessary gun deaths...

But what type of gun is used in the grand majority of gun deaths, and where (and why) are those gun deaths occurring?

.