I did not read all comments here, because it would probably get my blood boiling. Which is probably the reason these kind of topics are generally not welcome on MTo.So here are my 2 cents, that i know won't change a damn thing but I still had to post because I have had enough of this BS. In a civilised society there is ABSOLUTELY NO logical reason why a civilian should be allowed to own an assault rifle. None whatsover. It is a weapon of war. Nothing else. It is not a tool and you cannot use it to hunt. And the fact that every idiot can walk into Walmart and buy one, is quite frankly insane.While we are discussing this, there were multiple more shootings were people died and got severly injured.
I predict the question of whether individual freedoms should take precedence over the greater (perceived) interests of society is one that will become increasingly asked and relevant here. I'll further predict that we will start looking more and more to society and regulation to address our needs. It's just human nature. History is replete with examples of freedom being traded for the promise of security, regardless of results. Nevertheless, I'm fond of Thomas Jefferson's famous quip, "When you abandon freedom to achieve security, you lose both and deserve neither.” Not that I think that should be taken as absolute advice, there is often room for compromise.
As for the AR-15 or similar that is so often associated as an “assault weapon”, it is also frequently used for hunting, for protection by people who work or travel in wilderness areas, and for home protection both in rural and other areas from 4-legged and two legged predators. People choose it, instead of the older wood covered one or others types of guns for several reasons such as- it is lighter if needing to carry or hold incases of smaller or weaker women or men- the adjustable stock makes it easy to get the precise length of pull for better control. It is also better if different people may use.- it is easier to control while firing than a handgun, which is good in case of weaker or frailer person.- due to the bullet design, it is better in apartments or areas with close neighbors because it is less likely to penetrate walls or other barriers and shoot someone unintentionally.
Covid-19 restrictions spring to mind (lockdowns, distancing, mask-wearing).
self-defense weapon
I struggle with this concept.
The fact that every idiot can walk into Walmart and buy one, is quite frankly insane.
“Assault rifles” and “assault weapons” (as used in US are two totally different things.“Assault rifles” are select-fire or automatic rifles. These are banned for new civilian sale in the US and practically banned for civilian ownership (due to regulation and fees).“Assault Weapon” is not the same thing and is a political term that was created to define a normal semi-automatic that had/has certain characteristics. The same semi-automatic technolgy, with same firing system and same type of bullets has been being sold in the US since 1907. The military didn’t start using rifles like that until WWII, so it is not a weapon designed for war. It has been used frequently by civilians for hunting and other legitimate uses since then; long before the military switched to semi-automatic rifles.As for the AR-15 or similar that is so often associated as an “assault weapon”, it is also frequently used for hunting, for protection by people who work or travel in wilderness areas, and for home protection both in rural and other areas from 4-legged and two legged predators. People choose it, instead of the older wood covered one or others types of guns for several reasons such as- it is lighter if needing to carry or hold incases of smaller or weaker women or men- the adjustable stock makes it easy to get the precise length of pull for better control. It is also better if different people may use.- it is easier to control while firing than a handgun, which is good in case of weaker or frailer person.- due to the bullet design, it is better in apartments or areas with close neighbors because it is less likely to penetrate walls or other barriers and shoot someone unintentionally.No, I don’t own one or think everybody should own or be allowed to buy one. But I do get frustrated when people make statements like yours without understanding facts. Maybe even after my explanation, you will still feel the way you do and that is fine. But using the reasoning that it is a weapon of war and there is no reason a civilian should own one isn’t really accurate. Whether you agree with those reasons is up to you. But then again many non-Americans feel there is no reason a civilian should be allowed to own any gun for any reason.
Am I alone in thinking some of these school shooters are copycats? "Fame" seekers?
When we advocate for the freedom to "bear arms", we inherently accept a degree of insecurity in society. I think we have to acknowledge that our firearm permissive society carries some inherent risks. The premise of the second amendment rests on the assumption that most citizens will be responsible and law abiding with their arms. Which is the largely the case, but obviously not always.
This really feels like you're conflating semi automatic and polymers/aluminum with the type of weapons actually being discussed, the AR-15 platform and its ilk, which most certainly has not been around since 1907 and was geared towards various military trials. The civilian version of the AR-15 wasn't even introduced by Colt until 1963 and the 5.56 certainly didn't exist at the beginning of that century.It's one thing to defend the concept and ownership of civilian semiauto rifles, but the rile being discussed is pretty much always the AR-15 platform, which is just the civilian version of a military weapon. A weapon of war, using a cartridge designed for war.I'm not saying anything here about pros/cons of using said rifles other than your post feeling a bit disingenuine (not intentionally) with what was being discussed re the history of the weapon.
Not at all.
When we advocate for the freedom to "bear arms", we inherently accept a degree of insecurity in society. I think we have to acknowledge that our firearm permissive society carries some inherent risks. The premise of the second amendment rests on the assumption that most citizens will be responsible and law abiding with their arms. Which is the largely the case, but obviously not always. I think advocates for a broad or permissive interpretation of our second amendment bear some responsibility for the Uvalde shooting and the other "mass shootings" we see.
We've built a firearms tolerant society and there are a lot of firearms in circulation. Some of those firearms will inevitably be used for malign purposes. I strongly suspect that if "assault rifles" were not available to 18 y/o civilians, the Uvalde shooter would have used another firearm(s). Or perhaps another weapon(s), but we've certainly put those weapons out there.
No person, adult or child, is free from hazard, disease, violence, or accident. There is no freedom from injury or death. You are suggesting that my freedom should be sacrificed for the hope of security for others, calling that a freedom from violence. I get that that, I respect the idea. I'm just not sure it is true. Violence is/has been eternal.
Psychopaths reside among us. The premise overlooks the many instances when the weaker and more disadvantaged have used firearms for self-defense.
Still, I think time is on your side. I predict the question of whether individual freedoms should take precedence over the greater (perceived) interests of society is one that will become increasingly asked and relevant here. I'll further predict that we will start looking more and more to society and regulation to address our needs. It's just human nature. History is replete with examples of freedom being traded for the promise of security, regardless of results.
Nevertheless, I'm fond of Thomas Jefferson's famous quip, "When you abandon freedom to achieve security, you lose both and deserve neither.” Not that I think that should be taken as absolute advice, there is often room for compromise.
I accept that you see this differently. I accept that my perspective and values may be less wise than yours (and don't think for a minute that my mind can't be changed on this issue), but at the moment, I am not inclined to abandon freedom in the hope of achieving security. Not unless someone comes up with a really, really good plan, and I haven't heard of such.
Since the Uvalde shooting, 60 people have died in Australia from alcohol-related causes (statistically speaking), another 1,700 have been hospitalized. Who knows how many children have suffered from the abuses of alcoholic parents? Are you going to advocate for the banning of alcohol use in Australia? And the USA? If not, why not? The question is the same: is personal freedom more important than societal good? I can argue that firearms can provide a societal good (to some degree); I can't do that for alcohol. We, the USA, once answered that question with the 18th amendment, but then reversed course when the consequences were unbearable. Hence the 21st amendment. Tough choices.
Great point.For those who haven't been here, or don't quite understand us, we accept a lot of risk and we aren't particularly fond of following rules. Driving is really the best example. The speed limit on most interstate highways is 70mph (or more, depending on the state). Dodge sells several 700hp cars that should be confined to one form of race track or another, but they are street legal. 43,000 people died in car crashes last year alone. Traffic fatalities are so common in my part of Florida that they get no notice unless several people are killed at once. If you drive the speed limit on the interstate you're risking your life because the average speed is 80-90mph. What do we do about it? Nothing that reduces the death toll. Technologically speaking, we could change this behavior easily, but there is absolutely no cry to do so. If we aren't will to reign in a Hemi engine, does anyone expect us to reign in something written into the Bill of Rights?I'm not saying we're right or wrong, it's just who we are.
the Gun Control Act of 1968 spelled out many groups of people who are prohibited possessors:1. Persons under indictment for, or who have been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.2. Fugitives from justice.3. Persons who unlawfully use or are addicted to any controlled substance.4. Persons adjudicated as a mental defective or who have been committed to any mental institution. (I know "mental defective" is not the preferred term, but it remains in the language of the law.)5. Illegal aliens or persons admitted to the United States under non-immigrant visas.6. Persons dishonorably discharged from the United States Armed Forces.7. Persons who have renounced their United States citizenship.8. Persons subject to court orders intended to prevent stalking.9. Persons convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.
Further, let's take a look at some statistics from 2020 (the year of our most recent census). Of 45,222 firearms deaths that year, 24,292 were suicides. That's 54%. 19,384 (43%) were homicides. Sure, that may seem like a lot, but consider that the United States had a population of around 331,449,281 in 2020. That works out to 0.005% of the population being firearms homicides. By comparison, 38,824 people died as a result of motor vehicle accidents in 2020. You're about twice as likely to be killed out on the roads as you are to be the victim of a firearms homicide. (It's worth noting that the onset of COVID-19 likely skewed both statistics).
(Image removed from quote.)
I don't really see this as arguing? more just old salts shooting the smurf over some beers.Philosophical navel gazing and world-problem-solving the like of which is undertaken in pubs and around backyard fires the world over
Some questions from an outsider (Australian):Q1 Would banning any magazine that holds more than 10 rounds really inconvenience anyone ? Seems to me that 10 is more than enough for any legitimate purpose I can think of (hunting, target shooting, self defense). After a while non-availability of these would at least slow down most of the type of shooter that commits these mass shootings, giving victims an improved chance to escape or rush the shooter, also any armed "good guys" have a better chance of stopping the shooter with less risk to themselves.Q2 Would it be feasible to restrict a new purchaser of higher powered semi-automatic weapon from buying large quantities of ammunition for a period of time after buying the weapon ? This might restrict their options and in that time they might change their mind about going on a shooting spree.Q2 What practical actions could be taken to severely restrict access to full-auto weapons, and also any "kits" (eg bump-stocks etc) that convert a semi-auto to full-auto. I gather there are some laws already, but how effective are they ? I cannot see any reason that civilians should have access to full-auto weapons in any circumstances (and I don't care about any made-up convoluted legalistic gymnastics that purport to uphold that particular "right"). IIRC grenades, rocket launchers are currently illegal and restricted in the US, so obviously there are some limitations that are accepted, despite the 2A.
Donations
Community Links
