Outlaw the AR-15 rifle -- poll

[TLK Valentine]

What is it about an AR-15 that needs to be singled out from other weapons to be outlawed?

Nothing, IMO... but I'm more curious about what it is about the AR-15 that makes it the weapon of choice for mass shooters. At least the maniacs are buying American... that's something, I suppose.

Of course, you've got to appreciate the irony: Deputies will now carry AR-15 rifles on school grounds in Fla. county, sheriff says


"The Colt AR-15: the weapon of choice to protect people... from itself."

(Man, I should've gotten a career in advertising...)

 

[TLK Valentine]

Well, I wouldn't want to tackle with anyone that practices at the gun range but, I guess you think they would miss you.
Good luck.
M-Bob

Good luck indeed -- I'll bet the NYPD officers do pretty well against the paper targets at the gun range, too...

 

[Mountainmanbob]

You sound proud.

Well, congratulations.

A lot (a lot) of guns on this old country dirt road. To my knowledge not one person shot. But, we are ready if needed.
M-Bob

 

[TLK Valentine]

A lot (a lot) of guns on this old country dirt road. To my knowledge not one person shot. But, we are ready if needed.
M-Bob

Ready for what? You just said nobody's been shot.

 

[Tom 1]

The fact of the matter is that the VAST majority of gun owners in the US, aren't hunters at all.


Please, someone explain to me WHY a normal citizen would require an arsenal of AR15's and what-not in his basement? What use does it have? What is the point? What purpose does it serve?

I understand the question, but I’m not convinced that is the issue. The only weapon I’ve ever fired is the SA80, I don’t see any reason why I would ever want to own one personally but if I did have some adapted semi-auto version I can guarantee you that I wouldn’t ever use it to shoot other people, and I think the same is true for the vast majority of gun owners in the US or anywhere else. Not that I feel particularly strongly about it, but if I was legally able to reduce the number of small deer and boar that damage our crops then a semi-automatic, with suitable rounds, would be more useful than a bolt action or shotgun. Besides hunting, some people really like recreational shooting - so what? The points are, as I see it anyway:
1) What difference would banning certain weapons types in a country saturated with small arms actually make?
2) How are people buying any kind of weapon evaluated? What checks are carried out? How can these be strengthened and more rigourously applied?
I think it’s this last that should be the focus. If an ordinary person owns a semi-automatic rifle that rifle is never going to be used by that person to kill others in a random shooting. Why they want to own that weapon isn’t, in my view, relevant. It’s the people who are deranged and potentially dangerous who need to be policed. I think that should be the focus of efforts to prevent future killings.

 

[DogmaHunter]

1) What difference would banning certain weapons types in a country saturated with small arms actually make?

Just a bit of difference, if you also don't heavily restrict the other weapons.

2) How are people buying any kind of weapon evaluated? What checks are carried out? How can these be strengthened and more rigourously applied?

Whenever this subject is brought up, it seems to always ommit another important thing: how will it be followed up???

These days, people like to talk about "the mentally ill" or "drug users" and how they shouldn't have guns.

My default reaction to that is: "before they get ill, they are health" and "before they use drugs, they are sober". And in both cases, they'll pass the checks before becoming ill or drug abuser.

So it's not enough to simply implement more or stricter checks. There needs to be a (random) follow up as well, to see if the criteria still stand. With a very real option of getting "the license revoked" if need be.

I think it’s this last that should be the focus. If an ordinary person owns a semi-automatic rifle that rifle is never going to be used by that person to kill others in a random shooting

Unless that ordinary person turns into an un-ordinary person after purchasing his weapons. Or the "unordinary" person happens to live in the same house as the "ordinary" person, who keeps a stash of weapons that the "unordinary" person has access to.


Which, FYI, is the case like 95% of the time.

Why they want to own that weapon isn’t, in my view, relevant. It’s the people who are deranged and potentially dangerous who need to be policed.

Which can only be done AFTER they become deranged and potentially dangerous AND when it is actually known that this change occured.

I think that should be the focus of efforts to prevent future killings.

Unless you implement MUCH stricter rules for ALL guns (including how they are stored) AND also implement some kind of unlimited "follow up" system, nothing will change.

The point is that you need to get to a system where owning a gun is hard and subject to all kinds of rules and regulations.

As it stands, it's harder work for a US citizen to own a car and get a driver's license, then it is to get semi-automatic guns.

I just saw a clip on youtube the other day from an American kid who created the clip to make an awesome point.

He spend 3 days trying to buy a beer. He didn't succeed.
But he managed to get a gun in under 2 hours.

I'm baffled as to how Americans apparantly don't find this extremely worrying.

 

[Tom 1]

Just a bit of difference, if you also don't heavily restrict the other weapons.



Whenever this subject is brought up, it seems to always ommit another important thing: how will it be followed up???

These days, people like to talk about "the mentally ill" or "drug users" and how they shouldn't have guns.

My default reaction to that is: "before they get ill, they are health" and "before they use drugs, they are sober". And in both cases, they'll pass the checks before becoming ill or drug abuser.

So it's not enough to simply implement more or stricter checks. There needs to be a (random) follow up as well, to see if the criteria still stand. With a very real option of getting "the license revoked" if need be.



Unless that ordinary person turns into an un-ordinary person after purchasing his weapons. Or the "unordinary" person happens to live in the same house as the "ordinary" person, who keeps a stash of weapons that the "unordinary" person has access to.


Which, FYI, is the case like 95% of the time.




Which can only be done AFTER they become deranged and potentially dangerous AND when it is actually known that this change occured.



Unless you implement MUCH stricter rules for ALL guns (including how they are stored) AND also implement some kind of unlimited "follow up" system, nothing will change.

The point is that you need to get to a system where owning a gun is hard and subject to all kinds of rules and regulations.

As it stands, it's harder work for a US citizen to own a car and get a driver's license, then it is to get semi-automatic guns.

I just saw a clip on youtube the other day from an American kid who created the clip to make an awesome point.

He spend 3 days trying to buy a beer. He didn't succeed.
But he managed to get a gun in under 2 hours.

I'm baffled as to how Americans apparantly don't find this extremely worrying.

It does appear that the people who carried out these mass shootings had behaved in all kinds of ways that could have been dealt with earlier. Are there any of them that didn’t in some way telegraph their intentions or generally hostile mindset prior to the incident? Maybe there were, I haven’t read all of their stories but those I have all had histories that should have flagged up concerns, and might have prevented their access to weapons if the regulations were more comprehensive and enforced more effectively.
As for the overall attitude to gun ownership in the US it’s so different from the general attitude in Europe that it’s hard to compare or even think about. I can’t remember a single person from my time in the military who expressed a desire to have their own home arsenal, but that seems to be pretty much the norm in the US. For dealing with the minority who misuse weapons I think you need a different starting point, I mean you can’t just roll back a couple of centuries of history and the mindset that goes with it by banning this or that weapon.

 

[durangodawood]

I have always supported the right to bear arms but, with the recent school shooting -- regarding the AR-15 rifle -- I must say they are only for killing people and should be outlawed -- your thoughts.
M-Bob

I think any ban needs to be directed at generic features and capabilities of a firearm, and not a specific brand.

For instance: a ban on all semi auto firearms and a capacity limit of 6 rounds.

Something like that, tho perhaps your choice of specifics would be different than mine.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

What is it about an AR-15 that needs to be singled out from other weapons to be outlawed?

If they can blame an 'object' it takes the spotlight off of themselves. Murder isn't a gun problem, it's a people problem. Consider that schools don't have time to properly educate our kids, much less protect them from their often very nasty social world with it's bullying and ostracizing of the weak.

What’s behind the rise in youth suicides?

 

[durangodawood]

If they can blame an 'object' it takes the spotlight off of themselves. Murder isn't a gun problem, it's a people problem. Consider that schools don't have time to properly educate our kids, much less protect them from their often very nasty social world with it's bullying and ostracizing of the weak.

What’s behind the rise in youth suicides?

Even 99.9% of the most ardent pro gun people do agree that certain objects or technologies are simply too dangerous to public safety to allow for their free circulation in society.

So, as with so many things, its question for where to draw the line.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Even 99.9% of the most ardent pro gun people do agree that certain objects or technologies are simply too dangerous to public safety to allow for their free circulation in society.

So, as with so many things, its question for where to draw the line.

It's those same pro-gun people that are buying the AR-15's. Watch sales jump if this weapon is threatened. This has happened before.

 

[durangodawood]

It's those same pro-gun people that are buying the AR-15's. Watch sales jump if this weapon is threatened. This has happened before.

Point is, pretty much everybody agrees the argument "its not the object, its the people" breaks down at a point.

The question is: where is that point?

 

[DogmaHunter]

It does appear that the people who carried out these mass shootings had behaved in all kinds of ways that could have been dealt with earlier

Not according to what I have read. The majority were "perfectly normal" up until they went beserk. "perfectly normal" in the sense that nobody in their immediate environment noticed anything in particular.

(Just looked for it, but can't seem to find the article.)

For dealing with the minority who misuse weapons I think you need a different starting point, I mean you can’t just roll back a couple of centuries of history and the mindset that goes with it by banning this or that weapon.

Why not?
Isn't that exactly what happened when putting an end to slavery and apartheid?

It's not like there are no precedents of such revolutionary reforms.

 

[Tom 1]

Why not?
Isn't that exactly what happened when putting an end to slavery and apartheid?

I’m not sure if that’s a good comparison, I don’t think gun ownership in and of itself could be put in the category of ‘universal evil’

 

[Tom 1]

Not according to what I have read. The majority were "perfectly normal" up until they went beserk. "perfectly normal" in the sense that nobody in their immediate environment noticed anything in particular.

(Just looked for it, but can't seem to find the article.)

I’d be interested in reading it for the sake of info. From what I’ve read more than half had some history of instability, e.g domestic violence, different mental health issues, aggression, serious problems at school or in work etc., some of which could be traced through social
media posts or concerns raised by people who knew them.
If there were to be a ban on guns that could be used by people like this then it would need to be fairly broad I think. A tactical, pump action shotgun for instance would be a devastating weapon for a lunatic to use in close quarters e.g in a school. I just can’t see though how it can be the weapons themselves that are the issue. The majority of people who have had any experience with firearms would be far more careful handling them, not less.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Point is, pretty much everybody agrees the argument "its not the object, its the people" breaks down at a point.

The question is: where is that point?

It's always been the people, from the days of clubbing another to death.

"If your starting premise is flawed, your conclusion will be ridiculous." We are starting our premise at the finish line, not at the starting line.

Schools should be run by administrators, teachers, and staff, not the students. We have the same problem with our prisons; the criminals are in charge of the 'social order'. In our schools the adults must be in control of the social order, not the kids.

 

[durangodawood]

It's always been the people, from the days of clubbing another to death.

"If your starting premise is flawed, your conclusion will be ridiculous." We are starting our premise at the finish line, not at the starting line.

Schools should be run by administrators, teachers, and staff, not the students. We have the same problem with our prisons; the criminals are in charge of the 'social order'. In our schools the adults must be in control of the social order, not the kids.

Left entirely to themselves the kids would set fire to the schools and have big wienie roast.

Really?

So you dont draw the line anywhere at what objects are not acceptable for circulation among the public? Sarin gas. OK?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Really?

So you dont draw the line anywhere at what objects are not acceptable for circulation among the public? Sarin gas. OK?

The object in question is the AR-15, not the hydrogen bomb.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I’d be interested in reading it for the sake of info. From what I’ve read more than half had some history of instability, e.g domestic violence, different mental health issues, aggression, serious problems at school or in work etc., some of which could be traced through social
media posts or concerns raised by people who knew them.
If there were to be a ban on guns that could be used by people like this then it would need to be fairly broad I think. A tactical, pump action shotgun for instance would be a devastating weapon for a lunatic to use in close quarters e.g in a school. I just can’t see though how it can be the weapons themselves that are the issue. The majority of people who have had any experience with firearms would be far more careful handling them, not less.

I agree. Picture this shotgun in the hands of a lunatic. A single round of 00buckshot is the equivalent of several shots from an AR-15 if fired into a crowd. With an open choke it would be rightly called a "streetsweeper".

Remington Debuts 870 Shotgun with Box Magazine: Full Review and Range Test

 

[durangodawood]

The object in question is the AR-15, not the hydrogen bomb.

No. You and I were discussing the principle that "its the person not the object".

Thats why you said: "It's always been the people, from the days of clubbing another to death". Please note that those days were prior to the AR-15.