Outlaw the AR-15 rifle -- poll

[OldWiseGuy]

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.

Yes, it's the principle, which is human behavior, not weapon of choice.

 

[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.

I saw the vid also, the kid buying a bolt action .22. I think you have to put that in context to evaluate whether that’s dangerous or not. Is it unusual for teenage kids in some states to own and use a .22? Applications of a .22 are pretty limited

 

[Kenny'sID]

The point is that what you call "a little advantage" is completely silly and it makes no sense at all.

Completely silly would be to say one could make no difference, completely, or no advantage at all.

That is not a fact and silly in itself. Even if that were the case, and it is not, there are those of us that would not go down without a fight...probably not a concept you can understand, but there it is.

Tell you what, if you cannot get it through your head that if everyone kept their AR-15 and their other weapons, an action that would end up arming a huge number of people. If you don't believe they could not put up a pretty good resistance that's fine with me. However I only see that as another completely without thought, made up disagreements of yours, that I'm surprised I bothered to answer.

It's not completely silly to do the best one can with what they have...and it can bring results, even if it's just a dent. And in case you didn't notice this about the website, there are some of us that believe if we do the best we could, it is entirely possible a higher power can and has intervened. Not something you would believe I'm sure, but then again, who really cares if you do or not.

 

[durangodawood]

Yes, it's the principle, which is human behavior, not weapon of choice.

People are what they are. Grand projects to make them different always fall short. Therefore we also need to address the circulation of certain objects deemed too dangerous to have at large.

Do you disagree?

 

[Tom 1]

People are what they are. Grand projects to make them different always fall short. Therefore we also need to address the circulation of certain objects deemed too dangerous to have at large.

Do you disagree?

I don’t know if this has become a private conversation between yourself and Oldwiseguy or just the part of the thread? If the 2nd, how would that work in practice do you think? Say for example a committee was formed to draw up a list of weapon types considered too potentially dangerous to be in circulation, and moves were made to then ban these weapons, what would the likely results be? I don’t live in the US, and it does seem that the US gun culture is pretty unique. How would this kind of a ban work in practice? Would it be an entirely good thing if a ban of this sort was enforced?

 

[durangodawood]

I don’t know if this has become a private conversation between yourself and Oldwiseguy or just the part of the thread? If the 2nd, how would that work in practice do you think? Say for example a committee was formed to draw up a list of weapon types considered too potentially dangerous to be in circulation, and moves were made to then ban these weapons, what would the likely results be? I don’t live in the US, and it does seem that the US gun culture is pretty unique. How would this kind of a ban work in practice? Would it be an entirely good thing if a ban of this sort was enforced?

We already do it.

All sorts of weapons or weaponizable materials are either totally off limits or under very strict control. I dont know how those controls are actually enforced or administered. I'm just glad people cant go to walmart and get sarin gas, for example.

(oh, and all conversations here should be considered public, I think)

 

[Tom 1]

We already do it.

All sorts of weapons or weaponizable materials are either totally off limits or under very strict control. I dont know how those controls are actually enforced or administered. I'm just glad people cant go to walmart and get sarin gas, for example.

(oh, and all conversations here should be considered public, I think)

What about semi-automatic rifles like the AR15? How might a ban on those and anything similar be enforced?

 

[durangodawood]

What about semi-automatic rifles like the AR15? How might a ban on those and anything similar be enforced?

Excellent question. I'd be curious to see how it works in other countries. Offhand, I dont know.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

People are what they are. Grand projects to make them different always fall short. Therefore we also need to address the circulation of certain objects deemed too dangerous to have at large.

Do you disagree?

Are you angling towards the AR-15?

 

[Trogdor the Burninator]

I’m not into hunting but if I was (and if I lived in the states lol) why should my choice of weapon be limited because some nutcase shot his classmates? I don’t see how that would prevent killings.

For the same reason I can't buy a bottle of water and carry it onto an airplane.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

So a shooter enters the school, teacher fumbles around with the lock, grabs the gun, loads it, rushes outside gun in hand and is shot dead by a cop walking down the corridor trying to find the shooter.

Straw man scenario. The teacher will shelter in place with his students, and shoot if necessary from a defensive position . Other teachers will do the same. No Rambo's here.

 

[durangodawood]

Are you angling towards the AR-15?

Seems a bit rude to blow off my question then expect me to go straight to yours.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Seems a bit rude to blow off my question then expect me to go straight to yours.

I didn't think your question was very serious, more like sarcasm.

 

[durangodawood]

I didn't think your question was very serious, more like sarcasm.

This question:

People are what they are. Grand projects to make them different always fall short. Therefore we also need to address the circulation of certain objects deemed too dangerous to have at large.

Do you disagree?

No. Its completely serious. As much as I may disagree with you, you do actually seem interested in real discussion.

 

[dgiharris]

Simple problem perhaps. Simple solution, not so much. You're not suggesting a slippery slope. You are suggesting a sudden drop off a steep cliff that has no bottom.

IN the real world, kids are dying.

In the hypothetical world of gun control debates, "any measure" is a slippery slope.

I don't know how hypothetical trumps reality. Not sure how as a nation we would rather actual kids die than "risk" some hypothetical slippery slope which by the way is ALWAYS the argument against something.
Can't legalize marijuana or else you end up with all drugs being legal. --sound familiar?

Let me put this another way.

If I'm wrong and we do end up with a solution we don't like, we can always reverse said solution (like the repeal of prohibition).

However, you can't unkill a kid shot in a school massacre.

so why are we erroring on the wrong side of the solution space here? Why are we so afraid of doing "anything" for fear of hypothetical problems when the REALITY is that kids are being killed in school shootings on an almost monthly basis???

 

[OldWiseGuy]

This question:

People are what they are. Grand projects to make them different always fall short. Therefore we also need to address the circulation of certain objects deemed too dangerous to have at large.

Do you disagree?

No. Its completely serious. As much as I may disagree with you, you do actually seem interested in real discussion.

Not when you toss sarin gas into the mix.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

IN the real world, kids are dying.

In the hypothetical world of gun control debates, "any measure" is a slippery slope.

I don't know how hypothetical trumps reality. Not sure how as a nation we would rather actual kids die than "risk" some hypothetical slippery slope which by the way is ALWAYS the argument against something.
Can't legalize marijuana or else you end up with all drugs being legal. --sound familiar?

Let me put this another way.

If I'm wrong and we do end up with a solution we don't like, we can always reverse said solution (like the repeal of prohibition).

However, you can't unkill a kid shot in a school massacre.

so why are we erroring on the wrong side of the solution space here? Why are we so afraid of doing "anything" for fear of hypothetical problems when the REALITY is that kids are being killed in school shootings on an almost monthly basis???

We err by going after the weapon and not the person. Take a killer's gun away and he is still a killer, just with a different weapon. We are also attempting to address the effects instead of the causes of violent antisocial behavior.

 

[durangodawood]

Not when you toss sarin gas into the mix.

Why not? Its real. Its been used as a weapon in crimes. Its an excellent test of the principle under discussion.

No matter how hard we try to treat/perfect - or eliminate/drug/imprison - people, some things are too dangerous to have at large in society.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Why not? Its real. Its been used as a weapon in crimes. Its an excellent test of the principle under discussion.

No matter how hard we try to perfect people, some things are too dangerous to have at large in society.

Is sarin gas widely available to the public? Also how serious can the conversation be if the best defensive solution, arming school staff, is off the table?

 

[durangodawood]

Is sarin gas widely available to the public?

The question I posed is: should it be legal to make sarin gas available to the public?

The answer is: no.

The reason is: because sarin, like many other things, is too dangerous to have at large in society.

The principle at work is: some objects or materials enable mayhem to point that they are intolerable to society no matter how hard we work on changing human behavior.

The relevance to the OP topic is: Now that we've firmly established that principle, are high capacity semi-auto firearms among those objects?