Outlaw the AR-15 rifle -- poll

[OldWiseGuy]

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: Are high capacity semi-auto firearms among those objects?

That's where the topic was always headed, wasn't it?

 

[durangodawood]

That's where the topic was always headed, wasn't it?

Of course!

But some people cling to the ridiculous notion that in principle we can only try to fix human behavior but never ban objects or materials.

We had to dispense with that notion first.

 

[SolomonVII]

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.

So what is it about the AR-15 that makes people believe that that is where to draw the line?

 

[durangodawood]

So what is it about the AR-15 that makes people believe that that is where to draw the line?

Not sure if I can speak for other people.

But for me, right now, the sensible place to draw the line is: any semi auto firearm and/or capacity on the gun of over 6 rounds should require highly elevated purchase, ownership and registration requirements.

 

[dgiharris]

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.

Doing it your way kids are dying.

I'm just open to doing it another way. ANY way.

Propose concrete measures that attempt to solve the problem and I'm all ears.

Keep peddling hypotheticals and philosophical ponderings while kids are being murdered and I simply just have no respect for your argumentative position.

As such, the pro guns and anti-gun control position has lost all legitimacy.

We need to do SOMETHING. Even if it is wrong, even if it is ineffective. I don't care because ineffective can't be worst the the current status quo. So even granting the argument that says, "Meh, killers will be killers anyways..." so what? Mathematically we can only benefit from gun control measures. Gun control measures is never going to increase the amount of school shootings so we have nothing by mathematical upside. And again, if we are wrong we can always reverse it. However, you can't unkill kids shot in massacres.

Logically, the argumentative positions against "any" gun control measure can't hold water. And I'm just at the point where I can no longer tolerate the quibbling, delay tactics, and excuses.

If dead children can't convince you of the need to act, then what can my paltry internet argument ever accomplish?

 

[Tom 1]

Here’s an article that changed my thinking: What I Saw Treating the Victims From Parkland Should Change the Debate on Guns

The question remains how would a ban of all semi automatic weapons be enacted and enforced?
On the other hand there were obvious signals in this case anyway that this guy was a potential killer. I still tend to think that dealing with why someone like that could be allowed to own a deadly weapon is the main issue. How does that happen? Aren’t there any checks in place?

 

[ViaCrucis]

The vast majority of countries that have nuclear weapons, never used them either.

But I also support the 2nd Amendment right for me to own nuclear weapons for self defense. The government can take my plutonium from my cold dead highly-radiated fingers. MAGA.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[OldWiseGuy]

If dead children can't convince you of the need to act, then what can my paltry internet argument ever accomplish?

If saving kids from premature death is your goal school shootings is way down the list of causes. Better to focus on youth suicide (it actually might relate to school shootings as well).

 

[dgiharris]

If saving kids from premature death is your goal school shootings is way down the list of causes. Better to focus on youth suicide (it actually might relate to school shootings as well).

So now we are deflecting?

And incidentally,
I don't actively oppose solutions to decreasing youth suicide using every logical fallacy and argumentative trick in the book as pro gun types are doing with gun control arguments.

The pro-gun argument seems to boil down to a combination of the below tactics:

• Deflect
• Use red herrings
• Use the ridiculous standard that unless the solution solves 100% of all gun problems then it shouldn't be implemented
• Solve the problem using more guns ala the "arm the teachers" argument
• move the goal posts
• fear the hypothetical slippery slopes and imaginary problems MORE than the actual reality of kids being killed

 

[com7fy8]

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

Well, if you want to have the right to bear arms in case a tyrannical government needs to be taken down, you need something that is designed to kill tyrannical people.

I think it would be wise to have psychological tests and thorough background checks for anyone buying any gun - why not after all?

and, I would say, like for auto drivers . . . training and testing, and insurance.

 

[brinny]

2+3 is not 6...

According to Common Core it is.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

So now we are deflecting?

And incidentally,
I don't actively oppose solutions to decreasing youth suicide using every logical fallacy and argumentative trick in the book as pro gun types are doing with gun control arguments.

The pro-gun argument seems to boil down to a combination of the below tactics:

• Deflect
• Use red herrings
• Use the ridiculous standard that unless the solution solves 100% of all gun problems then it shouldn't be implemented
• Solve the problem using more guns ala the "arm the teachers" argument
• move the goal posts
• fear the hypothetical slippery slopes and imaginary problems MORE than the actual reality of kids being killed

There's more than one way to skin a cat. I'm for implementing any plan that sounds reasonable....except for infringing on the 2nd Amendment.

Remember the song "Love the One You're With"? If we can't save a few dozen kids from school shooters let's save a few thousand from suicide.

The problem is that many here want to make an omelet but don't want to crack any heads......er eggs.

 

[com7fy8]

I’m aware quite a lot of hunters do use the AR15 for small game and vermin, or even medium game with heavier rounds.

From what I understand, they only really have one reasonable hunting application and that's for wild boar given their fortitude and tenacity to the point a bolt-action may put hunters at risk, so something like an AR platform would lend itself to that.

For small game you could easily get a bolt-action rifle in .223, so there are definitely options out there for small and medium game in long rifle formats.

The AR15 isn't a hunting rifles, there are better rifles for that.

If you need to bear arms in case you need to take down a tyrannical government, you need something that kills people. And using the gun for hunting can help you to get experience using it.
But . . . as

"the government" also has F16s, cruise missiles, apache helicopters, nuclear bombs, ICBM's, nuclear submarines, ...

So, do you want an equivalent to those as well?

This is easy to say, with words that fit on a few square inches of paper or computer screen. But the United States is bigger than a few square inches. And there are over three hundred million people in the United States.

In order for a government to take tyrannical control, in America, it would need enough of those rockets and helicopters with ammunition enough, to control all the land plus all the people.

Plus, they would need the cooperation of all the soldiers and all the million police officers. Even if the generals agreed to do something, how many soldiers would keep cooperating? And how many police?

If you think the United States has millions of soldiers and police officers who are ready to cooperate with a tyrannical government control take, this is interesting how you feel so many Americans are ready-to-go to be stupid enough and/or evil enough to cooperate with a tyrannical group.

A handful of tyrants can't handle enough weapons to control over three hundred million Americans and their soldiers and police officers.

So, why are certain people trying to train us to think they can? If we think they can, possibly we are more ready to cooperate and just give up if tyrants make a move.

But, to me, it looks like now half the country is against the other half of its voters. And the real and fake news is not working to swing people all to one side or the other. So, any tyrants waiting on either side have a problem

 

[TLK Valentine]

According to Common Core it is.

Where'd you read that?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Where'd you read that?

Any answer is correct as long as the kids feel good about it (correcting them might damage their tender little psyche's).

 

[Skyguy8068]

From what I understand, they only really have one reasonable hunting application and that's for wild boar given their fortitude and tenacity to the point a bolt-action may put hunters at risk, so something like an AR platform would lend itself to that.

Beyond that, yeah, nothing a bolt rifle can't do.

I personally like the strictness of regulations we have here in the UK and it took an event like this to start that ball rolling, but the cultures are totally different and I imagine even if positive change were to happen in the U.S., it's going to be a long and difficult road with few easy answers.

 

[Skyguy8068]

Every place that has been banned guns (either all guns or all handguns) has seen murder rates go up. You cannot point to one place where murder rates have fallen, whether it’s Chicago or D.C. or even island nations such as England, Jamaica, or Ireland. (crimeresearch.org)

This is a God problem. Take God out of your society and the vacuum will be filled with Satan.

 

[High Fidelity]

Every place that has been banned guns (either all guns or all handguns) has seen murder rates go up. You cannot point to one place where murder rates have fallen, whether it’s Chicago or D.C. or even island nations such as England, Jamaica, or Ireland. (crimeresearch.org)

This is a God problem. Take God out of your society and the vacuum will be filled with Satan.

The problem with copy-pasting from a random article is that it's typically either wrong or outdated. In this case it's both.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Of course!

But some people cling to the ridiculous notion that in principle we can only try to fix human behavior but never ban objects or materials.

We had to dispense with that notion first.

Why don't we dispense with the notion that anti's will be happy if the AR-15 is banned? Do you think they don't know which weapons are most used in violent crime? If they can get a toehold in restricting certain firearms they will move on to all of them.

“Often there’s a misimpression about the importance of assault guns and assault weapons, and it’s important to point out how rare that is,” says Phillip Cook, an economist at Duke University who studies underground gun markets. “The guns being used in Chicago for crime and murder are by and large very ordinary pistols.”

https://www.thetrace.org/2016/01/chicago-crime-guns-chart/

 

[durangodawood]

Why don't we dispense with the notion that....

Because you claimed we can rely on the principle that 'its not the object, its the person' when contemplating policy generally.

If youre ready to dispense with that claim, I sure am. Then we address the next claim.