Defending Semiautomatic Long Guns With Detachable Box Magaznes

[rjinga]

Originally Posted by K Mac

I think the argument that only people are dangerous and ARs are not is disingenuous.

Why do you say that?

[44 AMP]

I'd have to say it's not disingenuous if you understand the reasoning behind it.

Inanimate objects don't do things by themselves. Kind of what inanimate means, unable to animate (move) by themselves.

The all take a HUMAN to do something.

The other part is that it is the person that makes it dangerous, not the item itself. People who know how, and have the desire to do it can kill with bare hands or any object they can physically move, including your own body.

People are dangerous, THINGS are not.

[K_Mac]

I'd have to say it's not disingenuous if you understand the reasoning behind it.

I understand the reasoning. I also understand that to say an AR is not a dangerous weapon lacks credibility in my opinion. I think that to say a sharp knife, or an AR, or a nuclear bomb, or countless other dangerous things are not dangerous denies their nature. Of course they are dangerous. If not we would find something else to do the job. In a gunfight I want an AR. Why? It is the most effective tool for the job. It makes me a very dangerous man. I also think that when the 2A was written the supporters knew that arms were dangerous and necessary.

[Pond, James Pond]

I also understand that to say an AR is not a dangerous weapon lacks credibility in my opinion.

That is an understandable position true, but that perception only exists because an AR almost always appears with a human attached to it.

If 62% of all ARs were naturally occurring in the wild as part of the landscape, it would be much easier to discern that the only potentially dangerous ones are the 38% that are in the hands of a human controller.

It makes me a very dangerous man.

Not quiteIt allows you to reach your full "dangerous" potential. That same AR would be harmless in the hands of someone unwilling or incapable of firing it.

The 4 rules of gun safety are not there to de-claw the gun, they're there to counter people's gift for making stupid mistakes and errors in judgement.

[K_Mac]

Pond naturally occurring ARs in the wild are the most dangerous kind. You have to be very careful while harvesting...

[Pond, James Pond]

And all the while I thought gardening was boring.

Not so anymore!

[Mozella]

So I was wondering what kind of arguments people here might have for explaining why such weapons are good.

Well you could try this approach. Explain to the "Anti" that he/she is acting like a tyrant when they try to infringe on your constitutional right to bear arms. Go on to explain that when the government becomes tyrannical, it's imperative for citizens to be able to defend them selves against such a government, not just a single home intruder.

Say to the "Anti" "When push comes to shove, I need a 30 round magazine to kill YOU and 29 tyrants just like you before I have to change magazines".

[Pond, James Pond]

"When push comes to shove, I need a 30 round magazine to kill YOU and 29 tyrants just like you before I have to change magazines"

I think talk of killing 30 people just like and including the person you're talking to is counter-productive and uncalled for.

To be perfectly frank, it would just play into their hands and I don't think threats are advised. It ends up making our position far harder to defend and it helps turn public opinion against us...

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by Frank Ettin

Even so, it undercuts the effectiveness of the civil rights argument.

The political effectiveness of a civil rights argument is based on empathy. Whites empathized with Blacks suffering indignities and deprivations trying to do ordinary, benign, everyday things that Whites valued and took for granted -- drinking from a clean water fountain, going to school, eating at whatever restaurant they chose, riding a bus, voting, etc.

In contexts and in some populations, your observation is undoubtedly true. However an argument that is ultimately based only in empathy isn't a civil rights argument; it's not truly an argument, but an assertion that we should be "nice".

1st Am. arguments are not based on empathy and they have ample cultural traction even amongst people who could tell you which amendment describes a free speech right. Very few people have empathy for Illinois nazis, but the idea that it isn't a right unless it protects odious expression too has broad support.

Unless the matter is argued as a civil right, one leaves it to be a merely political matter and necessarily cedes the contest for possession and use disfavored by the fever of the day.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Another angle to consider when buying this is just to point out that the reason semiauto rifles show up in mass shootings is because semiauto rifles have been the most popular, fastest selling rifles for two decades now. They are just in common use.

For example, just by numbers, white cars are most often in accidents because that is the most popular color of car people buy and has been for years. If you just looked at it anecdotally, you might think white cars were somehow more prone to accidents; but when you adjust for the popularity, they are actually about 10% less likely to be involved in an accident because of their high visibility.

AR15s show up often because it is a super common, very popular rifle. And ironically, the gun ban crowd does us a huge favor by demanding it be banned because:

1. As anybody who went through the 1994 ban can tell you, forbidden fruit is the sweetest. Prior to 1994, semiautos were much less mainstream - but the ban brought them to the attention of a lot more people. Even during the ban sales increased; and when the ban ended and you could have all the forbidden cosmetic features, sales exploded.

2. Everytime our opponents talk about a ban, they encourage panic buying that makes such rifles even more common. This is great for us because there is zero chance of them getting a ban through Congress for the next three years. So they aren't just spinning their wheels. They are actually helping us for that day in SCOTUS when we have to make the "common use" argument.

3. Everytime one of them lets the mask drop and starts talking about banning entire classes of commonly-owned guns, even gun owners who aren't paying any attention realize what the end goal of "reasonable, common-sense gun safety" as practiced by gun control proponents is. When that happens, the NRA gets stronger and we get stronger. The NYT running a front page gun banning editorial? If I was the NRA, I'd have paid them for that! The deranged, unhinged rants of various online "journalists" calling for fascist tactics to be used against gun owners? Brilliant. Gersh Kuntzman's recent sad piece on firing an AR15? That guy deserves a Golden Bullseye award both for that article and his sad defense of it afterwards.

[Lohman446]

I've been thinking about the AR and this conversation and just how dangerous it is. A very competent individual with a bolt action .308 (or .338 Lapua) can likely create more devastation AND ESCAPE FROM THE SCENE more likely than a competent individual with an AR style weapon (yes I know there are .308 ARs). I get that this premise is debatable but it is not entirely central to my point.

The worry to me is not, however, what a competent individual can do with either weapon. My worry is what a relatively untrained or incompetent individual can do. In paintball we used to reference the term "accuracy by volume." It referenced the fact that paintball's were, by there nature, not an accurate projectile. In shooting we reference it as "spray and pray" when we reference inferior tactics that depend on volume to score hits.

I think the concern is simple. Yes I get that most people on this board could, if they so desired, kill a lot of people without an assault rifle. However the ready availability of AR type weapons gives people with little training a far better chance of creating a higher level of devastation than they would be able to create with a traditional sporting firearm.

I'm not certain "box" style magazines matter. I'm frankly not even concerned about high capacity pistols. A 30 round magazine in an AR style weapon can turn a relatively inexperienced and untrained individual into a "weapon" capable of inflicting mass casualties far more effectively than most other firearms we see today.

Now that's an observation. I'm not certain where we go from that observation or if it is worth consideration. I'm more inclined to discuss, as a reasonable alternative to a complete ban, a move of such weaponry to the NFA list. I'm really though on the fence about this one. I know enough about firearms and broad general firearm laws to think I can discuss the matter reasonably and discuss "reasonable and rationale gun regulation" I'm not certain I favor that outcome of such discussion but I think we must be willing to at least have the discussion - with reservations.

[Lohman446]

3. Everytime one of them lets the mask drop and starts talking about banning entire classes of commonly-owned guns, even gun owners who aren't paying any attention realize what the end goal of "reasonable, common-sense gun safety" as practiced by gun control proponents is. When that happens, the NRA gets stronger and we get stronger. The NYT running a front page gun banning editorial? If I was the NRA, I'd have paid them for that! The deranged, unhinged rants of various online "journalists" calling for fascist tactics to be used against gun owners? Brilliant. Gersh Kuntzman's recent sad piece on firing an AR15? That guy deserves a Golden Bullseye award both for that article and his sad defense of it afterwards.

I thought, when I heard the word filibuster, we were going to get some great statements out of it as various people went "off script".

[JohnKSa]

People are very innovative in finding methods to wreak havoc when they are determined to do so.

In 1990, Julio González killed 87 people in a New Orleans nightclub with a can of gasoline.

When a tragedy happens, many people feel like SOMETHING must be done to prevent it from happening again, or to reduce the chance of it happening again. Much of the time, there's really nothing productive that can be done and doing SOMETHING just for the sake of not feeling impotent just means that freedoms have been reduced without providing any practical benefit.

It happens that there are people in this country who are unhappy about private gun ownership and they eagerly take advantage of every relevant tragedy that presents to attempt to further their agenda. And the feeling that many have that SOMETHING must be done to keep such tragedies from happening in the future plays right into that agenda.

The reality is that evil people will occasionally perpetrate atrocities against innocent victims and much of the time there's really not much that can be done to prevent it.

I mean, are we ready to ban/restrict flammable liquids to keep the New Orleans nightclub tragedy from playing out again? Are we ready to lower the speed limit every time there's a multiple fatality accident? If we ban some guns and/or restrict some gun rights as a result of this tragedy, will we be ready to do it again the next time there's a mass shooting?

The problem is that it never ends because there's always another tragedy and more restrictions/bans to be passed. Look at Britain--they've worked their way all the way down the weapons hierarchy to the point that manufacturers are making knives with rounded tips to make them harder to use for stabbing.

[Lohman446]

JohnKSA: While I get your point it benefits from the seeming non testable nature of it. Can we know if a particular law has actually prevented a particular event? Probably not.

In the case of the Pulse Nightclub attack I am fairly confident that the attacker would have carried out an attack of some form or another with or without access to firearms.

In the case of the Aurora attack one could argue, considering the explosive and chemical weapons in his apartment, that firearms may have actually made the attack less deadly though making that argument is likely to be met with emotional condemnation.

In the case of the Sandy Hook shooting I do not believe the attacker would have been able to carry out as deadly of an attack without access to firearms as it seems, from reports, he lacked the mental capacity to carry through a long term plan. Of course you are welcome to take the contrary argument that he could have just as easily used a car to create as much devastation.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by JohnKsa

When a tragedy happens, many people feel like SOMETHING must be done to prevent it from happening again, or to reduce the chance of it happening again. Much of the time, there's really nothing productive that can be done and doing SOMETHING just for the sake of not feeling impotent just means that freedoms have been reduced without providing any practical benefit.

Exactly so.

There is also an additional wrinkle to this episode.

The murderer was a background checked, psychologically vetted and licensed security guard whose imagination was captured by the high profile success of the ISIS movement overseas. The number murdered may have been increased by illegally locked fire exits.

Yet, BHO is beating the drum for denying firearm purchases by law. That aligns with his prior views, but why would he continue to stress that tangent in such a homely way?

It is possible that John McCain's poorly worded point about the success of the ISIS movement, a success that can be viewed as partly attributed to a leadership failure by BHO, is seen as potent, and BHO seeks to diffuse that criticism by focusing on pre-packaged "gun control" arguments.

The murders aren't anyone's direct fault but the murderer's, but the details and context, and how they are ignored or focused on serve different peoples' political fortunes differently.

[Machineguntony]

Edit

[DaleA]

Machineguntony-I thought you made a couple good points in your previous post. There was nothing (I thought) that was untoward...why did you delete it?

[44 AMP]

In the case of the Sandy Hook shooting I do not believe the attacker would have been able to carry out as deadly of an attack without access to firearms as it seems, from reports, he lacked the mental capacity to carry through a long term plan

I do disagree. He had the mental capacity to know how to use the firearms, to drive a car, to choose a target, to KILL HIS MOTHER, STEAL the guns (killing mom made that part "easier") and carry out mass murder playing a game in his head, where he who kills himself with the biggest body count wins. A game where, IF the cops kill you, you lose your points.

He may not have had the mental capacity to be able to interact socially on the accepted normal level, but he was able to operate complex machinery, and act out a multi-step plan to commit mass murder.

I think saying he lacked the mental capacity to do it without access to firearms is sort of like saying he could count to four, but not five. Part of the plan was to gain access to firearms!

The Colorado Movie Theater shooter's AR jammed after a few shots and the majority of the carnage was done with a pump shotgun.

The Virginia Tech shooter used a pair of semi auto handguns, stalked from room to room shooting people in classroom size groups, one at a time, and killed 33.

In 1990, Julio González killed 87 people in a New Orleans nightclub with a can of gasoline.

The 9/11 terrorists didn't use ANY guns, and killed thousands of people.

Background checks don't stop them. If they are competent liars, psych screening won't stop them. Apparently FBI investigation doesn't always stop them, either.

[Footslogger]

Today tens of thousands of law abiding citizens will purchase semi auto rifles of various configuration in response to a hand full of politicians making plans to attempt to ban them from the general pubic.

There are by now tens of millions of these types of fire arms owned by law abiding citizens.
The government knows this.

They also know that given recent history at the state level(N.Y and Conn.)most will not give them up register or otherwise comply with any new unconstitutional legislation.
What else needs to be said?

[rjinga]

Originally Posted by K Mac

I think that to say... an AR... or countless other dangerous things are not dangerous denies their nature. Of course they are dangerous.

While I still say that the above-statement taken from post #53, on its own, is an example of the common logical fallacy called begging the question, previously in post #5 K Mac did write that he believed that the ability of an AR "to be fired quickly, repeatedly, accurately, and with great effect... make them dangerous."

[JohnKSa]

In the case of the Sandy Hook shooting I do not believe the attacker would have been able to carry out as deadly of an attack without access to firearms as it seems, from reports, he lacked the mental capacity to carry through a long term plan. Of course you are welcome to take the contrary argument that he could have just as easily used a car to create as much devastation.

Well, the focus of the thread was "semiautomatic long guns with detachable box magazines", not just firearms in general.

As I recall, only about a quarter of mass shootings involve semi-auto long guns, the rest being carried out with pistols.

In other words, banning/restricting semi-auto long guns clearly won't put an end to, or probably even significantly reduce the magnitude of mass shootings because already they're mostly carried out with pistols.

But in the larger picture, even banning/restricting all firearms won't put an end to mass killings because, as the New Orleans nightclub and the September 11 incidents show, determined people can find ways to kill lots of people without firearms.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by rjinga

First let me say that I'm not trying to pick a fight with K Mac. This thread is about how to argue/debate with someone on the issue of guns and gun restrictions. K Mac just happened to use a common logical fallacy called begging the question....

Okay, and that certainly is a consideration in the context of a formal debate or in attempting to prove, in a formal way, a proposition. But that's not what we're talking about here.

We're looking at ways of changing peoples' minds and attitudes. We're fooling ourselves if we believe that can be accomplished in connection with gun control issues through formal logic. There is simply too strong a visceral dimension to peoples' attitudes about guns.

Yes, we all know, as a matter of strict fact, that the AR-15 standing in the corner, fully loaded and with the safety disengaged, is not, in and of itself dangerous. It can stand thus in perpetuity without causing anyone or anything harm. But that is not what people are afraid of.

People are afraid of the dangerous man who gets his hands on a fully loaded AR-15. A dangerous man with a loaded AR-15 is a good deal more dangerous, can cause substantially more harm, than he is with just his hands, or with just a club, or with just a revolver. A gun is a particularly efficient and effective way to increase a dangerous person's ability to do harm, and an AR-15 is a particular efficient and effective type of gun for that purpose.

So an argument to a gun control advocate who is personally afraid of people with guns that an AR-15 is not dangerous will be dismissed as ludicrous. Such an argument will also impair our credibility. We will be seen as missing the point, and in practical terms we really are.

Guns are particularly effective and efficient tools for causing substantial injury to humans. They can be used for that purpose more effectively and efficiently than hands, clubs, or knives. That is why they tend to be the choice of criminals, psychopaths and sociopaths. That is also why they tend to be the first choice of the honest person who wants to defend himself and his family from criminals, psychopaths, and sociopaths.

[JN01]

I'm more inclined to discuss, as a reasonable alternative to a complete ban, a move of such weaponry to the NFA list.

Not no, but hell no. Do you really consider that reasonable? How on earth would ATF process all the paperwork for the tens of millions of rifles already in circulation in any kind of timely manner? Not to mention a $200 fee for each and every one you already own. No doubt, they would also stop new manufacture (like they did for full autos) and drive prices into the stratosphere.

And still have zero impact on crime.

[JohnKSa]

Which is why gun control tends to continue to progress to ever more onerous restrictions. Measures are put in place to reduce the magnitude/frequency of events which can not really be controlled. Because the original premise (that these tragedies can be significantly reduced/ameliorated by the restrictions) is false, that means more such tragedies occur after the restrictions are put in place.

Human nature being what it is, society and legisators don't step back and say--"Gee, that last restriction didn't work. Let's get rid of it and try something else." Instead, they say: "Clearly that wasn't enough of a restriction. Let's add to the restrictions."

So ineffective restrictions are piled on top of previously ineffective restrictions. The only real effect of all the restrictions is to make it harder for people who AREN'T the problem in the first place to purchase, possess and use firearms.

[K_Mac]

rjinga I am certainly not looking for a fight, or even to win an argument here. Frank makes the case well. I am looking to be credible when talking to intelligent people about why anyone needs an AR. We can deny the premise that ARs are dangerous, insisting that they are no more dangerous than anything else, and walk away from the table confident we won the debate; or we can admit that this begs the question of why anyone needs to have a weapon capable of such destruction. We can not avoid that premise, whether we like it or not.