Should Assault Rifles used by Armies/ Terrorists be restricted in the USA?

[Bird222]

All of those actions you mentioned have substantial economic or personal utility. Owning a firearm in your home does not. The point is not to restrict anything that may harm someone, the point is to restrict things that provide no other benefits that harm people.

I would put being able to defend myself from criminals in the 'personal utility' camp.

 

[fskimospy]

I would put being able to defend myself from criminals in the 'personal utility' camp.

Again, having a firearm in your home is associated with a higher risk of being the victim of homicide and suicide. If self defense is your goal, owning a gun likely makes you less safe so that would actually be giving you negative personal utility.

 

[mdram]

Again, having a firearm in your home is associated with a higher risk of being the victim of homicide and suicide. If self defense is your goal, owning a gun likely makes you less safe so that would actually be giving you negative personal utility.

and again, we are fine with that

 

[soulcougher73]

everything we do raises our risk of death.
drive a car
ride a bike
ride a motorcycle
get on a plane
walk down the street
the list is endless

you cannot legislate everything to keep people safer, its not possible/feasible.

Can you stop with the lame comparisons? Ive pointed out a million times why they are lame and dont work.

 

[fskimospy]

and again, we are fine with that

If 'I know I'm irrational and I don't care' works for you ...well... okay. I find this ironic considering you were complaining other people were allergic to facts previously though.

 

[Puffnstuff]

everything we do raises our risk of death.
drive a car
ride a bike
ride a motorcycle
get on a plane
walk down the street
the list is endless

you cannot legislate everything to keep people safer, its not possible/feasible.

While that general premise is true it can also be said that many other personal items that generate risk only do so to the user. A firearm on the other hand has the capacity to harm others without their consent from a distance.

 

[soulcougher73]

While that general premise is true it can also be said that many other personal items that generate risk only do so to the user. A firearm on the other hand has the capacity to harm others without their consent from a distance.

And all those other things serve a purpose and have a utility other then to put holes in things and make them dead, unlike a gun whose sole purpose of existing is for that fact.

 

[Ventanni]

It's called the Bill of Rights not the Bill of Needs. That argument is so silly to me. This is America and YOU don't get to tell ME what I need or should want. I don't tell you how many showers a day you need to take do I? [government] You don't need to call your SO 3 times a day so you can only call them once. [/government] You live your life and I'll live mine.

You're right. I don't get to tell you what to do. However, that's not how laws work. That's not even what freedom is. You can do whatever you want with whoever you want until what you're doing becomes a danger to the rest of society. Why is driving over the speed limit against the law? Because it becomes dangerous to the rest of us. Why is illegal drug use like heroine, cocaine, meth, etc against the law? Because its dangerous to the rest of us.

I have no desire to take away your toys. None. Zip. And I know I couldn't even if I tried. Go take your 3 showers a day. The problem is, your toys are being used to kill lots of people at once. They're not killing as many as hand guns are, but they kill a lot of people in one sitting. Unfortunately, the rest of society is becoming uneasy with these "toys" of yours.

The solution is not for me to mandate how you should manage your stuff. I personally don't think anyone really needs to own an AR-15, but I recognize that the best solution isn't to take them away or ban them. The solution is for YOU to manage your toys. If you want to own and enjoy an AR-15, then you better be willing to subject yourself to self-regulation that ensures that people not like you, you know, the ones going around killing 30+ people at once, don't get their hands on them.

Freedom is the right to govern yourself so that others don't have to. Maybe you should practice it.

 

[Ventanni]

Here is my issue with this line of argument. How do you know what anybody needs?

I don't, nor do I want the responsibility in defining that. But, if we were to start, perhaps asking gun owners why they feel they need an AR-15 is a good place to start.

As I mentioned in my above post though, I have no desire to take guns or even AR-15's away from people. I have no desire to repeal the 2nd amendment. And I've lived long enough in the south to know that it's impossible anyways. When I listen to statements from gun owners though, I hear very little ownership and taking responsibility on their part. I work in advertising and I can very clearly see how a lot of assault rifles are marketed in a way to make their deadliness very appealing. They are marketed in a way to make people feel invincible and powerful. Because, they do! At the end of the day though, those guns stem from military designs and inherit some of their incredibly lethality in the process.

The solution is for the gun industry to regulate itself. But if you're not going to do that, don't be surprised when anti-American quacks try and repeal the 2nd amendment. That's not a mess we want on our hands.

 

[Puffnstuff]

To add to what Ventanni is saying I believe that gun owners in general should be required by law to have a minimum level of insurance. When I flew RC helicopters I had a million dollar policy just in case one of them accidentally struck someone. We have minimum insurance requirements for our motor vehicles so why not have them on guns?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Again, having a firearm in your home is associated with a higher risk of being the victim of homicide and suicide. If self defense is your goal, owning a gun likely makes you less safe so that would actually be giving you negative personal utility.

Last time to beat the dead horse. If I have a gun am I safer or not? If you use statistics no "dead ducks" allowed. We're talking about me or any individual. The correct answer is that you have no idea. Like "you are safer if you avoid blacks" it's not a good measure of real people in real situations.

 

[Bird222]

You're right. I don't get to tell you what to do. However, that's not how laws work. That's not even what freedom is. You can do whatever you want with whoever you want until what you're doing becomes a danger to the rest of society. Why is driving over the speed limit against the law? Because it becomes dangerous to the rest of us. Why is illegal drug use like heroine, cocaine, meth, etc against the law? Because its dangerous to the rest of us.

I have no desire to take away your toys. None. Zip. And I know I couldn't even if I tried. Go take your 3 showers a day. The problem is, your toys are being used to kill lots of people at once. They're not killing as many as hand guns are, but they kill a lot of people in one sitting. Unfortunately, the rest of society is becoming uneasy with these "toys" of yours.

The solution is not for me to mandate how you should manage your stuff. I personally don't think anyone really needs to own an AR-15, but I recognize that the best solution isn't to take them away or ban them. The solution is for YOU to manage your toys. If you want to own and enjoy an AR-15, then you better be willing to subject yourself to self-regulation that ensures that people not like you, you know, the ones going around killing 30+ people at once, don't get their hands on them.

Freedom is the right to govern yourself so that others don't have to. Maybe you should practice it.

Not my toys.

 

[fskimospy]

Last time to beat the dead horse. If I have a gun am I safer or not? If you use statistics no "dead ducks" allowed. We're talking about me or any individual. The correct answer is that you have no idea. Like "you are safer if you avoid blacks" it's not a good measure of real people in real situations.

Presumably we can agree that when we're making laws for 350 million people that any one person's situation doesn't matter, right?

For Hayabusa Rider I have no idea if you are safer or not. For the average American though, the evidence indicates you are less safe, not more. I mean it's like a question of whether any one individual needs health insurance this year. I have no idea, but I do know that for the average American having health insurance is a good idea. Same with smoking, you might be able to smoke five packs a day for your whole life and live to be 90. I still know that smoking is a bad idea though, even if those odds don't end up coming up for you personally.

 

[Genx87]

I don't, nor do I want the responsibility in defining that. But, if we were to start, perhaps asking gun owners why they feel they need an AR-15 is a good place to start.

As I mentioned in my above post though, I have no desire to take guns or even AR-15's away from people. I have no desire to repeal the 2nd amendment. And I've lived long enough in the south to know that it's impossible anyways. When I listen to statements from gun owners though, I hear very little ownership and taking responsibility on their part. I work in advertising and I can very clearly see how a lot of assault rifles are marketed in a way to make their deadliness very appealing. They are marketed in a way to make people feel invincible and powerful. Because, they do! At the end of the day though, those guns stem from military designs and inherit some of their incredibly lethality in the process.

The solution is for the gun industry to regulate itself. But if you're not going to do that, don't be surprised when anti-American quacks try and repeal the 2nd amendment. That's not a mess we want on our hands.

You will literally get varying reasons from millions of people. Each person has their own reason. It is why I think this "you don't need that gun" is such a non-starter. I dont care how they are marketed. Because the vast majority of owners of the weapon never use it to commit a crime.

One has to ask why the AR-15 has become so popular in the past decade when it has been on the market since the early 70s, nearly 50 years, and mostly snubbed during that time until ~ 10 years ago. I think we will find our wars against brown people may have something to do with it.

 

[OutHouse]

Well what do you think about restricting assault rifles like AR-15 and the like which were designed for war time use?

Discuss and Vote as you like.

Fail

 

[Genx87]

Presumably we can agree that when we're making laws for 350 million people that any one person's situation doesn't matter, right?

For Hayabusa Rider I have no idea if you are safer or not. For the average American though, the evidence indicates you are less safe, not more. I mean it's like a question of whether any one individual needs health insurance this year. I have no idea, but I do know that for the average American having health insurance is a good idea. Same with smoking, you might be able to smoke five packs a day for your whole life and live to be 90. I still know that smoking is a bad idea though, even if those odds don't end up coming up for you personally.

Here is the issue. People dont look at the collective when their individual rights are taken away. I own 2xAR-15s, 1xAR-10, STG 44 in .22 and a 1911. These guns are in a safe, locked up, never misused. I am like millions of other americans who will need to be convinced us handling our weapons in a safe way should be trumped by idiots and criminals when we have our rights taken away.

I understand what you are saying. But it will fall on deaf ears because nobody wants to be punished as a collective when they did nothing wrong as an individual.

 

[Kneedragger]

Ok so my question for the "ban all firearms" group is.. If we ban all firearms and all the legal owners turn in their firearms like the good people they are. What will we do next about all the illegal first still coming in and out there in criminals hands?

 

[Bird222]

You will literally get varying reasons from millions of people. Each person has their own reason. It is why I think this "you don't need that gun" is such a non-starter. I dont care how they are marketed. Because the vast majority of owners of the weapon never use it to commit a crime.

One has to ask why the AR-15 has become so popular in the past decade when it has been on the market since the early 70s, nearly 50 years, and mostly snubbed during that time until ~ 10 years ago. I think we will find our wars against brown people may have something to do with it.

I also think the end of the AWB may have something to do with it too.

 

[Genx87]

I also think the end of the AWB may have something to do with it too.

Potentially. But that was enacted in 1994. Over a quarter century after the AR-15 was first marketed to the civilian market. And while it sold, it was never as popular as it has been in the past decade. There could had been some pent up demand for the product. And of course constant calling for its ban only drives more sales.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Presumably we can agree that when we're making laws for 350 million people that any one person's situation doesn't matter, right?

For Hayabusa Rider I have no idea if you are safer or not. For the average American though, the evidence indicates you are less safe, not more. I mean it's like a question of whether any one individual needs health insurance this year. I have no idea, but I do know that for the average American having health insurance is a good idea. Same with smoking, you might be able to smoke five packs a day for your whole life and live to be 90. I still know that smoking is a bad idea though, even if those odds don't end up coming up for you personally.

But smoking 5 packs a day leads to unalterable conclusions. If proper training is mandated yet ineffective why have LEO do it? They are going to make as many poor choices regardless of expertise. In other areas where training in the use of dangerous things is required the rates of adverse consequences go down. Drivers education, heavy equipment usage, CDL's all decrease risk. Knowing how, when and when not to use a firearm is an exception because of the status quo where there is no training?

That would be a unique event for sure.

This isn't an attack, but have you created an obstacle that exists in fact, or are you relying on something for validation? Don't answer because it's not my intent to provoke, except perhaps to provoke introspection. Perhaps this is a situation where people cannot improve, but based on observations of human activities where there is potential for harm, this seems to impart a magical quality to an object and I would have to be convinced of that being true. I have yet to experience a situation where proper training and understanding of risks has had no influence.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Potentially. But that was enacted in 1994. Over a quarter century after the AR-15 was first marketed to the civilian market. And while it sold, it was never as popular as it has been in the past decade. There could had been some pent up demand for the product. And of course constant calling for its ban only drives more sales.

Could also be that it's an exceptionally modular and customizable platform. To pull in the obligatory car reference, it's like the Mustang 5.0 of the gun world. It's the full tower PC, the Skyrim or Warcraft 3. There may be other things better than it at any one thing it can do, but it sure can do a lot of different things, and look the way you want it to while doing it (for those that care).

 

[fskimospy]

But smoking 5 packs a day leads to unalterable conclusions. If proper training is mandated yet ineffective why have LEO do it? They are going to make as many poor choices regardless of expertise. In other areas where training in the use of dangerous things is required the rates of adverse consequences go down. Drivers education, heavy equipment usage, CDL's all decrease risk. Knowing how, when and when not to use a firearm is an exception because of the status quo where there is no training?

That would be a unique event for sure.

This isn't an attack, but have you created an obstacle that exists in fact, or are you relying on something for validation? Don't answer because it's not my intent to provoke, except perhaps to provoke introspection. Perhaps this is a situation where people cannot improve, but based on observations of human activities where there is potential for harm, this seems to impart a magical quality to an object and I would have to be convinced of that being true. I have yet to experience a situation where proper training and understanding of risks has had no influence.

To be clear I'm not saying it would have NO effect, it's just that accidental shootings aren't what drive gun violence so I think the overall help would be small. Generally the people who are shot are those that the shooter intends to.

 

[pcgeek11]

This isn't directed at you,but I've heard that statement many times from people. It's exactly the statement that irritates the problem and empowers those who want to repeal the second amendment, because it signifies a lack of ownership on part of gun supporters. And when you don't manage your own stuff, you just invite others to come in and do that for you.

I have a 22 caliber semi-automatic tube fed rifle is it an assault rifle?

 

[mikeymikec]

criminals will just change tools, again look east. london has more murders now than new york.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43628494

You know I was being sarcastic about not letting the facts get in the way of fun, right?

 

[njdevilsfan87]

Gun nuts are on a level with flat earthers. That is all.