-->
@ILikePie5
Count the orange semicircles on this graph. Let me know when you hit 1000.
Should America ban the AR 15 and AK 47/assault weapons?
Posts
Total:
81
-->
@Greyparrot
Count the orange semicircles on this graph. Let me know when you hit 1000.
because they aren't counting mass shootings. They are only counting shootings which result in 4 or more deaths. If you shoot 10 people but only 2 die, that is still a mass shooting. but that graph wouldn;t show it.
-->
@HistoryBuff
again, you are attempting to misdirect. I am talking about assault weapons. I never said handguns need to be banned. They need much better regulation though.
Handguns kill more people but assault weapons should be banned. Nice logic my friend. You’re just undercutting yourself
-->
@ILikePie5
Handguns kill more people but assault weapons should be banned. Nice logic my friend. You’re just undercutting yourself
not at all. Handguns serve a useful purpose in self defense. So while regulations and controls are definitely needed to try to keep them out of the hands of criminals and ensuring their owners are properly trained in how to use them and store them safely, banning them is not an ideal solution.
ARs serve no useful purpose. A shotgun or handgun would do an equally good job in defending yourself or your home. but they do an extremely effective job in gunning down large crowds of people. Therefore banning ARs has virtually no down side, but a big upside.
-->
@ILikePie5
It's almost like the left does not actually care about gun deaths.
-->
@HistoryBuff
Handguns serve a useful purpose in self defense.
Citation please.
banning them is not an ideal solution.
Why not?
-->
@Greyparrot
It's almost like the left does not actually care about gun deaths.
no, the left wants to respect people's right to defend themselves while actively curbing gun deaths. The right just wants to dump more guns into the mix and see what happens.
-->
@Greyparrot
Handguns serve a useful purpose in self defense.Citation please.
I don't understand. Citation for what? That handguns can be used for self defense?
-->
@HistoryBuff
The right just wants to dump more guns into the mix and see what happens.
-->
@ILikePie5
Handguns serve a useful purpose in self defense.
-->
@Greyparrot
The right just wants to dump more guns into the mix and see what happens.
are you denying that right wing policies constantly work to prevent any kind of meaningful gun control? Your link doesn't seem to dispute what I said in any way at all. It is just yet another distraction.
-->
@HistoryBuff
It is just yet another distraction.
It's almost like the left does not actually care about gun deaths.
banning them is not an ideal solution.
Why not?
-->
@Greyparrot
It is just yet another distraction.It's almost like the left does not actually care about gun deaths.
no, it's like the topic is specifically about ARs and not gun deaths in general. You are just trying to derail the topic.
banning them is not an ideal solution.Why not?
because people have a right to defend themselves. If we can do that and also bring down gun deaths, then that is the ideal solution. Hence regulating them would be better than banning them.
-->
@HistoryBuff
because people have a right to defend themselves.
-->
@HistoryBuff
your stats don't say that either. Attempting the crime, is a crime. So by the time the gun was used, there was already a crime. So no, it does not reduce crime.
That's a valid point. It would reduce the number of successfully carried out crimes, though, which is still a good thing.
ok. but that means that restrictions on mag sizes would have no negative effect, but still have a positive effect. that's a win-win.
No. In that scenario mag size restrictions have neither a positive nor a negative impact because the gun is never used.
ok. but no one is talking about banning all guns.
Not here, but there are people who take that position.
again, most countries don't track the number of shots a victim took to defend themselves. But canada has strict rules about magazine size and both their general death by guns per 100,000 and homicide by guns per 100,000 are considerably lower than the US. If mag size limits had a significant negative effect on people defending themselves, this shouldn't be true.
You're confusing correlation and causation. There are large number of differences between countries. They have large numbers of societal and policy differences other than just magazine sizes. Comparing the two and saying, "It's due to this policy right here" is frankly silly. Unless you have strong evidence that it is, in fact, due to that policy rather than other factors, this is a complete non-argument.
you misread. I said "mass shooting" not "mass killing". if 4 or more people are shot, that is a mass shooting.
Ok, but how is a high-capacity magazine ban going to stop someone from shooting 4 people? That doesn't require a high-capacity magazine. A lot of those mass shootings wouldn't be impacted by a high-capacity magazine ban.
no it doesn't. You are simply using the wrong term in an attempt to lower the number of incidents that would qualify. If 4 people are being shot, that is obviously a very serious incident even if most of them end up surviving.
Yes, but you haven't done anything to demonstrate that a high-capacity magazine ban would actually stop that from happening. Maybe a few less people would get shot, but that also goes the other way. A few more people attacked by multiple assailants would be overcome.
ok. well we would all still be much better off if the gang and the victim didn't have high capacity mags. There would be alot less death.
How do you know? You've continually asserted that a high-capacity magazine ban would save lives, but assertion is all you've provided. If the victim had a high-capacity mag, he would be better able to fend off the gang. That could save his life. You're ignoring that.
i reject the premise that you would need a high capacity mag to defend yourself in these scenarios.
You reject it, but you have no reason to reject it. As you point out yourself, people miss. If someone is under attack by multiple assailants, they're probably going to need more than 5 shots.
that seems to be a significant assumption. you say 15 people get shot, so it must only be 15 shots. There is no reason to think that is true. in the real world, most people do not have perfect accuracy and/or would fire more than 1 shot per person they are shooting at. in a real world scenario, a shooter is likely to need multiple 5 round mags in order to shoot 15 people slowing him down and reducing his effectiveness.
This is a double-edged sword. The more shots that are needed for mass killers to kill people, the more shots people fending off multiple assailants need to defend themselves. Mass shooters aren't always accurate. Neither are people being attacked by multiple assailants. This argument completely undermines your rejection of the fact that people under attack by multiple assailants need more than 5 shots. No matter how hard you try, you can't escape the fact that gun control makes it harder for people to protect themselves.
you haven't established high capacity mags ever save anyone.
Your rejection of my argument has no basis in fact.
It is well established that high capacity mags are used to kill alot of people though.
Asserting that over and over again does not qualify as establishing it.
again, you are assuming that forcing them to change weapons has no effect on how many people die.
And you are assuming that it does. And again, you're ignoring that people can save their lives with those weapons.
If they have a grenade launcher they will kill alot more people than with an assault rifle. If they have knife they will kill alot less people than with an AR. You will never be able to stop crazy or violent people entirely, but by limiting the availability of deadly weapons you can reduce the level of violence they are able to carry out.
Well, one guy can kill 84 people with a semi. A group of guys with knives can kill 33 people and injure 130.
I already know you don't want to ban semis or knives. What evidence do you have that banning ARs actually decreases the number of people killed in mass killings? And even if they do, your work isn't done. Banning ARs also means that people can't protect themselves with them, so you would also have to demonstrate that the number of people saved by an AR ban was greater than the number of people who couldn't protect themselves because of the ban. It's not enough to say, "this thing is deadly, so we should ban it." You also need to demonstrate that fewer people die in its absence, which requires analyzing how many people use it to protect themselves.
If we were to take your argument to it's concussion, then we should legalize all automatic weapons, belt fed weapons, flame throwers, etc.
Those are legal, although they are heavily restricted. Except for flame throwers. Those aren't heavily restricted.
However, they're also not used in crime, which should tell you something. Well, unless you count that idiot who used a flamethrower to kill a spider in his house and ended up burning his house down as a criminal.
I mean if limiting the weapons isn't helpful, then everyone should just be armed to the teeth right?
And how do you know they shouldn't be? If you were a criminal, would you try to kill someone who was armed to the teeth, or would you look for an easier target? Deadlier weapons do pose a greater threat if used for evil, but they also provide a strong deterrence to said evil. You have to take both of those things into account before deciding whether such weapons save lives, kill them, or are neutral. So far, you've only been considering one of those two factors, which skews your analysis.
AR 15's were designed as an infantry weapon. They also clearly had the civilian market in mind as well, but that doesn't change the fact that the design was a pitch for military use.
Yes and no. The first gun that had the AR-15 name was designed for the military and was adopted as the M16. However, the AR-15 as we know it today is a different gun designed specifically for civilians. The major difference between the two is that the AR-15 that became the M16 is capable of automatic fire, whereas today's AR-15s are not.
this argument doesn't seem to have much merit. Essentially your argument is we should do nothing to attempt to prevent people from getting deadly weapons because they will just get them anyway. So the extension of that argument is that we should legalize all weapons. Grenade launchers and tactical nuclear weapons for all I guess.
Straw man. My argument is that banning weapons is only useful if it actually reduces the murder rate. If criminals just use other weapons and the same number of people are killed, then banning the weapon didn't save any lives. That's the argument I'm making. Also, grenade launchers are already legal. As for nukes, there is a fundamental difference between nukes and almost every other weapon. They are simply so powerful that there is no legitimate civilian purpose for them. Any civilian use of a nuke would result in massive collateral damage. Even if you have something as powerful as a bunker buster, you could at least find a place to set it off where no one would get hurt.
But for your information, the most powerful weapons in the days of the Founding Fathers, warships, actually were legal (and probably still are, not that anyone other than governments are interested in building aircraft carriers). In fact, privately owned warships are mentioned in the Constitution when it gives Congress the authority to grant letters of marque, which are authorizations for private citizens to use their own cannon-laden ships to capture enemy ships. But to be realistic, any criminal that actually has the funds to buy a warship or a nuke isn't going to have any troubles getting illegal weapons.
-->
@SirAnonymous
your stats don't say that either. Attempting the crime, is a crime. So by the time the gun was used, there was already a crime. So no, it does not reduce crime.That's a valid point. It would reduce the number of successfully carried out crimes, though, which is still a good thing.
but none of the things I have suggested would change that though. ARs aren't generally used for defense. Large capacity mags aren't needed for that either. So even if everything i suggested were implemented, this wouldn't change.
ok. but that means that restrictions on mag sizes would have no negative effect, but still have a positive effect. that's a win-win.No. In that scenario mag size restrictions have neither a positive nor a negative impact because the gun is never used.
it has no negative impact on a law abiding citizen. but if a criminal cannot get access to high capacity mags, it has a significant positive impact.
You're confusing correlation and causation. There are large number of differences between countries. They have large numbers of societal and policy differences other than just magazine sizes. Comparing the two and saying, "It's due to this policy right here" is frankly silly. Unless you have strong evidence that it is, in fact, due to that policy rather than other factors, this is a complete non-argument.
since america has never made any serious attempts to limit mag sizes (all attempts that I am aware of have had serious limitations based on which guns they are applied to or which states they apply to. this massively hinders their effectiveness) which means there is no apples to apples comparison. So you are asking for definitive proof that cannot, by definition, exist. Comparing the US situation to countries that have enforced such restrictions is the closest comparison that it available.
i reject the premise that you would need a high capacity mag to defend yourself in these scenarios.You reject it, but you have no reason to reject it. As you point out yourself, people miss. If someone is under attack by multiple assailants, they're probably going to need more than 5 shots.
I reject it because there is no evidence it is true. How many scenarios actually occur where a victim shoots all of their multiple assailants? I'm guessing very few. Either they get scared off by the gun, or the victim gets gunned down by being outnumbered and outgunned. What kind of scenario would possibly require a person to have that much firepower, and they are actually likely to survive it? And how rare are those types of scenarios?
you haven't established high capacity mags ever save anyone.Your rejection of my argument has no basis in fact.
your argument has little to no evidence that it is true.
And you are assuming that it does. And again, you're ignoring that people can save their lives with those weapons.
and you have yet to show that it is more likely they could save lives with high capacity mags than without. While I believe it is quite obvious that being limited to low capacity mags would hinder someone's ability to shoot a large number of people.
And even if they do, your work isn't done. Banning ARs also means that people can't protect themselves with them, so you would also have to demonstrate that the number of people saved by an AR ban was greater than the number of people who couldn't protect themselves because of the ban.
why would i have to show that? There is no evidence that I am aware of that an AR is ever more effective at personal defense than a handgun or a shotgun. So banning an AR would have no impact on this at all.
Those are legal, although they are heavily restricted. Except for flame throwers. Those aren't heavily restricted.
if you want to put the same restrictions on ARs that are on Grenade launchers, that would also work. but that means controls on how you get them, what ammo you can have, background checks, registering the weapon. If those rules applied to all weapons, that would be great.
Yes and no. The first gun that had the AR-15 name was designed for the military and was adopted as the M16. However, the AR-15 as we know it today is a different gun designed specifically for civilians. The major difference between the two is that the AR-15 that became the M16 is capable of automatic fire, whereas today's AR-15s are not.
so basically, it is a gun that was designed for military use, that was slightly modified and sold to civilians. By definition, it was designed as a military weapon.
As for nukes, there is a fundamental difference between nukes and almost every other weapon. They are simply so powerful that there is no legitimate civilian purpose for them.
I would argue ARs meet the same definition. They are far more powerful than any legitimate civilian purpose warrants.
In fact, privately owned warships are mentioned in the Constitution when it gives Congress the authority to grant letters of marque, which are authorizations for private citizens to use their own cannon-laden ships to capture enemy ships.
A letter of marque puts you in direct service to the government. You are licensed to arm your vessel and attack enemy vessels. At that point you aren't really a civilian any more. So the comparison seems a bit moot.
-->
@HistoryBuff
ARs aren't generally used for defense.
-->
@SirAnonymous
Not sure why we can't ban privately owned tanks while we are banning guns.
-->
@Greyparrot
Not sure why we can't ban privately owned tankswhile we are banning guns.
Not sure why we can’t ban privately owned fighter jets either.
Dude bought a MiG in the 90s
-->
@HistoryBuff
it has no negative impact on a law abiding citizen. but if a criminal cannot get access to high capacity mags, it has a significant positive impact.
Only if you assume that high-capacity mags aren't useful for self-defense in certain situations. More on that later.
since america has never made any serious attempts to limit mag sizes (all attempts that I am aware of have had serious limitations based on which guns they are applied to or which states they apply to. this massively hinders their effectiveness) which means there is no apples to apples comparison. So you are asking for definitive proof that cannot, by definition, exist. Comparing the US situation to countries that have enforced such restrictions is the closest comparison that it available.
State to state comparisons would be closer, since they have more in common with each other than different countries. Strictly speaking, though, definitive proof on most political positions is nonexistent. That doesn't mean there isn't evidence. However, country comparisons are very poor evidence. Part of the scientific method is controlling for variables that you aren't studying. Thus, comparisons that involve fewer variables are better, and comparisons that involve more variables are worse. Different countries have lots of variables involved. States share more culture and have the same background of federal laws, so they are closer, though still not ideal.
How many scenarios actually occur where a victim shoots all of their multiple assailants? I'm guessing very few.
Why is it necessary for them to shoot all of their assailants for a high-capacity mag to be useful? They only need to fire more than five shots for it to be useful.
Either they get scared off by the gun, or the victim gets gunned down by being outnumbered and outgunned.
False dichotomy. The number of ways such a confrontation can play out are nearly infinite. You're arbitrarily limiting the number of possibilities.
What kind of scenario would possibly require a person to have that much firepower
Well, they could panic and miss their first few shots, they could be facing multiple assailants who don't give up at the sight of the gun, their opponents might require multiple shots to take down, they might be a bad shot, etc., etc.
and they are actually likely to survive it?
Some people would survive those situations, others wouldn't. Having a gun with enough ammo would increase the number of people who would survive.
And how rare are those types of scenarios?...your argument has little to no evidence that it is true.
According to the FBI, a murder occurs every 30.5 minutes. Violent crimes occur every 24.6 seconds.
So the answer to how rare these scenarios are is how often murders are carried out by two or more criminals added to how often attempted murders are done by multiple assailants. I haven't found any statistics on how frequently violent crimes or murders are carried out by multiple assailants. Even if only 5% of violent crimes are committed by multiple assailants, then that's ~2.4 murders every day that could be stopped by a gun with a high-capacity magazine and ~175.6 violent crimes (counting murders) every day that could be stopped by a gun with a high-capacity mag. Now, I don't know what the actual percentage is. The FBI keeps statistics on how often crimes occur, but they don't seem to keep statistics on how frequently they're committed by more than one person. Even so, it would be silly to deny that dealing with multiple assailants never happens.
While I believe it is quite obvious that being limited to low capacity mags would hinder someone's ability to shoot a large number of people.
The fact that it's only obvious to you and other people who share many of your ideological biases should tell you that it isn't actually obvious. That being said, I don't deny that it could prevent a few deaths. The question is how many. Let's examine that.
Mass shooters often carry multiple weapons, so they can start the mass shooting with 5, 10, or 15 bullets. There are also mass shootings involving more than one shooter, which can double the initial amount of bullets. The overwhelming majority of mass shootings are 10 or fewer people. A majority were 5 or fewer. In maybe half or a third of them, no one died. Now, it is absolutely true that killers won't always hit. However, a lot of mass shooters target relatively crowded areas, making it more likely that they will hit. Magazine restrictions would have a very limited impact on these shootings. They will have the most effect on the deadliest shootings, which are fairly rare. Now, they will probably save a few lives in those cases. The question is how many? Limiting magazine sizes will slow shooters down a bit, but not a whole lot. You can see my earlier estimate that they might get as many as 24 shots off for every 30 shots they would get off without the ban. That will save a few lives in the larger mass shootings, but it won't be a huge number.
Magazine restrictions would also motivate killers to use weapons other than guns. While guns are deadly, so are vehicles driven into crowds, pressure cookers, and stabbing sprees. Guns are more convenient that those, but that doesn't necessarily mean they're more deadly. They have a lot of gun control in England, but found that they were having knife crimes instead. They got so bad that they now have knife control in London. Gun control didn't solve their problems.
So would it save more lives than it would end? Even attempting to answer that question would require more detailed statistics than are available. We can argue about whether high-capacity magazines are more commonly used to kill or to save, but it would be fairly pointless, since the quantitative data to answer that question doesn't seem to exist.
There is no evidence that I am aware of that an AR is ever more effective at personal defense than a handgun or a shotgun. So banning an AR would have no impact on this at all.
Sure there is. Handguns, of course, are the best if you're on the street because you can actually conceal-carry them. For home defense, though, ARs definitely have advantages. They're more accurate than handguns (this is a general advantage that long guns have over handguns). They're shorter than shotguns, which makes them easier to get around corners in a house. They are also lighter than shotguns, which makes them easier to handle. If you want a more detailed breakdown of shotgun vs handgun vs AR15 for home defense, here's a gun instructor talking about that very topic.
Of course, no gun is objectively the best for self-defense. It's very situational. As I mentioned, handguns are the best if you aren't at home, whereas AR-15s and shotguns are better if you are at home. For stopping mass shooters, if you have a choice, the AR-15 is better for the very same reasons it is dangerous in a mass shooting. Stephen Willeford proved this at the Sutherland Springs shooting.
Saying that AR-15s aren't useful for self-defense is simply incorrect. The very same qualities that make it dangerous in a mass shooting also make it an excellent self-defense tool.
I would argue ARs meet the same definition. They are far more powerful than any legitimate civilian purpose warrants.
Absolutely ridiculous. It's easy to fire an AR-15 and not hurt anyone. Try setting off a nuke without hurting anyone. They aren't remotely comparable.
A letter of marque puts you in direct service to the government. You are licensed to arm your vessel and attack enemy vessels. At that point you aren't really a civilian any more. So the comparison seems a bit moot.
Historically inaccurate. They were authorized by the government, but were not in service to it. They frequently owned the cannons before the war. Privateers were commanded by themselves. They got the reward for the ships they captured. They were very much civilians. Armed, privately owned merchantmen (which is what privateers often were) were very common.
-->
@Greyparrot
@ILikePie5
Oh, sure! Tempt me! Now I need a tank and a Mig to put beside my sword and shield. Knights in tanks, yeeessss.