Defending Semiautomatic Long Guns With Detachable Box Magaznes

[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]

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]

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]

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

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.

 

[JohnKSa]

I am looking to be credible when talking to intelligent people about why anyone needs an AR.

Need is not a criteria for purchase/ownership of items in the U.S. It's a mistake to let the other side couch this question as if the answer is relevant to why it should be or shouldn't be legal. The fact that I don't need something is not sufficient justification to deny me the right to purchase/own it. I'll bet that most people own more than twice many things as they really need and have much more expensive and nicer things than would actually serve their purposes.

So the first thing I point out when I'm asked that question is that it's the wrong question.

With need out of the way as a criteria, the question really becomes what they are good for and as long as the person asking is reasonable, I'm willing to talk about the reasons why people might want to buy an AR or might feel like an AR would be useful for them.

1. ARs are useful as self-defense weapons. They are light, easy to operate, have adequate capacity, are reliable, easy to accessorize, and are available in a range of calibers which are suitable for self-defense.

2. ARs are commonly used in competitive shooting sports.

3. ARs are more and more common as hunting weapons.

4. ARs are very popular for informal recreational shooting.

I'm sure there are others, but there are a few things that they are good for.

We can not avoid that premise, whether we like it or not.

We can't keep people from asking, but when they do, the very first response should be that American citizens are allowed to purchase, possess and use many non-essential items which are potentially dangerous (cars that go well above any U.S. speed limit, motorcycles, skateboards, trampolines, swimming pools, alcohol, fireworks, recreational boats, tobacco etc.), many of which are purely recreational in nature.

Look at the stats for alcohol related deaths in the U.S annually if you want an eye opener. Really, we have to show need before buying and using something that could kill us or someone else? Then how can alcohol be justified when about 3x more people die from alcohol related issues every year than firearms?

One in five deaths are attributed to tobacco use in the U.S. On the basis of what need does the government allow people to purchase tobacco when it kills more than 10x more people every year than firearms?

The idea that we should have to justify our dangerous/potentially dangerous purchases by proving that we need them is absolutely not the norm. Therefore it doesn't make sense to allow the conversation to start out based on the premise that it's reasonable to have to prove need to purchase something. Even something dangerous.

 

[speedrrracer]

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.

I disagree, as the premise is invalid. We can admit that antis will ask that question, but nothing more.

Muslims do not have to answer the premise, "Why does anyone need to be a muslim?" No American has to answer why they need to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. So, too, are we free from any premise wherein we must answer for our 2A protections.

In our court system it is the government who must show why they need a law which infringes on your civil rights.

If the anti would prefer to discuss why anyone might choose an AR -- that's an excellent topic for discussion, and nothing wrong with steering a topic in that direction, but to posit "need" is completely invalid.

Another topic that is good to discuss is changing the Constitution, so that some or all of the civil rights protections we now enjoy are eliminated. It's entirely valid, and demonstrably far more honest intellectually, to discuss repealing the 2A, and I encourage all hard-core antis to pursue that avenue.


oops, looks like John KSa beat me to it...sorry for the redundancy

 

[Machineguntony]

DaleA, I remembered a personal rule to keep my opinions to myself.

It doesn't mean that I don't support the good fight. I do what I can by being responsible, kind, and sharing.

 

[K_Mac]

This is why I enjoy discussing these things here. When I get a little carried away in my enthusiasm, one (or more) of y'all will certainly let me know if I have gone too far. Yes, need is absolutely the wrong word. Choose is better. I really don't think it changes the conversation much though. Our government is perfectly willing to take away our rights if it is popular to do so. There is little more sacred than being able to have a drink or two, yet we once changed the Constitution to make drinking illegal. A vocal and well organized movement is a powerful thing even in a constitutional republic. Women can vote. Gay folk can marry. If we can not articulate why having an AR is important to our very foundation, I fear it is only a matter of time before the 2A is defined to exclude them. It doesn't have to be repealed to be gutted.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

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.

All firearms are capable of destruction. That is why they have utility as weapons. And that really is the crux of the argument, as the same technology that makes the AR desirable: light recoil, accurate, excellent ergonomics, etc. are what the antis see as "such destruction."

Realistically though, any firearm is deadly and capable of great destruction if you are willing to adapt your tactics to the weapon. I'm sure any of us familiar with weapons can think of a dozen better tactics than Mateen's approach. In the end, arguing what kind of weapon you can give to a murderous psychopath to best mitigate the number of people he can kill in the three hours available to him is a fool's argument.

And the antis understand that argument better than some of the people in this thread appear to. In its more honest and direct days circa 1994, the WaPo even opined that the real purpose of the AWB was mainly a symbolic one and as a foothold to greater gun control.