6 ms·

Author here: I consider responses like this a win, because if we're going to talk blanket bans then the discussion should really be about whether or not anyone

Author here: I consider responses like this a win, because if we're going to talk blanket bans then the discussion should really be about whether or not anyone needs a semi-auto weapon. If we moved the gun ban debate from "AR-15" or "assault rifle" to "semi-auto weapon of any kind", that would represent a step in the direction of sanity. I personally would prefer to forget about the "what" and focus entirely on the "who", but more on that another day.

avn2109 10y ago
It is surprising that nobody in this thread has mentioned what I thought was the most widely-acknowledged argument in favor of firearms ownership in the United States. In my (rural, libertarian-leaning) home state, firearms owners often explicitly cite some variant of "capacity to resist totalitarianism" or "to defend the American people's liberty against the government" as reasons for having guns. If, like me, you regard the encroachment of an unconstitutional American surveillance/police state as the primary threat to the way of life and values of the American people, this is a strong argument indeed. In fact I would like to see heavier, more military-flavored weapons proliferate for just this reason, especially since there are diminishing marginal returns for some types of arms escalation. E.g. armor piercing anti-tank weapons or surface-to-air weapons designed for hunting helicopters are not any more useful for shooting up a school than light guns chambered for NATO 7.62. But they have vastly different deterrent effects for a state actor contemplating violence against the populace. You might argue that this is stupid because if the situation ever devolves to the point of violent oppression, they will just drone strike dissidents' houses invisibly from the sky. But I like to think the main effect of an armed, freedom-loving population is to deter the country's leadership from instituting that level of violent oppression in the first place.
- erichocean 10y ago
  > In my (rural, libertarian-leaning) home state, firearms owners often explicitly cite some variant of "capacity to resist totalitarianism" or "to defend the American people's liberty against the government" as reasons for having guns. That's because the individuals who wrote the US constitution gave exactly that justification—though people (of course) argue whether or not it is still relevant. From my perspective, the 1st amendment had a similar justification, so if you really don't buy that _guns_ can keep the gov't in check in any kind of realistic way, clinging to "free speech" as something we absolutely need—for the exact same reason—rings hollow; it doesn't seem like a principled position to me to reject one and embrace the other.
  - loukrazy 10y ago
    I definitely do not agree that the first and second amendment have similar functions. In practice it is the restriction on free speech that is a much more effective and pernicious way of controlling a population. If you have a heavily armed population, that does not dissuade a repressive government from attacking you, it just gets more and more people killed- see Syria.
    - erichocean 10y ago
      > If you have a heavily armed population, that does not dissuade a repressive government from attacking you, it just gets more and more people killed- see Syria. Syria is a great example—for the exact opposite belief that a lack of guns is a terrible way to deal with a repressive regime, and will get you and your family killed. Syrians are NOT "heavily armed", not even close. Syria is ranked 110th out of all countries in terms of "number of guns per capita".[0] USA has 28.8x (!) as many guns per person as Syria. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_c...
  - hackuser 10y ago
    >> In my (rural, libertarian-leaning) home state, firearms owners often explicitly cite some variant of "capacity to resist totalitarianism" or "to defend the American people's liberty against the government" as reasons for having guns. > That's because the individuals who wrote the US constitution gave exactly that justification The only explanation they gave was "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State". It's a bit ambiguous, despite attempts to insist otherwise.
    - tracker1 10y ago
      But you only need to look at the first militia act to see that by "militia" they mean every able bodied man of age, and they should have a firearm of their own.
      - gonvaled 10y ago
- tracker1 10y ago
  By the same note, I don't see a handgun as being particularly less destructive in this instance... non-hollowpoint ammo fired into a crowd is more dangerous than full-jacket bullets... more deadly to those hit, but less to the people behind them. For me it's all about personal freedom. And since most people think the police and military are the only ones that should be allowed guns... I can't think of a reason, outside military training, that anyone in the police or military should have a gun that doesn't apply to someone being attacked in their own home.
jccloud 10y ago
One of the problems with weapons in the AR 15 class is that they are very commonly converted to fully automatic. I cannot say if any recent mass shooting has featured such a gun, but a few of the Bundy militants in NV/OR were cited for possession of them, or bragged about possessing them on social media and forums. Perhaps I just live in an unfortunate part of Texas, but I know a number of people who have performed the mod on theirs… and frankly, among the people I know, these were already there people I was last comfortable knowing owned any firearms at all...
- novembermike 10y ago
  Is this a real issue? I can't think of any mass shootings where a rifle was illegally modified to be full auto.
  - jonstokes 10y ago
    You are correct. Nobody is getting gunned down by full auto here in the US. Now, some terrorist yahoo may yet change that before I'm done typing this reply, but as of now the number of people who've been killed by civilian full auto fire since the NFA ban is in the low single digits last I checked.
    - tracker1 10y ago
      Even then, they could just as easily be brought in through mexico or other means as conversion of other arms here.
- LyndsySimon 10y ago
  > One of the problems with weapons in the AR 15 class is that they are very commonly converted to fully automatic. Citation, please? I'm not aware of ANY AR-15 being converted to automatic and being used in a mass shooting. In fact, outside of a handful of "militia types", I can't think of any at all. The closest thing off the top of my head would be the West Hollywood Shootout back in the 90s, but I believe they used illegally-converted AKs, not ARs. > Perhaps I just live in an unfortunate part of Texas, but I know a number of people who have performed the mod on theirs… and frankly, among the people I know, these were already there people I was last comfortable knowing owned any firearms at all... You know a number of people who have committed a federal felony? I'm a huge gun nut and have literally hundreds of friends with large gun collections and know of no one who has manufactured an illegal machinegun. I guess you run with a rougher crowd...
simplexion 10y ago
"Also, yes, I’m sure your gun-penis is very large. Here’s a cookie…" ~Jon Stokes
- DefaultUserHN 10y ago
  Please don't discriminate against men with small penises. Men with small penises has every right to own guns as men with large penises too.

avn2109 10y ago

It is surprising that nobody in this thread has mentioned what I thought was the most widely-acknowledged argument in favor of firearms ownership in the United States. In my (rural, libertarian-leaning) home state, firearms owners often explicitly cite some variant of "capacity to resist totalitarianism" or "to defend the American people's liberty against the government" as reasons for having guns. If, like me, you regard the encroachment of an unconstitutional American surveillance/police state as the primary threat to the way of life and values of the American people, this is a strong argument indeed. In fact I would like to see heavier, more military-flavored weapons proliferate for just this reason, especially since there are diminishing marginal returns for some types of arms escalation. E.g. armor piercing anti-tank weapons or surface-to-air weapons designed for hunting helicopters are not any more useful for shooting up a school than light guns chambered for NATO 7.62. But they have vastly different deterrent effects for a state actor contemplating violence against the populace. You might argue that this is stupid because if the situation ever devolves to the point of violent oppression, they will just drone strike dissidents' houses invisibly from the sky. But I like to think the main effect of an armed, freedom-loving population is to deter the country's leadership from instituting that level of violent oppression in the first place.

erichocean 10y ago
> In my (rural, libertarian-leaning) home state, firearms owners often explicitly cite some variant of "capacity to resist totalitarianism" or "to defend the American people's liberty against the government" as reasons for having guns. That's because the individuals who wrote the US constitution gave exactly that justification—though people (of course) argue whether or not it is still relevant. From my perspective, the 1st amendment had a similar justification, so if you really don't buy that _guns_ can keep the gov't in check in any kind of realistic way, clinging to "free speech" as something we absolutely need—for the exact same reason—rings hollow; it doesn't seem like a principled position to me to reject one and embrace the other.
- loukrazy 10y ago
  I definitely do not agree that the first and second amendment have similar functions. In practice it is the restriction on free speech that is a much more effective and pernicious way of controlling a population. If you have a heavily armed population, that does not dissuade a repressive government from attacking you, it just gets more and more people killed- see Syria.
  - erichocean 10y ago
    > If you have a heavily armed population, that does not dissuade a repressive government from attacking you, it just gets more and more people killed- see Syria. Syria is a great example—for the exact opposite belief that a lack of guns is a terrible way to deal with a repressive regime, and will get you and your family killed. Syrians are NOT "heavily armed", not even close. Syria is ranked 110th out of all countries in terms of "number of guns per capita".[0] USA has 28.8x (!) as many guns per person as Syria. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_c...
- hackuser 10y ago
  >> In my (rural, libertarian-leaning) home state, firearms owners often explicitly cite some variant of "capacity to resist totalitarianism" or "to defend the American people's liberty against the government" as reasons for having guns. > That's because the individuals who wrote the US constitution gave exactly that justification The only explanation they gave was "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State". It's a bit ambiguous, despite attempts to insist otherwise.
  - tracker1 10y ago
    But you only need to look at the first militia act to see that by "militia" they mean every able bodied man of age, and they should have a firearm of their own.
    - gonvaled 10y ago
tracker1 10y ago
By the same note, I don't see a handgun as being particularly less destructive in this instance... non-hollowpoint ammo fired into a crowd is more dangerous than full-jacket bullets... more deadly to those hit, but less to the people behind them. For me it's all about personal freedom. And since most people think the police and military are the only ones that should be allowed guns... I can't think of a reason, outside military training, that anyone in the police or military should have a gun that doesn't apply to someone being attacked in their own home.

jccloud 10y ago

One of the problems with weapons in the AR 15 class is that they are very commonly converted to fully automatic. I cannot say if any recent mass shooting has featured such a gun, but a few of the Bundy militants in NV/OR were cited for possession of them, or bragged about possessing them on social media and forums. Perhaps I just live in an unfortunate part of Texas, but I know a number of people who have performed the mod on theirs… and frankly, among the people I know, these were already there people I was last comfortable knowing owned any firearms at all...

novembermike 10y ago
Is this a real issue? I can't think of any mass shootings where a rifle was illegally modified to be full auto.
- jonstokes 10y ago
  You are correct. Nobody is getting gunned down by full auto here in the US. Now, some terrorist yahoo may yet change that before I'm done typing this reply, but as of now the number of people who've been killed by civilian full auto fire since the NFA ban is in the low single digits last I checked.
  - tracker1 10y ago
    Even then, they could just as easily be brought in through mexico or other means as conversion of other arms here.
LyndsySimon 10y ago
> One of the problems with weapons in the AR 15 class is that they are very commonly converted to fully automatic. Citation, please? I'm not aware of ANY AR-15 being converted to automatic and being used in a mass shooting. In fact, outside of a handful of "militia types", I can't think of any at all. The closest thing off the top of my head would be the West Hollywood Shootout back in the 90s, but I believe they used illegally-converted AKs, not ARs. > Perhaps I just live in an unfortunate part of Texas, but I know a number of people who have performed the mod on theirs… and frankly, among the people I know, these were already there people I was last comfortable knowing owned any firearms at all... You know a number of people who have committed a federal felony? I'm a huge gun nut and have literally hundreds of friends with large gun collections and know of no one who has manufactured an illegal machinegun. I guess you run with a rougher crowd...

simplexion 10y ago

"Also, yes, I’m sure your gun-penis is very large. Here’s a cookie…" ~Jon Stokes

DefaultUserHN 10y ago
Please don't discriminate against men with small penises. Men with small penises has every right to own guns as men with large penises too.