4 ms·

Well if they have a guy available with a machine gun, sometimes you have to improvise, so its nice to have the option. There are cases where a machine gun isn't

by surge 7y ago

Well if they have a guy available with a machine gun, sometimes you have to improvise, so its nice to have the option. There are cases where a machine gun isn't in position to provide suppressing fire, or the guy with it got taken out, etc. It's besides the point, but yes I concede that its not ideal to use for that purpose. My arguments, just mean we agree more than we disagree. We just disagree how it should be handled. Again, I argue there's nothing about a M-16 set with the switch spot welded to single fire mode that is any different from a hunting rifle when it comes to features and capability, which is what an AR-15 kind of is. So you can't make just an AR-15 illegal without doing any significant progress towards removing the actual danger posed by them, or just converting mass shooters to using pistols (as a few mass shooters have done so anyway) or another semi-automatic hunting rifle. My point is when it comes to legal policy, what are you saying can't be sold to civilians exactly? Someone will just buy a different brand, or they'll modify the patent slightly so its no longer "an AR-15". I updated my last post to include the law I would write more or less if I did have to say, take AR-15's off the table as an option for anyone to just buy whenever they wanted. But it includes all semi-automatic rifles, not just "military rifles". I think we agree on the facts of an AR-15, but disagree fundamentally on what to do with those facts. I think banning AR-15's would be one of those laws that buy political points but don't actually address the problem in a way that doesn't punish or hamper law abiding citizens and more importantly actually make us safer in any practical sense, so its a purely negative tradeoff. And if you're going to go through the time and effort, find away to address the biggest problems first (gun violence in general which is hand guns, and addressing the underlying causes of violence) then hyper focusing on one gun. It's like banning plastic straws, when most of the plastic waste in the ocean is being dumped overseas and plastic straws are at least recyclable where as the case with McD's who recycled their plastic straw waste their recycler wasn't equipped to recycle the paper ones. Its a law that does more to make people feel/look good then address the very serious issue in any significant way.

tptacek 7y ago
Read hunter forums debating MSRs vs. bolt-action rifles. You'll have no trouble finding hunters certain that MSRs are overtaking traditional hunting rifles simply because they appeal to undisciplined, unserious weekend warriors who are drawn to their military look-and-feel, and that arms manufacturers feed into that because traditional hunting rifles also last forever and the industry needs people to get on a continuous upgrade cycle. You haven't seen me anywhere advocate that we ban anything, let alone a particular semi-automatic weapon by name; in fact, the root of this long subthread is a comment from me saying the exact opposite thing, that wood-stock ranch rifles pose exactly the same problems as black rifles. What I have a problem with is the faux superiority gun maximalists dress their arguments in, along with a culture that elevates a simple machine designed to be serviced by teenagers outdoors in the rain into a solemn, secret brotherhood, as if being able to remove the fire group from an AR-15 meant these putzes had the mechanical aptitude to swap out a car transmission or even replace a hot water heater. The technical details behind assault weapons are far more learnable than almost any other technical issue we regulate without issue. I stated my policy preference elsewhere on the thread: give up on national firearms policy, back down on the maximalist Heller interpretation that says MSRs are off the table for state regulation, and allow states to license (on a presumption of must-issue basis) all semi-automatic long guns if that's what their citizens decide they want to do.
- surge 7y ago
  No I liken an AR-15 to a Honda Civic. It's just a car, but you can modify them into some kind of Fast and Furious drift racing machine. So you can buy an AR-15 for $500 and upgrade it to a very nice $3000 rifle. But that doesn't change that the Honda Civic is a solid vehicle, accessible for its cost, and is something you can start out with at minimal cost and customize to your liking if you get really into it. Or the Toyota Hilux even. But law/policy wise, there's nothing practical you can say this is bad and makes it more lethal than another gun. It's just more likely to be the kind of gun an idiot would buy, which is the kind of person whose going to get angry at the world and go kill innocents, it'd just be another gun if you took that one off the market, because its going to be which ever gun is more popular with the casual person. If you're serious about hunting, you'd get a bolt action, for the reasons described, because you want your first shot to be your only shot. I agree on the weekend warrior thing. But that's why I honestly think while guns are a right, because history teaches that eventually people need to defend themselves. But they're also a responsibility, and places like Switzerland or people who are trained in the responsibility aspect of gun ownership are what you want.
  - tptacek 7y ago
    You've just read a whole thread of two people explaining to you why an AR-15 is more lethal than handguns.
    - surge 7y ago
      On paper or in reality, because the deaths by rifles total is < 400 a year? My point is that any rifle, especially the larger caliber ones are more lethal than handguns, so the AR-15 isn't that special for a rifle in terms of lethality, all rifles are more lethal than handguns on paper. When you access risk, likelihood is a factor, you mitigate for risks that have a higher likelihood. If I'm worried about protection from being killed I'm more worried about a drunk driver than a meteorite even tho the meteor has a higher lethality. Handguns are lethal enough you get shot by one, the survival rate isn't significantly higher than a rifle especially considering you're statistically more likely to be shot by one. Stabbings tend to be more lethal than either, but and there are more people stabbed then shot by rifle (~1500-3000 in US per year), certainly more the case overseas. Missing forest for the trees. Are we just being pedantic here? What are you arguing or is the point of argument if you don't want to ban guns or ban the AR-15 or military style weapons specifically? If you're arguing it just to argue I honestly don't see how that's constructive. I'm discussing this in the context of gun violence, in the context of the media hyper focusing on military style rifles when they're not the major cause of deaths, even in mass shootings (which are just as often or more often pistols).

by surge 7y ago

tptacek 7y ago

Read hunter forums debating MSRs vs. bolt-action rifles. You'll have no trouble finding hunters certain that MSRs are overtaking traditional hunting rifles simply because they appeal to undisciplined, unserious weekend warriors who are drawn to their military look-and-feel, and that arms manufacturers feed into that because traditional hunting rifles also last forever and the industry needs people to get on a continuous upgrade cycle. You haven't seen me anywhere advocate that we ban anything, let alone a particular semi-automatic weapon by name; in fact, the root of this long subthread is a comment from me saying the exact opposite thing, that wood-stock ranch rifles pose exactly the same problems as black rifles. What I have a problem with is the faux superiority gun maximalists dress their arguments in, along with a culture that elevates a simple machine designed to be serviced by teenagers outdoors in the rain into a solemn, secret brotherhood, as if being able to remove the fire group from an AR-15 meant these putzes had the mechanical aptitude to swap out a car transmission or even replace a hot water heater. The technical details behind assault weapons are far more learnable than almost any other technical issue we regulate without issue. I stated my policy preference elsewhere on the thread: give up on national firearms policy, back down on the maximalist Heller interpretation that says MSRs are off the table for state regulation, and allow states to license (on a presumption of must-issue basis) all semi-automatic long guns if that's what their citizens decide they want to do.

surge 7y ago
No I liken an AR-15 to a Honda Civic. It's just a car, but you can modify them into some kind of Fast and Furious drift racing machine. So you can buy an AR-15 for $500 and upgrade it to a very nice $3000 rifle. But that doesn't change that the Honda Civic is a solid vehicle, accessible for its cost, and is something you can start out with at minimal cost and customize to your liking if you get really into it. Or the Toyota Hilux even. But law/policy wise, there's nothing practical you can say this is bad and makes it more lethal than another gun. It's just more likely to be the kind of gun an idiot would buy, which is the kind of person whose going to get angry at the world and go kill innocents, it'd just be another gun if you took that one off the market, because its going to be which ever gun is more popular with the casual person. If you're serious about hunting, you'd get a bolt action, for the reasons described, because you want your first shot to be your only shot. I agree on the weekend warrior thing. But that's why I honestly think while guns are a right, because history teaches that eventually people need to defend themselves. But they're also a responsibility, and places like Switzerland or people who are trained in the responsibility aspect of gun ownership are what you want.
- tptacek 7y ago
  You've just read a whole thread of two people explaining to you why an AR-15 is more lethal than handguns.
  - surge 7y ago
    On paper or in reality, because the deaths by rifles total is < 400 a year? My point is that any rifle, especially the larger caliber ones are more lethal than handguns, so the AR-15 isn't that special for a rifle in terms of lethality, all rifles are more lethal than handguns on paper. When you access risk, likelihood is a factor, you mitigate for risks that have a higher likelihood. If I'm worried about protection from being killed I'm more worried about a drunk driver than a meteorite even tho the meteor has a higher lethality. Handguns are lethal enough you get shot by one, the survival rate isn't significantly higher than a rifle especially considering you're statistically more likely to be shot by one. Stabbings tend to be more lethal than either, but and there are more people stabbed then shot by rifle (~1500-3000 in US per year), certainly more the case overseas. Missing forest for the trees. Are we just being pedantic here? What are you arguing or is the point of argument if you don't want to ban guns or ban the AR-15 or military style weapons specifically? If you're arguing it just to argue I honestly don't see how that's constructive. I'm discussing this in the context of gun violence, in the context of the media hyper focusing on military style rifles when they're not the major cause of deaths, even in mass shootings (which are just as often or more often pistols).