6 ms·

Yes I agree. To focus on the AR-15 is peculiar. All semi-automatics should be banned.

jeffdavis 7y ago
Given that rifles are involved in such a small number of murders, why go to all the effort of including rifles in the ban? Seems like a big logistical challenge and you'd make a lot of your fellow citizens unhappy. If your proposal is to ban all semi-auto pistols (including from police) but allow all semi-auto rifles (without allowing state/local restrictions), you might get some traction. Such a plan would be better supported by numbers, better supported by the Constitution (which is talking about militia weapons), and more politically palatable (nobody will say "over my dead body" because they have to change their little gun for a big gun).
- ptcampbell 7y ago
  I'm not naive enough to think any ban would be easy, but the logistics aren't insurmountable. There has been a ban on assault weapons before. Eventually, there must be legislation to reduce access to military-style assault rifles such as those used in mass shootings.
  - jeffdavis 7y ago
    Why must there be? We are talking about small numbers of deaths and a large number of people who want (and/or currently own) rifles. Sometimes you just need to be practical and look at the numbers. Just because you don't want a rifle doesn't mean a ban has zero cost or that the cost is somehow not a valid one. Many of our fellow citizens want the freedom to own rifles and you should have some respect for that. The better case for gun control in every possible way is pistols. But nobody will ever budge on pistols if they sense that it's just a "first step" to confiscating rifles as well. The only way to get any kind of gun control is to earn trust by showing respect for ordinary citizens owning rifles, and from that point of respect you can make reasonable suggestions on pistols.
    - ptcampbell 7y ago
      I am not advocating a blanket ban on all guns. Rifles, sure. For hunting, sport, farming etc. But semi-automatic AR-15s have no place in a civil society. Preventing access to them seems like a sensible compromise, and it has been demonstrated to be effective in other countries. My friend's son had active-shooter training at school. He is six. That is an unacceptable situation.
robomartin 7y ago
> All semi-automatics should be banned My guess is this would not pass the constitutional test. Without being an attorney, I would think the question would be one of an interpretation of the second amendment in the context of the argument. That's where I am having trouble. What is the argument being made in the context of restricting a right? I know the intent or idea: If you can't fire at a rapid rate you can't hurt as many people per unit time. I get it. And this might be a solid argument. Yet I can see it having lots of holes when applied. An obvious one has to do with whether or not we can restrict criminals. The answer is obviously "no". This is where a lot of these things fall apart. If you can guarantee a society without weapons then everyone is comfortable not having any. Introduce asymmetry and the arms race begins. The other argument is one about unfairly punishing law-abiding citizens. I have presented this hypothetical in many conversations and nobody ever answers the question. It goes something like this: Suppose I have you a couple of handguns and assault rifles, all the ammunition you want and trained you in their use at a high level of proficiency. How long would it be until you take those weapons and shoot a bunch of innocent people? How long would it be if I threaten to harm your loved ones unless you do it? How long if I abduct a member of your family and threaten to harm them unless you do it? If the answers to these questions are "never", how is restricting access to any hardware make us safer? It does not. This is a software problem. Brains. Not hardware. If it were a matter of hardware you'd eventually become a mass murderer simply because I gave you firearms and trained you. Not the case. Which means focusing on the hardware is the wrong path. This is also the wrong path for a very different reason. Again, suppose I gave you all those guns, ammo and training. And 30 years later you haven't harmed anyone and never intend to. And then someone knocks on your door and says: You are a potential criminal because you own guns and therefore I am going to take some of your rights away. Anyone faced with such an accusation would think it is crazy, unfair, unjustified and plain wrong. Focusing on the hardware is seen by gun owners as that very scenario. They are being told they are criminals. They know they are not and never will be. This strikes a deep nerve that has nothing to do with firearms. It's like telling someone they are criminals just because they own a ski mask. Honest people don't like to be characterized that way. And, as a result, they will defend their right to not be deemed guilty for doing nothing. That's how the conversation stops and we never fix a thing. If everyone got on the same boat and we talked about dealing with the real root causes of violence and crime everyone would join in. Call half the country "criminals" and you get nowhere.

Given that rifles are involved in such a small number of murders, why go to all the effort of including rifles in the ban? Seems like a big logistical challenge and you'd make a lot of your fellow citizens unhappy. If your proposal is to ban all semi-auto pistols (including from police) but allow all semi-auto rifles (without allowing state/local restrictions), you might get some traction. Such a plan would be better supported by numbers, better supported by the Constitution (which is talking about militia weapons), and more politically palatable (nobody will say "over my dead body" because they have to change their little gun for a big gun).

ptcampbell 7y ago
I'm not naive enough to think any ban would be easy, but the logistics aren't insurmountable. There has been a ban on assault weapons before. Eventually, there must be legislation to reduce access to military-style assault rifles such as those used in mass shootings.
- jeffdavis 7y ago
  Why must there be? We are talking about small numbers of deaths and a large number of people who want (and/or currently own) rifles. Sometimes you just need to be practical and look at the numbers. Just because you don't want a rifle doesn't mean a ban has zero cost or that the cost is somehow not a valid one. Many of our fellow citizens want the freedom to own rifles and you should have some respect for that. The better case for gun control in every possible way is pistols. But nobody will ever budge on pistols if they sense that it's just a "first step" to confiscating rifles as well. The only way to get any kind of gun control is to earn trust by showing respect for ordinary citizens owning rifles, and from that point of respect you can make reasonable suggestions on pistols.
  - ptcampbell 7y ago
    I am not advocating a blanket ban on all guns. Rifles, sure. For hunting, sport, farming etc. But semi-automatic AR-15s have no place in a civil society. Preventing access to them seems like a sensible compromise, and it has been demonstrated to be effective in other countries. My friend's son had active-shooter training at school. He is six. That is an unacceptable situation.

robomartin 7y ago

> All semi-automatics should be banned My guess is this would not pass the constitutional test. Without being an attorney, I would think the question would be one of an interpretation of the second amendment in the context of the argument. That's where I am having trouble. What is the argument being made in the context of restricting a right? I know the intent or idea: If you can't fire at a rapid rate you can't hurt as many people per unit time. I get it. And this might be a solid argument. Yet I can see it having lots of holes when applied. An obvious one has to do with whether or not we can restrict criminals. The answer is obviously "no". This is where a lot of these things fall apart. If you can guarantee a society without weapons then everyone is comfortable not having any. Introduce asymmetry and the arms race begins. The other argument is one about unfairly punishing law-abiding citizens. I have presented this hypothetical in many conversations and nobody ever answers the question. It goes something like this: Suppose I have you a couple of handguns and assault rifles, all the ammunition you want and trained you in their use at a high level of proficiency. How long would it be until you take those weapons and shoot a bunch of innocent people? How long would it be if I threaten to harm your loved ones unless you do it? How long if I abduct a member of your family and threaten to harm them unless you do it? If the answers to these questions are "never", how is restricting access to any hardware make us safer? It does not. This is a software problem. Brains. Not hardware. If it were a matter of hardware you'd eventually become a mass murderer simply because I gave you firearms and trained you. Not the case. Which means focusing on the hardware is the wrong path. This is also the wrong path for a very different reason. Again, suppose I gave you all those guns, ammo and training. And 30 years later you haven't harmed anyone and never intend to. And then someone knocks on your door and says: You are a potential criminal because you own guns and therefore I am going to take some of your rights away. Anyone faced with such an accusation would think it is crazy, unfair, unjustified and plain wrong. Focusing on the hardware is seen by gun owners as that very scenario. They are being told they are criminals. They know they are not and never will be. This strikes a deep nerve that has nothing to do with firearms. It's like telling someone they are criminals just because they own a ski mask. Honest people don't like to be characterized that way. And, as a result, they will defend their right to not be deemed guilty for doing nothing. That's how the conversation stops and we never fix a thing. If everyone got on the same boat and we talked about dealing with the real root causes of violence and crime everyone would join in. Call half the country "criminals" and you get nowhere.