7 ms·

So far I am not aware of any reason for young people in residential neighborhoods in the United States to have what are called "assault rifles" for legitimate p

So far I am not aware of any reason for young people in residential neighborhoods in the United States to have what are called "assault rifles" for legitimate purposes, and I certainly would be glad to know that none are in my (crime-free) neighborhood. By "assault rifles" do you mean the colloquial definition of black semi-automatic firearms with pistol grips and detachable magazines? Or the technically accurate definition of select-fire automatic weapons, which this alleged killer's ar-15 was allegedly not? There is very little functional difference between the ar-15 rifle used in this crime and rifles commonly used to hunt, other than hunting rifles for medium and large game are usually larger caliber and therefore usually more lethal. Hunting laws prohibit use of higher capacity magazines in some situations. However, proper accuracy usually makes reloading time a minor factor in how quickly one can go through 100 or 200 rounds. If you make lunatics like this focus on accuracy rather than letting them think they're all set because they can show up with a drum magazine, more people would probably die or have life-threatening injuries, even if fewer people are hit. The drum magazine used probably contributed to the shooter's S&W AR-15 jamming, possibly saving lives. They are not the most reliable magazines. There are owners of assault rifles (in the colloquial sense, and possibly in the true sense) in my relatively safe neighborhood, and it does not concern me in the least. As far as your reference to "young people", I take it that you want to create yet another age restriction, beyond the 16 years necessary to get a license, 18 necessary to vote and serve in the military, and 21 necessary to drink and buy a handgun from a FFL? 24 year olds are now not trustworthy? What age limit would you propose? 30? 35? Can someone be old enough to serve in the Senate or as President and still not be trusted with a rifle? Anders Breivik was 32.

csense 14y ago
Where in the USA can you hunt rhinos?
- harshreality 14y ago
  You don't use 5.56mm nato for deer either. The point was suitability (for hunting) and relative "power" or "lethality" (as much as I hate those terms because they incite caliber wars) of the rifle Holmes used compared to what is typically used for hunting. Typical hunting calibers for medium and large game (regardless of whether the hunt is in the U.S. or Africa) are .308 or .30-06 on up. Some specialized .2xx calibers might work, but run higher risk of causing more cruelty to the animal (by not being sufficiently lethal). That's why hunting laws tend to dictate calibers, not because banned calibers are too lethal but because they're not lethal enough. Even .308 (7.62mm nato) is commonly eschewed for large game. Anyone talking about a .223 rifle as high-powered or particularly dangerous relative to common hunting rifle calibers really has no idea what they are talking about.
  - lancefisher 14y ago
    I used a .270 for years hunting deer and elk. I can assure you they are effective for distances up to 400 yards. Also, read about Jack O'Conner who was a proponent of the .270 for hunting. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_OConnor_(American_writer) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_OConnor_(American_writer)
    - grecy 14y ago
      I don't doubt the .270 is very capable. Here in the Yukon, it illegal to use anything less than 300 caliber for Bison.
tokenadult 14y ago
For concreteness, is there any credible argument that the restrictions on gun availability that were put in place after the shooting incident in Australia in 1996 (which has not been repeated) have in any way reduced the freedom of citizens and residents of Australia? I know a lot of Australians, and they are very freedom-loving people, and I think if gun laws in Australia are different from how they are in the United States, one reason is that Australians like to be free of being shot to death by crazy people in public places.
- harshreality 14y ago
  These bad actors are so rare that pointing to lack of an event in 16 years in Australia (population less than 1/10 that of the U.S.) does not mean very much. There was a lesser event in 2002 in Australia: the Monash University shooting. [1] The freedom to use firearms for sport or self defense is lost. Some people value that freedom more than you do. Aren't there still exceptions in Australia for members of gun clubs and for people who can demonstrate need for weapons (specifically, let's say in the outback)? What will your response be if one of them loses touch with reality and shoots people? Gun ownership and availability may or may not actually lead to more deaths in mass killing events. China has strict gun control. What happens when people go crazy in China? Mass killing via tractor (17 dead, 20 injured). [2] Crazy people intent on mass murder find ways to kill people. I don't know how to prevent that without taking away their sentience. There are plenty of other incidents [3] with higher death and injury tolls than this latest one. Arson, bombings, poison plots... People are under increased social stress due to economics, perceived lack of bona fide political representation, among other things. Most people just complain to their friends or on reddit when they're frustrated. Very few people suffer a break from reality and go on a rampage, but unfortunately some do. It is not obvious that banning guns, if such a thing could even be done in the U.S. (it cannot be, without many more of these events) will substantially reduce death tolls, serious injuries, or numbers of mass-killing events. Taking a page from Schneier's terrorist plot survey years ago, how many people would die do you think if some lunatic set about methodically trying to disrupt the power grid, in the middle of summer? There are ways to kill lots of people without using guns, some more direct and gruesome than others, but all quite lethal. Most of the people moaning about how these things wouldn't happen if not for guns seem to forget that. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monash_University_shooting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monash_University_shooting [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebei_tractor_rampage http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebei_tractor_rampage [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rampage_killers#Other_notable_incidents http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rampage_killers#Other_n...
jdhopeunique 14y ago
My girlfriend's younger brother was in the marines. He had to get his older sister to buy ammunition because he couldn't despite handling far more deadly firearms in the military.

csense 14y ago

Where in the USA can you hunt rhinos?

harshreality 14y ago
You don't use 5.56mm nato for deer either. The point was suitability (for hunting) and relative "power" or "lethality" (as much as I hate those terms because they incite caliber wars) of the rifle Holmes used compared to what is typically used for hunting. Typical hunting calibers for medium and large game (regardless of whether the hunt is in the U.S. or Africa) are .308 or .30-06 on up. Some specialized .2xx calibers might work, but run higher risk of causing more cruelty to the animal (by not being sufficiently lethal). That's why hunting laws tend to dictate calibers, not because banned calibers are too lethal but because they're not lethal enough. Even .308 (7.62mm nato) is commonly eschewed for large game. Anyone talking about a .223 rifle as high-powered or particularly dangerous relative to common hunting rifle calibers really has no idea what they are talking about.
- lancefisher 14y ago
  I used a .270 for years hunting deer and elk. I can assure you they are effective for distances up to 400 yards. Also, read about Jack O'Conner who was a proponent of the .270 for hunting. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_OConnor_(American_writer) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_OConnor_(American_writer)
  - grecy 14y ago
    I don't doubt the .270 is very capable. Here in the Yukon, it illegal to use anything less than 300 caliber for Bison.

tokenadult 14y ago

For concreteness, is there any credible argument that the restrictions on gun availability that were put in place after the shooting incident in Australia in 1996 (which has not been repeated) have in any way reduced the freedom of citizens and residents of Australia? I know a lot of Australians, and they are very freedom-loving people, and I think if gun laws in Australia are different from how they are in the United States, one reason is that Australians like to be free of being shot to death by crazy people in public places.

harshreality 14y ago
These bad actors are so rare that pointing to lack of an event in 16 years in Australia (population less than 1/10 that of the U.S.) does not mean very much. There was a lesser event in 2002 in Australia: the Monash University shooting. [1] The freedom to use firearms for sport or self defense is lost. Some people value that freedom more than you do. Aren't there still exceptions in Australia for members of gun clubs and for people who can demonstrate need for weapons (specifically, let's say in the outback)? What will your response be if one of them loses touch with reality and shoots people? Gun ownership and availability may or may not actually lead to more deaths in mass killing events. China has strict gun control. What happens when people go crazy in China? Mass killing via tractor (17 dead, 20 injured). [2] Crazy people intent on mass murder find ways to kill people. I don't know how to prevent that without taking away their sentience. There are plenty of other incidents [3] with higher death and injury tolls than this latest one. Arson, bombings, poison plots... People are under increased social stress due to economics, perceived lack of bona fide political representation, among other things. Most people just complain to their friends or on reddit when they're frustrated. Very few people suffer a break from reality and go on a rampage, but unfortunately some do. It is not obvious that banning guns, if such a thing could even be done in the U.S. (it cannot be, without many more of these events) will substantially reduce death tolls, serious injuries, or numbers of mass-killing events. Taking a page from Schneier's terrorist plot survey years ago, how many people would die do you think if some lunatic set about methodically trying to disrupt the power grid, in the middle of summer? There are ways to kill lots of people without using guns, some more direct and gruesome than others, but all quite lethal. Most of the people moaning about how these things wouldn't happen if not for guns seem to forget that. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monash_University_shooting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monash_University_shooting [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebei_tractor_rampage http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebei_tractor_rampage [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rampage_killers#Other_notable_incidents http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rampage_killers#Other_n...

jdhopeunique 14y ago

My girlfriend's younger brother was in the marines. He had to get his older sister to buy ammunition because he couldn't despite handling far more deadly firearms in the military.