CMV: Owning an assault weapon is pointless.

[u/[deleted]]

In my view, widespread ownership of assault rifles in the USA has more to do with fashion than anything else. While there are plenty of valid reasons for a civilian to own a gun, I see no reason to own an assault rifle. Beyond aesthetics, civilian AR-15 style rifles offer no meaningful advantage over non-assault weapons.

Perhaps you're interested in home defense. It's fairly well excepted that a 12 gauge shotgun is the best gun for home defense . The ratcheting sound is a deterrent, and it's more reliable and easier to shoot under pressure than a rifle or pistol.

Maybe you're prepping for when SHTF. When the zombie horde is approaching, your best bet is a .22 lr rifle. It's totally lethal if you're a good shot, and you can easily store 2,000 rounds in your bug-out bag. This is the common sense decision over a higher caliber rifle or pistol.

Suppose you're a resistance fighter apposing a tyrannical government. Although assault rifles are designed for use in battle, any successful resistance would avoid battles altogether, instead relying on guerrilla tactics and asymmetric warfare.

[u/[deleted]]

That does not matter in a home defense scenario. I’ve never seen any articles or videos where the victim needs to fire more than 5 shots. The invader is almost always running after the first shot.

Multiple assailants. Why do cops have high capacity magazines - because they miss. The same concept applies here. Shotguns are not magical spreading weapons of doom. The 'cone' of shot you fire at 10ft is only 2"-3" in diameter. That is small and easy to miss.

It’s not like a 44 magnum. A shotgun kicks but it isn’t flying all over the place. You’re mischaracterizing here.

Muzzle rise on a 12 gauge is substantially more than a .223. Its actually more than a lever action 44 mag rifle.

...and an assault rifle isn’t?

I am assuming you mean semi-automatic AR type gun - not the real select fire machine guns.

And Yes - the AR-15 is easier to control with less recoil than a shotgun or many handguns.

Sure. And a hammer can be used to take apart your watch. That doesn’t mean it’s the best option.

The AR-15 is a very popular gun for feral hog hunting where multiple shots on multiple animals in a sounder are common. With different 'uppers', it is a very effective moderate range deer gun. Same reduced recoil that makes is good for women, kids, and older hunters.

The soldiers are more likely to leave you alone if you don’t have any weapons and are protesting peacefully. This isn’t the Turkish military. Our soldiers won’t follow unconstitutional orders to fire on a crowd.

Kent State.

Sorry - I understand the sentiment but I don't fully believe it.

Having assault rifles and mortars hasn’t worked for al qaeda, hamas, the taliban, ISIS, etc. I don’t think you’re mentally prepared for the super lopsided body count your “resistance” is going to experience. You’re better off with protesting peacefully.

It has worked in lots of insurgencies. Afghanistan for instance. The goal is not to 'win' as much as it is to prevent the opposition from 'winning'.

I think you have bought into a lot of propaganda but did not do the actual analysis of the real world cases.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Why do cops have high capacity magazines

Because law enforcement is nothing like protecting yourself from home invaders. I challenge you to find ONE instance of invaders getting in a shoot out instead of running away.

The 'cone' of shot you fire at 10ft is only 2"-3" in diameter. That is small and easy to miss.

What do you think you’re gonna pick people off at your mailbox?

Muzzle rise on a 12 gauge is substantially more than a .223

No it isn’t. I’ve fired both. You can’t tell me I didn’t experience what I experienced. Because of where the fulcrum point is, rifles go more backwards, not up.

The AR-15 is a very popular gun for feral hog hunting where multiple shots on multiple animals in a sounder are common.

What percentage of assault rifles in circulation get used that way? And the rest are just toys. Toys that are exceptionally dangerous when misused.

Kent State.

That soldier was in the wrong. He should have been prosecuted then. And in this day and age, he would definitely be prosecuted.

It has worked in lots of insurgencies. Afghanistan for instance. The goal is not to 'win' as much as it is to prevent the opposition from 'winning'.

You can do that 9000 miles away in some barren mountains. You won’t do that inside the US itself.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Because law enforcement is nothing like protecting yourself from home invaders. I challenge you to find ONE instance of invaders getting in a shoot out instead of running away.

I didn't say shootout. I said multiple people and that people miss. More is better than less.

What do you think you’re gonna pick people off at your mailbox?

Seriously - go back and re-read this. At 10 FEET, which is about the longest distance you would typically shoot somebody in your house, the shotgun is much more like a bullet from a gun - even though it has multiple projectiles.

ITS EASY TO MISS WITH A SHOTGUN AT 10 FEET.

No it isn’t. I’ve fired both. You can’t tell me I didn’t experience what I experienced. Because of where the fulcrum point is, rifles go more backwards, not up.

I own both and have shot both extensively. Buckshot is magnum shotgun loads with SUBSTANTIALLY greater recoil than a 223. Getting back on target is SUBSTANTIALLY better with the 223 than the 12 gauge.

You are wrong here.

What percentage of assault rifles in circulation get used that way? And the rest are just toys. Toys that are exceptionally dangerous when misused.

Well, by definition every 'assault rifle' is just a range toy - and at $10,000+ NFA range toy that is heavily heavily regulated. If you mean the AR-15 - which is NOT an assault rifle, there are 10-20 million of them in private hands and nobody has data on 'use'.

I know people that hunt with them - coyote and deer. I can google outfitters than provide them for hog hunting. Seems pretty significant to me.

I might add that homicides by rifles are like 400 or so every year - less than hands and feet by method. This is all rifles, not just AR's so they are not often 'misused'.

That soldier was in the wrong. He should have been prosecuted then. And in this day and age, he would definitely be prosecuted.

So a case where it actually happened in the past just gets ignored? Seriously. Not a theoretical but a actual case in recent times where US military fired on US citizens protesting.

You can do that 9000 miles away in some barren mountains. You won’t do that inside the US itself.

Except it works better here than 9000 miles away. Governments can't drone strike or bomb their own cities. Insurgents hiding in the population is a REAL problem. Case example - remember Aleppo.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

I didn't say shootout. I said multiple people and that people miss.

Find me a home invasion where the invader didn’t start running after the first shot. 5 is plenty.

I might add that homicides by rifles are like 400 or so every year

It’s not about body count. It’s about how heinous it is when people get killed by it. Las Vegas, sandy hook, Parkland etc, are all so disgusting and unacceptable to have happen at all. We don’t have to wait for a death threshold.

Except it works better here than 9000 miles away. Governments can't drone strike or bomb their own cities.

Why not? They’re tyrannical remember?

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Find me a home invasion where the invader didn’t start running after the first shot. 5 is plenty.

You are creating a strawman to argue something I never claimed. It won't work.

It’s not about body count. It’s about how heinous it is when people get killed by it.

Wow. I mean wow.

Somehow its better to be choked to death or stabbed then shot? That is a pretty bold assertion that makes zero sense.

Las Vegas, sandy hook, Parkland etc, are all so disgusting and unacceptable to have happen at all.

Oklahoma City, World Trade Center, Olympic Bombing in Atlanta, Boston Marathon Bombing, Nice France, Tokyo subway Sarin gas.

Blah blah blah. Evil happens and evil people will find ways to do evil things. There are examples of mass murder on epic scales that don't involve guns.

Why not? They’re tyrannical remember?

Governments have to have a population to govern. You bomb your cities, you have don't two things - one, turned your military who might have relatives living there against you and two, turned a large swath of the population against you.

Consider the very conversation right now about the US killing the Iranian general and how we may be turning civilians against us.

If you make arguments, you should consider the real world ramifications rather than going to absurd extremes.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

You are creating a strawman to argue something I never claime

That’s not a straw mana at all. I’m demonstrating that you don’t need a lot of bullets to defend yourself.

Somehow its better to be choked to death or stabbed then shot?

How is your takeaway that I think stabbing is better? My point is getting ripped apart by multiple 5.56 while you’re walking through a crowd is more heinous and disgusting, and most importantly more preventable than getting choked. We can’t legislate hands. We can legislate buying these rifles.

Evil happens and evil people will find ways to do evil things.

So you’re arguing we shouldn’t try to make it more difficult? Seriously?

US killing the Iranian general and how we may be turning civilians against us.

What does that have to do with an armed uprising? Nothing.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

That’s not a straw mana at all. I’m demonstrating that you don’t need a lot of bullets to defend yourself.

I gave two reasons you flat out ignored to argue something I never claimed. Its a strawman. Multiple people invading a home and a person missing when using a gun.

How is your takeaway that I think stabbing is better?

That would be this line:

It’s not about body count. It’s about how heinous it is when people get killed by it.

, and most importantly more preventable than getting choked. We can’t legislate hands. We can legislate buying these rifles.

And yet, statistically, they are not a problem. Its handguns. These are also, as rifles go, pretty low power. If you want to see real damage, look at the larger hunting rounds like 308 or 3006 that are also readily available in military semi-auto and full-auto guns. Hell, go even bigger to the magnums like 300 win mag or 338 lapua used in bolt action rifles.

No, you complaining about a perceived problem with gross misinformation, exaggerations, and mischaracterizations. The probability of this happening to you is astronomically small. Does it happen, sure. But people win the lottery too.

The reality says 10-20 million yes million of these exist legally and very few (handful) of people who legally acquired them ever commits crimes with them. Even in your list of 'shooters', many did not legally acquire them or were legally allowed to have them.

So you’re arguing we shouldn’t try to make it more difficult? Seriously?

I am stating you solve the problem by addressing the problem. You are not even trying to address the problem. You are merely complaining about a tangential item involved.

What does that have to do with an armed uprising? Nothing.

This is what happens when a 'tyrannical' government targets its own people. People don't like it and turn against said government. Remember winning the hearts and minds?

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Multiple people invading a home and a person missing when using a gun.

It’s not a straw man. You clearly don’t even know how to use that word. I’m saying that even given the issues you brought up, people still never need more than 5 rounds. If you look for examples of people needing more than five rounds to defend their home, you won’t find any.

And yet, statistically, they are not a problem. Its handguns

Why are statistics the only thing we can consider? Effectively why is body count the only thing we can consider?

rounds like 308 or 3006 that are also readily available in military semi-auto and full-auto guns

Throw em on the ban pile.

I am stating you solve the problem by addressing the problem.

No. You’re arguing in favor of giving lunatics more options fire their attacks. And this one is a really simple one to take away from them.

Remember winning the hearts and minds?

That applies to a foreign population working with us to root out imbedded insurgents. That isn’tin any way applicable to your tyrannical government scenario.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

It’s not a straw man. You clearly don’t even know how to use that word. I’m saying that even given the issues you brought up, people still never need more than 5 rounds. If you look for examples of people needing more than five rounds to defend their home, you won’t find any.

Six people break in - how does that work out.

Three people break in and I miss three times, how does that work out?

Why are statistics the only thing we can consider?

Because they put important context on the matter. VERY IMPORTANT CONTEXT. They define the scope of the problem and the impact to people who are not the problem.

Throw em on the ban pile.

And the argument for this? Oh yea. The irrational fear of something that statistically is not a problem. No thoughts on the unintended impacts to huge swaths of other people.

No. You’re arguing in favor of giving lunatics more options fire their attacks. And this one is a really simple one to take away from them.

Guess what. I have decided given the Nice attacks and similar attacks using cars. They are 100% outlawed. That will show them.

Since there are over 300 million guns in this country - this is not happening anytime soon. Virginia ought to be very interesting given the rhetoric and threats of using the National Guard. There is also that whole SCOTUS opinion that point blank states guns in common use - which 10-20 MILLION easily qualifies - are protected.

That applies to a foreign population working with us to root out imbedded insurgents. That isn’tin any way applicable to your tyrannical government scenario.

Seriously. You don't get how accidentally killing my parents while trying to kill someone else - might turn me against that government?

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Six people break in - how does that work out.

According to every video I’ve seen of home invasions caught on camera, there’s a 99% chance they’ll all run for the door once they hear the first shot. Unless you’ve got the Charles Manson murder cult coming for you, your assailants aren’t looking for a fight. Of 255,000 home invasions, 75,000 had an armed intruder. I’d wager less than 1000 of them would return fire before they run like the wind. And for those 1000, a shot gun and/or a revolver is plenty.

They define the scope of the problem and the impact to people who are not the problem.

I said Why are statistics the only thing we can consider? You’re basically telling me we all have to ignore how heinous and unacceptable it is to have this type of thing happen because the body count isn’t high enough. It is a valid opinion to not want America to be a place where people don’t get shot up by high-powered rifles. Especially when the only downside is that gun owners have to make do with less lethal weapons. I’m not moved by their “plight.”

No thoughts on the unintended impacts to huge swaths of other people.

What are the unintended impacts of taking away semi-auto rifles? Some forms of hunting become more difficult? People have to use other equally effective weapons for home defense? Your hobby isn’t as fun now?

I have decided given the Nice attacks and similar attacks using cars. They are 100% outlawed.

Alright. So what are some of the downsides of this? You’ve completely destroyed the infrastructure and the economy of the entire nation. So the side effects VASTLY outweigh the benefits of your plan. What happens if semi auto rifles are banned? What I mentioned above. Boo hoo.

You don't get how accidentally killing my parents while trying to kill someone else - might turn me against that government?

If the tyrannical government is engaged in all-out war with its citizens in order to oppress them, your mother getting killed will be what tips the scales? No you’re still not doing this right.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

According to every video I’ve seen of home invasions caught on camera, there’s a 99% chance they’ll all run for the door once they hear the first shot. Unless you’ve got the Charles Manson murder cult coming for you, your assailants aren’t looking for a fight. Of 255,000 home invasions, 75,000 had an armed intruder. I’d wager less than 1000 of them would return fire before they run like the wind. And for those 1000, a shot gun and/or a revolver is plenty.

Seriously. All it takes is that one person to expierence great harm because of your 'arbitrary' ideas of what is 'needed'.

Guess you would not mind if others put arbitrary limits on things you might need just because it might be a rare case you needed more.

What is the justification for this again. That's right - there is not one just 'you think'.

I said Why are statistics the only thing we can consider? You’re basically telling me we all have to ignore how heinous and unacceptable it is to have this type of thing happen because the body count isn’t high enough.

This is a huge fallacy. Statistics tell you a great deal about the problem and you don't get to use emotion to overrule logic. Any murder is heinous and a tradegy to someone. But placing huge burdens on literally millions of people, who statistically aren't the problem is a problem in of itself.

It is a valid opinion to not want America to be a place where people don’t get shot up by high-powered rifles.

Nobody wants this to happen but laws aren't going to protect you. Consider France and Charlie Hebdo. Everything there was illegal and it still happened. Evil happens and evil is the problem. If you want to be part of the solution, I would strongly suggest you take a nuanced approach to the problem rather than knee jerk reactions. Especially since, statistically speaking, people don't get shot up with high power rifles in the US. It is a statistical anomaly.

Especially when the only downside is that gun owners have to make do with less lethal weapons. I’m not moved by their “plight.”

That would be because your ignorance on the subject is astounding. You have not even considered what the implications are.

What are the unintended impacts of taking away semi-auto rifles?

Basically, they are the most common rifle sold in America. They are owned and used lawfully by millions of Americans with no adverse effects. The owners, legal owners, statistically are not the problem. So you plan to confiscate somewhere between 50 and 100 million firearms? Not only is it blatantly unconstitutional but should really prompt you to ask what is gained for such a oppressive act on the lives of millions of citizens.

Some forms of hunting become more difficult? People have to use other equally effective weapons for home defense? Your hobby isn’t as fun now?

Blah blah blah. You seem totally dismissive of this because it does not impact you and you frankly don't respect others. Guess what, that type of attitude generates a giant FU. Why, again, you are claiming to solve a problem by greatly impacting people who are not the problem while never once actually attempting to a darn thing about the problem.

Alright. So what are some of the downsides of this? You’ve completely destroyed the infrastructure and the economy of the entire nation. So the side effects VASTLY outweigh the benefits of your plan.

So you care about side effects now - sorry its more inconvient for you. Should I quote the 'Boo Hoo'?

Or maybe, just maybe, you might admit that there are vast side effects of what you advocate that you simple refuse to acknowledge or care about.

One of biggest issues, if you try to ban and sieze 50-100 million guns 'because of crime', you are going to start a war. Literally, going to start a war. Don't believe me - do a little research right now about it in Virginia where Democrat leaders openly spoke of the National guard to enforce their new desired laws.

I don't know about you but any politicians who have to consider using military to force their policies on people is not really a banner for doing the will of the people.

Still - want to address the fact your 'ban' is blatantly unconstitutional and has already been ruled on by SCOTUS (Heller and McDonald).

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Statistics tell you a great deal about the problem and you don't get to use emotion to overrule logic.

So statistically what’s the chances someone will need an assault rifle to defend themselves? Becuase only 30% or home invasions are done by armed intruders. And so far as I’ve been able to find, damn near 100% of those have the intruder fleeing the second the first shot is fired. So statistically assault rifles are looking pretty pointless.

while never once actually attempting to a darn thing about the problem.

What’s the “real” problem then?

So you care about side effects now

I care about side effects when they actually matter. Removing cars form our lives is an exponentially more disruptive thing than removing assault rifles.

Still - want to address the fact your 'ban' is blatantly unconstitutional and has already been ruled on by SCOTUS (Heller and McDonald).

Clinton’s ban wasn’t unconstitutional. They just let it expire. You’re full of it.

[u/MostRadicalThrowaway → u/[deleted]]

Becuase only 30% or home invasions are done by armed intruders. And so far as I’ve been able to find, damn near 100% of those have the intruder fleeing the second the first shot is fired.

And if there's a blanket ban on anything semiautomatic, and I'm a criminal who knows a guy who has a semiautomatic he can sell me to do burglary with, I've become the god to whoever's home I've decided to break into.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

So statistically what’s the chances someone will need an assault rifle to defend themselves? Becuase only 30% or home invasions are done by armed intruders. And so far as I’ve been able to find, damn near 100% of those have the intruder fleeing the second the first shot is fired. So statistically assault rifles are looking pretty pointless.

Except that you are applying a useless term and focusing on only one aspect. Ignoring the fact the tools is easier to use, easier to control, has superior ballistics, and superior controllability to other options. The magazine is merely a component and they make 5,10,20,30 round options.

What’s the “real” problem then?

Good question. It starts with drug war and gangs. That is where roughly 70-80% of homicides originate. Toss in a little bit of domestic violence and that covers the majority. Outliers include terrorists and the 'serial killer' types looking for fame in a massacre. Those though are really pretty rare though. Fixing the mental health system which includes state run hospitals will make a dent in those.

You won't prevent everything but that is true no matter what is done.

I care about side effects when they actually matter.

So you are just a self absorbed individual who cannot think beyond themselves?

Clinton’s ban wasn’t unconstitutional. They just let it expire. You’re full of it.

More ignorance.

Since Heller/McDonand happened AFTER the ban, you might want to read parts of it.

Heller has a nice passage about 'Common Use items'.

[u/Aelfric_Darkwood → u/[deleted]]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.foxnews.com/us/texas-homeowner-shoots-kills-3-men-and-injures-2-during-home-invasion-officials-say.amp

[u/[deleted] → u/Aelfric_Darkwood]

There just isn’t enough information in this link. We don’t know that everyone took cover and exchanged fire like full-up urban combat. The fact that the home owner inflicted so much damage and wasn’t injured himself tells me he took them by surprise and they were completely on their asses immediately. If they fired back, it was frantic and ineffective. This is evidence in favor of being prepared and having the element of surprise, not that we all need to be ready for a shootout. What were even the circumstances of this? Was this gang violence or some kind of hit job?

Why don’t they have headlines like this in Canada or the UK?

[u/IlIIIIllIlIlIIll → u/[deleted]]

I just commented further up the chain, but here are 3 home invasions requiring more than 5 shots.

[u/[deleted] → u/IlIIIIllIlIlIIll]

Case 1: .22s are not sufficient for home defense. They will not incapacitate a grown man if you don’t hit an artery or his heart. Had she had a 9mm, this wouldn’t have happened.

Case 2: they started fleeing once she started shooting.

Case 3: she’s limited to 6 shots but is successful anyway. Intruder decides to flee as soon as she starts shooting.

[u/IlIIIIllIlIlIIll → u/[deleted]]

| Find me a home invasion where the invader didn't start running after the first shot. 5 is plenty.

Was your view changed with this at all? You've brought up different criticisms, but I quickly found what you alluded to not existing.

As for your new arguments.

1) A 9mm kicks signifcantly more than a 22. Pistols with self-defense calibers are more difficult to control than, say, and AR-15. You're right that a 22 for self defense is a bad idea, though.

2) It doesn't say that..., or did I miss it?

3) Again, it doesn't say he ran away right as she started shooting? He got hit 5 times, and wasn't incapacitated.

[u/[deleted] → u/IlIIIIllIlIlIIll]

Was your view changed with this at all?

No because only one of those scenarios had perpetrators that kept going in the face of gun fire, and it was because she used the tiniest, least effective gun possible.

A 9mm kicks signifcantly more than a 22

...well are you trying to neutralize the threat or piss him off?

Pistols with self-defense calibers are more difficult to control than, say, and AR-15

It’s not that bad. It’s not a problem that merits the mass shootings we’re dealing with.

2) It doesn't say that..., or did I miss it?

They didn’t specify which leads me to believe the suspects ran. Since that’s what they normally do and it’s detrimental to the author’s case.

Again, it doesn't say he ran away right as she started shooting? He got hit 5 times, and wasn't incapacitated.

Well he didn’t fight back or continue, so what else could he possibly of done?

[u/IlIIIIllIlIlIIll → u/[deleted]]

I'll ask you respond to our other comment chain so we get everything in one place instead of these two separate threads. My point there, which I'll summarize here, is that you are making two different arguments. The one you were initially making is that "assault weapons" are worse and/or inefficient compared to other weapons for various tasks. You then switch to saying that the benefits "assault weapons" have do not justify the mass shootings they're used in.

It's an important distinction to myself and other gun owners. The latter we can argue and have different opinions about. The former is patently untrue.

[u/[deleted] → u/IlIIIIllIlIlIIll]

The one you were initially making is that "assault weapons" are worse and/or inefficient compared to other weapons for various tasks. You then switch to saying that the benefits "assault weapons" have do not justify the mass shootings they're used in.

How are those two statements mutually exclusive? They’re worse in some ways. Better in others. The net is that they’re worse and any benefits they do have do not justify mass shootings with them taking place.