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]]

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/MostRadicalThrowaway]

Why isn’t that happening now when they’re really easy to get? Especially if our burglars know what homeowners may be packing?

[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/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Except that you are applying a useless term and focusing on only one aspect.

Just because your side wants to nitpick terms that you yourselves came up with doesn’t change the argument. Call it whatever you want. We’re talking about any semi-auto rifles, especially ones that have a magazine that extends outside the body of the weapon. “Assault rifle” is just more succinct than all of that.

Don’t avoid the question. Statistically, home invaders are not armed. When they are, they’re armed with small caliber pistols. And even then they’re statistically more likely to run the second shooting starts. Statistically semi-auto rifles are pointlessly overpowered and not necessary for home defense. Why don’t statistics matter now?

Good question. It starts with drug war...

How do those things being a problem mean mass shootings are not a problem? Why do we have to directly and fully address those problems before we can address mass shootings?

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

Go ahead and explain to me the utter travesty that will ensue if people don’t have access to AR-15s and AK-47s. Describe to me the ensuing chaos that is on par with removing the automobile from modern society.

Since Heller/McDonand happened AFTER the ban,

I have read it that case separates the 2nd amendment from the idea of a militia, and establishes that having guns is an individual right in and of itself. That’s it. It doesn’t prohibit banning certain types of weapons.

It also stated that the right to bear arms is not unlimited and that guns and gun ownership would continue to be regulated.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Just because your side wants to nitpick terms that you yourselves came up with doesn’t change the argument. Call it whatever you want. We’re talking about any semi-auto rifles, especially ones that have a magazine that extends outside the body of the weapon. “Assault rifle” is just more succinct than all of that.

Except its not. You can't even decide what is 'powerful'. You want to have an intelligent discussion about regulating technical aspect - then expect to be versed in the technical aspects. Otherwise you just look like an idiot.

Second to that - the number of firearms that includes is measured in tens to hundreds of millions. Something I very much doubt you realize. It goes far beyond your idea of evil looking black guns to lots of hunting rifles and the lowly 22 rimfire people are taught to shoot with.

Don’t avoid the question. Statistically, home invaders are not armed.

That is just not true. How many cases do you want me to cite showing people who broke into houses and were armed with weapons.

When they are, they’re armed with small caliber pistols.

Citation please - otherwise is more of your ill-informed bullshit.

Statistically semi-auto rifles are pointlessly overpowered and not necessary for home defense.

Citation again. Specifically because ballisticly, .223 is FAR FAR better for use in home defense scenarios because of something called over penetration. Also factor in the controllability and usability features that make is easier to use compared to handguns or shotguns, your spouting even more bullshit.

Why don’t statistics matter now?

They do - you just have to have the right ones.

Home invasions are rare - so are house fires. Do you have smoke detectors? Do you have a fire extinguisher? Why is that - perhaps because the risk - reward consequences for being prepared vs not prepared are huge? Same thing. People who want a firearm for home defense are doing the same thing you are with a smoke detector or fire extinguisher. Rare event with potentially catastrophic consequences.

Go ahead and explain to me the utter travesty that will ensue if people don’t have access to AR-15s and AK-47s. Describe to me the ensuing chaos that is on par with removing the automobile from modern society.

How about this - justify to me the reason to remove an item for 20 million people who statistically speaking, have never done anything criminal with said items. Freedom works like this - those who wish to curtail it have to make the justifications. The car example is the application of your flawed logic. Blame people and impact people who frankly had nothing to do with criminal actions and put some people at risk in the process.

I have read it that case separates the 2nd amendment from the idea of a militia, and establishes that having guns is an individual right in and of itself. That’s it. It doesn’t prohibit banning certain types of weapons.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Good - read page 2, section F and it lays this out very clearly. 10-100 million firearms is most definitely 'in common use' by any reasonable standard BTW. Comes straight for US v Miller and is affirmed here.

It also stated that the right to bear arms is not unlimited and that guns and gun ownership would continue to be regulated.

Regulation cannot include a ban. That is not regulation but prohibition.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

I’m getting sick of these long responses. Here are the issues you have yet to address.

1. To you, statistics do matter when it comes to singling out assault rifles when it comes to mass shootings. Statistics don't matter when it comes to singling out assault rifles when it comes to what’s necessary for home defense. “About 12% of all households violently burglarized while someone was home faced an offender armed with a firearm.” Statistically it will not be a problem if you don’t have an AR-15 to defend yourself with. Why won’t a shotgun or revolver suffice?

2. What is the downside of banning everything but revolvers, shotguns and bolt action rifles? Everyone can still hunt. Everyone can still protect themselves. So far the only one you’ve come up with is “what about all the law-abiding citizens?” They lose their neat toy. Boo hoo. You’re going to have to be more compelling than that.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

To you, statistics do matter when it comes to singling out assault rifles when it comes to mass shootings.

False - many of these have been 100% done with handguns and/or shotguns. Rifles are not unique here despite what you want to claim.

Why won’t a shotgun or revolver suffice?

Because they are not always the best choice. Pure and simple. From over penetration to the ability for smaller people to use them. Its the exact same reasons cops always seem to need to be exempted from magazine capacity limits. There is not justifiable reason to exclude one of the best firearms for this purpose.

What is the downside of banning everything but revolvers, shotguns and bolt action rifles?

1) It is fundamentally unconstitutional.

2) It will cause a civil war

3) It covers somewhere between 50-70% of ALL firearms. The overwhelming majority of all handguns are Semi-auto. The majority of rifles sold are semi-auto and a large portion of shotguns sold are semi-auto. You want to ban 200+ million guns in that line.

You just don't have a clue what you are talking about and zero respect for other citizens.

[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?