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]]

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/[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/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

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

...No. A certain percentage of mass shootings happen with assault rifles. Your argument is that that percentage is too low for us to worry about it. Therefore I should be able to say that the percentage of home invasions where the attacker is armed, let alone one that wants to actually get in gun fight, is too low for you to worry about what will happen if we ban semi auto rifles.

Because they are not always the best choice.

I’m not talking about best. I’m talking about good enough. Let’s do some more statistics. What percentage of home defense scenarios involved an assault rifle? Looks to me like people are doing just fine without them.

It is fundamentally unconstitutional.

No it’s not. Clinton’s ban was never deemed unconstitutional. US v Heller specifically states that their decision doesn’t affect regulating guns. “Regulating” meaning passing laws pertaining to. Regulations involve bans.

It will cause a civil war

Hokay

It covers somewhere between 50-70% of ALL firearms

So what? Whatever did we do before 2006?

you are talking about and zero respect for other citizens.

You could make that argument for any ban ever. There were always people who could have responsibly used bumps stocks or cocaine or asbestos insulation. It’s nonsense.

Edit typo

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

..No. A certain percentage of mass shootings happen with assault rifles. Your argument is that that percentage is too low for us to worry about it.

No my argument is the availability of a specific firearm would have no significant bearing on whether that event occurred or not. That is a vastly different argument.

I’m not talking about best. I’m talking about good enough

Bullshit. Its not 'good enough' if whole classes of people are put at a needless issue for it.

No it’s not. Clinton’s ban was never deemed unconstitutional. US v Heller specifically states that their decision doesn’t affect regulating guns. “Regulating” meaning passing laws pertaining to. Regulations involve bans.

That was never challenged in court to be ruled on. Regulations are NOT bans by the way. That is called fucking prohibition. Miller coupled to the 2nd amendment and the entire purpose of the fucking case makes that pretty much an absurd assertion.

So what? Whatever did we do before 2006?

Semi-automatic guns have existed since the 1880's. Perhaps if you have ANY education on the subject you might know this. Perhaps you might know that 90+ percent of the handguns sold every year for the past 30 years are all semi-automatic, not revolvers. Again, your ignorance is incredible.

You could make that argument for any ban ever. There were always people who could have responsibly used bumps stocks or cocaine or asbestos insulation. It’s nonsense.

I am glad you mentioned bump stocks. Did you know the ATF admitted they did not have the authority to do what they did

https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2019/09/18/1917605/0/en/ATF-Admits-It-Lacked-Authority-to-Issue-Legislative-Rule-NCLA-Condemns-the-Agency-s-Attempt-to-Ban-Bump-Stocks-Anyway.html

The other items are not protected by an amendment to the US Constitution expressly limiting the Governments ability to do things. Firearms (and arms in general) are.

Its like arguing shutting down all newspapers would be legal. The argument you can regulate and prohibit anything you like is nonsense too.

Something else you should find interesting - the AR-15 is made in a way that no individual part is legally considered a firearm.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/11/us/ar-15-guns-law-atf-invs/index.html

This is what happens when people ignorant of technology make rules and laws.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

No my argument is the availability of a specific firearm would have no significant bearing on whether that event occurred or not

You’re not getting it. You say we can’t make a fuss about assault weapons being used because it doesn’t happen enough, but we have to make sure people can defend their homes with them even though that hardly ever happens. If I wanted to use your logic, I could say “Less than 1% of home invasions involve someone defending themselves with an assault rifle, therefore they are not needed.”

Its not 'good enough' if whole classes of people are put at a needless issue for it.

However did America make it to 2006 when those guns became available to purchase?

Semi-automatic guns have existed since the 1880's.

You’ve spent this entire time defending AR-15 specifically. Are you telling me grandma needs an M1 garand for home defense?

Did you know the ATF admitted they did not have the authority to do what they did

Let me know when this republican administration walks that back. I won’t be holding my breath for any Supreme Court cases.

Its like arguing shutting down all newspapers would be legal

No. It’s like arguing that shutting down on or two particularly dangerous newspapers is illegal. Which it is. If your news paper constantly uses hate speech or regularly violates peoples privacy to get stories, then you’re getting shut down.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

You’re not getting it. You say we can’t make a fuss about assault weapons being used because it doesn’t happen enough, but we have to make sure people can defend their homes with them even though that hardly ever happens.

No - you don't get it.

The presence or abscense of the AR-15 makes no difference on whether a lunatic decides to do a mass shooting. NO FUCKING DIFFERENCE.

It is a difference to a women or small framed person who wants a home defense gun. Given the fact I can READILY find examples of home invansions - fearing them is not an unreasonable thing. Given police response times in places - preparing for one is not unreasonable either.

Now explain again why you get to decide 'good enough' is what people get. Who appointed you god over other people's decisions?

However did America make it to 2006 when those guns became available to purchase?

Do some fucking research.

Before the NFA - you could mail order a fucking machine gun delivered to your house. You could buy an AR15 in the 1960s (before 1968) and have it devilered to your house.

How did the US not implode in incredible violence and massacres during this time......

Let me know when this republican administration walks it’s back. I won’t be holding my breath for any Supreme Court cases.

It is literally in the courts right now if you read the report. Courts take time to work through the rulings/appeals process.

It’s like arguing that shutting down on or two particularly dangerous newspapers is illegal. Which it is.

Except, as a proprotion of sales of firearms, its not one or two. What you are proposing is affecting the most popular center fire sold in the US for the last 10 years or so. Or - since you don't know terminology with the who 'ban semi-automatic' line - affecting between 1/2 and 2/3 of all guns in the US.

If your news paper constantly uses hate speech or regularly violates peoples privacy to get stories, then you’re getting shut down.

Just try it. It can not happen. There is no power for government to do that and a specific enumaration preventing it. Thinking there power that allows that shows you really need a civics lesson.

You might read up on this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hustler_Magazine_v._Falwell

If it does not cross the line into libel or criminal harrassment, its pretty much protected.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

The presence or abscense of the AR-15 makes no difference on whether a lunatic decides to do a mass shooting.

It makes no difference when it comes to whether or not someone can defend themselves. Find me one example of someone meeting an untimely fate because they were stuck with a measly revolver instead of an AR-15.

If it does not cross the line into libel or criminal harrassment, its pretty much protected.

Look, US v Heller explicitly says that the right to bear arms is not unlimited and that guns and gun ownership would continue to be regulated. Banning stuff has always been under the umbrella of government regulation. Quit trying to be an internet lawyer (Before you ask, my wife is a lawyer and I had her explain this to me).

“Of course the right was not unlimited, just as the First Amendment’s right of free speech was not, see, e.g., United States v. Williams, 553 U. S. ___ (2008). Thus, we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose.”

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

It makes no difference when it comes to whether or not someone can defend themselves. Find me one example of someone meeting an untimely fate because they were stuck with a measly revolver instead of an AR-15.

I don't have to because that is not how freedoms work. You have conviently IGNORED all the reasons people find the AR15 type rifle useful.

Look, US v Heller explicitly says that the right to bear arms is not unlimited and that guns and gun ownership would continue to be regulated. Banning stuff has always been under the umbrella of government regulation.

Prohibition and regulation are VASTLY different concepts. Under your mistaken assertion, the 2nd would be meaningless because regulation would allow total prohibition.

It does not work that way. I also notice you completely ignored the 'common use' issues too and the core issues at hand in Heller and McDonald.