Convince me: Assault weapons edition

I proposed in another internet area of discussion, to convince me that assault weapons should be legal. As you can imagine, it didn't go well. Since this is the most civilized area on the internet, I thought it might actually work. 

My thoughts are of 3. For one, there are better target practice guns. 22's cost pennies compared to 223, and go bang just fine. 2nd, There are better home defense weapons IMO. shotgun requires less accuracy, pistols are more movable. 3rd, There are better hunting rifles. Deer hunters aren't using AR's for a reason. 

I don't own a gun, I don't plan on owning a gun. Having a neighbor murdered by police for having a gun nearby is partly that reason, as well as my 3 kids.

I'm not set in my ways, and I am genuinely curious from knowledgeable people, why it should be legal.  

Oh boy, I see this thread getting locked 

I fear it probably won't work as a discussion here, but I suppose we can try.

Honestly, as someone who does own one, I have a hard time making an argument for them other than simply having an interest in military weapons in general.  I follow a YouTube channel where the hosts organize events in Arizona called "2 Gun Action Challenge" that look like a lot of fun.  

But as home defense weapons, no.   Any of my guns would be the last things I'd reach for.

I don't feel particularly strongly either way, but the argument that makes the most sense to me is- why not?  You don't need more than about 300hp, so should we ban Vipers?  They can plow into a crowd and kill people too, should we require more training?

Of course, there's then an interesting question of why we draw the line where we currently do.  Why not rocket launchers?  Privately owned fully armed tanks?  Fighter jets?

In reply to ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ :

I think the easy reply is what is the core function of said instrument.  The core function of a car is to move you from A to B.  What is the core function of a gun?

So it's harder to justify one that does that core function far, far better.

In reply to alfadriver :

The core function is to kill things- so the assault type stuff is bad because it's supposed to be better at killing humans vs. other types of animals.  Which seems like a strange place to draw the line, given that a shotgun for hunting deer can be very effective against humans as well, especially when modified with that task in mind- at that point, why make a fuzzy definition for what is an assault weapon or not?  Just ban everything with gunpowder to keep the definition clean and simple.

In reply to ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ :

While they are not easy or cheap to get, it is possible for a private citizen to own something like a rocket launcher, which along with large-bore weapons are generally known as "Destructive Devices" .  Fully automatic weapons as well.  It is a matter of going through the background checks and paying the fees.  And having the $$$$ to buy one of the few that are available on the private market - usually sold at auctions. 

That sort of feeds into the question of "Why allow semi automatics at all?" I mean there's basically no point in talking about "Assault Weapons" as something distinct from the likes of an M1A or a Mini 14. Assault weapons just look similar to military weapons but are functionally the same as many other semi autos.

Assault weapons are just more visible because of the fetishization which has taken place from the perfect storm of:

• A currently 17 year long war
• The end of the previous assault weapon ban
• The entire gun industry embracing guns as a lifestyle or culture.

For hunting with semi automatics, there's more types of hunting than just deer.

• I used to hunt wild boar in Florida with a M1A because they're tough animals, don't stand out in a field like deer waiting to be shot, and may require a rapid follow up shot if you're in the brush with them.
• I used to have a Mini 14 strapped to the front of a gator when I was in the fields to deal with packs of wild dogs. They were smart and could fairly aggressive towards cattle, letting part of the pack get away would string things out and possibly kill or maim more animals.
• People with disabilities that like to hunt often use semi autos because the action required to reload while keeping a sight picture simply isn't possible and the recoil is reduced making the weapon easier to handle.

As for aircraft, rocket launchers and tanks.... Well the US Gov used to sell the surplus after the Second World war which is why P51's and B25's are still out there. Modern day stuff is way too expensive to maintain and there's significant worry about the tech making is way into a foreign entities hands. So it would pretty much self regulating if were still allowed.

It makes a bit more sense to restrict them, even with those limitations and similar what was done with automatic weapons, because they tend to be more indiscriminate than a semi automatic.

I own weapons, I still shoot as a hobby, I carried and serviced weapons in a war zone, and I hunt but I don't fetishize them like the loudest proponents voices appear to.

Edit: Heavily edited to deal with sentence fragments and dropped thought threads.

Can anyone tell me what an assault weapon is?

A big part of this problem is the lack of real definition but at the same time a promotion of language that makes things sound scary and dangerous.

As I understand it, two identical guns can be classified differently under "assault" category based simply on color. So you can have a red viper but not a black one.

I, for one, propose we ban all assault vipers but leave hunting vipers alone.

IBTL!

There's nothing about an "assault rifle" (using the AR-15 as an example) that makes it inherently deadlier than any other semi-automatic firearm. The .223 is not a particularly powerful round, and they can't fire any faster than any other semi-auto. Cosmetic features like flash suppressors, pistol grips and black paint have nothing to do with function, other than ergonomics.

As for why they should be allowed, my answer is that they still, despite recent highly publicized mass shootings, do not represent a significant portion of total murders. Rifles in general are responsible for around 2% of homicides annually, and that includes rifles of all types. If you want to go after low-hanging fruit, there are a lot of other things to look at.

For those who want to renew the 1994-2004 Federal Assault Weapons ban, I'd point out that, while the murder rate dropped during the ban, it continued to drop after it expired, which points to external factors.

Talking of guns in general, one thing to keep in mind is that the violent crime rates in general, and murder rates in particular, have been declining for decades, while the amount of guns in private hands in the US has increased:

To me, this lack of correlation indicates that the guns themselves aren't the problem.

This will be my only post in this thread. I've laid out the facts as I see them and given sources, from here y'all can have at it! 

It doesn’t matter. There is no way to prevent mass shootings.

In regards to hunting: I don't understand having something other than a bolt-action single shot rifle for hunting anything that isn't flying. I grew up in a hunting family but don't hunt myself (I do own guns). You get one shot at a deer. You either hit it, or it and ALL its friends are now in the next county. Maybe if you are hunting wild hogs you may get in two shots because they are pretty much powered by the fiery furnaces of hell and the first bullet melted. But carrying a 20 round magazine to hunt tells me you should spend more time at the range learning how to shoot accurately.

That being said, I'll now grab a comfy patio chair and wait for the inevitable lock...

 I'm not a gun owner but I did serve in the Canadian military. Somewhere I have a picture of my younger self feeling all badass holding a M16.  I never felt the need to have my picture taken while carrying a 22, shotgun or deer rifle but something about that gun gave me an enhanced feeling of power. I suspect that may be one of the reasons they appear to be used in a disproportionate number of mass shootings. 

In reply to Robbie :

California has a legal definition (as they should) to support the states restrictions. It basically matches the assault weapon ban of the Clinton era. Typically I just assume that's what everyone is talking about since it's been in place for quite a while.

• 12276.1 (a) Notwithstanding Section 12276, "assault weapon" shall also mean any of the following:
  1. A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following:
     1. A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon.
     2. A thumbhole stock.
     3. A folding or telescoping stock.
     4. A grenade launcher or flare launcher.
     5. A flash suppressor.
     6. A forward pistol grip.
  2. A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
  3. A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has an overall length of less than 30 inches.
  4. A semiautomatic pistol that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following:
     1. A threaded barrel, capable of accepting a flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer.
     2. (B) A second handgrip.
     3. A shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel that allows the bearer to fire the weapon without burning his or her hand, except a slide that encloses the barrel.
     4. The capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip.
  5. A semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
  6. A semiautomatic shotgun that has both of the following:
     1. A folding or telescoping stock.
     2. A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon, thumbhole stock, or vertical handgrip.
  7. A semiautomatic shotgun that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine.
  8. Any shotgun with a revolving cylinder.
     1. "Assault weapon" does not include any antique firearm.
     2. The following definitions shall apply under this section:
        1. "Magazine" shall mean any ammunition feeding device.
        2. "Capacity to accept more than 10 rounds" shall mean capable of accommodating more than 10 rounds, but shall not be construed to include a feeding device that has been permanently altered so that it cannot accommodate more than 10 rounds.
        3. "Antique firearm" means any firearm manufactured prior to January 1, 1899.
     3. This section shall become operative January 1, 2000.

Convince me that assault truck are still needed.

I own several firearms, but rarely get the opportunity to fire them.  All are sporting arms. 

I don't own an AR because I don't like plastic and stamped steel in my firearms.  Its just a personal thing for me.  I would love to own an M-1 Garand or an M-1 carbine.  My father toted a Thompson SMG in WW II and I would love to own one of those, but the buy-in is totally out of reach.  Semi automatic weapons are not evil, but I don't understand the fetish of needing to have 30 round, 100 round to 200 round magazines.  But say that on a gun website and you will be brutalized.       

Generally speaking, I only hunt with a front bumper of my truck and My Revolver to put the deer out of its misery if I don't kill it outright. As far as assault weapons go, as a gun owner and a person that enjoys shooting, I've never felt the need to buy a semi-automatic rifle.. I have an AR-15 in my gun safe that I am storing for for a friend of mine. I've put a few rounds through it and just don't enjoy shooting that weapon.

I don't understand the first post. Whether or not modern sporting type rifles are the best tool for the job or not is irrelevant, they are legal because we have a 2nd Amendment. It makes no difference if a different type of firearm is better for hunting, or cheaper to shoot at the range.

Maybe we could discuss whether or not 2 seater sporty cars should be legal because a pickup truck can carry more stuff. That makes the same amount of sense.

In reply to lnlogauge :

I can't help it if the government does not abide by the rules that are supposed to limit it.

I'm a deer hunter and I do use an AR for a reason; it's quite good at being a hunting rifle.

But to be honest, it would pain me to give up my AR. It would be even more painful to give up all of my guns. But if we as a society decide to give up guns, I would. Hunting is pretty big business, though. Locking up hunting guns at a hunting club/sheriffs office would work for me. Especially if I'm allowed to keep something at home for vermin since I am zoned ag. 

T.J. said:

In reply to lnlogauge :

I can't help it if the government does not abide by the rules that are supposed to limit it.

Sure you can. To state that you don't understand the first post, because "Whether or not modern sporting type rifles are the best tool for the job or not is irrelevant, they are legal because we have a 2nd Amendment", is obtuse. Use just a tiny bit of critical thinking and we can see how these are not the same thing. Especially since the laws surrounding vehicles have become more and more strict over the years. 

Umm... guns are dangerous, M-Kay?  All guns.  Hammers too.  And knives, and other tools.  So, you say "well, THAT kind of gun is more dangerous than others so we should BAN HIM!!"  What type of gun is not dangerous?  See, the people screaming that we must "do something" and ban guns that look bad or have features similar to other guns that look bad really want to ban ALL guns, not just modern sporting rifles.  Ask them "what kind of gun do you think is a good, safe gun that you don't want to ban and think that every American citizen should own?"  You'll get an answer of "none."  The problem they have with modern sporting rifles with normal capacity magazines is that you pull the trigger and a bullet comes out.  That's what they want to ban.  If you want to go tinkering with our Constitution, then your right to tinker should be the first thing to go.

"WHAT DO WE WANT?  LESS FREEDOM!!!  WHEN DO WE WANT IT?  NOW!!!"

Dr. Hess said:

Umm... guns are dangerous, M-Kay?  All guns.  Hammers too.  And knives, and other tools.  So, you say "well, THAT kind of gun is more dangerous than others so we should BAN HIM!!"  What type of gun is not dangerous?  See, the people screaming that we must "do something" and ban guns that look bad or have features similar to other guns that look bad really want to ban ALL guns, not just modern sporting rifles.  Ask them "what kind of gun do you think is a good, safe gun that you don't want to ban and think that every American citizen should own?"  You'll gen an answe of "none."  The problem they have with modern sporting rifles with normal capacity magazines is that you pull the trigger and a bullet comes out.  That's what they want to ban.  If you want to go tinkering with our Constitution, then your right to tinker should be the first thing to go.

 

"WHAT DO WE WANT?  LESS FREEDOM!!!  WHEN DO WE WANT IT?  NOW!!!"

Thanks for this constructive post. Really helped the discussion. 

Dr. Hess said:

  If you want to go tinkering with our Constitution

Isn't article 5 of the Constitution literally about being able to tinker with it?