A gun fondler has decided to carefully explain Why I Need an AR-15. I read the whole thing in disbelief, but I’m also seeing lots of people praising this article for its calm tone and “rational” arguments. Are you ready to see his reasons?
-
Because history. Civilians have been buying weapons of war for many generations.
The vintage Henry lever action rifle — the quintessential 20th century deer rifle — was originally deployed to devastating effect in the Civil War.
This makes no sense. The Brown Bess musket was used in the Revolutionary War, too. So? There’s no appreciation of the fact that military weaponry has become increasingly specialized and destructive. You could use this very same to argue that, because civilians use horses, and the ancient Romans used horses deployed as cavalry, then civilians should be allowed to drive tanks now.
Also, he argues that he should be able to get it because it’s a really good tool.
This is all part of the reason why I, a civilian, “need” a military-grade combat weapon. I don’t want to shoot and miss; I don’t want the gun to jam because it’s dirty or cold; and I don’t want to hit my target and then have it run off into the woods and die lost and wounded because I didn’t “bring enough gun”.
Wait. He goes deer hunting with an AR-15? A true sportsman, he is.
Admittedly, he’s vague about the “target”. He could be hunting chipmunks or people, for all I can tell. I’m having a hard time imagining a living target for which his reasoning is appropriate.
-
Because the police use it, so it must be OK.
There is no conceivable circumstance in which a police officer — not even a SWAT team member — would need to mow down hordes of people. Yet the AR-15 is the “patrol rifle” of choice for modern police departments from Mayberry to Manhattan.
Right. Because the excessive militarization of our police is not a problem. When you’re holding up the modern American police as paragons of sensible, peaceful behavior, your argument has a problem.
-
Because he needs a popular gun when he has to “shoot under pressure”.
The M1A is an amazing gun (a closely related weapon is actually used by the Marines), but despite the fact that the M1A fires a much larger, deadlier .30 caliber bullet, if I needed to shoot under pressure I’d reach for the smaller AR-15, simply because I can operate that rifle — engage a target, change magazines, troubleshoot and clear a jam — without much thought or effort. I can do all that because the AR-15 is what I know, and it’s what I know because it’s what everyone else out there knows.
How often does he have to “shoot under pressure”? How often does anyone? If you’re frequently in situations in which you have to
engage a target, change magazines, troubleshoot and clear a jam
, you’re either in the military, or you’ve made some very poor life choices, or both. -
Because…some bizarre idea about a “defense rifle” vs. an “assault rifle”? What?
At this point, you may be thinking: “ok tough guy, if the AR is so flexible, why not configure it to be a defense rifle instead of an assault rifle? BOOM!”
I have never made such an argument, nor can I even imagine making an argument for this mythical “defense rifle”.
-
Because he needs to be sure to kill when defending his home.
It’s also the case that, contrary to what you saw in First Blood, adrenaline-fueled humans are hard to kill, even with a rifle. The more fast followup shots you can get on-target, the better your chances of scoring a hit that will stop the threat.
What kind of life does this guy lead, that he’s got to prepare to confront some “adrenalin-fueled human”, and he’s got to be prepared to shoot them lots of times?
His reasons for “needing” an assault rifle are also reasons he needs to be incarcerated or immediately drafted into the infantry. They seem to be all about living an imaginary life of constant danger, in which he needs to be able to whip out a gun and destroy a human being at an instant’s notice…or he needs the most effective firepower he can get to kill varmints.
Good work, though, Mr Jon Stokes. Your article is very persuasive. It persuades me that those who “need” an AR-15 are paranoid and delusional, and a danger to the rest of us.
By the way, everyone: calmly declaring that you absolutely need a weapon of mass destruction does not make you reasonable, and is actually just as scary as someone grunting and howling about their guns.
Seriously. What, does this guy have hit squads targeting him every night? If you have to have a gun for home defense, then get a goddamn shotgun – they’re better at stopping someone in that situation (assuming said person doesn’t just run off when they see you aiming it at them), and unlike the AR-15 you won’t put bullets through your walls where they might hit other people by accident if you fire a shotgun loaded with buckshot.
It also assumes that someone breaking into your home is some rage-fueled fast zombie whose response upon discovering the place occupied is to attack in some berserk style, rather than run in terror.
I guess this gun fondler has never heard of a shot gun? Anyone breaking into your home will shit their pants on the sound of a shotgun being pumped.
If you need to take an AR-15 “into the woods” for hunting, then you shouldn’t be hunting because you fucking suck as a hunter and are incapable of hitting your target and wasting valuable meat by filling your target with lead
I guess he was hunting humans in the woods? Too many SciFi movies for this gun fondler
These Rambo types don’t seem to understand there is a reason, why in SW Michigan, one must use a shotgun to hunt deer. Too many people were injured way beyond the poor deer, likely missed due to excitement, and were hurt by the rifled bullets from a .30-06, which can travel several hundred yards. Making the projectile tumble due to lack of rifling lessens their range and collateral damage, making them a safer weapon in a semi-populated populated area.
Same with the AR-15. If you aren’t the middle of nowhere, somebody else could get hurt behind your intended target, but you don’t give even a thought or a care to that possibility.
You know, I live on a farm and raise livestock. Occasionally I have to put an animal out of it’s misery because it is too sick or injured to live and is suffering horribly. *You don’t need an assault rifle for that.* And to be perfectly honest about my opinion, unless you are raising livestock, or you are *actually* a hunter (not someone who wanders around the woods drinking once a year, shooting at noises and shadows…. or women hanging sheets out to dry), you really don’t “need” a gun AT ALL. If I did not live so far off the beaten track that calling a vet to euthanize an animal amounts to animal cruelty (due to the time it takes to get out here), I would not own one either. And I am 1000% behind gun laws, ones that we actually ENFORCE, and that get the guns out of the hands of people. EVEN ME. Yes. **EVEN ME.**
But just, HOLY SHIT. THAT is your reason for owning an assault rifle? You assume your fellow human beings to be some sort of drastic threat? Christ of the Andes.
Family of AR-15 Inventor Eugene Stoner: He Didn’t Intend It for Civilians.
PZ @ #2
Too right! This guy is clearly delusional when it comes to normal behavior, even for a criminal. My wife and I once had someone break into our apartment when we lived in Miami. I woke up as he was going through my wife’s purse, grabbed one of the stage rapiers I had laying around (I was working as a theatrical fight choreographer at the time) and jumped out into the living room to confront him (while, of course, my wife was dialing 911.) He saw a long-haired, buck-naked guy with three feet of steel in his hand and took off like he was being chased by the pack of rabid zombies our Mr. Stokes is apparently so afraid of. That’s what most people do when confronted with a sudden and alarming threat situation: run like hell. It may be the “fight or flight” response, but the usual answer to that question for people is “flight”.
Donnie @ #3
Also too right! He’d be a lot better off hunting with that M1A, an actual rifle in a caliber (.30-06) that will drop a deer with one shot the way a hunter is supposed to. If you need more than one shot with a modern rifle at a deer, you suck as a hunter and should just give it up.
I thought the article contained a pretty good explanation as to why a person, having for whatever reason decided they both wanted to own a gun for hunting and wanted to own a gun for home defense, would choose to buy an AR-15.
Despite all the use of the word need, they didn’t really address why they think they need a gun at all, so if that’s what you’re looking for it’s completely pointless. But I do think there’s value to understanding why so many people are buying AR-15s, and the article gets at some answers to “Why don’t they just buy X instead?”
Nerd:
Speaking as someone who is often out in the middle of nowhere, hunting with a camera, I’m not exactly happy about these assholes being out there with me. Point being, you can’t guarantee you’re all alone, with no possibility of a high velocity bullet striking someone else, ever.
“More fast follow up shots.” Pretty sure shooting a wounded person is a war crime. Unless you do it in the privacy of your own home, I guess, then it’s a plus?
marcmagus:
I don’t need an article for that. I already know why.
And in other shitty news, a British MP has been shot and stabbed to death for campaigning against Brexit.
The article is pretty incoherent.
Among other things, an AR-15 is a 22-caliber[*] rifle; it’s not “enough gun” for hunting. It can be used to hunt deer, and game smaller than that, if one has good aim, but it’s more likely to wound a large animal than kill it.
[*] Yes, .223 is larger than the .22 your grandfather used to hunt squirrels, but not by much. A .223 bullet is about 55 grains; a .22 bullet ranges from 20-60 grains. The .223 definitely has a larger powder charge. Not trying to argue ANY of that. I’m pointing out that a hunting rifle should generally be in the 30-caliber range, and even larger for large game like bear or moose. It is NOT an especially good choice for hunting.
Similarly, it’s not a great firearm for home defense. It simultaneously lacks punch (compared to, say, a good shotgun) AND has too much penetration (to pass through walls and hit your kids, say). Experts in home defense will generally not recommend rifles, and in particular will not recommend AR-15’s. They’re simultaneously too much and not enough.
As for “reliability,” he’s smoking something. AR-15’s are assembled to fairly high tolerances. They’re famous for jamming in the desert (from sand) or in jungles (from mud), etc. If you want a reliable rifle, you either want something assembled to looser tolerances, like an AK-47, or with fewer moving parts, like a bolt-action rifle. If you want a reliable gun in general, you want something like a pump-action shotgun.
I’ll note that there does seem to be a misconception, and you (PZ) seem to share it, that an AR-15 is deadlier than other guns. It’s obviously more than deadly enough to commit an atrocity, but the average rifle is even more so. The military uses it not because of it’s awesome killing power, but mainly because it uses lighter ammunition, meaning a soldier can carry more of it. It’s likelier to wound, rather than kill, compared to earlier military firearms, but the military considers that a feature rather than a bug (because it takes multiple soldiers out of commission while they help the wounded). It has less penetration than earlier military firearms, but that’s considered unimportant because soldiers aren’t especially focused on shooting people who are behind cover–they shoot at the ones who come out of cover. And so on.
The main advantage an AR-15 has over the average hunting rifle is that it’s on the smaller side, takes lighter ammunition, and accepts magazines. However, if the shooter had been armed with a circa 1904 short-magazine Lee-Enfield rifle he would have been equally deadly. The .303 cartridge would have greater penetration and greater lethality; the weight difference would be irrelevant since a couple hundred rounds doesn’t weigh that much; reloading would be fast with 5-round stripper clips; and although it’s a bolt-action rifle, it will sustain a rate of fire of 20-30 aimed shots per minute. Unlike older rifles, it was only 10 inches longer than an AR-15, so not unwieldy.
It’s worth being clear that guns per se are the concern, and not this particular gun. A ban of this particular gun will do nothing whatsoever to make mass shooters less dangerous. Shooters would be equally dangerous with guns that are 100 years old–which, incidentally, are classified as “curios and relics,” and as such are often subject to looser regulation than recent firearms.
As an American citizen with the inalienable right to bear arms, I demand the right to purchase, possess, and use nuclear weapons. The military has them for good reason, and I want to be sure that dear is dead when I shoot it.
#12
This kind of simpering hoplophile tripe is particularly obscene given that Jo Cox’s murderer apparently did the deed with a home-made gun and a knife.
While we’re banning assault rifles, we really ought to ban or heavily restrict handguns as well.
@15 Toxic entitlement at its worst. No doubt some idiot will come along and claim that if she/someone had had a gun she’d still be alive.
Publishing rhetoric about how you want to destroy all guns and lock up all gun owners seems like the worst possible advocacy for gun control in the US. Posts like the last two make me a little sympathetic for the anti-compromise wing of gun nuts.
As any good NRA member in good standing knows, you should deal with wounded intruders by using your handgun to apply the coup-de-grace shot to the back of the head up close and personal.
stwriley @7
Back in 1975 I was asleep in my bedroom at my father’s house. At the time I collected sword bayonets and was a member of a fencing club. About 2am my door was pushed ajar by a strange figure. For a second I thought it might be my father but realised that he would not be using a torch. I threw the bedclothes at him leapt from the bed grabbing my favourite weapon and chased the intruder down the stairs and out into the road. Like you I was stark naked but as the poor guy vanished down the road I stood by the gate shouting “Come back here, you bastard!”
For some reason the guy didn’t do that.
We called the police and it must have been a quiet night because they showed up really quickly and had great laugh, commenting that the poor guy would be easy to spot because of his soiled clothing.
There’s something about naked men and swords, perhaps that was the secret of the berserkers.
A “well regulated militia” goes like this: “Don’t shoot until you see the whites of their eyes”.
nerd@2: “Too many people were injured way beyond the poor deer,” – two game wardens, seven hunters and a cow?
One of my favourite things is being called a “coward” for being opposed to civilian gun ownership. By American dudes who are so deathly afraid of everyone around them, they don’t feel safe unless they’re armed to the teeth. Apparently the guy who daren’t go to Walmart without a fucking rifle over his shoulder is the brave one.
Qwints @ 18:
Perhaps you should go find a bunch, shouldn’t be hard, and give them a shoulder to whine on.
And perhaps, if we didn’t have gun fetishists wanking in every damn thread over the minutia of all things guns, the rest of us wouldn’t be quite so ready to toss them all away and flush the key.
He appears to be your bog standard ‘good guy with a gun’ fantasist. The life he leads, in which he needs to mow down hordes of blood thirsty home invaders, is playing out largely in his head.
Does that “home invasion” scenario, where someone breaks into your home, with violent intent, knowing you’re at home, even happen? I mean, your average burglar doesn’t even want to be a career criminal, much less a killer. They break in when they think no-one’s home, and will run off if they hear you waking up.
Except perhaps in the US, where they have to assume that you have a gun and will shoot them in the back if they run, and so they may feel the need to shoot first to save their own skin…and they’re very likely to have a gun themselves, because they’re so easy and convenient to get, or even legal to carry around with you…hmmm…
Funny how I reached a comfortable middle age without ever getting the urge to pick up a gun and pump the scenery full of holes. it’s as if a civilised human doesn’t actually need a gun, or something. The US clearly has a way to go before it can be considered a civilised country.
#15, @cartomancer:
Just curious: #12 doesn’t appear hoplophilic to me; what are you referring to?
I’m not looking to borrow trouble, but you didn’t mean #13 by any chance? Because if so, I suggest you try again with your glasses on: there’s nothing hoplophilic about it. Pay special attention to the last couple paragraphs. The comment criticizes the idea of banning only one particular type of firearm while failing to do anything about a large array of much more dangerous ones. I’ll say no more, in case my guess is wrong and that’s not what you were talking about.
http://images4.fanpop.com/image/photos/20900000/-headdesk-random-20936511-104-104.gif
@qwints Yeah, no I didn’t say anything like that. I don’t have problem with law enforcement and soldiers having guns. And within reason I don’t really have a problem with hobbyist shooters. What I have a problem with is people like yourself who prop up their egos with really dangerous objects, and then acting in a caviler manner about gun safety. I have a problem with people who refuse to recognise the harm they cause. That guns are dangerous, and that if you live in a civil society you shouldn’t need guns. I have a problem with people who rush for explanations as soon as their is a massacre. Who frame these episodes as either the work of terrorists if the perp is brown, or mentally ill if they’re white. When the problem is easy access to high powered weapons.
I don’t want you to die. I don’t want you to go to jail. What I want is for you to be a better person.
@gijoel,
The US is not the poster child for this. We haven’t fought a defensive war in at least 70 years, but we’ve sure invaded a lot of countries between then and now. And our cops are killing plenty of people, mostly minorities, often unarmed and innocent. I for one would like to see disarmament that includes most police, and a massive reduction in our military.
Demanding gun control now is not synonymous with , any more than expecting drivers to be licensed, taxed, and insured is the same as demanding the death penalty for anyone owning a car.
@31, PZ: YES, nor does it mean “Ban all cars!”. It just means implementing some common sense rules that make cars safer and guess what, it *worked*. If Americans are actually so very terrified of everyone, I would think they would *welcome* rules that would make them safer! The current system of “MOAR GUNS!!!!11!” obviously doesn’t work at ALL.
#27
I can see how my “this” is somewhat vague and could be interpreted in several ways.
The simpering hoplophile tripe I was referring to was the article PZ eviscerates in the original post – the one written by the gun nut whining on about how he apparently needs state-of-the-art military-grade weaponry because regular old normal instruments of death aren’t good enough for all his killing needs.
I was trying to make explicit how the Jo Cox murder (raised in post #12) makes the original article seem even more fatuous and awful, given that there the murderer used only a bodged together home-made gun – and this guy is trying to split hairs over which expensive high-tech murder weapon he thinks he needs.
@31, PZ: Couldn’t agree more. I’m happy with background checks and I think its beyond lunacy that someone being investigated for terrorist connections (spousal abuse, assault, murder for hire, etc) should be allowed to buy a gun. Unfortunately, every time a thread is posted here about guns, there are more than a few voices who explicitly and loudly call for an absolute ban on firearm ownership. The pro-gun side certainly has its healthy share of puritanical absolutists but lets not pretend the gun-control side doesn’t have them either.
@cartomancer 33
That makes it a lot clearer. I can honestly say I was also confused about what you were talking about and it almost seemed like you were talking about a comment in the thread here.
Ban all guns, now and forever. Ok, that’s not going to happen, but surely there are ways of reducing the amount of random fire power in the US? A few years ago I was held in house at gun point for over an hour, something I don’t want to think about and almost never talk about. Every time someone argues they need a gun for home protection I remember that day, and how it would have been useless. I was babysitting a toddler, so any gun would have had to be safely stowed and locked. But even suppose there was a gun, and it was loaded (stupid with a toddler, but just suppose) and it was somewhere in the house, how would I have have gotten it? I was watching tv in the living room when 2 men silently broke in through a downstairs window and snuck up on me. One had a gun that I could see, pointed at me. The other may have been armed too for all I knew at that moment. Even if there had been a gun in the same room it would have been useless. So I have some strong feelings about this. Its going to take a culture change.
gijoel wrote:
I disagree. The easy access to high powered weapons is a symptom of the problem. The real problem is that culturally, America treats guns like toys rather than dangerous implements that should be handled only with significant caution. Frankly, it doesn’t much matter if you’re an asshole carrying an AR-15 slung to your back, a handgun tucked in your waistband, or walking around with very visible holstered weapons. All these kinds of people are dangerous fools who are treating weapons like toys.
And why wouldn’t Americans treat guns like toys. A toddler finds an armed gun sitting on a table and accidentally injures or kills a sibling, and the police don’t press any charges because “the family has suffered enough”. An idiot accidentally discharges his weapon while “cleaning” it, and no charges are pressed because “no one was hurt”. A doofus accidently shoots himself in a crowded store and nothing is done because “he only hurt himself.” A group of assholes walks around waving their loaded guns around at people, and nothing is done because “they’re not hurting anyone”. If all these people were prosecuted for negligence, a dent might be made in this gun culture.
America needs fewer guns entirely, not just fewer AR-15s. And those fewer guns that remain need to be handled with a hell of a lot more caution by their owners.
Dutchgirl! I’m so sorry that happened to you. Thank you for sharing your story, it makes the point that guns for home defense are largely useless in a very personal and chilling manner.
The thing that I never see addressed is this need to escalate. It seems to be more prevalent in the States than other economically advantaged countries.
These home defense arguments are the most insane escalation of all: if you try to take my stuff, I’ll kill you. Killing is the end point of escalation and as such the only valid use of deadly force is when someone’s life is in immediate danger. There is no object that I possess that is worth the life of another individual, no matter who that individual is. I boggle at how many people seem to think otherwise.
How has it come to be acceptable to kill, or even attempt to kill someone who is not attempting to kill you?
I’m all in favour of reducing the harm of gun culture by limiting access to deadly instruments. To argue that it wouldn’t be 100% effective is to surrender to the perfection fallacy. But I also think it vital to couple that with addressing this culture wide acceptance of escalation as a means of conflict resolution.
He must be thinking of a different First Blood than the one I watched. There was exactly one death in that movie, and it was an accident. It was a movie that was ultimately about PTSD and corruption, and is quite a fascinating movie to watch.
The NRA and other rabid gun fanboys have largely converted me to deciding that if we can’t even regulate guns even a tiny little bit, then fuck it, let’s just go take all the guns away. The adults in Canada can keep their hunting rifles, but the babies in the US will have to do without.
Here’s a flaw in the home defense argument that I haven’t seen brought up: guns are valuable. if criminals know that you have multiple guns in your home, it actually makes it a more attractive target to burglarize because they can steal the guns and sell them a lot easier than trying to steal a large flat-screen TV.
Seems to me that if he is not competent enough to shoot accurately enough to kill a deer with an ordinary hunting rifle he is not competent enough to spray a hail of bullets with an assault rifle.
PZ, it’s hard for me to believe you actually think your posts is “demanding gun control now.” You’ve said their only purpose is to kill people, that people “obsessed with them” are sick and said this fairly typical gun owner should be incarcerated or drafted. I think posts like these serve as propaganda for gun nuts convinced that any increase in safety will end in the government raiding their house and seizing their guns. I know you’ll say I’m concern trolling, but PETA style rhetoric really does set a cause back.
Regardless, all of the Americans here should be proud of Senator Murphy. Tomorrow’s a great day to call your Senators. We’d all be much better off with a Canadian style system.
treefrogdundee wrote:
Well, I failed on my blockquote, but I think it’s pretty obvious what I meant.
Here’s a thought. After the Port Arthur massacre in Australia we decided to ban rapid fire weapons and conducted a massive buy back.
Number of mass shootings in Australia since 1996:
…
…
…
…
/mic drop
I think there’s more to it than that Mike. There’s also no culture here telling people that they need a deadly weapon for ‘home defense’ and the like. Or any weapon for that matter. Sure, my sample size is small, I’m a Canadian immigrant who’s only been here eight years, so please correct me if I’m wrong.
I also don’t know if the currently prevailing attitude towards deadly weapons preexisted Port Arthur. Though if it wasn’t, it seems likely that the ban and buy back wouldn’t have been so successful.
And a final point that’s telling: it was a conservative government that got that legislation through. No way in hell that would happen in today’s USA, which points to a vastly different culture.
Two snarky side points:
(1) The M-16 was originally adopted not just because it allowed soldiers (and, in particular, slightly smaller Vietnamese/ARVN soldiers) to carry more ammo, but precisely because it generally wounds rather than kills. There are sickeningly sanitized (no longer classified) documents from the 1960s and 1970s that attempt to quantify exactly how many Soviet resources would be tied up in dealing with the wounded if NATO changed over from its then-standard 7.62mm round to 5.56mm (the “.223 caliber”) that remind one of Dr. Strangelove and the mineshaft gap… and not in an amusing way. The rationalizations for why a tumbling bullet (not mentioned in the laws of ware) is ok, but an expanding/dum-dum bullet (prohibited by the laws of war) is not, are equally sickening and even more deeply sanitized.
(2) Everything “Jon Stokes” says in the home/self-defense context points toward proper training and a properly cared-for 25-28cm combat knife more than any firearm, let alone a longarm. (And that wouldn’t run the risk of a stray round dinging Grandma’s display china, either.) And if it’s not in the home/self-defense context… his incorrect/inappropriate choice of weaponry is even more apparent and even more self-defeating.
For home defense, I prefer the following to an AR-15:
1. Two locked and loaded chihuahuas. If you don’t think chihuahuas are a threat to home invaders and/or guests that they take offense at, I can only assume that you don’t know any chihuahuas.
2. Multiple devices that can call the police at a moment’s notice. I admit that I rely on class and race privilege for that one, but it’s a privilege the vast majority of those who “need” an AR-15 for home defense share, so I feel it is fair to mention it.
3. A complete lack of possessions that are worth risking anyone’s life for. If my home is invaded while I’m there, I’m taking the attack chihuahuas and running. Go ahead, steal my 2008 vintage Macintosh. Its street value is probably a good $10. If you’re really lucky there might be some change in the sofa too.
But why isn’t there? Australia is, in many ways, very similar to the US: A country founded by the people that the Brits couldn’t stand to have in their country any more, with a lot of unpopulated rural areas, a history of genocide, a long and varied tradition of immigration, including some ugly bits about discriminating against the Asian immigrants that are keeping it from collapsing, and a culture of “rugged individualism”. And yet somehow Australians manage to defend their homes against fellow Australians, vague “foreign” threats, and drop bears without assault rifles. Why can’t the US do the same?
Australian culture is a bit different in that we don’t have the second amendment. Nor was our nation born of revolution.
However guns were very prevalent in colonial Australia, in that they were primarily used in wars/violence against the aboriginal population.
Culture changes over generations.: but gun laws can be brought in now.
Yep. And it’s time. Now. If the second amendment is the problem then we can get rid of it. Historically, the second was proposed by the south to make sure that they’d have guns around to “defend” themselves against slave revolts and accepted by the north because they wanted to be able to “defend” themselves against the rightful owners of the land they were squatting on. Neither rationale is one that US-Americans can feel proud of. Time to rid ourselves* of this danger.
*And, to some extent, the rest of North America: Mexico’s violence problems are largely driven by the movement of guns into Mexico from the US and Canada seems to have a problem with legal and illegal guns from the US proliferating there as well. I expect there is at least some “trickle down” effect to Central America as well, though I know less about that. In short, it would benefit the whole continent, not just the US, to get rid of the guns.
“…adrenaline-fueled humans are hard to kill…”
especially when they are running away
I suspect most of his arguments might best demonstrate their actual worth when the phrase “when I accidentally shoot a loved one” is inserted.
Because like it or not, that’s one hell of a lot more likely than defending yourself from an intruder.
Australia is mentioned here; FWIW, it’s actually illegal here in Oz to have a weapon* for the specific purpose of self-defence (though it’s not illegal to use force in self-defence).
The only valid legal reasons to be able to possess a firearm are specific uses such as hunting, target shooting, collection, pest control, or other occupational uses.
Even then, one needs a firearms license (to get one involves training and a waiting period), and the the firearm’s serial number must be registered to the user. Other requirements also apply.
—
* Any weapon!
The real problem with this is that the .223 round these AR-15s fire really aren’t powerful enough to bring down game like deer or elk. They’re simply too small to do the job effectively. You would need to be incredibly precise with a heart shot or a head shot (and damage the trophy). They’re not meant for killing anything that big.
They’re designed, basically, to kill only one type of animal. The same type of animal they’re designed to be used by.
Sorry, but the image that came to my mind was a drunk guy sitting in a rather messy kitchen with an AK-47, shooting cockroaches and mumbling about his right to protect himself against evil bugs. I know that, it being Australia, the pests involved are probably really the size of small sheep and venomous.
@ 40 numerobis
As an American, I’d be fine with that. Or at the least ban all guns that have removable clips.
dianne, not quite. Think farmers killing feral animals — foxes, wandering dogs, feral cats and so forth. (Pretty gruesome to see what they can do to newborn lambs :|)
Think shotguns and bolt-action rifles.
(I work in a rural area, and most landowners have a firearms license)
dianne @49-
I am not, alas, aware of the deterrent effect of chihuahuas, so I’ll have to take your word for it.
And I am not sure that 9-1-1 would really do much good in my area, as the Forces of the Law are a bit sparse in my town (this is, in fact, a good thing – not in itself, but as an indicator of our crime rate).
However, I am wholly in agreement on point #3 – I would be a little sad if I lost, say, my stupidly expensive binoculars (mostly because it took so many years to save up for them); but the idea that I would risk my life – or the intruder’s life – over some thing, any thing, is simply ludicrous.
“the”
Yep. My parents’ house got broken into last week, and they came home in the middle of it. It was a teenager in a crime of opportunity (he was walking down the street and saw them leave), and he didn’t even take anything because he got so scared when he heard them coming in the front door. He just took off.
Now, my dad owns guns (passed down from his policeman father: a shotgun, a rifle he got during WWII, and his service revolver), and has a carry permit just to make sure he’s in total legal compliance. If circumstances leading up to the event had been different, he could have been carrying the revolver and shot the guy, and it would have been totally legal thanks to the “stand your ground” home defense laws. And there would be a teenager who would be dead due to a stupid few minutes of being an idiot. That’s not what happened, because my dad isn’t an asshole with delusions of being Clint fucking Eastwood. What also didn’t happen is him responding with “Jeez, better keep that revolver loaded and on my person now just in case!” Again, because he’s not an asshole who thinks it’s justified to kill somebody over stuff. Instead, he’s looking into these nifty things called “home security systems” that keep people from breaking in where you can legally kill them. As dianne said, the cost is about the same (or less) as one of those fancy guns.
How disappointingly mundane, John Morales.
So, this argument basically boils down to “I want a weapon that’s very good at killing many people within a short amount of time because it’s good at killing a lot of people in a short amount of time”?
Dude, that’s exactly why you shouldn’t have any.
Not only that, it also makes the burglars much more likely to kill you just to be sure. Contrary to popular belief, burglars are generally NOT trying to murder you in your sleep just over your TV set. They want easy access to valuables they can sell and they want to spend that money in freedom. Now, while police will go looking for a burglar, they won’t go looking very hard. If there’s a dead body around there’s suddenly a lot more interest in who did it than when there’s just a broken window. In more reasonable countries there’s also quite a difference in prison terms between burglary and armed robbery.
Add guns to the equation and you change the game. Suddenly, the consequences of somebody surprising you while you’re stealing their TV is no longer that you have to run and may do some months in prison if you get caught but they will shoot you. So you shoot them first because in for the Penny, in for the Pound.
Hi qwints! You wanna see someone who likes the idea of the complete banning of guns?
*holds out hand for shaking*
My name’s Nathan. Nice to meet you. I believe that 2nd Amendment is one of the US’s many mistakes and should be overturned. I believe guns are evil and there is no reason, ever, anywhere, at any time, for a human being to own one.
Of course, I don’t actually advocate for that, mainly because I’m pretty sure I’d get shot. I’d settle for banning assault rifles from civilian hands and having strict strict strict strict strict regulations on the sale of other guns to civilians. Tests, IDs… getting a gun should be HARDER than getting your first driver’s license… not easier.
Being chased by a lunatic with a semi-automatic rifle would surely spike one’s adrenaline, and 49 such people were recently killed in one incident. Maybe it’s not all that hard.
mike in melbourne
And let’s not forget. The US might have made a lot of money from all its outlaw/ cavalry/ cowboy shoot’emup films, but Australia’s outlaw bandits, the bushrangers, were more dangerous and caused far more trouble than their US equivalents.
I’ve lived in both Ireland and the UK where it’s relatively common for farmers to have a shotgun (licensed), for the sorts of reasons mentioned in other comments. That is simply not a problem, those individuals are usually pretty steady, and I presume the licensing requirements ensure they have had suitable training. Also, at least in the UK (I don’t know about Ireland) there are very strict requirements on the storage of both ammo and all(? (I think)) Shooty McShootfaces.
Not unrelated, in both countries, most of the police force is unarmed.
I can’t speak for Ireland, but the greatest problem amongst UK farmers regarding shotguns is the level of suicide by shotgun. That’s a societal problem because of the way successive govenments have allowed farm-gate prices to be run down by market forces, to the point where the effective cartel of supermarkets no longer allows farmers to make a living.
A lot of people have shot themselves to death over the last 20 years. I’d like to see that balanced by CEOs and members of the board doing time.
@ ck,
“But can we please stop drawing the false equivalence between the two. A small minority of people who want all guns banned unconditionally but wield almost no political power is not equal to the fucking National Rifle Association”
I never said they were equivalent, despite the fact that a number of the ban-everything nuts hold elected office. And every time one of these shootings happens, said nuts use it as an excuse to try and ban a long list of things they consider scary. And this frightens sane gun owners who want more and better checks or other tighter regulation without being criminalized themselves. And in a take-it-or-leave-it approach between no gun control and draconian gun control, the former has the political edge.
“ban-everything nuts” sounds to me like those crazy people who want to have a sustainable energy system, or the insane people advocating to eliminate poverty. Namely, people who for whom the Overton window is so completely out of whack that they are labeled as suffering mental illness for believing things that are true.
treefrogdundee:
If you fucking gun fondlers weren’t so damn scared of everything, perhaps this weird need to wrap yourself in deadly weapons wouldn’t be a problem for everyone else.
mostlymarvelous:
Right, because the years of genocide against the indigenous people here in uStates, eh, that was no big deal. Hardly anyone at all died.
Rich Wood@69, Thanks for the clarification about UK farmer suicides. I wasn’t aware of that(the suicides, not the depressed / dysfunctional market).
It brings to mind a vague recollection about Switzerland (this is all from memory and so should be taken with caution): There’s a high level of gun ownership there, mostly due to the Swiss Army / reserve system (in fact, I think Switzerland is one of the few countries where guns are quite common, albeit please note, gun-foundlers, the people with the guns have been trained by the Army). As I vaguely recall, the main use those guns are put to is suicide.
Caine, I don’t think us trying to have genocide olympics about which indigenous peoples we treated most shittily really helps right now.
@blf #74 I believe the Swiss suicide rate may have gone down since they started storing ammunition centrally so people have their assigned guns at home, but no ammunition unless the militia is actually activated.
Long time lurker, left for a while and just came back.
The problem with gun control measures is that they will primarily prevent poor people, PoC, LGBT people, and/or disabled people from accessing guns and will barely affect rich white reactionaries and right-libertarians. That is, gun control will do much to disarm those who are most victim to systematic violence (and have most to gain from overturning such violence) and little to disarm those who benefit from and enact systematic violence.
Banning guns outright: this will prevent anyone from accessing guns legally. Guns are already concentrated primarily among rich white reactionaries. How are you going to take away all the guns currently owned when a huge part of the USA’s gun culture is paranoia about their guns being taken away? Or what about a black market which will only be accessible to those who not only have the money, but also the systemic dominance/privilege in order to get off easy when violating those laws? Anyway, unless we also disarm the police (and de-militarize) how will we be able to resist the police brutality that terrorizes black and brown communities when they have all the firepower?
Banning assault weapons: same problem as above. Except in the case of specifically disallowing the police from having assault weapons as well.
Mandatory background checks: who are most likely to have criminal backgrounds? Poor people, PoC, LGBT people, (and sometimes left-wing organizers). Who are least likely to have criminal backgrounds? rich, white, cis/het reactionaries.
Mandatory use and safety training: this is actually a good idea if and only if it is provided for free and with flexible hours for people who are working long hours at low wage jobs. I don’t like it when leftists violate gun safety when flaunting weapons either.
Mental illness screening: aside from the fact that neurodivergent/mentally ill people are much more likely to be victims of violence than perpetrators, who are most likely to have mental illnesses? Poor people, PoC, LGBT people, because of the many traumas of oppression. Who are least likely to have mental illnesses? Rich white cis/hets.
Also, it is important to point out that the first gun control laws were drafted specifically to target African survivors of slavery who owned guns to protect themselves/take revenge against the Klan, and that the current wave of gun control laws began with (NRA endorsed!) laws specifically to disarm the Black Panther Party.
Anyway, a world where only reactionaries have guns is not a safe world for me. At all. It’s not enough that, as a lesbian trans woman, just about all of society tries to grind me to death, but that if I and my comrades try to fight back for our dignity, who now has all the firepower? This is not an abstract concept. White nationalists will target people (such as antifas) who do work to resist them, and the state will do nothing to protect them and even give white nationalists information as to where to find such people who resist them such as the case in the link below, where a leftist had to use their guns to fend off KKK and anti-choice threats.
http://www.mockingbirdpaper.com/content/my-guns-saved-my-life-when-state-and-liberals-left-me-die
(And if any of you say anything about needing to be nonviolent in our activism (ignoring all the movements advanced through militant tactics), you need to read How Nonviolence Protects the State (which could also be called “How Nonviolence Protects the Status Quo” or “How Nonviolence Protects Oppression”)
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/peter-gelderloos-how-nonviolence-protects-the-state
“There is nothing in this world currently deserving of the name peace. Rather, it is a question of whose violence frightens us most, and on whose side we will stand.”
bunker fetish:
What?
Stupid argument predicated on a stupid premise; structural and systemic oppression is not alleviated by the oppressed having firearms.
Bah.
So, how are minorities currently benefiting from access to firearms? As you said, they’re suffering from systematic violence.
Ariaflame@76, Yes, centrally-storing the ammunition has apparently significantly reduced the Swiss suicide rate, Switzerland guns: Living with firearms the Swiss way (BBC, 2013), quoting Professor Martin Killias, director of criminology at Zurich University:
That entire article is very interesting reading, as it highlights the ENORMOUS difference between Shooty McShootfaces in the States and Switzerland, despite both countries having a very high rate of gun ownership. For instance:
John Morales
Does the fact that leftists don’t actually like gun control (or at least not the measures liberals endorse) make your brain short circuit?
Liberation movements advanced by oppressed people having firearms just from off the top of my head:
1) Black Power Movement in the so called USA (dismantled by the FBI)
2) Chicano Movement/Brown Berets in the so called USA (dismantled by the FBI)
3) American Indian Movement in the so called USA (dismantled by the FBI)
4) EZLN (Zapatista Army of National Liberation) insurgency in so called Mexico (ongoing)
5) PKK (Kurdistan Workers’ Party) insurgency in so called Turkey (ongoing, reactivated after a truce broke down)
6) Rojava Revolution (Syrian Kurds) in so called Syria (ongoing)
7) Though not a movement itself, the Oka Standoff (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oka_Crisis) is seen as an important event which helped develop the Idle No More movement in so called North America
Giliell
First, “oppressed class” is not the same as “minority.” Rich people (the Owner class) are a minority, but they are an oppressor class, since they extract labor from working people. Men aren’t any more of of a majority than women, but men (as a class) extract emotional, sexual, economic, and social labor from women.
Second, how are oppressed classes going to benefit from gun control either? How can you be sure that they won’t just make oppressed classes even more powerless, with them having no access to firearms, while oppressor classes, especially explicitly reactionary members of those classes, not having much more restriction? Especially with the American state’s history of snuffing out liberation movements mentioned above? (Civilian) gun violence doesn’t compare to economic, medical, and state violence when it comes to killing oppressed classes.
The only gun control I support is disarming the police, abolishing the military, and banning all reactionaries from having guns (and violently confiscating all guns currently owned by reactionaries). These measures alone would do more to lower gun violence than any gun control measures generally advocated by liberals. And the focus of the measures isn’t anti-gun. It is anti-police, anti-military, and anti-reactionary, because the police, the military, and reactionaries are the main sources of gun violence, not guns themselves. It is also revolutionary because none of these measures would ever be realistic with our current government or society.
I mentioned in my previous comment that confiscating guns from reactionaries would be a problem with the notion of banning all guns. From the perspective of such a policy actually happening within our society, it is not a realistic option (even less than actually banning all new sales). But I’m not not talking in this comment about realistic options within our society.
bunker fetish:
Does the idea that the more guns are controlled, the less likely they will be misused make your brain short circuit?
(Also: You imagine you represent leftists?!)
Leaving aside that the context here is the USA, how successful do you judge these movements to have these been?
bunker fetish
Well, living in a country where people don’t have easy access to fire arms (and where it takes time and means to acquire them legally) and where oppressed groups (if you prefer that term to “minority groups”) don’t fare worse than in your gun happy USA seems evidence enough for me.
For example, the police here, major part of the repressive system, don’t shoot a few hundred people of colour every year and trans people aren’t legally threatened with murder on social media for using the correct bathroom.
Americans have a weird obsession with guns in general. The guy’s trying to defend having a military assault rifle WITHOUT saying “’cause it’s cool and I might need to kill a bunch of people quickly someday”, and watching him jump through the hoops is funny.
As for “needing a gun”, someone else pointed out here that not every criminal is a psychopath who’s just shooting for fun…most are scared cowards who are hoping you’re more scared of them. My anecdote is a tame one comparatively but I think shows this mentality. Once on vacation me and my wife had an attempted mugging while we was walking around at night. It was late, so I didn’t bring any wallet nor did she…we were just around the block of the hotel and everything as closed. The kid (term very correctly used, might have been 19 on the outside) pulls a knife and demands our money. I was afraid a little sure, but kept cool and said “Look, I don’t have any, no wallet and no purse. You want to stab me and risk a murder charge for nothing??? Run and I’ll forget i ever saw you!” And after a short thought-break, he did…because he’s not stupid. (p.s. I know martial arts, so that helped me a little in the be rational department)
Now think of the joys if we all had guns that day!!! Crossfire, multiple injuries, and not even any money to take. He’d be shot or I’d be shot, but for what? Don’t American’s see that, or are the gun nuts just so anxious to shoot ANYONE that they’ll take their excuses wherever they can?
Cross posted with Interesting Stuff thread.
SCOTUS refused to hear the appeal of the New York and Connecticut ban on assault weapons.
I bet the Court of Appeals looking at the California ban will take note.
In Australia gun control is far more rigid but occasionally problems occur. Many years ago a 16 year old walked into a room full of children and 3 adults including 19 year old me. He was carrying a loaded .22 semi-automaitc rifle. At one stge he pointed it straight at me. He was known to many of the people there and was a mental patient with drug abuse issues. He had walked out of the psychiatric hospital where he was being treated and got hold of his brothers rifle which had been kept in a locked cupboard. the whole event lasted less than five minutes. I talked calmly to him, (believe me not easy when you are staring down the barrel of a gun) and he handed the gun over to me. I passed it on to one of the other adults who knew more about guns than me and he removed the bullets. We called his brother to come and collect him and the gun. Problem solved.
Now if there had been a “good-guy” gun fondler present the result might have been different. You can imagine a gunfight in a room full of children. Years down the track the boy resolved his drug issues. The last I heard of him he was drug free, settled with a family and getting on with his life and yes he does have guns. He is a farmer and uses them to control feral animals. For me it is not a pleasant memory but the alternative would have been far worse. I have been in the middle of far worse in the form of traffic and industrial accidents in my 65 years and those memories are far more disturbing. I hate to think how people who have been through your regular mass shootings have been affected.