Why would anyone need an assault rifle? (1 Viewer)

[-fish-]

Per @timschochet there isn't really such a thing as a single issue voter.

Also, can you specifically define "gun nut" in this context?

Tim made an unsupported statement involving a false generality?  Shocking.  

 

[unckeyherb]

Tim made an unsupported statement involving a false generality?  Shocking.  

Speaking of false generalities, “Also, can you specifically define "gun nut" in this context?”

 

[FF Ninja]

Per @timschochet there isn't really such a thing as a single issue voter.

Also, can you specifically define "gun nut" in this context?

Not really.

I studied Robert Dahl (founder of modern "pluralism" studies in college) and he explained how single issue voting was effective in local elections and decision making. (For example, if a small group of voters want a certain street paved, they can effectively trade their vote for a politician willing to pave the street. This gives that small group power far beyond their numbers, but that power is very temporary: only until the issue is resolved.) But you rarely see single issue voters for national elections. Almost all voters have priorities, but that's not the same thing.

There are also certain issues in which voters will not budge on: abortion is perhaps the best example. Millions of liberals will never vote for a pro-life candidate, while millions of conservatives will never vote for a pro-choice candidate. But again this is not the same as single issue voting, because the result of this particular conviction on both sides is a static situation in which we never get pro-choice Republicans or pro-life Democrats. So people rarely choose candidates based on abortion.

No, guns are the only single issue item I can think of, honestly, and it's only on one side: extremist gun owners who believe that ANY restriction on firearms is a violation of the Second Amendment, which appears to be the only amendment to the Constitution that they care about. I regard their fanaticism on this issue to be an aberration of our political system. We're poisoned by it.  

 

[unckeyherb]

No, I get that he said that. He makes a very compelling case as to why there’s no such thing as a single issue voter right above that line. He then ignores that line of reasoning when he wants to call out the pro-gun side.  It’s a very Tim kind of thing to do.  

ETA:   I’m also still waiting to find out if I meet the accepted definition of “gun nut”.

 

[msommer]

Did any one come up with a convincing answer for the need for an assault rifle for civilians yet?

I mean, it's only been three years, so...

 

[rockaction]

Did any one come up with a convincing answer for the need for an assault rifle for civilians yet?

I mean, it's only been three years, so...

KCitons did, IMO.  

 

[msommer]

KCitons did, IMO.  

When he got "shot down" by DW? Or earlier?  

 

[rockaction]

When he got "shot down" by DW? Or earlier?  

I thought the simple argument that four armed invaders prompting a legitimate defense showed a legitimate potential need. 

From what I read, their back and forth was sort of painstaking, really. I guess I didn't read it carefully enough to note the objection. 

It doesn't come from a love of guns on my end so that doesn't color my opinion of the argument because as for regulation of assault rifles, that's actually my weakest Constitutional opinion that I have. Of almost any of them. Like tim points out, we're already effectively disarmed against our own gov't and I see no utile function other than the barest threat of defense when it comes to assault rifles. 

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

When he got "shot down" by DW? Or earlier?  

It was not my intent to shoot down his stance, just to trim some of the excess off of his stance.  That I would not choose that platform for my home defense weapon, and that I find no need of it for the activities I engage in does not mean it is not a capable and versatile weapon system.  I confess that I do have concern that it has proliferated to the extent that it has.  I wonder at the perceived need for it.  I suspect the appeal is not so much need based as desire based, like one might have for a powerful car or oversized truck or a stereo system that can explode my eardrums.  I hope owners of each are responsible and will not adversely effect me, though I know that statistically some will.  That is, I suppose, the price of having these freedoms.  That there is a debate about that price, an ongoing cost/benefit analysis, is to be expected.  The conversation goes on, hopefully respectfully, but sometimes acrimoniously.

 

[The Z Machine]

I thought the simple argument that four armed invaders prompting a legitimate defense showed a legitimate potential need. 

At what cost though?  If the probability of collateral damage (say the gun being used for other things than defending ones home against armed invaders) far outstrips the likelihood of using the weapon "legitimately", then the balance should be to not allow the gun to be sold to the public.

For every weapon used in a home defense situation like the one we've been discussing, there are probably 5-10 similar weapons that are burgled or sold on the black market to people that wish to commit crimes with them.  

 

[rockaction]

At what cost though?  If the probability of collateral damage (say the gun being used for other things than defending ones home against armed invaders) far outstrips the likelihood of using the weapon "legitimately", then the balance should be to not allow the gun to be sold to the public.

For every weapon used in a home defense situation like the one we've been discussing, there are probably 5-10 similar weapons that are burgled or sold on the black market to people that wish to commit crimes with them.  

Yeah, I'd counter that by saying that an aggregate cost/benefit analysis takes a backseat to an Amendment whose primary concern is the individual.  

 

[rockaction]

But again, not passionate about it. 

 

[FF Ninja]

ETA:   I’m also still waiting to find out if I meet the accepted definition of “gun nut”.

https://www.quora.com/Whats-the-difference-between-a-gun-nut-and-a-firearms-owner

 

[unckeyherb]

At what cost though?  If the probability of collateral damage (say the gun being used for other things than defending ones home against armed invaders) far outstrips the likelihood of using the weapon "legitimately", then the balance should be to not allow the gun to be sold to the public.

For every weapon used in a home defense situation like the one we've been discussing, there are probably 5-10 similar weapons that are burgled or sold on the black market to people that wish to commit crimes with them.  

 You really think that for every one AR that is used to defend a home, 10 are stolen and used on the street in crimes?   On what are you basing that opinion? 

 

[Henry Ford]

 You really think that for every one AR that is used to defend a home, 10 are stolen and used on the street in crimes?   On what are you basing that opinion? 

Seems a reasonable estimate if ARs are similar to other firearms, though a little off on aggregate (not just AR and not just home invasion) statistics. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, approximately 67,000 crimes are foiled by the use of a firearm every year.  Roughly 230,000 firearms are stolen every year.  

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Seems a reasonable estimate if ARs are similar to other firearms, though a little off on aggregate (not just AR and not just home invasion) statistics. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, approximately 67,000 crimes are foiled by the use of a firearm every year.  Roughly 230,000 firearms are stolen every year.  

Home invasion burglars around my parts are seeking, in order, drugs, money and then guns.  Why?, they have direct use for them.  These are followed by electronics and jewelry, why?, because they are valuable, but are a pain to possess as they take extra steps to move, to pawn or fence to convert them to money, drugs and guns.  An argument can be made that if one is a known gun owner that this makes ones home a target when they are not around as it contains desirable merchandise.

 

[Henry Ford]

Home invasion burglars around my parts are seeking, in order, drugs, money and then guns.  Why, they have direct use for them.  These are followed by electronics and jewelry, why, because they are valuable, but are a pain to possess as they take extra steps to move, to pawn or fence to convert them to money, drugs and guns.  An argument can be made that if one is a known gun owner that this makes ones home a target when they are not around as it contains desirable merchandise.

Exactly. The overwhelming majority of those guns that are stolen (something like 75%, I believe) are stolen during burglaries. 

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Exactly. The overwhelming majority of those guns that are stolen (something like 75%, I believe) are stolen during burglaries. 

So very few actually taken from cold, dead hands.  Also very few taken by government, but not an insignificant number since we do tend to forfeit weapons used in crimes.  My jurisdiction, for instance, has a yearly contract for shredding firearms.

Hey, remember the gun buy back programs of the 90"s.  Me too.  Damn we use to get a lot of Tech 9's and a lot of Rugers.

 

[Henry Ford]

So very few actually taken from cold, dead hands.  Also very few taken by government, but not an insignificant number since we do tend to forfeit weapons used in crimes.  My jurisdiction, for instance, has a yearly contract for shredding firearms.

Hey, remember the gun buy back programs of the 90"s.  Me too.  Damn we use to get a lot of Tech 9's and a lot of Rugers.

Rugers? What sort?

My current handgun is a Ruger, never struck me as a gun for the sort who buy TEC-9s. 

 

[timschochet]

No, I get that he said that. He makes a very compelling case as to why there’s no such thing as a single issue voter right above that line. He then ignores that line of reasoning when he wants to call out the pro-gun side.  It’s a very Tim kind of thing to do.  

ETA:   I’m also still waiting to find out if I meet the accepted definition of “gun nut”.

I think you read me wrong. I never wrote that there was no such thing as a single issue voter. I wrote that in terms of national elections it was rare, and that certain extreme pro NRA types were really the only example I could think of. 

 

[The Z Machine]

 You really think that for every one AR that is used to defend a home, 10 are stolen and used on the street in crimes?   On what are you basing that opinion? 

Total speculation on my part.  I would like to research stats, but I don't have time right now.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Rugers? What sort?

My current handgun is a Ruger, never struck me as a gun for the sort who buy TEC-9s. 

Their semiautos.  They were fairly inexpensive back then and my area had a Gander Mountain Sports which constantly had them on sale for some reason. Their pistols were and are better built and more in line with other manufacturers prices so we rarely saw those.  Yep, in the 90's you could get a Glock chambered in .40 for $500 but a Ruger chambered in .40 for $230.

 

[timschochet]

Total speculation on my part.  I would like to research stats, but I don't have time right now.

You also don’t have the money, because single issue voters have caused the government to stop all research on this subject matter. 

But I share your speculation. AR-15s being necessary for home defense  strikes me as about as likely as a solar eclipse. 

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

You also don’t have the money, because single issue voters have caused the government to stop all research on this subject matter. 

But I share your speculation. AR-15s being necessary for home defense  strikes me as about as likely as a solar eclipse. 

Several dozen in my lifetime.  Now Haley's comet, or the comet Hale-Bopp or the comet Kahotek, that is where I would have drawn the analogy, still, to each their own.  there are no verifiable right answers, only impressions and opinions.

 

[timschochet]

Several dozen in my lifetime.  Now Haley's comet, or the comet Hale-Bopp or the comet Kahotek, that is where I would have drawn the analogy, still, to each their own.  there are no verifiable right answers, only impressions and opinions.

Sure. It happens sometimes. I would never claim that it never happens. But it’s pretty rare. 

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Sure. It happens sometimes. I would never claim that it never happens. But it’s pretty rare. 

Rare enough that I make a point of noting it when it does happen, to be certain.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

My bad. I misremembered the spelling of Kahoutek.

 

[msommer]

My bad. I misremembered the spelling of Kahoutek.

For a second I thought you misspelled Cthulhu....

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

For a second I thought you misspelled Cthulhu....

Nope, the disappointing over-hypoed comet, not the totally awesome God Destroyer, though there is every chance I would have misspelled that name too.

 

[unckeyherb]

I think you read me wrong. I never wrote that there was no such thing as a single issue voter. I wrote that in terms of national elections it was rare, and that certain extreme pro NRA types were really the only example I could think of. 

Perhaps I did read you wrong.  I'm wondering why you believe the below is true for pro-lifers/pro-choicers, but not for "extreme pro NRA types."  The same logic should shake out regarding gun issues, but you seem to think the opposite.

Also, pro-life people that I know give far more weight to that specific belief when voting across the board than pro NRA folks.  Anecdotal as it may be.  

"But again this is not the same as single issue voting, because the result of this particular conviction on both sides is a static situation in which we never get pro-choice Republicans or pro-life Democrats. So people rarely choose candidates based on abortion."

 

[unckeyherb]

Seems a reasonable estimate if ARs are similar to other firearms, though a little off on aggregate (not just AR and not just home invasion) statistics. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, approximately 67,000 crimes are foiled by the use of a firearm every year.  Roughly 230,000 firearms are stolen every year.  

So 3:1.  Not 10:1. 

And how many AR 15's are actually used to kill people?  Because that is what this really boils down to.  In 2016 there were 7,100 handgun deaths and 374 rifle deaths.  That's all rifles, not just AR 15's.  The idea that AR 15's are being stolen and sold on the black market to be used in crimes, at any rate that should give pause, is not based in reality.  

At what cost though?  If the probability of collateral damage (say the gun being used for other things than defending ones home against armed invaders) far outstrips the likelihood of using the weapon "legitimately", then the balance should be to not allow the gun to be sold to the public.

 

[Henry Ford]

So 3:1.  Not 10:1. 

And how many AR 15's are actually used to kill people?  Because that is what this really boils down to.  In 2016 there were 7,100 handgun deaths and 374 rifle deaths.  That's all rifles, not just AR 15's.  The idea that AR 15's are being stolen and sold on the black market to be used in crimes, at any rate that should give pause, is not based in reality.  

You seem to equate number of crimes with number of deaths.  Is there a reason for that?

 

[unckeyherb]

You also don’t have the money, because single issue voters have caused the government to stop all research on this subject matter. 

But I share your speculation. AR-15s being necessary for home defense  strikes me as about as likely as a solar eclipse. 

He wasn't speculating on the efficacy of an AR for home defense.  He was speculating that for every one AR used to defend a home, ten are stolen and used for crimes.  

 

[unckeyherb]

You seem to equate number of crimes with number of deaths.  Is there a reason for that?

Because we are talking about guns.  And deaths would seem to be related to a tool designed to kill. 

But I'm willing to reconsider my point.  Are AR 15's typically used in any crimes more than handguns?  

 

[unckeyherb]

Rugers? What sort?

My current handgun is a Ruger, never struck me as a gun for the sort who buy TEC-9s. 

I have a Mark III target pistol.  While I love to shoot it, I cannot see it fetching much on the black market.  I can't see it earning much street cred either.

 

[Stealthycat]

why does anyone need a car that goes faster than 20 mph ?

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Why does anybody need a poster who likes to restart a nonproductive merry-go-round?

 

[OrtonToOlsen]

why does anyone need a car that goes faster than 20 mph ?

No

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

To kill people?

Can't think of any other possible reasons.

What about if its a convertible and you need to outrun hungry cheetahs hoping to snack on you?

 

[Stealthycat]

To kill people?

Can't think of any other possible reasons.

an object doesn't make anyone do anything

you know that right ?>

I'm trading for a Glock 19 tomorrow .... has 2 clips and a 31 round clip

I am no more dangerous having that gun than I was not having it

 

[Henry Ford]

I have a Mark III target pistol.  While I love to shoot it, I cannot see it fetching much on the black market.  I can't see it earning much street cred either.

I have a GP100 .357.  It's pretty credible.

 

[rockaction]

What is it with the left's utter incapacity to view any right as anything but a cost/benefit analysis or a balancing test? 

Sometimes there is no test. #### might be dangerous, but depending on constitutional interpretation, it might not matter. It might be an unabridgeable right. .  

 

[Henry Ford]

What is it with the left's utter incapacity to view any right as anything but a cost/benefit analysis or a balancing test? 

Sometimes there is no test. #### might be dangerous, but depending on constitutional interpretation, it might not matter. It might be an unbridgeable right. .  

Even then the Constitution can be amended.

It is the nature of the left to push to change.  It is the nature of the right to push against change.  Gotta have them both, or we're screwed.

 

[rockaction]

Even then the Constitution can be amended.

It is the nature of the left to push to change.  It is the nature of the right to push against change.  Gotta have them both, or we're screwed.

True. My lament was not well put. I should have said that rights aren't necessarily contingent upon stats, cost/benefit analyses, or even balancing tests. At times, they exist because they're granted by the Constitution as inalienable and unassailable unless further amended or repealed. 

To base the entire structure of rights on balancing and c/b analysis is certainly a valid jurisprudential exercise, but it is not necessarily determinant. 

 

[Henry Ford]

True. My lament was not well put. I should have said that rights aren't necessarily contingent upon stats, cost/benefit analyses, or even balancing tests. At times, they exist because they're granted by the Constitution as inalienable and unassailable unless further amended or repealed. 

To base the entire structure of rights on balancing and c/b analysis is certainly a valid jurisprudential exercise, but it is not necessarily determinant. 

Sure, but how do you know whether to amend or repeal unless you do a cost/benefit analysis?

 

[-fish-]

True. My lament was not well put. I should have said that rights aren't necessarily contingent upon stats, cost/benefit analyses, or even balancing tests. At times, they exist because they're granted by the Constitution as inalienable and unassailable unless further amended or repealed. 

To base the entire structure of rights on balancing and c/b analysis is certainly a valid jurisprudential exercise, but it is not necessarily determinant. 

I'd be more inclined to agree with you if the Supreme Court hadn't ruled that half of the words in the second amendment are just meaningless throat-clearing.

 

[Jayrod]

Self-defense doesn't seem selfish. At all. This is sort of where you lose guys like me in this debate.  

Not that I agree with it (I'm more on your side of the issue), but the argument seems to be that there are other, less dangerous to the public, ways to provide self defense.

 

[-fish-]

Not that I agree with it (I'm more on your side of the issue), but the argument seems to be that there are other, less dangerous to the public, ways to provide self defense.

There are also more effective, less dangerous to everyone including the gun owner and his or her household, ways to provide self-defense.

 

[rockaction]

Sure, but how do you know whether to amend or repeal unless you do a cost/benefit analysis?

Yeah, that's definitely a tool in jurisprudence. I think we've been over this before. Cardozo's influential work calls it The Method Of Sociology (or something like that) whereby rights and the extent of those rights can be derived from important policy analysis and certain analytical tools  rather than just dependence on history and natural right. But that's not asking if there's a right under the Constitution, that's assessing its desirability.  

 

[rockaction]

I'd be more inclined to agree with you if the Supreme Court hadn't ruled that half of the words in the second amendment are just meaningless throat-clearing.

Oh, I don't know how much we disagree on the gun issue. I'm talking broadly. My take on the gun issue is a lot like you just mentioned and that the "well-regulated militia" featured so prominently and textually in the predicate of the sentence ought mean something. That's a huge reason I'm so tepid on guns and gun control and you often won't find me arguing it, though I can sure give it a good defense if called upon.