Aurora Colorado Violence

Well, I don't have an AR-15 but do have quite a few rifles and handguns including one that has a bayonet and grenade launcher, yet even though thousands of rounds have gone through them and downrange I have yet to even wound another human. I have suffered Garand Thumb though.

You're not making the case that there's anything wrong with it, though, except that militaries and SWAT use a similar weapon. And I don't see how that's supposed to justify a ban.Militaries and SWAT also use MagLites. Does that make them "assault flashlights", and therefore unsuitable for civilian use? Should a civilian be able to own a Swiss Army knife, given its military origin?There's no such thing as an "assault rifle", is the problem, at least not in a legal sense. You're talking about banning a weapon not for what it is - because a rifle that shoots .223 in semi-auto mode is not more dangerous than any legal handgun - but for what it looks like. I don't understand that reasoning. Can you explain?

It is not the size it is the speed at which you can refire that makes it more lethal. In fact, the round is sometimes considered too small for deer hunting.The point is, why the hell do you need a military semi-automatic rifle to shoot a deer.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

Well, I think you're mistaken. Let's look at the text: Clearly, the framers had in mind weapons that would be suitable for use by militias in defense of the security of the nation. That speaks to military purpose, since the framers envisioned the right to bear arms as being a function of needing to potentially call up every able-bodied man to defend against an invading army.Now, I don't believe that justifies civilian ownership of military weapons. But just because the military use something, doesn't make it "military equipment". Soldiers use all manner of equipment for warmaking that we also use for completely legitimate civilian purpose. GPS isn't just a "military locating technology", although it would be perfectly accurate to describe it that way. But nobody thinks you're a solider when you pull out your GPS to find the nearest movie theater.And accuracy? How does it make anybody safer to ban accurate weapons? If anything, that would only serve to make it more dangerous to fire a gun for legitimate purpose. Accuracy contributes to the safety of a weapon, not to its danger. How is the AR-15 in any way an unusually lethal weapon? Handguns kill far, far more Americans than rifles.

I mentioned nothing about it being an "assault" anything. My reasoning, is that military weapons are made specifically for killing lots of people in battle. That is their purpose and that is why they are so fast to fire, accurate and deadly. Saying this is a weapon civilians should have access to, is ridiculous.

The AR-15 fires no faster than any handgun. Why is the AR-15 a "military semi-automatic" just because the military uses something that looks like it? Again, you've not pointed to any legitimately, uniquely dangerous aspect of the AR-15 except that it was used in this shooting. And sure, we could ban the AR-15. What's to stop Colt from simply releasing a gun called the "Not an AR-15" that is completely identical to the AR-15 in every way? What exactly are you trying to ban, here, beyond a brand name?

Military weapons are made to be accurate, reliable, easy to carry, effective, and versatile. Can you explain why these are illegitimate design goals for a civilian weapon, as well?

"Tougher gun laws" isn't a coherent policy, though. You actually have to explain what laws we don't have now that you would want passed.I favor a ban on any magazine larger than seven rounds, and carrying more than that many rounds on your person at a time. I can't see any reason why a civilian should be able to fire more than seven rounds at a time. But you're not talking about any law that could actually be passed; "no AR-15's" is not a law that could possibly do anything, because "AR-15" is just a Colt brand name. They would simply release the rifle under a different name to evade the law, and in the meantime you've done nothing to stop AK-47 clones or any other military-style rifle. You've not actually defined any criteria by which the AR-15 is a particularly or uniquely dangerous weapon.

quote:

---

Military weapons are made to be accurate, reliable, easy to carry, effective, and versatile. Can you explain why these are illegitimate design goals for a civilian weapon, as well?
  —crashfrog

---

Because the military is supposed to be armed to the teeth, to protect its citizens from foreign invasion (well, that's where it originates, but the 21st century has made even that a dubious concept), whereas civilians aren't at war and don't need to be armed to the teeth?

I view the problem as one of proliferation.The laws have been the way they are for so long now, and the culture (with the 2nd Amendment klaxons blaring) has accepted, condoned, and even glorified firearms for so long now, that proliferation is huge. Weapons are everywhere. Makes it a lot easier for idiots to cause mayhem.TO YOU HUNTERS...Is hunting so important to you that you are OKAY with all of your fellow citizens being able to arm themselves to the teeth, and then consume massive amounts of alcohol at 3am? These are both legal there yes? Good combination? Bad combination? Is HUNTING that important to you?It might be fun, it might even be necessary in some regions for culling populations, or from defence from wildlife... but does that mean the entire nation, every city street and alleyway should be armed to the teeth? Is HUNTING that important to you?HUNTING seems to be the only sliver of a thread of justification any of you can come up with for ownership of an arsenal that is well beyond any reasonable hunting endeavour.Edited by Briterican, : added last para

Also, I would add that you've made a radical mistake about the history of the AR-15. It's not the "civilian version of the M-16." It's exactly the reverse - the M-16 is the military version of the AR-15, which was developed by ArmaLite from the AR-10, which was designed as a light survival rifle. ArmaLite hand-built two "militarized" AR-10's as a late submission to the US Armory's replacement rifle research program.

Well, no. The military is supposed to be armed with what they need to carry out the mission. Um, really? You might want to ask residents of Iraq or Afghanistan about that. The 21st century has seen no end to the invasion of nations.And you've not answered my question. The AR-15 has the qualities that it does because it's meant to be a versatile, reliable, accurate firearm. Why should a civilian weapon be unreliable and inaccurate?

Kinda okay with that.As you say that is not a good combination and I'd certainly favor a "Carrying while intoxicated" law similar to "Driving while intoxicated" laws.BUT... even the drunk with a semi-automatic rifle or handgun is far less a risk than the drunk with a car.Edited by jar, : appalin spallin

Bullshit. The sem-automatic AR-15 has a rate of fire of rds much more than a manual handgun. No, I am saying bring back the Federal Assault Weapons ban on semi-automatic weapons that expired in 2004. The AR-15 was designed specifically FOR the military before it was sold to Colt, who then modified it and sold it to the military as the M-16. The restrictions should be on the average joe blow purchasing a rapid fire i.e. semi-automatic weapons to massace 30 people in one wac (the shooter would have killed more if his magazine did not jam). Why we let this ban expire is beyond my understanding. Absolutely ridiculous.

I am talking specifically about the increased lethality to large number of people at one time. Specifically the rapidity of refire. There was a Federal Assault Weapons Ban, I am saying that this law needs to be revisited.