The sub-headline of the article claims there is no purpose for “assault weapons” other than killing people.
each designed with a single purpose — to kill lots of people as fast as possible
Is this article trying to tell me I’m using mine wrong? Because I use mine only for things that don’t involve killing people.
I use a butter-knife to open paint cans with, but that’s not what it’s for.
Hey, you’re right. I also use my butter knife for a lot of things other than butter, such as: brie, jelly, jam, nutella, spreading mayo, cutting my over-easy eggs, etc. Yeah, it turns out it’s useful for a lot more than just butter. It’s almost as if it’s a multipurpose tool that has many different and acceptable uses. I think you’re on to something.
I already replied to a similar comment hours before you posted this one. In summary, you are moving the goalposts of the specific comment chain I replied to, and in any case pretending these are not weapons designed to kill doesn’t strengthen your argument, it makes it look disingenuous.
If you want to argue in favor of gun rights, be as honest as the other guy. You are arguing for the right to kill people in specific situations. I’m not saying there isn’t some merit to that argument, I’m saying be honest about it, because this whole “nuh-uh they weren’t really designed to kill people” thing is dishonest and doesn’t serve your purposes.
Okay, you named six alternatives there to butter.
What are the six uses of your semi-automatic rifle that don’t involve the threat of killing people? Because I can think of two- target shooting and hunting. And neither of those require the sort of rifles or handguns used in most modern mass shootings.
Interesting philosophical debate. Is it not for whatever I’m using it for, regardless of its designated purpose? If I have a lighter, and someone asks “what’s that thing for,” and I answer “lighting candles,” am I wrong because the bic was designed with tobacco smokers in mind? Would I have to have answered “to expend and ignite butane” to be correct? If I have a bottle of booze and someone asks what for, am I wrong if I say “Tom’s party” instead of “consumption and subsequent expellation?” I say that butter knife is “for opening paint cans.”
Also, do you have a designated poop paint knife, or do you use a random one every time? If it is designated I’d argue that is yet another reason to say it is for opening paint cans.
The fact that I have found an alternative purpose for the butter-knife does not satisfy this phrasing from the comment you replied to:
each designed with a single purpose — to kill lots of people as fast as possible
My butter-knife was designed to cut and spread soft food that does not require anything sharper to work with. Those guns are designed and marketed to kill.
By the way, I’m not anti-2A nor anti gun. But I am anti-deflection, among other things. An AR-15 is designed to kill people. Pretending it’s not doesn’t strengthen your position, it makes your argument seem disingenuous.
Shooting down a tree limb to recover a stuck ball or boomerang or drone from up high. A small bore shotgun like a .410 is pretty good for taking down tree limbs like that.
Target shooting? Pretty sure more ammo is spent putting holes in paper every day than ammo spent trying to kill someone. So yea…common use says, target practice.
more ammo is spent putting holes in paper every day than ammo spent trying to kill someone
That’s probably true, but what percentage of that shooting range ammo is used in preparation for shooting people (whether offensively or defensively)?
They are useful for defending a medium sized area, versus pistols which are useful only for defending a small area. They are simply more effective defense machines.
When there are 24 million guns of that type sold and only a handful used illegally each year, is that really a problem on the manufacturer though?
Seems like the vast, vast, majority of them are used legally or simply not used at all.
When your product’s only use is to commit mass murder and you advertise it as making you an invincible badass then yes.
Your point is irrelevant. “Only a tiny fraction of the land mines I placed outside a school killed any children.”
That’s the thing, that’s NOT the only use for the platform. If it were, it wouldn’t be the best selling rifle in the US.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/america-s-rifle-why-so-many-people-love-ar-15-n831171
The primary reason for choosing one is weight.
My grandfathers Remington 721 weighs 8.4 pounds (3.8kg), carries 4 rounds, and in .30-06 is arguably a stronger caliber than the .223 in an AR platform.
My Henry .45-70, the caliber rated for all big game in North America (and jokingly rated by Marlin for T-Rex), weighs 8.1 pounds (3.67kg) and carries 4+1 rounds.
Something like the Ruger AR556 weighs a relatively svelte 6.5 pounds (2.95kg) and comes stock with a 30 round capacity, making it easier to carry.
I know, I know, 1.9 pounds (0.86kg) doesn’t SOUND like a lot, but it FEELS a lot heavier when you’re marching around the woods with a rifle strap digging into your shoulder.
And being able to pick up something fast and use it in a home defense situation makes all the difference in the world.
And make no mistake about it, the Supreme Court has ruled over and over that the primary reason for the 2nd Amendment is self defense.
(2008)
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/554/570/
“Private citizens have the right under the Second Amendment to possess an ordinary type of weapon and use it for lawful, historically established situations such as self-defense in a home, even when there is no relationship to a local militia.”
(2010)
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/561/742/
“The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment extends the Second Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms to the states, at least for traditional, lawful purposes such as self-defense.”
(2016)
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/577/14-10078/
“the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding,”
(2022)
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/597/20-843/
the "constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.” The exercise of other constitutional rights does not require individuals to demonstrate to government officers some special need.
A huge comment, but I fail to find what you consider other uses beside what you commented on.
But honest question, why do you buy a gun like that if you’re never ever going to use it? For what purpose do people buy these things anyway?
Sorry I’m seeing your reply after writing a veritable essay to someone else above you. :)
But the primary reasons are weight and self defense.
A traditional hunting rifle has a stronger caliber, but is around 2 pounds heavier and has a lower capacity.
In terms of self defense, you want a lighter weight and a higher capacity. Makes it easier to carry, easier to control, and easier to defend yourself against multiple intruders, something which, unfortunately, has happened multiple times:
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/home-invader-fatally-shot-florida-pregnant-woman-ar-15-n1076026
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/oklahoma-man-uses-ar-15-kill-three-teen-home-intruders-n739541
Quick! While you’re doing numbers, compare the number of times a gun didn’t “solve” that problem vs the number of times a gun was misused and someone died. False-negative vs false-positive. It’s just numbers and not relevant, but see how it goes.
If police and proud boys have them…
I do use mine for target practice though. I shot competitively when I was younger and really appreciate the skill aspect. I have fond memories of my grandpa teaching me how to shoot, but hunting has never been on my radar.
January sixth, probably played a pretty big role in me actually “pulling the trigger” tbh. That and a PB demonstration down the street from me.
If I was honest, it’s basically a super dangerous bowling ball to me.
As soon as I see the term “assault weapon” all credibility goes right out the window.
As soon as I see the pedant arguing semantics, their credibility goes right out the window.
It’s not tho. Use specific terms and u don’t look like an incompetent fool.
Dismissing someone’s argument over semantics is trivial objection that doesn’t engage in the actual argument. You understand perfectly well what the argument is, and that it’s addressing a different issue than categories of armament.
Plus, declaring your opponent an “incompetent fool” to dismiss their argument is a bonus ad hominem fallacy.
Would an attacher be any less credible if they murdered people with a handgun rather than a rifle ? what is the point you’re trying to make ? don’t people still die ? is the ammo type really relevant here ?
People who don’t like the term “assault rifle” think it basically means “scary-looking rifle” rather than “particularly deadly rifle”. In New York state law, for example,
Assault weapon means a semiautomatic rifle that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least one of the following characteristics: (1) a folding or telescoping stock; (2) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon; (3) a thumbhole stock; (4) a second handgrip or protruding grip that can be held by the non-trigger hand; (5) a bayonet mount; (6) a flash suppressor or muzzle break or muzzle compensator or a threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor or muzzle break or muzzle compensator; or (7) a grenade launcher.”
So a semiauto rifle in .223 Remington with a wooden stock is a “varmit hunting rifle”, but simply giving it a black folding stock makes it an “assault rifle”.
Honestly, things like NYS’s limits on magazine size makes more sense to me than banning telescoping stocks or a second pistol grip.
Don’t forget the fearsome “deadlier-than-military-weaponry, AR-15 style assault shotguns”
I spent about two minutes trying to come up with a good joke about this one, but honestly I think it speaks for itself
What’s really funny is that the 12g built off the AR frame doesn’t actually qualify for the “assault weapon” description, so said AR-15 style assault shotgun is a greenlight.
They characterize semi-automatic shotguns like they’re this brand new, evil gun lobby invention, thought up to sell to crazed lunatics who can’t get their kicks just shooting regular bullets into school children any more
Meanwhile, people have been shooting ducks with the Browning Auto-5 since literally the year 1900, and it only stopped production in 1998
But that’s made of wood and doesn’t have the shoulder thing that goes up, so it’s not scary
Countries like Switzerland don’t have mass shootings like the USA, yet they have tons of guns. The lack of mental health support and the orphan crushing machine are a HUGE part of the mass murders here in America.
This. I’m a liberal and I definitely think we need tighter restrictions on guns in the U.S., but people today seem to have forgotten that we’ve had essentially the same gun laws for forever and mass shootings have only been a weekly occurrence for about 10-15 years. It’s not the guns or the gun laws or even mental health issues (depending on how you want to define them); it’s some fucked up aspects of our culture.
Using your timeline of mass shooting increases, an immediate reason to consider should be the assault weapon law expiring in 2004. Data would back that up. We haven’t had the same laws forever. https://ohiocapitaljournal.com/2022/06/15/did-the-assault-weapons-ban-of-1994-bring-down-mass-shootings-heres-what-the-data-tells-us/
Your own source shows that mass shootings weren’t as high as they are now prior to the assault weapons ban, thus demonstrating it wasn’t repeal of the law that caused the recent uptick. If it was, we’d see a similar amount of mass shootings prior to its enactment as well.
seem to have forgotten that we’ve had essentially the same gun laws for forever
this completely disregards the Assault Weapons ban and it’s repeal. Which match with the numbers in a stark manner.
Okay fine, it’s some fucked up aspect of American culture. Honestly, blame it on whatever you want because until that problem is fixed, the current gun laws are clearly inadequate and need to be immediately addressed.
They can have their dogshit gun laws back when they’ve finished solving the problem, be it mental health or Marilyn Manson.
They can have their dogshit gun laws back when they’ve finished solving the problem
You don’t mean that though. No liberals do. That’s why conservatives won’t budge on this issue, because they know whatever ground they give will never return and liberals will always be pushing for more.
And honestly, the mass shooting stuff is our best chance at convincing conservatives to change, because they’re actually occasionally affected by that crap. Even with the increases in mass shootings, the vast majority of gun violence is down to crime, which mostly affects poor, non-White people living in urban areas.
This issue is really complex. It’s affected by different cultures in the U.S., political alignments, demographics and wealth levels. The mental health stuff is only really relevant if you’re talking about how psychological and sociological issues contribute to extremism and social isolation, but most people just picture some schizo on a bad day, which is a microscopic drop in the bucket (and most people with severe mental illnesses like schizophrenia are not actually vioelnt, that’s a bad stereotype).
I understand why most liberals want to get rid of guns; it’s just that that’s not actually the problem, and conservatives know it, so they fight back hard and we get nowhere. Sadly, I think more conservatives have to become victims before there’s any traction in terms of putting appropriate safety measures in place that still afford conservatives the freedom to practice their favorite hobby.
So it goes. Meanwhile, we’re killing the planet. Small potatoes in the long run…
I underestimated the Marilyn Manson problem, which itself is a massive issue with attention-whore narcissists in general but distilled into a no-talent onanist fame-whore of almost (kan)ye proportions.
We need to remove these people to a safe space - safe for us - and resolve the issues clinically before returning them.
I’m a liberal and I definitely think we need tighter restrictions on guns in the U.S., but people today seem to have forgotten that we’ve had essentially the same gun laws for forever
Sure but the same party that works so hard against increased legislation for gun control gutted our mental health infrastructure and votes against funding and rebuilding it at every opportunity. They aren’t interested in solving either end of the problem.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_Health_Systems_Act_of_1980
https://sociology.org/content/vol003.004/thomas.html
This last one is a ddg search - you can just pick which article you want to read about Republicans voting against mental health funding.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=republicans+vote+against+mental+health+funding
You’re missing my point. Mental health issues aren’t the primary problem when it comes to firearm violence and deaths. Republican resistance to laws that attempt to address mental health issues deserves pointing out, but not so much in this context, because that’s not the main issue at hand. Liberals can be commended for attempting to do something about the problem more than Republicans are, but what I’ve seen of their views on the topic indicates to me that they too are missing the point. The problem isn’t guns or severe psychiatric problems; there’s a cultural element that no one (including Democrats, for some reason) aren’t willing to address. Until we identify and focus on the actual problem, no progress will be made, because we’ll just continue to fight about stuff that isn’t that relevant.
It’s multiple issues:
- Lack of access to mental health services.
- 24/7 commercial news geared more towards fear than information with no fair and balanced doctrine for reporting.
- A widening wealth gap depriving those at the bottom of the income ladder the dignity of a stable life.
- Private ownership of said media suppressing unfavourable stories.
- Civil forfeiture and warrior cop training creating a mafia attitude in US Police departments.
- A lack of realisation that the historical context for gun ownership in the US was to keep the natives off the land cliamed by a settler because the British didn’t want to repeat Spain’s mistakes.
- More willing to accept licensing and denial of access to a car as punishment for breaking driving laws despite that the car is more fundamental to existing in modern US than the Gun.
- Treating the constitution like a holy manuscript rather than it’s original purpose of being updated/replaced every 5 to 10 years.
- A broken electoral system in dire need of reform.
- Underfunding education.
- Lobbying so rampant they might as well host the bidding for Washington representatives on eBay.
The list is very very long. The USA’s cultural fabric that is the people’s common heritage is being stretched and torn by those who believe they can make a profit from the scraps.
The USA is a young anglophile country, you’ve only had one civil war, I reckon you’ve got at least another one coming.
More willing to accept licensing and denial of access to a car as punishment for breaking driving laws despite that the car is more fundamental to existing in modern US than the Gun.
Licensing to carry exists in most states, though some have removed that. We also do typically remove access to guns (or at least the CCW depending on state and infraction) as punishment for breaking gun laws.
Agreed. The root cause is multifaceted. People seem to ignore the fact that the shooters are almost 100 percent male, with the vast majority being disaffected loners, white, and young. What has caused these men and boys to fantasize about killing masses of people? It’s far more complicated than folks like to admit. We want a simple scapegoat, so we blame guns.
Exactly. Access to guns isn’t the issue, lack of education and failed parenting is. I’m pretty fucking liberal but even in the single generation I’ve been alive I’m pretty sure parenting has gotten significantly worse. I go out of my way to make sure my kids let me know if stuff is bothering them and explain how to respond to things that frustrate them. I’m sure this is going to go into parents working 24/7 but that also isn’t anything new.
The rates of gun ownership between Switzerland and the USA are vastly different. USA ownership is almost double that of Switzerland.
https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-21379912
I’m not denying your take that it’s a multifaceted issue, but equating the gun ownership between Switzerland and the USA doesn’t paint an accurate picture.
Despite the USA having double the gun ownership that Switzerland does, the USA has more than 20 times the number of mass shootings. There’s definitely more to this issue:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_Switzerland
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States
If we’re throwing out Wikipedia links, here are the actual laws in Switzerland, many of which the pro-gun community in America staunchly oppose adopting, including the mandatory military service that would actually qualify gun owners to be part of a “well regulated militia”.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_regulation_in_Switzerland
From Switzerland: “Depending on the type of weapon, you will require a sales contract, a weapon acquisition permit or an exemption permit.”
Semi-automatic weapons require a permit, and fully automatic weapons and firearms with large capacity magazines are banned and only allowed under special, petition able circumstamces.
–
For military service issued weapons: The Swiss don’t allow their citizens access to ammunition (they used to issue a single magazine IIRC), all weapons are only distributed based on compulsory military service, and are to remain locked away except for when transported to the firing range for your annual qualification or practice.
Also, I do t think they allow swiss to keep their rifles anymore; I believe they are currently stored in the armory.
The Swiss also don’t celebrate weapons as much as the US Americans.
I struggle to find the correct word. Celebrate isn’t it, but I’m too tired to think about a better one and I don’t want to start a comment war here. You’ll probably understand what I meant.
You also need a permit to buy a gun. Shall-issue for most of the guns I’d categorize as more reasonable, but still need to put in for the permit. Automatics have quite stringent requirements on their may-issue permits. High-cap magazines are not available. Universal registration & background check and “red flag”-style blocks on any purchases.
Ammo is also included in these rules, essentially.
Second-hand sales require a paper trail conforming to many of these rules with a decade-long statute of limitations to prove legitimate transfer that is also reported to the state authority.
Storage methods are regulated. Failure to report a lost/stolen weapon to police is bad news for you.
You need a permit to carry which is mostly only given to people who have occupational need to carry – like the old NYC law where you have to state a plausible need. Otherwise, when and where you can carry is limited to basically sport or similar events.
And there’s more. Not to mention their culture of training and safety around it because of their military and militia requirements.
I’m all for imposing Swiss-style gun rules on the US. It would restrict guns a lot. The people who appeal to how great they are with guns and how it is “proof” that gun restrictions aren’t a good solution just haven’t even done basic research about what the gun situation actually is in Switzerland.
The Swiss also have compulsory military service (at least for men) where they theoretically teach you how to use and presumably not be a dummy with your gun.
Also do Switzerland have carry laws? If everyone left their firearms at home it would be much less of an issue too.
I use the word ‘clutch’ often, as a baby with a blanket or an old nerd with vi. They’re unwilling to find a better solution than a gun, and the gun lobby tells us it’s all okay as long as we have our Glock.
…come to think of it, so much rap music seemed to do the same, for awhile.
I think a large part of it is the politicization of firearms that has made gun ownership a lifestyle choice for unstable people.
You’ve got a bunch of crazy conspiracy theorists being told that the liberals are out to kill their god and take their weapons, so they stock up on weapons that they use when they finally crack.
We’ve manufactured a system where the mentally unstable are actively encouraged to arm themselves.
Huge difference between Switzerland and the US. Switzerland has a lot of weapons because, more or less, everyone is in the army and they keep their service weapons at home. And there are very strict rules regulating those weapons as opposed to the non-existent regulation in the US.
Switzerland has pretty restrictive laws about the ammunition that people use in their guns as well. Most of the gun owners have little to no ammo available to them at any given time. And most of those Swiss gun owners have also been conscripted into the armed forces and been through rigorous training and the use of firearms.
Can confirm. You can see more about Switzerland’s gun control here:
It’s a social issue not a gun issue. Shitty parents, shitty economics, shitty education and a shitty social structure are what makes America a higher crime nation in general and a higher gun crime nation specifically.
Sure, just not with the same access and instead other crimes are more prolific and arguably more heinous. How many cases of acid attacks happen in the us every year adjusted to population? Now how many for say India or for instance England.
Is it even proportionally at the same level? Are you claiming that, adjusted to per capita, acid attacks in India are on par with mass shootings in the U.S.? And if so, are there mass acid attacks on schools at the rate of mass shootings in U.S. schools?
Nah different. Acid attacks are most normally done towards women as a form of punishment. Not intended to kill.
Obviously violence will happen. But why are you ever arguing to make the violence easier?
If there was one item you could remove from society that truthfully they don’t need, and acid attacks wouldn’t happen. Wouldn’t you do that? Especially since acid attacks are so awful?
Exactly, if a country is filled with rocks there will be more rock related deaths but a country that is filled with rocks but is effectively governed and educated will have fewer.
I imagine people are going to claim me to be against gun control but that isn’t true, I’m for reasonable gun control. License, register educate and own a tank for all I fuckin care, a big part of the issue is they’re less controlled than my what 3000lb Honda Civic that could run through a crowd at 100+ and do the same damage. Most people aren’t going to use their car as a weapon because it’s attached to them, the same would apply to guns.
What other country, at least Western country, has, per capita, explosives or poisonings or things like that at the level of murder as the U.S.?
Third world shitholes maybe. I’m sure it sucks to live in Syria.
