Bushmaster AR-15
We’ve been having an interesting and meaningful discussion on the firearms issue and we’ve heard thoughtful arguments on both sides. I have found that there are fewer extremists on either side than I had thought and with the recent horror, both sides seem somewhat more willing to compromise.
What I want to know is: Why do we need the right to keep and bear assault rifles?
Are they useful in protecting the home against individual intruders? Can you hunt deer with them? Are they fun for target practice? Does anyone honestly think that the federal government is going to become totalitarian and that if so, you are going to be able to fight it off with an AR-15? Did the nation get along without them during the Clinton Administration ban?
It seems to me that assault rifles, which can fire a large number of rounds in a very short time, are designed for a specific military purpose. And I’m just curious to know if they have any reasonable use in civilian life.
I can’t think of any, but maybe I’m missing something.
Whether those who favor complete removal of guns from our society like it or not, the Second Ammendment to the Constitution does grant the right to keep and bear arms and courts have repeatedly affirmed that this specified right applies not only to well-regulated militias, but to individuals as well.
But no constitutional rights are absolute. The First Ammendment is the sacred underpinning of our entire society. Yet we have restricted the right to produce or even possess child pornography. Try yelling fire as a joke in a movie theater or saying “hijack” in an airport and you will see how far your First Ammendment rights take you. The right to operate a motor vehicle is not specified in the Constitution for obvious reasons, but we do make people take tests and prove both their competency and eyesight before we issue drivers’ licenses.
The point is, every right has restrictions, based on the needs of society and common sense.
None of us should be so naive as to think that any one step we take will prevent tragedies like Sandy Hook. Potential mass killers with the means and the commitment, plus the willingness to die, like assassins, are very difficult to stop. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do whatever we can.
And if we don’t really need assault rifles as civilians, isn’t that a good place to start?
ONly the criminal will have the assault rifles, because they will buy it off the street. So the citizen will be left to his own devices, and the criminal will be shooting us down in the mall, the schools, and anywhere they want to. The gangs, the thugs, and the criminals.
You can’t just buy an assault riffle off the street and the last school shootings were done with an automatic pistol.. …. .
So is it clear that an unarmed school of children have 0 chance against automatic pistol ceci?? ???? ?
http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/transparency.jpeg
There’s an infographic with some info on gun owners in the US. And I’m willing to get AR’s are in the extreme minority as far as crimes go. I bet AKs are much higher because they are much easier to buy on the black market.
And yes, there are always going to be law breaking citizens. My perspective is that punishing the majority for the actions of an extremely small minority just sounds so unlike what this country was founded on.
SSA Douglas how was your interview with the still very dangerous and powerful Inmate Manson who in 2012 was in possession of a cellular phone? Denied, rightfully so.
How do you attribute these recent spikes in violence apropos of his latest denial in parole. Given the cell phone violation? Who was communicating with??
IN MY MIND His parole is for his safety the way I see it.. …. .
HE IS A MASTER MANIPULATOR.
Review please the parole hearing and watch those around him they hate him at first, after he speaks unintelligibly long enough he ropes in the victims advocate as I have seen it?
Explain because I think that was the most illuminating interview you preformed, was it not?
The easiest way to legally transport a firearm in IL is to put it in your trunk, assuming your trunk can’t be accessed from the cabin or the outside. As long as you can’t access it you’re fine.
I’d be curious about three additional statistics. First, what is the rate of rifle ownership (guessing it’s much higher than handgun ownership.) Second, what is the rate of AR ownership (guessing it’s very low.) Finally, what proportion of those rifle crimes are committed using an AR (guessing it’s over-represented.)
But even without those statistics, it’s easy to see that the problem with ARs is the amount of damage that can be done by one person.
Of course responsible, law abiding citizens are not the problem. They are never the problem. If everyone were responsible and law abiding nuclear weapons could be legal. The problem is that some people are not responsible and law abiding.
Having worked in southern Illinois (I live in western KY) I can tell you that it’s actually quite remote in areas. Illinois has some of the most ridiculous gun laws in the country. When I started working in Illinois I had to remove the gun I carried in my vehicle, because while it’s legal to carry a firearm in your vehicle in KY, it isn’t in Illinois, unless the gun is unloaded in a case and separate from any ammo (i.e. the magazines can’t be loaded nor can the ammo be stored in the same place as the firearm). This is my understanding at least. I also should state that some of the cities with the most strict gun laws, such as Chicago as you’ve already mentioned, but also Los Angeles and Washington D.C. have some of the highest violent crime rates in the country. So gun laws haven’t really curbed violent crime that much.
Of the 12,664 murders in the US in 2011, 8,583 were committed using handguns and only 323 were committed using rifles. That’s about 2.5% of all murders in the country in 2011 were committed using rifles. What I would push for is keeping firearms out of criminals hands in general, instead of the law abiding citizens who use firearms for recreation purposes. They aren’t the ones at fault here.
I’d also just like to say two other things:
First, thank you for asking and being polite, Mr. Olshaker. It’s hard to keep these kinds of topics from getting heated or rude. Good moderators who set the tone help that.
Second, guns might prevent violence in Alaska. They don’t have piles of museums and zoos. When I was on the range I saw a lot of men with their kids having a good time teaching them how to shoot. It’s part of their culture and “family time,” and I do think time between parents and kids creates healthy, responsible adults.
Well, I think it is if the probability of dangerous criminal behavior is high or has been shown to be high.
I shot an AR in Alaska. I think ARs are wonderful in Alaska because it’s very remote and there’s a strong legitimate gun culture up there.
But I can honestly say that I would not want ARs in Chicago or even Illinois because it’s too crowded and Chicago has tremendous gun problems without ARs. We’re very close to crossing 500 victims of gun violence in the city this year.
This is a thoughtful and interesting perspective, Chris. Given your perspective that the main civilian use of assault rifles is for “fun,” is it reasonable to trade that particular fun for the possibility – and I stress this word since we can’t be sure – that fewer children and innocent people will be killed?
I honestly think Connor is on to the point. I’ve fired quite a few assault rifles and have friends who own assault rifles.
Assault rifles are honestly a lot of fun to shoot. I wouldn’t say that you learn anything special about shooting from shooting an assault rifle. I found that my little 22 long rifle gave me the same skills as an assault rifle and a 22 is only slightly more dangerous than a BB gun. But an AR is a lot more fun.
I think the problem is partly that we don’t really accept that they’re just for fun. I know guys who own them have fantasies of “protecting their home.” I think that’s unrealistic.
I think that if we had the same mentality about assault rifles as we do about fireworks a lot more would get done. Fireworks are dangerous, don’t belong everywhere and you need a special permit and training for the really big ones. Fireworks are also just for fun. It’s not okay to make everything that’s fun illegal, but there’s times and places for both assault rifles and fireworks, imho.
First of all, term “assault rifle” is used incorrectly throughout the politically driven mass media. Assault rifles refer to weapons which are capable of automatic fire, and they are banned by the Firearm Owners Protection Act. Unless the firearm was registered with the ATF prior to the enacting of the Act, a civilian can not purchase a weapon capable of automatic fire (assault rifle). This is my understanding at least.
The semi-automatic rifles which you are referring to happen to look exactly like their fully-automatic brethren and are often guilty by association.
For the sake of disclosure, I live in KY and am a Homeland Security major at a regional university. Kentucky has relatively limited gun control laws. I do own firearms legally and usually am in possession of one where legal (not on college campuses obviously) but I do have them in my apartment for self-defense purposes.
I do not own a semi-automatic rifle, such as the one you’ve pictured, but my FBI agent father does have one given to him for duty purposes by the agency and I have fired it with him on a few occasions.
If I had the funding to afford one, I would probably purchase one because they are fun to shoot where legal for recreation purposes. I wouldn’t be opposed to banning peer-to-peer sales of rifles with magazine capacities over say 6 rounds, make the sale occur through an FFL dealer. Stipulate that in addition to the background check already done through NICS, that a thorough psychological exam be done to buy them. I’m not sure of any legal precedent for such a stipulation but I wouldn’t be opposed to that.
But if a responsible citizen wants to own a semi-automatic rifle for recreational or sporting competition use then they should be allowed that right, in my opinion.