AMA study: shooters armed with semiautomatic rifles kill twice as many people

boing
41

Nuts, is it? Vague? Have you been paying attention to the SC these last ten years?

What the 2nd means is what the SC says it means. And they have spoken about it in definitive, explicit, straight-forward terms.

They have said, in a nutshell, that the 2nd protects the rights of individual citizens to own and use guns. That that right exists completely independently of any concerns about a militia or of State rights, or of the idea of fighting tyranny. That that right is for modern weapons, not archaic ones. That that right includes semi-automatic pistols, semi-automatic rifles and shotguns used for hunting, and guns useful for home protection.

And the last 3 SC cases use themselves as precedent, as well as use many previous cases as precedent. And there are a ton of previous cases which assert the right of individual citizens to own and use guns. In fact, in the entire history of the US, the right of individual citizens to own and use guns has never been at issue. (What has been at issue is from where those rights originate vis a vis the 2nd Amendment - whether that right is because of State needs, the consequence of militias, etc, and how that would apply to the specifics of the cases that were being tried. And now that discussion is moot) In other words, the last three SC cases are not just explicit, they are based on precedent going back hundreds of years, they are not poorly conceived or argued, they are solid law.

So, whether AR-type weapons can be legally banned under the Constitution - as it is now interpreted by the SC - is the question. As I said, I am not a lawyer, or an expert of the 2nd Amendment case law. But I do know this: AR-type semi-automatic weapons ARE useful for home protection, because they are compact. And they are also extremely popular, which makes banning them way more difficult.

What I want is for every Republican to lose their election. What I want is for The Left to be as effective and as smart as possible at beating Republicans in elections. Trying to ban AR-type weapons, without having a clue whether it is even Constitutional, is not a smart way to win elections.

1 Like
42

You joke, but my point when comparing stats is showing there are similar or even relatively more deaths people are more comfortable with because they are used to it. It is easy to just demonize something one has been programmed to fear, and even easier to just say “get rid of them” when one doesn’t have a use for them. I could say that about a lot of things people enjoy that lead to millions of deaths per year. But I am not calling for their ban.

Hey, how about that super awesome opioid epidemic? 72,000 deaths in 2017. I am not finding 2017 gun homicides stats, but in 2015 something like 13,000 for homicides, and even we can throw in the 22,000 suicides even though that is a different issue. You have something that is either illegal or very tightly controlled (to the point people needing opioids to function are treated like drug fiends.)

How are we going to deal with reducing those deaths? Make it double illegal? Double down on the war on drugs? Increase incarceration for abusers and dealers? Yeah, we tried all that and it has failed.

I still contend reducing drug use and the majority of homicides requires attacking the source of the problems. Prohibition for things like this doesn’t tend to work if the demand for it remains high.

But hey, y’all can give it the ol’ college try. Good luck.

3 Likes
43

Semi Auto Rifles are only tools…the best tools for killing people.

How is “Guns are only tools” any kind of argument against regulating the best tools for killing people ?

It’s not. It’s completely irrelevant.

9 Likes
44

Right, but I am not comparing all firearms to blunt instruments. I am specifically comparing what is being pointed out in the article, rifles.

Logically if one wanted to increase regulation on something, handguns should be the main focus. Even in Canada they abandoned their rifle registry because it didn’t serve to counter crime as their handgun registry has (well I say, that but I haven’t looked into how many crimes it has solved.)

2 Likes
45

AR-Type rifles became popular after the expiration of an existing assault weapons ban. Or rather more popular and more accessible. Backlash and fear of a renewed assault weapons ban played a part in their proliferation. But yeah.

Well in terms of stategery I would say even using the term “gun control” is probably a bad idea. “Firearms regulation” being both more accurate and less provocative.

Generally speaking I think the left could stand to move away from “ban them all” as a goal. The goal should be a practical regulatory framework. One that still allows for gun ownership and valid use. While minimizing proliferation, collateral damage, and encourages safe storage, handling, transfer etc. That requires first actually understanding these things. What they are how they function. But also acknowledging that there are valid reasons to want and use one. I tend to think if you actually presented a practical frame work it would be a much easier push than the sort of reactive, patch a problem legislation we tend to see proposed.

There is a pretty big lack of Constitutional precedent on specific gun measures. The 10 year assault weapon ban we already had was never directly challenged under the second amendment. And never made it to the Supreme Court. Lower courts rules it constitutional under several different arguments. Long standing federal court precedents have viewed specific fire arms restrictions, even when challenged under the 2nd amendment as completely constitutional. However around a decade ago the Supreme Court ruled for the first time that the 2nd amendment created a specific, individual, blanket right to own firearms unconnected to militia service or state security concerns.

With the Supreme Court where it’s at, and the federal courts getting packed. It’s pretty likely that that interpretation of the 2nd amendment will get pretty deeply embedded. So its very much an open question whether any firearms regulation would withstand constitutional challenge.

But before that point the assault weapons ban was widely considered completely constitutional, even under the 2nd amendment.

If you read back over the Civil War, and specifically look at writings by confederates and pro-slavery, pro-succession parties. You’ll notice there isn’t much in the way of reference to or justification based on the 2nd amendment. Instead most of it hangs on a different constitutional question. Whether succession was constitutional, possible or justified.

And that’s because the interpretation of the 2nd amendment as being about allowing the population to revolt against a tyrannical government is an idea that post dates (for the most part) the civil war. Its all down to that tricky first clause:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State

What @burllamb is referring to is the pretty damn recent in the grand scheme of things decision in District of Columbia v Heller

That itself is a post Civil War interpretation of the 2nd. One that has never before been validated at the level of the Supreme Court. The 2nd amendment right to own guns didn’t really exist on paper, not that way at least, until 2008. For all the screaming the right has done about it since the 60’s.

8 Likes
46

They are not the best tools for killing people, not by far. They are the best tools for seeing your will directly forced upon others. This is the crux. People that want guns to: defend themselves, defend their beliefs are often scared of losing the ability to retain their will. They are also people that would not use those weapons to proactively force their wills on others.
People that are gun owners see a mass shooting or the like do not tend to think, “Oh I would’ve killed that sumbitch dead. They think geez maybe I should carry my gun or maybe I should go out less.” They often want to think that they are maintaining an ability to reject someone forcing their will on them.
This is why anti-gun (is that the moniker, I’m not sure) rigs false and the depiction of them as gun toting, wanna be vigilantes alienates them. Yes, those exist, but many of those are reactions to words not an actual policy they like to maintain.

47

Woah, woah, woah. Not just people. What if you are attacked by a giant heard of vicious does? I mean you need that semi-automatic action and a giant clip to be safe when deer hunting.

/s

4 Likes
48

Apologies, that was absolutely not my intention.

4 Likes
49

image

image

8 Likes
50

I think we should focus on both, but one reason it’s harder to get traction on the handguns issue is the oft-used argument “but I need it for defending my home!”

Semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15, while undoubtedly fun to use, aren’t “necessary” for either hunting or home defense. They are pretty darn useful for anyone planning on killing a bunch of people though.

10 Likes
51

In the UK, handguns are banned outright – even our Olympic pistol-shooting team has to practise abroad – while semi-automatic rifles are legal, as long as the calibre is .22 or less (at least, so it says here).

But you’re not going to get a firearms licence for self-defence, and I imagine that even asking is going to get you put on a permanent blacklist.

2 Likes
52

Even by the standards of that arguement. Just accepting that personal defense is a valid arguement (it isnt). Handguns are a trrible option for home defense. The ar15 would be more appropriate than a handgun. And the “correct” gun for that situation is a shot gun.

Beyond that the home defense arguement is broadly used to defend assault rifles. And the vast majority of firearms owned in the US right now are owned for purposes of home and personal defense. Where as in the 70’s most of them were owned for hunting and sporting purposes.

So in so far as you don’t need an ar15 to protect your home. You sure as shit don’t need a handgun.

1 Like
53

My view is that if a shotgun isn’t enough to defend your home against whoever is breaking in then you’re probably fucked anyway.

I think the rationale for handguns as a tool for home defense is that you can’t keep an AR-15 in your nightstand where you can get to it quickly in an emergency. But of course in practice keeping a loaded gun in an easily accessible location is more likely to lead to the death of a family member than an intruder.

8 Likes
54

The assault weapons ban passed Constitutional muster under St. Ronnie. Even Scalia said gun control was Constitutional. Not sure how the Constitution has changed since then.

17 Likes
55

It’s a first time for me, a discussion about the technical details of firearms. I’m not from a culture in which firearms play a large role in everyday life.

4 Likes
56

Hm… I think that it was GHWB that passed the assault weapons ban.

2 Likes
57

Who also, as governor, signed the law banning the open carrying of loaded firearms in California, with the support of the NRA.

This may have been tangentially connected to a local increase in the numbers of armed black people.

11 Likes
58

What’s with the funny cap?

1 Like
59

OK, so, here… I know.
The use of the color orange in clothing isn’t constitutionally enshrined is it?
I don’t think so…
… so, let’s ban it’s use in “outdoor wear” and then more people may die in hunting accidents and some of them will be conservatives.
That aught to tip the scales.

60

The Ruger 10/22 is a semi-auto. And so in the context of this study, it would be more deadly if used in a mass shooting.
This reveals the problem with an assault rifle ban (useless definition like folding stock, pistol grip) and why it should be a semi-auto ban. But good luck with that in this environment.