In the U.S. Says the person calling others “naive”. Ok, gun owner…
You’re also operating from the gunwanker’s false assumption that people calling for a ban on the Armalite-15 platform --the one most frequently used in high-profile mass shootings that serve as all too brief wake-up calls to Americans – are doing so from a position of ignorance. We are not. There are substantive reasons why we see banning civilian possession of this specific platform, rather than pistols or semi-automatic weapons in general, as an effective starting point toward greater federal regulation of all firearms.
Most mass shooters carry several weapons including handguns- it’s the assault rifles that cause more deaths and are more dangerous to first responders.
And a stronger immediate case can be made that semi-automatic rifles do not belong in the hands of civilians.
The other reason that the AR-15 platform in particular should be singled out is that it has a uniquely toxic consumer culture of accessories and customisation surrounding it. Taking away that mystique allows everyone to focus on the real and core problems of weapons like this platform: that they have semi-automatic actions and can take high-capacity magazines.
It’s unfortunately going to be a grueling step-by-step process for the U.S. to approach the sensible gun control of other OECD countries.
Yah that’s fine- I agree regulation should be much more sweeping than “assault weapons”. What Australia and Canada have works well for us and would be a good model.
I agree that the term “assault weapons” isn’t technically useful and the legislation shouldn’t use that term without defining it, and it’s also true that Clinton’s ban didn’t define them well. However it was also at least a swing at the problem, which America doesn’t even try any more. Perfect is the enemy of done and I’d much rather see an imperfect law that gun nuts will laugh at because of bayonet lugs or whatever, but can be built upon.
Paralyzing the conversation by arguing for perfection is a tactic used by the NRA and Climate Deniers alike. Recognize that, when you use it, you are doing their work for them.
I have actually fired an AR-15. I have an in-law who has one, and I was at a family reunion and one thing led to another…
Three things about the experience struck me.
One, it was really easy for me to fire the weapon and hit targets (though it had a scope) with no prior weapons training or experience at all.
Two, the magazine held a lot of rounds.
Three, I was able to go through that magazine really quickly.
In short, I simply cannot imagine a situation in which one would actually need such a weapon. It is just more gun than a civilian could actually have a use for. And it’s not that far shy of a grenade launcher…
Nope. That is the bad-faith argument in a nutshell. There’s no both-sidesing it.
And the argument that a vague assault weapons ban wouldn’t work is laughable - the assault weapons ban that the US had reduced mass shootings by a factor of three and those mass shootings immediately picked back up when it expired. It’s like you’re arguing against gravity.
