I Have a Question

AR 15's that we are allowed to buy in the states are not by definition "assault" rifles. They are not automatic and can't do much more damage than your average hand gun.

@UnparalleledMonster: Getting testy and demanding? And here I thought it was an opportunity to educate...

No...it's not a gun availability issue. Just because you say otherwise simply doesn't make it so. And you have no data to really back it up. Forget the circumstantial data...for example, the US homicide rate v. the UK and try to explain the difference is due solely to gun ownership. Because I will simply point to the before and after examples of how violent crime increased after draconian firearm laws were implemented.

What happened in DC and Chicago when handguns were banned? Homicide rates increased. How about after the ban in the UK after the Dublane massacre...the homicide rate increased.

Lots of firearms owned in Switzerland and Isreal...firearm homicide rates are low.

If your premise of availability were true...Washington DC would be the safest place in the US. Toughest gun laws in the country, lowest gun ownership per capita in the country, and the highest firearm homicide rate in the country...4 times higher than the national average. And twice as high as California...another gun control haven with a firearm homicide rate ranking 49th in the nation...and the most firearm homicides of any state. As much as every gun control advocate wants to beliebe it, there is no correlation between gun ownership and gun violence. There is a ton of data to back it up.

The reality is that stringent gun control measures frequently have adverse consequences i.e. direct increases in violent crime.

Let's chat about DGU for a moment...Defensive Gun Use. Not a stat I ever hear uttered from the gun control crowd...it doesn't fit the narrative.

There are far more instances where a firearm is used to prevent a violent crime than there are to hurt people. Now a DGU does not mean the good guy shot the bad guy. Usually the good guy merely brandishes the firearm, and the perp retreats.

The CDC estimates between 100,000 to 250,000 instances each year in which someone uses a firearm to prevent a violent crime in which the potential victim was certain that the perpetrator intended to injure or kill. That data on DGU from the CDC is the most conservative out there. Other estimates put DGU instances far higher.

Regardless of how many legally owned firearms there are in the US (estimates approach 400 million) there are millions of illegally owned firearms. Take guns out of the hands of the law abiding, crime will sky rocket.

So back to your question I answered previously. My right to own a firearm, be it a handgun, shotgun or rifle...even if that rifle is an AR-15 has nothing to do with the rights of others.

It's a collectivist's argument to imply that owning an AR-15 is sinful and somehow puts the lives of innocent people at risk. Particularly in light of the data where people have been disarmed resulting in an increase in violence.

Rationalizing that it is somehow better for a lunatic to go on a killing spree with a knife vs. a gun is just disgusting. Nevermind that some of the most egregious acts of violence did not involve gun fire. Let's not forget the lives lost in buildings due to aircraft or the right mixture of fertlizer, ammonia and diesel fuel.

I've studied and debated gun rights v gun control for years. Nothing you've stated is anything I haven't heard before.

its actually not that convenient or cheap. I am all for stricter laws for background checks but there is no need to keep firearms out of the hands of competent law abiding citizens.

@SouthernBoxer

Do you disagree that there are many people who would exercise poor judgement and get impaired while armed?
Do you not follow the comparison to drunk driving? Everyone knows that you shouldn't get drunk and drive a car and yet it happens with a very frequency.
Similarly there is no reason to believe that simply because it is ill-advised, that there would not be a a significant number of people who would carry firearms while drunk

@SouthernBoxer

I'm not trying to insult you or patronize you. I'm legitimately baffled as to why you're having so much trouble with this.

Ok, let's retrace our steps here.

In response to your comment about guns being a good means of self defense another poster pointed out that many (and probably most) people at the club would be drunk or impaired in someway.
To which you replied that This is true. But the fact is that many people are not responsible or intelligent and would get impaired while carrying a weapon.

So in my understanding this is not a question about whether responsible gun owners should get drunk while carrying but one that recognizes the reality that people will get drunk and carry and that impaired people returning fire from all directions would not necessarily result in a better outcome

There are limits. The right and privilege to own guns was given to us so we can protect ourselves from mental defectives and tyranny. Guns do not kill people. People kill people. Guns are simply a tool that can be used for good or evil. More gun control laws will only affect those who are smart enough to use a gun properly. Law abiding citizens follow the law. Criminals do NOT follow the law, therefore, gun laws will NOT stop criminals, rather, it will only stop intelligent people from defending themselves and others.

Great debate. Again, 59 people killed in Chicago alone on memorial day weekend, where ARs are banned. ARs are not the problem. Gun free zones are.

I agree that there should be limits on the types of guns that civilians are allowed to own, but ar15s are not assault rifles they are the civilian version of the military assault rifle, which does provide some justification thinking they should be allowed. Defending yourself is important, but honestly if your self defense requires more than a handgun or shotgun, youre doimg something you shouldnt be doimg anyhow

@SouthernBoxer

Sure criminals won't obey the law. But why makes it easy for them?
Why make it convenient and comparatively cheap to get a weapon like that?

Even with the rational that you want to defend yourself, how many people go to the movie theater or to the club carrying an assault rifle. Who is realistically going to use that besides people with the intent to kill?

Just imagine if everyone in that nightclub had a weapon. When that idiot started shooting, people would have shot back, missing him and hitting other people. No one would know who the bad guy was. Everyone would have ended up shooting at everyone else. The situation would have been three times worse!

A number of people ask why Americans should have the right to own an AR-15.

Americans don't need to justify this. It's a right guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment. But let's forget that for now.

Within the question you pose above is the underlying assumption that the AR-15 is somehow more dangerous than other types of firearms, and therefore be banned or heavily restricted. Is that correct?

If so, what is it about the AR-15 that makes it too dangerous to own?

@SouthernBoxer

We've been over this. No reason to make it easier on them.
No reason to make it easier for otherwise non-criminal citizens who go on a rampage.

What good reason is there for the average person to be allowed access to this kind of weapon?

To make a modern rifle fully automatic, one would be breaking the law, who breaks laws? -Criminals. More laws and control will NOT stop criminals from getting guns. And that is a great point. If people in that club had concealed carry permits, they could have taken out the defective, saving many lives.

@SouthernBoxer

Only responsible and intelligent law abiding citizen should be able to have guns

I agree. But that is absolutely not the reality of the situation. That is not how the law works

Ok first of all, the AR15 is not an assault rifle. Secondly, there ARE limits on the type of gun we can own. It's called the National Firearms act of 1938.

@Doomsdaysmores

I don't think this discussion is going anywhere.
We'll just have to agree to disagree.
Have a good night

@SouthernBoxer

....Which part of this is confusing you?
There are many people who have guns will get drunk because they are not responsible or intelligent.
Are you following?

Instead of trying to repeat broken points, consider answering Doom, as I too am interested.

All you have devolved to doing is ignoring and brushing off the facts and correct information I supply. Typical defense mechanism. We have both supplied facts to you, which you refuse to look up and educate yourself with.

Yup. 312 people killed in 2012 by any rifle. How many people died in Chicago over memorial day weekend this year? (Hint: more than in Orlando and 0 with an AR15)

Areas with the highest number of guns are some of the safest cities in the country. Chicago has the strictest gun laws, and also has the highest gun related crimes. Not allowing gun crimes to happen by putting fear in he criminals' minds by allowing citizen to own guns is a form of the guns protecting others. So, yes.

@SouthernBoxer

No. You've made an assertion that you claim is factual and have subsequently failed to support it.
Not a compelling argument, my friend. Until you do find yourself able or willing to support your point this facet of discussion cannot advance.
Your choice

@SouthernBoxer

You're pretty intent on proving me wrong. If these were well known facts it would have taken you seconds to find and relay them. If you could have supplied this information then you would have.
Your credibility is zero, your excuses transparent.
We'll pick this conversation up again if and when you decide to substantiate your so far baseless claims.

Later

I did not have to find them. I brought them up the moment I deemed them relevant to the argument. I have known these facts since the moment they were released and discerned them to be true. Still, condescending and patronizing, I see.

What kind of weapon? Most guns can be modified to hold upwards of 20 rounds. Since criminals will ALWAYS get their hands on guns, the real question is why inhibit those who can protect themselves and others, that will not break laws?

@Doomsdaysmores

About the other gun? I mean 22's aren't as bad but if it can't deal that much damage i don't see much reason to have it allowed either. Not sure what the look of it has to do with anything.

Now i've answered yours so you may answer mine

Some people fear that it won't end with the AR-15. They're worried that the gun control crowd will take "baby steps," eventually banning all guns. I'm not saying that I believe this, but it does concern some people.

Exactly. You don't know about the guns. Modern guns are only legal as semi-auto. To have a modern rifle automatic is a crime. Criminals do not follow laws, gun laws only stop those responsible and intelligent enough to use them properly.

@monster, that is a valid point. I believe before you are able to own a gun you should have to be trained on how to use it properly and possibly even have to go for annual certifications.

I see nothing gained in banning a gun simply based on the capacity of its magazine, especially when larger magazines are available for less scary looking guns that operate the same.

How about the Ruger SR-22? That one has magazines available in up to 250 Rds commercially available. Doesn't look scary until you change the stock. But it only fires .22lr rounds

@SouthernBoxer

Sorry man, not to sure what point you think you're arguing.
No, people should not get drunk and carry
Yes, people will get drunk and carry.

I feel as if this discussion has gone as far as it can

and from what I have heard, some of those injured and killed were accidentally shot by law enforcement so they aren't any better than the rest of us.

You can look these statistics up yourself. I'm not here to baby-feed everything to you. Educate yourself. You can find the same statistics Doom stated, along with mine. And again, you are glorifying the AR-15 as some super weapon, far superior to any other gun.

The Assault rifles you are wanting to ban (those that have a much faster rate of fire) have been banned since 1938.

Look up a Remington 770. It has the exact same capabilities as the AR-15, just doesn't look scary. Would you ban this one too?

How about my AR308? It's on the same platform, literally the same technology and looks the same, just fires a bigger round further

Resulting to insults and patronizing? I never said people who own guns shouldn't get drunk. I said people who have a gun on their person should not get drunk.

@Doomsdaysmores

Didn't we already cover your remmington? No we can't ban every gun because it can be modified to be more deadly.
Now answer my question

That is a good point, Doom. Most want to ban guns 'cuz they "look scary" without knowing much about the gun itself.

@TJ0695

Unless you are a skilled gunman, the mere fact that the rifle can hold so many more bullets will make a huge difference. And apparently does since the worst mass shootings seem almost exclusively to involve these kinds of weapons

Just assume that everyone in Florida has a carry permit and everyone that decides to go to a nightclub says to themselves, "I am a responsible person. I might get a little tore up tonight so I better not carry". Result? The only gun there is the bad guys...

Oh, you know, nothing much different from the last thing I remember you helping out with.

Taking away one gun will cause a domino effect. Just like taking away one right will cause the riddance of all. The left never want to stop and settle. They want complete socialistic control.

You can look it up yourself. Quicker, easier, and can even be cheaper through illegal means.

Doom said earlier, "Yup. 312 people killed in 2012 by any rifle. How many people died in Chicago over memorial day weekend this year? (Hint: more than in Orlando and 0 with an AR15)" Since you like to glorify the AR-15 so much, take this in.

That is why you bring in properly composed and conducted background checks.

@SouthernBoxer

See, you keep returning to the benefits of guns in general. You don't seem to have anything of substance to say regarding weapons like the AR15

. This is a Remington 750 semi automatic rifle. Functionally it is not different from the ar15. Ban it?

I said intelligent and responsible people would not get drunk with a gun, and you reply with, responsible and intelligent people would not drink and drive. Because they are not responsible and intelligent. lmao That has no content to it.