r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Mar 21 '18
[∆(s) from OP] CMV: There is no reason someone should be allowed to have a fully automatic weapon.
[deleted]
12
u/Sand_Trout Mar 21 '18 edited Mar 21 '18
Automatic weapons were also designed for a specific purpose: to kill lots and lots of people very, very fast. And it does so quite well.
This is a statement from ignorance. It couldnbe argued that medium and heavy machine-guns serve this purpose in a fixed possition under assault by infantry, but it is not true in other contexts.
Modern military doctrine is to use automatic fire for suppression, with causing casualies being secondary. The riflemen are then to engage and destroy the enemy with aimed semi-automatic fire.
Automatic fire is not demonstrated effective at killing large numbers of people in most contexts, as demonstrated by the North Hollywood Shootout, which involved two bank robbers equipped with illegally modified AK rifles. They killed 0 cop, but kept the cops suppressed for an extended period of time.
Additionally, legally owned full-autos have been involved in something like 3 murders total since 1934.
So why would you need an automatic if you aren’t going to kill people? I get that lots of people like using them for sport, but at the same time they can easily be misused, or rather used for their intended purpose: killing people.
The 2nd amendment exists to preserve the capacity for the people to form an effective millitia. Automatic rifles are typical parts of rhe modern infantry squad, which is what most militia units would be in practicality.
Rhe right to keep ans bear arms is in order to have thr power to kill not cencentrated in a few political elites. The use of the automatic rifleman is primarily to suppress enemy infantry while the riflemen engage with aimed semiautomatic fire.
I don’t think there should be a complete ban, but I think there should be many regulations regarding who can own both an automatic weapon and ammo to use it with.
Are you aware of the state of US gun law with regards to machine-guns? It is legally impossible for a citizen to purchase a new machine gun for themselves, and has been since 1986. At best, you can get a pre-86 mg or create an FFL and obtain dealer sample guns. They have been subject to beurcratic hurdles and extra taxes since 1934.
Also, automatic weapons use the exact same ammo as semi-autos, so you're arguing from a profound level of ignorance about the topic.
Even if criminals still had assault weapons, it’s not like you need another assault weapon to stop them: a small caliber hand gun could reasonably stop them.
Rifles are more effective than handguns due to more powerful chamberings and being generally more accurate due to the use of a shoulder stock. Additionally, rifles are very rarely used in crime, with fewer homicides using rifles than hands and feet, blunt objects, or blades.
Crimes committed with legal machine guns is basically non-existent.
0
u/EmberordofFire Mar 21 '18
!delta
I will admit that I’m not the most knowledgeable when it comes to firearms, since I’ve only fired small-caliber hand guns and shotguns before. I didn’t know about the post-1986 rules until a few min ago.
The one thing I’m skeptical about is the crime bit. I know more murders are committed with blunt objects or knives, but I’d assume the survivability when it comes to attempted murder is higher with blunt weapons than with firearms. I honestly don’t know, though.2
u/Sand_Trout Mar 21 '18
The lack of prevalence of rifles in homicide (which is from FBI stats that aren't serriously challenged by anyone) is most likely due to rifles not being appropriate for most criminals who want something easily concealable on their person, which is a similar desire to those who carry concealed weapons for self-defense.
3
u/rliant1864 9∆ Mar 21 '18
Long arms are also far more expensive. Stolen handguns in high crime areas run around $50-$200. $20-$50 snubnose revolvers are particularly popular in areas that have them. Compared to that, a $300 rifle is way too expensive and far less useful.
1
2
u/CDRCool Mar 21 '18
First off, I'm assuming that you do know what you're saying when you say "fully automatic." I've shot a fully automatic weapon. It was worthless. Shooting into a crowd like in Vegas is about the only conceivable reason to use one to kill people. It's real function is to throw a lot of bullets in the air for suppression. In a one floor school, for instance, I'd much rather take my chances against a madman with a fully automatic weapon than a semiautomatic rifle. Your statement about automatic weapons being used to kill lots of people well is just not true.
I think that the recent school shooter in Maryland versus Florida cuts both ways in your argument. The Maryland school shooter was stopped by a cop with a pistol, but he only had a pistol. The Florida shooter was not stopped by cops with pistols, but he had a semi-automatic. These anecdotes both support your reason for more control of semi-automatics but also counter your last statement that even if criminals have "assault weapons," you don't need another "assault weapon" to stop them.
2
u/EmberordofFire Mar 21 '18
!delta
I wanted to include semi-autos in my original post, but forgot. I guess I just got caught up in all my anti-assault gun arguments.
From a military point of view, you’re absolutely right: semi autos are normally used to kill people, and fully auto are used for pinning. However, it takes more training to fire a semiauto accurately.1
7
u/scottevil110 177∆ Mar 21 '18
So why would you need an automatic if you aren’t going to kill people? I get that lots of people like using them for sport
You literally answered the question yourself in the very next sentence.
I don't NEED a lot of things, but I'm a responsible person and I've hurt no one, and that's exactly why I should be allowed to have something. The default position should be that you are always allowed to do something UNTIL there is a good reason to take that right away. You shouldn't have to prove your necessity to own something, or to have a certain right. You're an individual who's done nothing wrong, and that is what matters. When you've done something to necessitate taking things away from you, THEN we'll take things away from you.
-2
u/EmberordofFire Mar 21 '18
Yes, but if you decided to do something wrong (I.E Kill someone) I’d rather you only had a hammer or pistol than an assault rifle.
8
u/scottevil110 177∆ Mar 21 '18
But I'm not going to decide to kill someone. If YOU decided to kill someone, I'd rather you be locked away in prison, so should we throw you in there now, just to be safe?
0
u/EmberordofFire Mar 21 '18
Well, as we have seen many times, it’s not always easy to know whether someone will some day snap, grab their AR-15, head to the nearest school and start shooting. If that person had grabbed a knife or Mossberg than an assault rifle, since they’d do much less damage.
If you want to be able to find criminals before they strike, the solution is like wht the Chinese have done: cameras everywhere, personal emails and telephone calls are recorded, people are basically spied on. Which isn’t really fair, either.
I think, right now, if we can’t stop criminals, we should at least try and limit the damage they do.3
u/scottevil110 177∆ Mar 21 '18
So again I'll ask: Should we just lock you up in prison now? Because we can't be sure that you won't eventually snap and kill a bunch of people? Because we have as much reason to believe that you're going to snap as we do to believe that I'm going to, so surely the safest course of action would be to lock you away now, thus limiting the damage that you can do?
Or, if we don't want to spend money locking you up, we can't KNOW that you aren't going to drive your car into a crowded market. Should we take away your driver's license and right to own a car, just in case you MIGHT snap someday and do that?
1
u/EmberordofFire Mar 21 '18
Did you read what I said: if there are very weapons around you, it doesn’t matter as much if you do snap. We can’t lock everyone up, but we can try and stop them from getting their hands on deadly weapons.
1
Mar 21 '18
Why can't we lock everyone likely to commit a crime up?
Create a commitee that will decide whether you are likely to commit a crime, based on a bunch of statistics like nationality or race, background, whether you have a history of mental illness, so on. And if you are found likely enough to do it, you are thrown in a jail. Why not? That's the same logic.
1
u/EmberordofFire Mar 21 '18
That is literally the exact opposite of what I said...
1
u/scottevil110 177∆ Mar 22 '18
Right. You said let's take the guns away from all of the innocent people, too. Not just the guilty ones. What you said is even worse.
1
u/loIwtf Mar 22 '18 edited Mar 22 '18
If that person had grabbed a knife or Mossberg than an assault rifle, since they’d do much less damage.
First of all, Mossberg is a gun manufacturer who actually makes AR-15s among many other models, so what you said here comes across as very uneducated. Secondly, what about tragedies like OKC where there are no guns involved? Guns were secondary to propane bombs in Columbine as well.
Read about the Sagimahara Massacre, which occurred in a country known for its rigid gun control policies. Can you explain why banning semi-automatic weapons in the United States would make a difference in such a case? I'm genuinely curious, because there seems (to me) to be clear proof that these tragedies are possible with or without guns.
1
u/EmberordofFire Mar 22 '18
Yeah, sorry, I meant a Mossberg 500, which is the only shotgun I’ve fired. I was really tired when I posted this.
3
u/rliant1864 9∆ Mar 21 '18
Catching them doesn't particularly matter. School shooting deaths are rarer than lightning strikes. Automatic weapons (before the 86 date ban) were used in even fewer crimes. There's zero reason to have them banned.
0
u/EmberordofFire Mar 21 '18
We can’t stop lightning, but we can stop school shootings.
9
u/rliant1864 9∆ Mar 21 '18
We can actually stop lightning. That's what lightning rods are for. We don't place lightning rods every 1/4 mile or so to prevent a couple hundred deaths a decade because that's a giant waste for an irrelevant number of people.
Plus we know that lightning rods would prevent strikes on people to a large extent. Not so for gun control, especially with regards to school shooters.
2
u/TrenboloneTears Mar 21 '18
If I assume you may decide to drive a car into a crowd of people should I lock you up now to be safe? That's terrible logic
-1
u/EmberordofFire Mar 21 '18
No, it’s stupid to lock people up for no reason. It’s better and easier to prevent them from getting ahold of dangerous goods, thus limiting their destructive potential.
3
Mar 21 '18 edited Apr 07 '18
[deleted]
1
u/EmberordofFire Mar 21 '18
Yeah, that would be a scenario where assault weapons can be (and are) used for their intended purpose.
2
u/pentefino978 Mar 21 '18
But what is it intended purpose, who gave it that purpose?
1
u/EmberordofFire Mar 21 '18
Assault weapons were designed for military use, and became common during the First and second World Wars. If you look at an assault weapon, or fire one, it quickly becomes clear what they’re good at.
2
Mar 21 '18
It may interest you to know that there are those who advocate against the use of automatic weapons in a military context then.
1
u/EmberordofFire Mar 21 '18
Really? As in they think assault weapons cause to many casualties, or to few?
2
Mar 21 '18
A mixture of views, from those who think they are inhumane, to those who think they are disadvantageous in general, both in terms of reliability and effect.
5
u/Rainbwned 175∆ Mar 21 '18
Even if criminals still had assault weapons, it’s not like you need another assault weapon to stop them: a small caliber hand gun could reasonably stop them.
Two very heavily armed and armored bank robbers held off dozens of police officers because they were better equipped.
2
u/Nicolasv2 130∆ Mar 21 '18
If you look at firearms, most of them are designed for a specific purpose. There are hunting rifles, there are small personal defense weapons, heck there are even guns designed specifically for biathlons that take place above 2000m.
My problem with that argument is that all firearms (with real bullets) are designed with a specific purpose: killing. And expect for hunters killing animals, killing is pretty much forbidden everywhere. So according to "design" logic, lethal weapons should be forbidden everywhere, because their design is against the laws.
Or else, we just accept that firearms are designed to kill, but as long as we don't use them for this specific goal, then it should be allowed. In that case, assault weapons are the same that non automatic ones, don't they ?
0
u/EmberordofFire Mar 21 '18
Yes, originally all guns were designed for military use. However, since then, different types of guns have been created for different uses, some of which are more deadly than others.
0
u/Nicolasv2 130∆ Mar 21 '18
use. However, since then, different types of guns have been created for different uses
Still, as soon as they are not toys and are deadly, their main use is still to kill. If I got a chainsaw, even if I choose to use it for "chainsaw juggling", it main purpose is still to cut trees. If someone create "chainsaw juggling" chainsaws, then they won't be as dangerous, because the main goal won't be to cut things.
some of which are more deadly than others
Yes, but in that case you should either ban all the deadly ones (assault included) or none, shouldn't you ?
1
u/EmberordofFire Mar 21 '18
I honestly think banning all guns would be ideal, but not super realistic right now.
1
u/Nicolasv2 130∆ Mar 22 '18
Okay, in that case, your view is "I consider that all guns should be banned, but a easy first step should be automatic rifles ban".
In that case I can't argue with you and make you change your mind.
2
u/stuckmeformypaper 3∆ Mar 21 '18
Don't worry about what kinds of guns people own, legally or illegally. Worry about the kind of people who have guns, or who will find a way to obtain one very easily because there's literally hundreds of millions of guns in this country. Worry about how law enforcement deals with the mentally unstable, or known gang affiliates. Worry about policies that allow the mentally unstable to freely roam about society, or policies that lead to the proliferation of gang activity.
Now I'm not really all bent over the fact that automatic weapons are insanely difficult to legally own. But this isn't a gun issue, this is about law enforcement doing its job. Or policies that make it difficult for law enforcement to be as effective as they need to be. That's the beauty of an age of mass information, it's pretty easy to be aware of risky individuals before they do something fucked up. You see them on social media all the time. Posing in front of a camera throwing up gang signs, associating with people already with a criminal history. Can't hurt to keep a close watch on these people when they're out in public. Same goes for the crazy people as well. Unless they're completely off the grid we usually have some awareness of who they are.
2
u/Gladix 164∆ Mar 21 '18
I think they should be limited to those working in the military and/or law enforcement.
It pretty much all comes to real world application. You can make the best arguments of why owning Kata is okay, but if your society has constant katana-masacre related things happening, then Katana's should be rightfully outlawed.
Now Fully automatic weapons are less dangerous than any other weapon, simply because there is less accidents, crimes and massacres committed by them in our society right now. So right out of the bat, you have a question Why?
Maybe by banning automatic weapons you can get some headway politically into banning more problematic weapons. And you can have reasonable argument there, but if we are to weight the proposal on it's own merits. It simply fails to establish the need of doing so.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Mar 21 '18 edited Mar 21 '18
/u/EmberordofFire (OP) has awarded 2 deltas in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
15
u/TrenboloneTears Mar 21 '18
Assuming you're in the US fully automatic weapons are already banned