
Ars Technica founder on the AR-15 - ISL
https://medium.com/@jonst0kes/why-i-need-an-ar-15-832e05ae801c#.tyon34x8o
======
Archio
I understand that many politicians are woefully illiterate about what they
think are "assault weapons", and I sympathize greatly with how annoying it
must be to constantly be accused of being "sexually inadequate" and other
ridiculous insults that distract from the real issues. The main problem with
this author's argument, as I see it, is that while the AR-15 is very
_convenient_ , making it easily accessible for any adults who wants one is not
worth the price for society as a whole. That is - would it really be an
infringement on the author's rights, if as the author points out, he would
need to have 3 separate guns for sporting, hunting, and use of force?

When discussing gun control, I often personally consider my own opinions on
the proposed banning/legal control over encryption in public debate.
Specifically, I wonder whether it is hypocritical to want to limit the sale
and use semi-automatic weapons, while simultaneously arguing that encryption
must be fully legal and "everyone shouldn't be punished for a few bad apples".
My conclusion is usually that banning/compromising encryption would
fundamentally destroy the security and privacy of critical software for
everyone on a massive scale. However, I don't think the impact would be nearly
as severe for gun owners that might need to pass a few ID checks and own
several weapons if needed for different uses.

So my question is, to gun owners that support existing laws regarding semi-
automatic weapons like the AR-15- would limiting its sale really be really as
devastatingly harmful to society at large (as to warrant those existing laws)?

~~~
jonstokes
Author here: I consider responses like this a win, because if we're going to
talk blanket bans then the discussion should really be about whether or not
anyone needs a semi-auto weapon. If we moved the gun ban debate from "AR-15"
or "assault rifle" to "semi-auto weapon of any kind", that would represent a
step in the direction of sanity.

I personally would prefer to forget about the "what" and focus entirely on the
"who", but more on that another day.

~~~
jccloud
One of the problems with weapons in the AR 15 class is that they are very
commonly converted to fully automatic. I cannot say if any recent mass
shooting has featured such a gun, but a few of the Bundy militants in NV/OR
were cited for possession of them, or bragged about possessing them on social
media and forums.

Perhaps I just live in an unfortunate part of Texas, but I know a number of
people who have performed the mod on theirs… and frankly, among the people I
know, these were already there people I was last comfortable knowing owned any
firearms at all...

~~~
novembermike
Is this a real issue? I can't think of any mass shootings where a rifle was
illegally modified to be full auto.

~~~
jonstokes
You are correct. Nobody is getting gunned down by full auto here in the US.
Now, some terrorist yahoo may yet change that before I'm done typing this
reply, but as of now the number of people who've been killed by civilian full
auto fire since the NFA ban is in the low single digits last I checked.

~~~
tracker1
Even then, they could just as easily be brought in through mexico or other
means as conversion of other arms here.

------
paloaltokid
I came away from this article feeling like I had a better understanding of why
the AR-15 is such a popular weapon - considered configurable, reliable, etc.
The historical argument about buying military-grade weapons because it's known
to be reliable _because it has to be_ made sense to me as well.

However, I didn't feel like I understood why he needed that gun. Is he a
hunter? Does he own his AR-15 for self-defense? As far as I could tell, the
reason he wanted the rifle is because it's considered "cool" and he makes it
clear that he views it as somewhat of a toy. Calling the AR-15 "a Lego kit for
adults" made my stomach turn, but I understand where he's coming from.

EDIT: a commenter below mentions that the author lives on a 17-acre farm and
owns a gun to take care of animals that invade, as well as for recreational
shooting.

What's missing from this article is a discussion of _why_ so many guys feel
like they need to own such a weapon (and usually more than one) in the first
place. If you're a hunter, survivalist, preparing for the zombie apocalypse,
fine, yes, you need a weapon. That's understandable.

But it seems disingenuous for the author to write such a long post without
including a critique of the way the AR-15 is marketed. A common ad I've seen
posted is just a picture of the rifle with the caption: "consider your man
card reissued". Call me insensitive, but the person who gets fired up by that
ad is not someone I want to see owning a rifle. Or any kind of weapon for that
matter.

Our definition of what it means to be "a real man" needs a deep and thorough
re-evaluation.

~~~
tracker1
The AR-15 is inappropriate for the likes of deer or elk, and overkill from
smaller animals...

The many sizes of ammo and rounds are the nature of having many weapons from
many manufacturers in many cultures, mostly around war times.

Some people are just avid collectors... Nobody _needs_ to have 2+ cars per
household, and teenage deaths from auto accidents are significant.

For me, it's about extending personal freedom and accepting that you can never
be completely safe. In the case of this shooting, it probably would have been
a bomb otherwise, and would have killed/injured about as many people.

~~~
vanattab
The gun is perfect for varmint hunting. It handles anything from a coyote down
and I am not sure what overkill means it all depends on the bullet style. Also
ar-15 style guns don't have to me .277 they can be higher caliber suitable for
dear/elk. Although I agree I would rather have a lite weight bolt action if I
am walking and elk hunting alot. The modular nature is great for coyote
hunting.

~~~
tracker1
I mean that for smaller things, rabbits, prairy dogs etc... I'd probably be
inclined to reach for a .22 LR... same regarding elk/deer. 3030 or 308 ...

As to the style, I think that's more about personal preference... I'm not
concerned about people that want "scary looking" guns.

Again, I'm not an owner... but with all this talk, wondering if i can find a
local butcher that carries rabbit.

... wow, just looked, didn't realize there were that many caliber choices...

------
ryanmarsh
For a time I was paid by the US gov't to use the AR-15 for its original
purpose. I was well trained and used it very effectively. Later I was trained
to smith it as well.

It fucking terrifies me that so many of you people have one.

It's a tough position for me to be in. I support the 2nd amendment but I don't
think you folks should have access to this sort of weapon of war.

There are plenty of options that provide the utility of home defense,
plinking, target practice, and hunting without having a 30 ROUND FUCKING MAG.

In a military context we wouldn't call the AR-15 a "mass casualty producing
weapon" because there are relatively higher caliber, faster cycling, higher
capacity, man portable weapons. However in the civilian context the AR-15 is
most definitely a "mass casualty producing weapon" and should not be easily
obtained.

~~~
woodman
When I was in Fallujah we let each household keep one AK (which was almost
always full-auto). Why did we do this? Because it is immoral to strip an
individual of all means for self defense, especially when we knew that we
couldn't protect everybody. So while the US is not a war zone, when does such
a moral principle kick in?

I don't trust everybody with a rifle, hell - I especially don't trust you
given your expressed view, but I accept the fact that the police can't protect
everybody - and it is immoral to insist that they depend on protection that
isn't there.

~~~
ryanmarsh
Brother you know why they were allowed an AK. I did the same cordon and
searches too. They faced a different threat model.

~~~
arca_vorago
I wish my fellow warriors would learn to remember their oath to the
constitution (and therefore the second amendment) in discussions like this.
The fact that you don't seem to is sad but indicative of the general disregard
for the importance of oaths these days.

~~~
ryanmarsh
That's a pretty serious accusation there buddy. How specifically am I
disregarding my oath?

~~~
arca_vorago
Your casual and flippant disregard for the need to arms oneself with more than
a single shot pea shooter is in direct contradiction with the second
amendment. Do you disagree? (and keep it on point) Also, my verbiage left room
for you to correct, eg. " don't seem to", so it's not an accusation... yet.
Also, the real discussion is in my other comment in this suspiciously flagged
thread.

~~~
dang
Your comments in this thread crossed repeatedly into being uncivil. That
breaks the HN guidelines. Please (re-)read
[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)
and post civilly and substantively, or not at all, from now on.

~~~
arca_vorago
Really? I am assuming you are speaking about "Be civil. Don't say things you
wouldn't say in a face-to-face conversation. Avoid gratuitous negativity. "

First of all. I think that was a bad rule to be introduced in the first place.
I don't think there was proper user input on that change, and the backlash was
mostly ignored. That being said though...

While I can understand my comments were not put in the nicest of terms and
verbiage, I in no way became uncivil. Please indicate precisely to me where I
became "uncivil", and please make clear your definition of "uncivil".

Sure, I cussed a couple of times, but last I checked HN wasn't against
cussing. As a matter of fact, reviewing my comments in this thread, I see
nothing you could take as violating the negativity rule at all, unless you are
applying an excessively broad scope to the rule that would set a precedent
that would harm HN as a whole.

I do think perhaps this part might be in violation: "Also, the real discussion
is in my other comment in this suspiciously flagged thread." That though, is
not being uncivil, and would be a violation of another issue, and I shouldn't
have said that. It's too late to edit now though.

In short, dang, you don't seem to have provided very clear reasoning for your
comment, so I would like you to please clarify. I admit in retrospect this is
probably why the article got flagged, perhaps rightly so, because it is a
contentious subject that was/is bound to create charged debate. My comments
were heated but not uncivil, and your insinuation that they were is concerning
to me, especially when the other commenter at one point was making attacks on
me based on my PTSD. If anything I would expect you to be saying this to him
for that comment.

Dan, I eagerly await your reply, as I have always tried to be a good commenter
on HN, and I am open to correction if my errors are pointed out properly.

~~~
dang
You used phrases ("bullshit it doesn't", "didn't fucking think so", "your
casual and flippant disregard", "Do you disagree? (and keep it on point)")
that made your comments aggressive and personal. No one who's trying to be
respectful would address the person they're talking to that way. HN threads
are for respectful conversation, so please edit that kind of thing out of your
comments when posting here. As a side effect, you may be surprised how much
more substantive and credible they become when you do so. (You're right, btw,
that cussing isn't the issue.)

More importantly, you insinuated that a fellow user had violated an oath.
That's way out of line. Casually slinging such a serious charge is the kind of
thing that turns internet forums into a circle of hell, so please don't do
anything like that here.

I gather that you didn't mean to break any rules when posting, and probably
were just expressing yourself forcefully about a topic you feel strongly
about. That's natural, but if HN is going to reach the standard of civility
that we strive for, we all have to exercise self-control re the 'forcefully'
part. Other people doubtless feel as strongly as you do, have had different
experiences that led them to different views, and—given how little information
online discussions convey—may not even be understanding you correctly (or vice
versa). That's a lot of opportunities for conflict, so interesting discussion
depends on all of us restraining our impulses.

~~~
arca_vorago
Dan, thanks for taking the time to type that response. I am going to take your
correction to heart and try to adjust my tone in future conversations, as
after having time to cool off I think you are correct that I could have
expressed more self control, which would have in turn created a better
discussion and debate. I'm not jealous of your job of moderation, but I'm
impressed with this interaction so I tip my hat to you.

~~~
dang
What a nice reply to come back and find here. Thank you!

------
ufmace
On the question of “why is there no moderate alternative to the NRA that
attracts middle-of-the-road gun owners?”, what a lot of people who aren't
involved in the community don't understand is that the NRA _is_ the moderate
alternative group. The more extremist groups include Gun Owners of America
([https://gunowners.org/](https://gunowners.org/)), Jews for the Preservation
of Firearms Ownership ([http://jpfo.org/](http://jpfo.org/)), National
Association for Gun Rights
([https://www.nationalgunrights.org/](https://www.nationalgunrights.org/)),
and Citizen's Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms
([http://www.ccrkba.org/](http://www.ccrkba.org/)), among many others at the
national and state level.

Last I checked, all of these smaller gun rights groups still have bigger
membership rolls than the biggest anti-rights groups.

------
jpgvm
I don't actually think at any point in this article did he really articulate
why he "needs" an AR-15.

Only that he wants one.

Which is perfectly fine. However at the end of the day I don't think peoples
wants should trump my -need- to be safe.

~~~
diek
I like the analogy of swimming pools. I don't _need_ a swimming pool, and
having a pool by definition makes neighborhood children and visitors with
children to my house less safe.

In fact, children under 15 are about 40 times more likely to die by swimming
pool than by an accidental firearms discharge [0].

I still have a pool. There are reasonable laws about having auto-closing gates
and a fenced-in yard. I don't see anyone clambering to tighten restrictions on
assault swimming pools.

Likewise, semi-automatic, detachable-magazine-fed rifles are responsible for
something like 2% of shootings. The only real place they have significance is
in mass shootings. The only refute I have to, "but if we ban these rifles we
won't have shootings" is that it would just happen through a different means.
The Happy Land Fire killed 87 people, not a shot fired. Timothy McVeigh killed
189 people with fertilizer... and that was in 1995 -- under the "Assault
Weapons Ban" of 1994.

[0] [http://www.m1-garand-rifle.com/gun-safety/firearms-versus-
sw...](http://www.m1-garand-rifle.com/gun-safety/firearms-versus-swimming-
pools.php)

~~~
nl
_The Happy Land Fire killed 87 people, not a shot fired. Timothy McVeigh
killed 189 people with fertilizer... and that was in 1995 -- under the
"Assault Weapons Ban" of 1994._

I don't understand arguments like this at all. Is the argument that "there are
other bad things so we shouldn't tackle this thing"?

~~~
diek
It's the substitution problem. The argument (seems to be), "If we ban semi-
automatic rifles, that person who wants to kill all those people won't be able
to harm anyone."

History has shown us this simply isn't the case. People who want to kill
people will kill people with whatever means available. Happy Land, Oklahoma
City, etc are just examples of this. I didn't see a huge push to ban pressure
cookers after the Boston bombings.

~~~
nl
_People who want to kill people will kill people with whatever means
available. Happy Land, Oklahoma City, etc are just examples of this._

Does anyone take this argument seriously? This is a genuine question - I find
it difficult to understand how that argument seems compelling to anyone?

Of course there are lots of ways to kill people!

The primary use of fertilizer, gasoline and pressure cookers isn't killing.
The primary purpose of guns is.

~~~
willhamina
Keep the guns available! I'd rather have someone come after me with a gun than
with a pressure cooker or fertilizer bomb:

\- The gun can be a symbol conveying intent. Possibly one can negotiate or
leave the premises in time. In contrast a pressure cooker in a corner does not
immediately tell me that someone is out to get me. That is, I can be surprised
more easily by an exploding pressure cooker or fertilizer bomb. At least with
the gun I know what's going on.

\- Fertilizer, gasoline and pressure cooker bombs do not tend to produce
predictable wounds and often produce fatalities. I'm more likely to survive if
an angry man shoots me than if he blows me up with a pressure cooker. Also the
trauma surgeons have a better chance of stitching me up. Finally I'd rather
live the rest of my life with a bullet in my butt than a pressure cooker lid
up my ass.

------
erichocean
This article is absolutely appropriate for HN, had an active, engaged, and
_non-hostile_ comment section, and SHOULD NOT have been banned/flagged as
inappropriate. We are all worse off because it was.

I strongly suspect that those hitting the "flag" button did so on ideological
grounds, in order to shut down discussion they did not approve of.

~~~
brudgers
I didn't flag it and I am participating in it and I don't think it's a good
Hacker News discussion. Gun control, assault rifles, the AR15, etc. are all
topics covered by the US mainstream media. I've seen them regularly since
Hinkley shot Reagan and James Brady became a high profile casualty. I'm too
young to know much about how it was before that.

Maybe two weeks ago, it might have been a "better" story. Today, it's not
unreasonable to read it as someone's reaction to the events in Orlando and to
judge a love song to the firearm used there in poor taste. Even if that was
not the author's intention.

------
nl
So I'm no gun person (I don't even live in the US), but I know a little bit
and have shot some.

This post has as much misinformation as anything else you'll read about gun.

1) The Henry rifle thing. During the Civil War period and up until WW2,
military rifles and hunting rifles were basically designed with the same goal:
shooting and hitting things at range. During WW2 people noticed that most
person to person combat was actually at close range, and rifles were mostly
used for suppression fire. Rifles like the AR-15 were designed for this close
range combat scenario - which is exactly like most mass shootings. Yes, you
can use an AR-15 for hunting - they are pretty good at killing things, but
that doesn't make it a hunting rifle.

2) He's right about the "defensive rifle" nonsense. Is that even a thing
people talk about?

3) He's right about the impossibility of defining "Assault Weapons" (although
maybe restricting large capacity magazines isn't entirely stupid). His
suggestion (?) about banning semi-automatic weapons seems reasonable to me.

~~~
jonstokes
I think you're probably a reasonable guy, and you've gotten your wires
crossed, so please go back and read the article again, because nothing in the
following paragraph is a response to anything I claimed in the piece or
actually think:

"The Henry rifle thing. During the Civil War period and up until WW2, military
rifles and hunting rifles were basically designed with the same goal: shooting
and hitting things at range. During WW2 people noticed that most person to
person combat was actually at close range, and rifles were mostly used for
suppression fire. Rifles like the AR-15 were designed for this close range
combat scenario - which is exactly like most mass shootings. Yes, you can use
an AR-15 for hunting - they are pretty good at killing things, but that
doesn't make it a hunting rifle."

~~~
nl
I think it does. Your argument is that the AR-15 is the modern equivalent to
the Henry rifle, which is true. But modern combat rifles are designed for
different goals (killing quickly at close range), which isn't the use case for
hunting.

You argue that police use makes it legitimate, but this is exactly wrong:
police use it for the same reason the military do: killing quickly at close
range.

Yes, the modularity of the AR-15 means you can adapt to to do other things.
That isn't a strength from the point of view of stopping mass killings though.

~~~
WTFdude143
AR-15s can be used for long range weapons. 5.56 is effective out to 600 yards.

You can even use a different caliber in it like 6.5mm Grendel which is a 1000
yard round.

So you can most certainly use it for rapid follow up shots at long ranges
while hunting.

------
brudgers
My take on the AR-15:

The Plaza Theater where Christina Grimmie was shot last week is less than a
mile from where I went to Junior High. I saw the _Friday the 13th_ there on a
group date the last day of ninth grade. My sister and brother in law drum and
dance there on stage from time to time with their friends and community.

The building where the other hundred odd people were shot last week used to be
an Italian restaurant. the closest to the house where I grew up. I ate in that
building more than a few times...both buildings I guess if concessions count.
My mom is pushing 80. She was out walking the dog Sunday morning. She asked a
neighbor if they knew what all the helicopters were doing.

I'm an alum of the high school a half mile down Kaley Ave from Pulse. Sneaking
into Pulse is something its current LGBT students try to do. Some are friends
of my nieces and nephews. Some were taught by my sister. The carnage touched a
lot of people I know.

That's what I'm thinking about. Tonight, I don't give a fuck about your gun.
It's probably a difference in priorities.

------
noonespecial
Here's a gun right that I'd like. I'd like the right to restrict _one other
person_ from being able to obtain a weapon. Even at the cost of my own right
to do so. Like an anti-concealed-carry.

A huge amount of times the people surrounding these nut-jobs seem to know in
advance that they're trouble. If every person had the ability to give up their
own right to bear in exchange for preventing one other person from doing the
same I think it would make a difference. Think of it as virtualizing the
shootout between the two, each neutralizing the other.

Or perhaps a "credit" system where endorsements vs anti-endorsements must be
positive? (You'd start with +1 for your own endorsement of yourself).

Difficult to implement to be sure but interesting idea?

~~~
erichocean
That's somewhat what the author was suggesting when he mentioned "network
effects" near the end of the article.

And you're right: by focusing on _shooters_ —not weapons—the quote-unquote
problem of rifles like that AR-15 being available to the general public
becomes a lot more tractable.

------
ppod
I love how this is twenty paragraphs of narcissistic libertarianism followed
with a conclusion that hints at "shooter control" through "network effects",
which is some truly Orwellian language for government targeting of citizens
based on their religious, social or political affiliations.

~~~
jonstokes
And I love this ignorant response, because I (the author) voted for a
socialist in the Dem primary, and my "network effects"-based shooter control
scheme is decentralized and designed to appeal to libertarians.

~~~
ppod
I will wait for you to publish it. Does the decentralization depend on
concerned citizens reporting their neighbours to the government, or is it more
of a vigilante thing?

~~~
jonstokes
No, it's more of a shared risk/liability via voluntary associations thing.

------
thehoff
I liked the article and have more of an appreciation for those that enjoy
guns. For myself I never understood why people would need or want anything
more than a small pistol, which this opened my eyes to the other side.

But serious question (and apologies if I missed it), what is wrong with making
it _harder_ to buy a gun? Is it true that I could go to a gun show and pretty
much walk out with one that same day? What is wrong with just having a more
stringent background check and/or classes before one can own a gun? (This may
be the case in _some_ states).

~~~
erichocean
> _But serious question (and apologies if I missed it), what is wrong with
> making it harder to buy a gun?_

I assume it's because it's a) in the Bill of Rights, and thus "not up for
discussion—period", and b) historically, governments have disarmed their
populace as a prelude to mass murder of dissidents.

------
erichocean
As an aside, I love the Orwellian phrase "assault weapon". Out of curiosity,
what would a "non-assault" _weapon_ look like? Is there such a thing?

~~~
gozur88
There's no such thing as an "assault weapon". That's a media creation by
people who don't know anything about guns.

~~~
nwienert
By that same reasoning there's no such thing as anything, as we all define
words to be whatever we want them to mean.

Semi-automatic or full-automatic + submachine + machine pistols + ... is too
much to say. It's a meta-category, which we use all the time to describe
things and is incredibly helpful.

~~~
analog31
In my view, attacking terminology is a convenient way of making dialogue
impossible. I suspect that "assault weapon" may have originated with the gun
manufacturers themselves, as a marketing term, or within military / police
circles.

~~~
erichocean
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon#History_of_term...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon#History_of_terminology)

> _Prior to its use in U.S. firearms laws, the term "assault weapon" was
> limited to naming certain military weapons, for example, the Rifleman's
> Assault Weapon, a grenade launcher developed in 1977 for use with the M16
> assault rifle,[19] or the Shoulder-launched Multipurpose Assault Weapon, a
> rocket launcher introduced in 1984._

> _In April 1985, Art Agnos introduced in the California State Assembly a bill
> to ban semi-automatic "assault firearms" capable of using detachable
> magazines of 20 rounds or more. Speaking to the Assembly Public Safety
> Committee, Agnos said, "The only use for assault weapons is to shoot
> people." The measure did not pass when it came up for a vote._

------
ScaryRacoon
The debate isn't just about the AR-15, but since the AR-15 is "America's Gun",
it just happens to get the spotlight.

The debate is about all military-grade civilian issue long semi-automatic
rifles. The debate is about if the potential damage such a weapon can cause in
the wrong hands is enough to justify an outright ban (or severe restriction on
sales).

It was a well written piece and very informative, but I think it missed what
the on-going debate is really about.

------
hackuser
_If, for you, my AR-15 ownership is prima facie evidence of my mental
instability, sexual inadequacy, lack of a conscience, or what-have-you then I
honestly don’t care what you think about this issue. You can go back to
broadcasting your own moral superiority on social media, and I can go back to
tuning you out until your rage therapy session is over._

He creates strawman critics to ridicule and rant against, which also will
dissuade anyone he disagrees with from reading on and will inflame all sides,
but he also claims to want reasonable, open-minded discussion.

Another missed opportunity to discuss something reasonably and bring people
together. If that was really his intent, it's hard to believe a professional
journalist - a professional communicator - would choose the words above.

I hope it works out better than that but I don't have unlimited time to read
everything.

~~~
ufmace
If you think anti-gun-rights advocates attributing gun ownership to "mental
instability, sexual inadequacy, lack of a conscience, or what-have-you " is a
strawman, you might like to read this link:
[http://blog.joehuffman.org/category/markley-s-
law/](http://blog.joehuffman.org/category/markley-s-law/) It's a blog category
of hundreds of posts of Twitter users stating just that, usually in rather
crude terms.

Or just read this thread.

For some reason, anti-gun-rights people seem to love to talk about how to take
people's guns, and then call gun owners paranoid for thinking that people want
to take their guns.

~~~
hackuser
> It's a blog category of hundreds of posts of Twitter users stating just
> that, usually in rather crude terms.

You can find hundreds of Twitter posts saying just about anything; we could
justify any behavior on that basis.

> Or just read this thread.

I skimmed and read a large part of this discussion, and I don't see any
comments of that sort. Maybe there are some but there can't be very many.

------
VLM
I love this line:

"You can go back to broadcasting your own moral superiority on social media,
and I can go back to tuning you out until your rage therapy session is over."

Preaching on social media is so 2007, so tired and so done.

------
magice
Well, this article actually makes me glad to not read Ars Technica for a
while, and may actively prevent me from ever reading that thing again.

Here is how every single article on this topic of this particular author goes:
there is a (quite minor, in fact) challenge, therefore we should abandon ever
trying to regulate guns.

Let's start with this particular piece. Sure sure, it's quite hard to
differentiate between assault weapons and "defensive weapons" and
"recreational weapons." But that is MISSING THE POINT! The point is NOT that
all weapons can kill. The point is: how the hell do we allow self-defense and
recreational fun without endangering the society at large? However, instead of
this, his argument is: hey, all weapons are dangerous, so let's just allow him
(decent guy, no?) to own nuclear weapons. It's, you know, defensive.

Return to the stupid argument. Yes, there is a large difference between
offensive and defensive weapons. For example, caliber. Offensive seeks to
destroy, so the more power, the better; defensive seeks to disable while
(let's face it) retreating, so not so much power required. Or, perhaps smaller
magazine size; in hunting and defending, you don't need to spray, so replacing
magazine is not that bad; while you are terrorizing, the break is awesome for
your victims, obviously.

As you see, there are ways to differentiate, to make hunting/recreation safe.
But no. Our dear, dear author wants none of that. Because the mechanism is so
reliable, he wants like the exact same power as the guns used in battle.
Because it's hard to differentiate, his solution is to let innocent people
die. Because it's like a fraction more convenient, well, again, who cares
about those strangers, right?

Similarly, I tried (very hard) to be open minded and read his articles on
smart guns. Same kind of arguments. Oh, it's not 100% reliable, so no, it
should be banned, because, omg, what if I am forced to use it.

You know, in decision making books that I worked through, there is a term for
all of t these "reasons." They are called "excuses." You don't want something
because, I don't know, the sizes of your hands, so you make up excuses. Oh,
it's not 100% reliable. Oh, the government is taking over the world. Oh,
politicians are treating me like idiots. Therefore, those bastards can die so
I can get that thing.

~~~
ufmace
Where did you get your information on offense vs defense? It bears no relation
to anything I've ever read or had training in, and has the complete opposite
recommendations.

What makes you think that offense seeks to destroy, or that defensive seeks to
disable? If anything, defense needs more power, not less. The key difference
is that the attacker can choose the time and place of the attack, and so can
either find a time and place that works with whatever amount of power they
have available (note the tendency for mass shootings to only happen in "gun
free zones"), or call off the attack. Defenders do not know when they will be
attacked, and so they need as much power as possible to compensate for
possibly being outnumbered or caught in a disadvantageous place. That's why
defenders need bigger magazines and more effective ammunition.

But both ultimately seek to control, not to destroy or disable. Once you have
control, destruction is easy. And if the opponent has a firearm too, then
there isn't much practical difference between disable and kill.

------
mimo777
[https://www.nranews.com/home/video/dom-raso-the-
ar-15-americ...](https://www.nranews.com/home/video/dom-raso-the-
ar-15-americans-best-defense-against-terror-and-crime/list/dom-raso)

------
detaro
_" Otherwise please use the original title, unless it is misleading or
linkbait."_

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

~~~
erichocean
The actual title— _Why I Need an AR-15_ —is linkbait, so "thanks" to whoever
posted it for giving it a HN-appropriate title.

------
robbiep
How depressing

------
arca_vorago
ctrl+f constitution

... nothing, on either the article or on HN.

You simply can't have a proper discussion about this without talking about the
constitution.

Look, first, we need to back up a second and before we get caught up in every
persons minute question about detail this or reason that, and look at the
bigger picture. I have some British friends (classically anti-gun) who have
responded well to the following discussion flow on the issue.

First, we must establish that you, the reader, understand the hierarchy of
law. That is, first, we are talking about America, and in America the
Constitution is the supreme law of the land. This is a very important
distinction, especially for those citizens living under monarchies or thinly
veiled monarchies such as the British and various Europeans. The constitution
was not established to grant rights, rather it was intended to secure
_individual natural rights, under natural law_. The American Revolution, the
Glorious Revolution, and the French Revolution all had their basis in natural
law and rights. Natural law and rights existed before any state, and transcend
any state.

There is no perfect list of natural rights, but there are some commonly
accepted ones. John Locke called the right to self defense the first law of
nature. Each and every individual has a right to defend themselves or their
loved ones, and their property (I will ignore the large rabbit hole waiting
for those who want to discuss how close property law is to natural liberty).
If you punch me, I will defend myself. If you try to hit me with a rock, I
will defend myself. If you try to strike at me with a sword, I will defend
myself. If you shoot at me with a gun, I will defend myself. While the
technology has changed, the principle has not.

The bottom line is I have a right to self defense, and in a world where true
defense means owning a firearm, I have a right to own a firearm.

Now usually I get quite a bit of push back even on this point, and granted
there is a lot of nuance to be had in the debate. What about nuclear weapons,
etc... a discussion worth having but far too easily used to distract from the
core issue(s). So as this point becomes tangled in confusion, I usually stop
and move to the next point.

All of that aside, the second amendment of the constitution is intended as a
defense against tyranny. This is not about individual or family self-defense.
The second amendment is primarily about the ability of the people, from whom
the government gains it's legitimacy, to defend itself from a government gone
rogue, tyrannical, or despotic.

These two primary reasons, self-defense as a natural right and defense against
tyranny as a natural right and constitutionally _protected (not established)_
right, are why I don't have to answer such bullshit questions as "Why do you
need a $scarysoundingweapon?" I have my suggestions about the need for
increased training, and concerns about the lack of respect for firearms, but
they distract from the core discussion we need to be having.

I'm a combat vet, and perhaps I am just too cynical because I have seen too
much of the worlds dark underbelly, but these rights are very real to me, and
while Americans are cozy, coddled, and lazy today, with a turn-key
totalitarian state being put in place, centralized and monarchistic globalism
on the rise, growing inequality, and increasingly startling revelation of lack
of the rule of law, I have a feeling people are going to need to relearn the
martial arts quicker than they are prepared for.

As a side note, there are some key conditions and justifications for deadly
force I think more civilians should know, even if they don't all apply to
them:

3 Conditions

1.Extreme necessity 2.Last Resort 3.When all other means have failed or cannot
reasonably be employed.

7 Circumstances

1.In defense of property involving national security 2.In defense of property
not involving national security but inherently dangerous to others. 3.Self-
defense and defense of others. 4.To prevent or interrupt serious offense
against persons 5.Last Resort 6\. Escape 7\. Arrest or Apprehension

------
simplexion
“What I am not for are bullshit arguments and lies. ‘Fuck off, I like guns.’
It’s not the best argument. But it’s all you’ve got.” ~Jim Jeffries

