Read hunter forums debating MSRs vs. bolt-action rifles. You'll have no trouble finding hunters certain that MSRs are overtaking traditional hunting rifles simply because they appeal to undisciplined, unserious weekend warriors who are drawn to their military look-and-feel, and that arms manufacturers feed into that because traditional hunting rifles also last forever and the industry needs people to get on a continuous upgrade cycle.

You haven't seen me anywhere advocate that we ban anything, let alone a particular semi-automatic weapon by name; in fact, the root of this long subthread is a comment from me saying the exact opposite thing, that wood-stock ranch rifles pose exactly the same problems as black rifles.

What I have a problem with is the faux superiority gun maximalists dress their arguments in, along with a culture that elevates a simple machine designed to be serviced by teenagers outdoors in the rain into a solemn, secret brotherhood, as if being able to remove the fire group from an AR-15 meant these putzes had the mechanical aptitude to swap out a car transmission or even replace a hot water heater. The technical details behind assault weapons are far more learnable than almost any other technical issue we regulate without issue.

I stated my policy preference elsewhere on the thread: give up on national firearms policy, back down on the maximalist Heller interpretation that says MSRs are off the table for state regulation, and allow states to license (on a presumption of must-issue basis) all semi-automatic long guns if that's what their citizens decide they want to do.

> You haven't seen me anywhere advocate that we ban anything, let alone a particular semi-automatic weapon by name; in fact, the root of this long subthread is a comment from me saying the exact opposite thing

> I stated my policy preference elsewhere on the thread: give up on national firearms policy, back down on the maximalist Heller interpretation that says MSRs are off the table for state regulation, and allow states to license (on a presumption of must-issue basis) all semi-automatic long guns if that's what their citizens decide they want to do.

From the perspective of many, that's "allow guns to be banned". It'd be sort of like saying "back down from the maximalist Roe v. Wade position" or "back down from the maximalist Brown v. Board of Education position", and then getting mad when people accuse you of being anti-abortion or pro-segregation.

I don't care about this argument. This isn't a courtroom or a legislative hearing; we're discussing ideas. You'll have to address the things I'm actually saying instead of demanding that I answer for everyone else on my side of this debate.

No I liken an AR-15 to a Honda Civic. It's just a car, but you can modify them into some kind of Fast and Furious drift racing machine. So you can buy an AR-15 for $500 and upgrade it to a very nice $3000 rifle. But that doesn't change that the Honda Civic is a solid vehicle, accessible for its cost, and is something you can start out with at minimal cost and customize to your liking if you get really into it. Or the Toyota Hilux even. But law/policy wise, there's nothing practical you can say this is bad and makes it more lethal than another gun. It's just more likely to be the kind of gun an idiot would buy, which is the kind of person whose going to get angry at the world and go kill innocents, it'd just be another gun if you took that one off the market, because its going to be which ever gun is more popular with the casual person.

If you're serious about hunting, you'd get a bolt action, for the reasons described, because you want your first shot to be your only shot.

I agree on the weekend warrior thing. But that's why I honestly think while guns are a right, because history teaches that eventually people need to defend themselves. But they're also a responsibility, and places like Switzerland or people who are trained in the responsibility aspect of gun ownership are what you want.

You've just read a whole thread of two people explaining to you why an AR-15 is more lethal than handguns.

On paper or in reality, because the deaths by rifles total is < 400 a year? My point is that any rifle, especially the larger caliber ones are more lethal than handguns, so the AR-15 isn't that special for a rifle in terms of lethality, all rifles are more lethal than handguns on paper.

When you access risk, likelihood is a factor, you mitigate for risks that have a higher likelihood. If I'm worried about protection from being killed I'm more worried about a drunk driver than a meteorite even tho the meteor has a higher lethality. Handguns are lethal enough you get shot by one, the survival rate isn't significantly higher than a rifle especially considering you're statistically more likely to be shot by one. Stabbings tend to be more lethal than either, but and there are more people stabbed then shot by rifle (~1500-3000 in US per year), certainly more the case overseas. Missing forest for the trees.

Are we just being pedantic here? What are you arguing or is the point of argument if you don't want to ban guns or ban the AR-15 or military style weapons specifically? If you're arguing it just to argue I honestly don't see how that's constructive. I'm discussing this in the context of gun violence, in the context of the media hyper focusing on military style rifles when they're not the major cause of deaths, even in mass shootings (which are just as often or more often pistols).

You're repeating yourself. I addressed that argument already as well. If you want to rebut what I said, that's fine, but you can't just repeat the same point as if there hadn't been a response to it. Be specific about what your issue with my argument is. Or rest your case; it's fine if we just disagree.