I’ll admit I only skimmed a bit but I’ve still not heard a single argument why a civilian should be able to buy an assault weapon like an AR-15.
Well, here’s how I’ve seen the argument go in the past. First off, they’d say the “assault weapon” terminology is a meaningless term invented by the anti-gun crowd to make guns seem scary and dangerous. And they’re half right on that front. The “assault weapon” terminology is a meaningless term designed to make guns seem scary and dangerous, but it was invented by the gun industry as a way of selling more guns because “scary and dangerous” makes them more appealing to certain target audiences.
So, rather than defining guns you can’t buy based on meaningless marketing copy, you come up with arguments for guns you can buy, and that’s activity-based. There’s some categories:
- Hunting. These days, this is mostly a form of entertainment, but this is still utilitarian for a handful of people.
- Varmints. Seriously, coyotes suck, and guns are a pretty effective way to keep them at bay.
- Fantasy fulfillment. This is where your “protection from government”, and “protecting your family” come in. None of this is real, but if you close your eyes and wish real hard, you become fantasy Dirty Harry.
- Culture/heirlooms. Dad gave me this gun, it’s been in my family since great grandpa James used it to rob a train. It has intense personal value.
So, going at the list from easy to hard.
#4 is easy. Heirlooms have no need to be functional. Fill it with epoxy and you can keep your family heirloom gun forever.
#3 is easy too. Protecting your family in a fantasy world is not worth endangering your family in the real world. If you fill your gun with epoxy, it still works just as well in your fantasies and doesn’t endanger your family anymore.
#1 is mostly easy. For the entertainment angle, there’s a big arcade cabinet version of Big Buck Hunter down at the bowling alley. You’ll probably do better at this version anyway.So we’re down to utility hunting and varmints. You don’t need an AR-15 for either of these activities (although it’s common for both). For these activities, you do not need semiauto, you do not need concealable, you do not need lightweight, you do not need large clips, you do not need rapid reload. Frankly, bow-hunters will tell you you don’t even need a gun, but bow-hunters are crazy so we don’t listen to them. An old-west-style Winchester rifle works fine for both. You have to cock it every time because it’s not semiauto. You need to stop and reload it frequently. It’s not particularly fun to shoot. Luckily none of this matters for those utilitarian purposes. Could one still be used in a crime? Absolutely. A less common, less deadly crime. And if it’s still too deadly, we can still weigh the right to varmint control against the right to remain breathing and decide which one we, as a society, value more.
So while you’ve still not heard a single argument why a civilian should be able to buy an assault weapon like an AR-15, I haven’t heard a credible argument why a civilian should be able to buy a handgun.
Re handguns, why isn’t the argument for self defense credible in your eyes?
When you buy a gun for self-defense (let’s say exclusively for self-defense, just to avoid overlapping justifications), here is your array of outcomes over the lifetime of the ownership of the weapon:
- The gun will never serve a useful purpose over its entire lifetime.
- The gun will be used in self-defense.
- The gun will be used against you or someone you love.
Now, #1 is the far-and-away most likely scenario, well over 99% probability. #2 is an extremely unlikely scenario that serves as the justification. #3 is another extremely unlikely scenario that counters the justification. However, #3 is over 40x more likely to happen than #2. This is why #2 can be so easily dismissed as a fantasy scenario that actually endangers the families of the people who believe it.
The setup is flawed.
- The existence of instances of self defense are the exceptions that prove the rule.
I think we’re talking past each other here. Buying a gun increases your risk of danger more than it increases your safety. Buying a gun makes you overall less safe which moots the safety justification.
- Relatedly, if law abiding citizens were disarmed they would likely be at greater risk of violence.
That’s not true at all. Burglars are more likely to steal from houses if they know there’s guns in the house. By buying the gun, you’re increasing your risk of becoming a crime victim, which could lead to violence.
- Some people are at greater risk of needing self defense than others.
That is true. And some people endanger their loved ones more than others. On average, the rate is just over 40x different, that’s all.
- I imagine most of #3 are suicides. Followed by murders of supposed loved ones.
Suicides, accidents, murders, burglars who break into your house to steal your guns because you posted a helpful “Protected by Smith & Wesson” sign outside to advertise the fact, and then they shoot you when you interrupt the burglary.
We can speculate on the effect there if handguns were banned, but doesnt negate a need for self defense.
As long as you recognize that the need for self-defense is inextricably tied to a much stronger need to pretend you’re not actually endangering the lives of your loved ones, we’re in agreement.