[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.