[RealGeek]

I always see gun promoters trying to divert the discussion from the real issue (read: mass shootings and terrorism) towards the technicality of the term "assault weapon". Would calling these guns "weapons of mass murder" be more accurate? Does that distinction really makes a difference? Why does a law abiding citizen of America needs mass murdering guns with thousands of rounds?

[ThrustVectoring]

The technical details here matter. What features do we want the firearms owned by law-abiding citizens to have? The use of the term "assault weapon" is a tragedy of discourse norms that conflates in the minds of many the incidental features of military assault rifles with the necessary features for weapons to be used for mass murder.

And for what it's worth, if you can make an intensional definition for "weapons of mass murder" that includes the most dangerous weapons for mass-murder purposes without unnecessarily curtailing the design space for the socially acceptable uses for weapons, please go for it.

[paxunix]

If you are going to argue about terminology, argue first about how can there be a "design space for the socially acceptable uses of weapons". The phrase is laughable. Weapons are for killing--that's why they're called weapons. Arguing about what to actually call the physical thing that does the damage is missing the point and is trying to draw attention away from the real purpose of the thing.

[ThrustVectoring]

Yes, these weapons are for killing. Using a firearm for home defense is socially accepted. This is exactly what makes it tricky to ban "mass murder" weapons while keeping "justified homicide" weapons legal.

[Someone]

”Using a firearm for home defense is socially accepted”

In the USA. There seems to be some correlation between that and the number of mass shootings in a country, so, maybe, that has to change if one wants to decrease the number of mass shootings.

[paxunix]

"Mass murder weapon" versus "justified homicide weapon" is just a situational distinction that does nothing to address the fact that the physical thing is identical and inextricably tied to horrible, irrevocable actions. Your gun doesn't become a "justified homicide weapon" until after the fact. Up until then, it's always just a weapon because you can't prevent or enforce its use for a particular, sanctioned purpose.

[maxerickson]

They don't have to be identical physical things. That's what they mean by design space. What features (that affect things like range and rate of fire and accuracy and so on) should be legal on civilian weapons?

For the US even something like limited internal magazines isn't politically tenable (a 5 shot internal magazine and manual action would still be useful for hunting but could not be used to shoot hundreds of rounds per minute into a crowd of people).

Hell, I won't be real shocked if nothing gets done about bump stocks (which don't really have any purpose beyond shooting for fun).

[actsasbuffoon]

> What features do we want the firearms owned by law-abiding citizens to have?

Good question. I can’t imagine any legal use for a high capacity semiautomatic weapon with armor piercing bullets. A weapon like that is comically impractical for hunting or self defense.

Law abiding citizens should be able to get by with handguns, shotguns, and hunting rifles. Clips with more than a dozen rounds should be banned, as should particularly deadly types af ammunition.

Either that or we could go back to doing it the way the framers of the constitution intended; make everything illegal except for muskets.

[AnimalMuppet]

That's not what the framers intended. They intended that the citizens have weapons sufficient for them to form a valid, militarily useful fighting force. And they knew what they were talking about; they had just found such fighting forces to be very useful in order to overthrow the government that existed at the time.

[actsasbuffoon]

What kind of firepower do you think would be necessary to win a fight the US government? I don't own any tanks, fighter jets, stealth bombers, nuclear submarines, and I don't have a military consisting of millions of highly trained, battle tested soldiers.

Me with an AR-15 versus the Marines is not going to end well for me.

[dragonwriter]

> I don't own any tanks, fighter jets, stealth bombers, nuclear submarines, and I don't have a military consisting of millions of highly trained, battle tested soldiers.

Note that the other side of the popular militia resting in the states protected by the 2nd Amendment is that that was supposed to be the foundation of national defense as well, not a large standing army. (Some standing army as a cadre and rapid reaction force was viewed as necessary, and the absence of one a failing of the pre-Constitutional system.)

[AnimalMuppet]

I said what the intent was. I was replying to your post that said

> I can’t imagine any legal use for a high capacity semiautomatic weapon with armor piercing bullets. A weapon like that is comically impractical for hunting or self defense.

I was pointing out that the point wasn't hunting, or even self defense. It was to form an effective fighting force, and semiautomatic (and even fully automatic) weapons and armor piercing bullets are very useful for that.

You replied, questioning whether such things could be effective today. That's a different question. It's a valid question, but it's a different question from the intent of the Second Amendment (and of what should therefore be legal).

And by the way, the militias, by themselves, were not enough to win the Revolutionary War...

[maxerickson]

Yes, we need to amend the Constitution if we expect restrictive gun laws to actually stick.

[AnimalMuppet]

Well, as actasabuffoon pointed out in a parallel post, there is an argument to be made that this wouldn't work very well in the modern setting. But yes, if we're going to change it, we need to amend the Constitution.

For example, the amendment could say that "militia" means the National Guard, and that is in fact supposed to be a significant fighting force, with military-grade weapons and people trained and ready to use them. And for personal use, people can have weapons sufficient for self-defense but not for mass murder.

But for that to happen, we've got to persuade 3/4 of the state that that's the correct answer. That's a pretty tall hill to climb...

[polotics]

The feature I want those weapons to have: it shouldn't be possible to kill people with them.

Is this too much to ask? "Not killing people", is this a liberal snowflake's wet dream?

"Not killing people"? Think about it.

[ThrustVectoring]

Killing people is a socially accepted use of these weapons in the US. Home defense is a big one. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine

[RandVal30142]

>a socially accepted use of these weapons in the US

No it isn't. Homes in the U.S. are primarily built of wood, rifles can and will produce a tremendous amount of over penetration in such "self defense" scenarios.

The idea of some idiot who cannot comprehend ballistics in an emotional panic lacing up my neighborhood with a 30rd mag fed rifle is terrifying. Take some self defense courses please.

[prostoalex]

Using an emotionally charged epithet weakens the argument.

[ams6110]

If they are law-abiding, what's the problem?

[RealGeek]

This terrorist was a law abiding citizen until yesterday.

If your law abiding neighbor is building bombs in his garage, is that a problem?

[mariallery]

Because any of these law-abiding people owning a gun could snap some day and go rogue? I'd say that's a really good reason to reduce the guns availability.

[abhi3]

removed

[RandVal30142]

>Because any of these law-abiding refugees

Taking your garbage edit of the parent comment and setting it totally aside:

Legal firearms routinely become illegal, most often when they are stolen by people who are already criminals. Unlocked cars are a great source of 'legal' pistols as it turns out.

The problem of small arms proliferation is real and it is one of the reasons U.S. and other modern nations regulate them so much.

[maxerickson]

The law.