Would You Support an AR style Rifle Buy Back for $1,000 each in the U.S.?

[PureX]

Considering the premise would be because someone might use them illegally what is your next target to ban?

I don't want to ban guns, I want to keep them out of the hands of irresponsible idiots (of which there are many among us). That means the drunks, the drug addicts, the domestic thugs, the bar fighters, the stalkers, the conspiracy nuts, and those who physically cannot responsibly use a firearm. What I want is sensible and effective universal regulation that limits who can own and use firearms by testing and licensing. Similar to the way we regulate who can possess and use dangerous motor vehicles, dangerous drugs, dangerous pathogens, and so on.

If a person is adjudicated by a court as being mentally defective or have been committed to a mental institution they are legally barred from purchasing a firearm *with exceptions*

That s NOT NEARLY LIMITING ENOUGH. Right now I could have three DUIs, proving that I am dangerously irresponsible toward the lives and well-being of my fellow citizens, and I could still buy all the guns I could carry, including assault weapons, at my local gun shop or 'gun show'. And I could even give them away as gifts to all my fellow drunks down at my favorite bar.

This is not effective gun regulation. This is idiocy.

 

[Valjean]

Nah. ARs are like no other guns available to the private citizen. They weren't designed for hunting, marksmanship, or any of the functions of other private firearms. They were designed for solely one purpose: killing a lot of people. So, once again I ask you, why would a citizen own an AR?

In light of your rather disturbed retort here I assume you own an AR. If true, why? "Because we can" is a coward's answer. That isn't what you are, are you Stanyon?


(You might also do well to look up the definition of "strawman"(argument) )

.

I suspect a lot of people are anticipating a civil war and a need to defend home and hearth against roving gangs of marauders.

 

[Skwim]

I suspect a lot of people are anticipating a civil war and a need to defend home and hearth against roving gangs of marauders.

Don't they wish.

.

 

[PureX]

I suspect a lot of people are anticipating a civil war and a need to defend home and hearth against roving gangs of marauders.

That's not a civil war, that's a total collapse of social order, into anarchy.

 

[Valjean]

I wonder what "military grade" is supposed to mean?
Seems like just a way of saying bad bad bad.
Army guns are mavhine guns, hsrdware store ^grade"
guns are not.

"Machine" is a type of action, not a type of gun or a grade.

To me, military grade means the cheapest effective equipment possible. General issue military firearms are mass produced, stamped metal with loose tolerances; nowhere near the quality of a good hunting rifle.

There's also the issue of ammunition. It's the bullet that does the harm, after all, not the firearm. The same round can be fired from many different guns, and the same gun can fire many different rounds.

Under the 1899 Hague convention expanding or fragmenting bullets are outlawed in military rifles, as are exploding bullets under 400 grams by the 1868 Declaration of St Petersburg.
"Military grade" rounds were intended to punch a clean hole and wound. A wounded enemy consumes a lot more time and personnel than a dead one.

Hunting rounds are designed to kill -- cleanly and quickly. They expand/mushroom. I'd rather be hit by a miltary grade .223 caliber/5.56 mm bullet than an average deer round.

Of course, with the popularity of the AR 15 style by the general public, companies have begun producing more lethal, non-miitary grade .223 ammunition for them, for "home" use.

 

[Audie]

"Machine" is a type of action, not atype og gun or a grade.

To me, military grade means the cheapest effective equipment possible. General issue military firearms are mass produced, stamped metal with loose tolerances; nowhere near the quality of a good hunting rifle.

There's also the issue of ammunition. It's the bullet that does the harm, after all, not the firearm. The same round can be fired from many different guns, and the same gun can fire many different rounds.

Ideally, military rounds are designed to wound. A wounded enemy consumes a lot more time and personnel than a dead one.
Under the 1899 Hague convention expanding or fragmenting bullets are outlawed in military rifles, as are exploding bullets under 400 grams by the 1868 Declaration of St Petersburg

Quality? Quality. Ever read Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance"?

In the event quality in machines is as quality does, so sez my ex boyfriend.

A fine "quality " gun that fails in the field
is no good at all.

My college friend's dad has these like Africa
elephant guns and whatever, gleaming wood,
engravings, super quality. I bet some native
hunters would destroy them in a week.

 

[Valjean]

That's not a civil war, that's a total collapse of social order, into anarchy.

Ie: a civil war.

 

[Valjean]

Quality? Quality. Ever read Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance"?

In the event quality in machines is as quality does, so sez my ex boyfriend.

A fine "quality " gun that fails in the field
is no good at all.

My point is, "military grade" is much more likely to "fail in the field;" to jam; and is less accurate and less lethal than "hunting grade" -- whatever that means. Military grade" is not synonymous with reliability, quality, lethality or "toughness."

Unfortunately, it's extremely popular with violent mental defectives, who identify with the "toughness" appeal of it.

 

[Audie]

My point is, "military grade" is much more likely to "fail in the field;" to jam, and is less accurate and less lethal than "hunting grade" -- whatever that means. Military grade" is not synonymous with reliability, quality, lethality or "toughness."

Unfortunately, it's extremely popular with violent mental defectives, who identify with the "toughness" appeal of it.

Military rifles are more likely to fail in
the field than sporting arms? I hardly
need to be an arms expert to see that
Is utter twaddle.

 

[Audie]

Their effectiveness makes even one of them too many.
"Miniscule" until some idiot brings one of them into a children's grade school. Also, there is no logical reason why any American citizen would need one. I am not for banning all guns, but I would agree to banning ARs, completely. These idiotic fantasies people have of needing them to fight the evil government or to fight some evil police force or to fend off some imaginary marauding horde is exactly that: idiotic. And anyone using that excuse for wanting one is showing me that they are exactly the kind of paranoid, delusional, idiot that should never be given access to them.

I checked...there are 15. to 20 million AR / similar guns
in America.
We further find them to be best selling, most popular
guns in the US.

Allowing for some with more than one, say 1O MILLION
of your fellow citizens of whom you probably know zero-
are paranoid delusional idiots?

Or maybe you are. Who it is that actually has the
“ idiotic fantasies” I will leave to your fellow citizens,
as you probably won’t figure it out yourself.

 

[Stanyon]

Right now I could have three DUIs, proving that I am dangerously irresponsible toward the lives and well-being of my fellow citizens, and I could still buy all the guns I could carry, including assault weapons, at my local gun shop or 'gun show'. And I could even give them away as gifts to all my fellow drunks down at my favorite bar.
This is not effective gun regulation. This is idiocy.

Mostly False
What state do you live in?
Depending on the state three DUI's can be a felony and In some states having two DUI's within seven years makes the second one a felony which effectively bars you from legally purchasing a firearm anywhere. You can attempt to but you will be flagged on your instant background check and presumably you would have had to lie on the form 4473 saying you are not a felon ...which is a felony. For about the last ten years any gun show I have attended sellers would not transfer a firearm unless you could pass the instant background check, a few hundred dollars off an illegal gun sale is not worth losing your FFL, your business, and thousands of dollars in fines so there is a definite incentive to keep it legal.

 

[Valjean]

Military rifles are more likely to fail in
the field than sporting arms? I hardly
need to be an arms expert to see that
Is utter twaddle.

Why? It's a cost-benefit calculation. The military contracts for huge numbers of mass produced, cheap personal weapons.

Military personal weapons and human personnel are deployed en masse. A single weapon jamming is unlikely to impact the outcome of a battle. Your comrades are still shooting, and the mechanism is designed to be easily unjammed or disassembled. Parts and replacements are readily available.

Sporting weapons are machined, they're made to tight tolerances (remember the problems with the first M-16s), they're cleanly rifled. They're made for accuracy and reliability, every shot, under clean conditions.
That's not to say there aren't cheap sporting arms made, or that design problems don't sometimes slip by (remember the Remington model 700s?).

The "fields" they're designed to function in are very different, as well.

 

[Stanyon]

"military grade" is much more likely to "fail in the field;" to jam, and is less accurate and less lethal than "hunting grade" -- whatever that means. Military grade" is not synonymous with reliability, quality, lethality or "toughness."

AK-47s work pretty well under just about any conditions due to loose tolerances and simplicity.

 

[PureX]

Ie: a civil war.

Nothing civil about it.

 

[Stanyon]

Don't they wish.
.

I don't, who the hell would want that?
Besides if it ever came to that the military would get involved and then it would all be over pretty quickly, then the government would clamp down.

 

[PureX]

I checked...there are 15. to 20 million AR / similar guns
in America.
We further find them to be best selling, most popular
guns in the US.

Allowing for some with more than one, say 1O MILLION
of your fellow citizens of whom you probably know zero-
are paranoid delusional idiots?

Or maybe you are. Who it is that actually has the
“ idiotic fantasies” I will leave to your fellow citizens,
as you probably won’t figure it out yourself.

There are about 340 million U.S. citizens, so it's not far-fetched to claim that 10 million of them are idiots, and/or delusional, paranoid, or just plain overgrown babies who want to play with dangerous weapons because it tickles their pathetic craving for an illusion of power. Come on by and spend some time with us. You'll be AMAZED at how stupid we've become, over here!

 

[Valjean]

AR (style) is not an assault rifle. As per Op.

A lot of people refuse to acknowledge that.

Quite so, but:
It looks scary, it looks formidable, and there's nothing more appealing to a wacko with low self esteem, who feels impotent, abused and marginalized, than a gun that will render him instantly formidable and respected.

It's an interesting question. Would homicidal maniacs denied scary-looking assault style weapons curb their aggression, or just switch to ballistcally comparable but friendly-looking hunting weapons?

I've heard shootings decreased during the assaut-style weapons ban, but was that attributable to the unavailability of this style of weapon?

 

[Stanyon]

There are about 340 million U.S. citizens, so it's not far-fetched to claim that 10 million of them are idiots, and/or delusional, paranoid, or just plain overgrown babies who want to play with dangerous weapons because it tickles their pathetic craving for an illusion of power. Come on by and spend some time with us. You'll be AMAZED at how stupid we've become, over here!

I imagine you aren't a big fan of tannerite either, it's a blast! (Get it?...blast... huh huh huh)

 

[Valjean]

AK-47s work pretty well under just about any conditions due to loose tolerances and simplicity.

Exactly, and the early M-16s would jam if you sneezed on them. Military tolerances need to be loose.

 

[PureX]

Mostly False
What state do you live in?
Depending on the state three DUI's can be a felony and In some states having two DUI's within seven years makes the second one a felony which effectively bars you from legally purchasing a firearm anywhere. You can attempt to but you will be flagged on your instant background check and presumably you would have had to lie on the form 4473 saying you are not a felon ...which is a felony. For about the last ten years any gun show I have attended sellers would not transfer a firearm unless you could pass the instant background check, a few hundred dollars off an illegal gun sale is not worth losing your FFL, your business, and thousands of dollars in fines so there is a definite incentive to keep it legal.

The system is still very sketchy. States often don't keep up with their own files, or communicate with each other like that. They also don't have, or apply, the same rules with the same tenacity. But even if they did, the guns are out there, now. And the only way to get them away from the irresponsible and dangerous idiots, is to make having them illegal until you get a proper license (along with a turn-in, buy back program). A license that requires a thorough background check that will find things besides just U.S. court convictions. Also, some testing that involves both legal understanding, psych evaluation, handling, use, and targeting proficiency. With varied levels of these aimed at various kinds of weapons. Level 1 for long guns for hunting. Level 2 for hand guns. Level 3 for carrying a hand gun in public, and so on.

I don't mind people having guns if they really want them. But I want them to prove to their society that they are responsible and knowledgeable, and can be trusted with such a dangerous class of objects. And if they think this is some undue, unfair, or unreasonable burden, then as far as I'm concerned they've already shown themselves to be too immature and irresponsible to be allowed access to deadly weapons.