FN makes some quality firearms as a little side note. Never really get the recognition like the Kalashnikovs or Armalites but they are some damn good guns.
The right arm of the free world. Woot. But a couple reasons they don’t quite get the recognition is that many of their weapons can’t be sold in the US anyway. Another is that many of their weapons are sold in the USA but via license through other manufacturers or not known as FN weapons or designs. The SCAR and M249 are 2 examples and the legendary Browning high power pistol and the M2 “ma deuce” of historic fame both had design or manufacture by FN and the M16 was manufactured by FN (among others) as well. So not only is their name often not associated with certain weapons- but they primarily make military weapons that civilians can’t buy even if there is a “civilian” version such as the M1A and M14. Lastly- the AK series partially gained such popularity because of communism.
The AK and variants or knock offs were produced in huge numbers, often by very poor countries. Powers like China and Russia supplied them to many proxy or sympathetic military forces as they tried to spread communism. The USSR was involved in military operations all over the globe, and was never particularly great at accounting in logistics- but when the USSR fell all bets were off. That meant that the AK family had a looong and world wide history and was available easily in most corners of the globe. Surplus and salvage weapons could be had first cheap. It’s a very sturdy and versatile weapon, so many forces got a chance to use it and popularize both it’s virtues and it’s image. Compared to prices and availability of riffles like the FN FAL as surplus or as new- the AK has every leg up. Looking at the cost and availability of AK and AR series rifles in their respective spheres, as well as a wide array of accessories and service parts.
The FN referenced (the FN15 to be exact)isn't an ar-15. Its commonly called the FN ar-15 but it's not an ar-15. It's an ar-15 style gun. You are doing exactly what he's nitpicking her for, not knowing a damn thing about what she's talking about.
It's only an ar-15 if armalite manufactured it.
Well gee. I don’t know much about guns- maybe I’m as foolish as Ms. Harris. But it seems to me that Oberland Arms, Schmeisser, Hera Arms, DAR and of course- the well known H&K 416 all are foreign AR riffles. It also seems that Astra makes AR design based weapons. Huh. Well... again- just a bumpkin I am- but perhaps a knowledgeable person about guns might speak in as to how ITAR regulations on US foreign sales of military technology makes it difficult and expensive (if not effectively impossible) for civilians in other countries to buy an American AR. That even in Canada importing through China is often easier than getting an American AR across the border. And in these countries- producing domestic copies is a way to allow access to a popular rifle that otherwise wouldn’t be practical or even possible to own- so yes. Many foreign companies produce AR derived or knock off weapons.
So I mean.... going further into my weapons ignorance- the US itself has restrictions on sales of weapons from other countries, domestic parts counts, things like that. And since there are plenty of “AR style” rifles right home for cheap- sitting in a gun shop in Illinois you aren’t much likely to see one of these foreign AR’s on American soil because why jump through hoops and pay a premium to buy one (if you even can,) when you can go to Walmart or sports shack and get a home grown AR on Black Friday pricing, or spend a little more and get a tacticool name brand for less that you’d pay for an imported model? So derp. Yeah. Most people aren’t likely to see a “foreign” AR in the gun shop unless it’s a 416 or a SCAR that’s selling for the price of a used car on the “top shelf” behind the counter. But that doesn’t mean foreign “AR style” guns don’t exist.
About 3/10 guns in the US are from overseas companies (not just talking about AR’s there.) Most are handguns because there’s just more involved in foreign rifles and less incentive in that segment. There are more complex issues when we discuss foreign guns. A central one being of course the ability for the US military or police to equip themselves were we to have conflicts overseas. So I mean- the whole issue is more complex but at its core- there ARE tons of foreign produced AR riffles.
An assault rifle is a selective-fire rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine. The U.S. Army defines assault rifles as "short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachine gun and rifle cartridges".
That's what Wiki says. Isn't AR the abbreviation for Assault Rifle?
But anyway, I'm not here to define words, I am questionning the purpose of said rifles in private homes.
The AR in AR-15 stands for Armalite Rifle, the company who originally manufactured it. Furthermore, a key part of an Assault Rifle is the ability to fire full auto, something an AR-15 can't do. This is why you see gun-banners trying to instate Assault Weapon bans. Assault Weapon being a meaningless term with no set definition used only to scare people.
We can pick at semantics all we like. “Intermediate cartridge...” is what? That relies on defining “rifle” and “battle rifle” maybe “machine gun” as well right? In 2019 a 7.62 aka .308 is a “riffle cartridge” but long ago it was a 30.06 or even a 30.30. So a .556 automatic is an “assault riffle” but a 7.62 automatic is a “battle riffle” so do we want to say “assault rifle” we would be excluding automatic riffles which fire armor piercing rounds with a greater effective range and more than double the kinetic force.
But it’s splitting hairs- “assault riffle” “submachine gun” “machine gun” “battle riffle” “PDW” “machine pistol” “anti tank/anti materiel rifle” etc. etc. When we are talking about guns in civilian hands we aren’t talking about the tactical role of the weapon- we are taking in terms of capabilities of the weapon. How concealable is it? Rate of fire? Caliber? Suppressed? Etc. Etc.
That is the question I was talking about. I mean, ok, when you desire to own a gun and act responsibly, lock it in a safe etc. Fine. But I think almost military grade weapons is taking it to a level that's frightening.
I’m inclined to agree- but of course I feel that way about most things. Many do. We are sure WE can be trusted to drive with a drink or two, WE aren’t going to hurt anyone with Nunchucks or a Balisong (“butterfly knife”) or some firework the county has banned. THOSE laws are for idiots. WE say WE aren’t idiots so it’s ok. So we all think that way but in reality few people actually live somewhere that if they are wrong it doesn’t mean someone else will get hurt for their mistake.
That said- there’s another side of me which asks- why not? I mean- you see people sipping around in sports cars and SUVS killing the planet. People living in 3,000 sq ft houses or eating their weight in chicken. None of that is so necessary, much of it is harmful or potentially harmful. So the question of “need” can’t be the test of freedom. What we want and what we need are often not the same. Surely there are some points most people could agree on. Owning a nuclear warhead probably shouldn’t be allowed for private citizens if think. A cruise missile? An AC130 gunship? Most people seem to agree right up until we get down to about “machine guns” or “assault riffles” and then it gets dicey.
all of the weapon commonly called assault rifles by the media and by rabble rousing politicians are almost never used to kill people.
of the 8k firearm homicides in 2014 by FBI data, 200 were with rifles. that's 0.025% of firearm homicides. If we assume all 200 were done by legally acquired rifles (which is hella wrong, the vast majority are black market guns) and compare that to how many americans legally own guns (about 30%) and how many of those gun owning americans legally own rifles (about 62%) and then go back and assume each murder with a rifle was done with a different legally owned rifle thats 0.0000037037% of legal rifle owning people committing murders with said rifles.
Now if we go back and remember that most arent legally owned guns and there are repeat offenders that pushes the number down a few more points of precision even if we assume only that half are with legal guns (which is a LOT more than what is true)
That's a good calculation to your point and I understand your way of argumentation. I understand that black market is a horrendous problem in countries with many guns around and that black market prices in the US are a joke compared to e.g. Europe or Australia.
But it's leading away from my point.
I am pretty sure that there is no need for anyone to own guns, looking at the lifes of everybody I know, people survive greatly without them. I am more in doubt about the reasons that gun owners are repetitively putting out there, when questioned why they want a gun. Protection against burglars is highly questionable, because the responsible gun owner will need to open a safe, load the gun, face the burglar and shoot somebody who came to take his TV, all of which has to happen in the middle of the night, most likely. Protection aginst tyranny or "the government" was possibly a good idea, when both citizens and government had the same weapons.
Today, the government has tanks and drones, which might not end in your favorite when you're showing up with a 9mm.
Why can't those people stand to the fact that they want guns, because they think guns are cool? From my point of view, that is the only reason.
To touch a couple things- 1. Beth has good statistics, and the majority of civilian killings and mass shootings involve pistols, which by their nature are basically best for concealing, and killing other humans at close range. 2. The reason most people can’t admit they just think guns are cool- even if it is true in their case, is that just isn’t good enough for most people. You can drive a monster truck because you think it is cool, ride a motorcycle because you think it is cool. Many things people are generally just allowed to want because they are cool to them. Not guns.
One of the great hang ups on honest communication about guns is that simple fact. The moment people stop with any sort of logic derived reasoning on the practical necessities or uses of guns and just say: “yeah, I think this is cool...” it’s basically over. Since gun freedom is primarily based on what it is deemed people NEED, the moment you admit you don’t need a feature or something else- poof. Since many people would want to ban or effectively ban all gun ownership- folks who just want to own a hunting rifle feel the need to ask for a machine gun so that when the arguing is done they end up being allowed a riffle.
I would far rather die in a losing fight against a tyrannical government than lie down and be it's bitch, this sentiment is shared by most gun owning Americans as well as a great mean non-gun owning Americans and is the entire idea America was founded on.
Also the logic of "the reasons people need guns are rare so they don't need them" doesn't fly. Air bags tend to break bones and hella fuck people up, sometimes killing them when they would have survived the crash and crashing a car and actually needing the airbag is heavily unlikely but we still have airbags because in the unlikely situation they are needed they save lives and even the risk of having the airbags hurt someone unnecessarily the risk is considered acceptable. About 200 people are killed a decade by airbags, this number is fairly similar to the amount of people killed with legally owned guns yet airbags are required legally because the risk is outweighs by the safety in that rare case you need it.
"About 200 people are killed a decade by airbags, this number is fairly similar to the amount of people killed with legally owned guns"
That doesn't sound right to me.
I do slightly question the statistic- although the point is valid that the majority of gun crime is by “illegal” guns or those not legally allowed to have firearms/the fire arm used. It’s also by default true that if we exclude killings where a gun is not legal/legally possessed- and that gun is used in an illegal manner- we are left with very few gun deaths since that pretty much leaves lawful police shootings and home defense.
That said- this is EXACTLY my point. It doesn’t matter if those statistics are true or we agree with the logic or the analogy or any of it. Here we have someone who is obviously “pro” gun rights, and why is there a need to justify it? Why do we HAVE to go through loops about airbags and ladders and double cheeseburgers? No one makes you justify why you NEED to have a car or if you NEED that supersize combo. We don’t have to justify the existence of these things despite the harm they cause agains the gains they provide.
To be clear- I’m not saying no right is without limits or burdens nor should it be. But no one makes you defend the very right to fee speech or free press despite the very real and often observed harms those things can and do carry. The media is full of shit and everyone right and left knows it in 2019 even if they can’t agree what is true or not.
I mean- the idea that we would be faced with a debate to take away the right to fee speech is pretty scary isn’t it? The fundamental power of the world is violence. It’s a schoolyard nature fact. A person who does not have the ability to apply violence is a person who has no power beyond what people decide to honor, and the world is full of those who will not simply let you be by virtue of humanity. I’m happy to discuss reasonable, logical, effective measures that minimize the risks while minimizing the infringement upon the lawful and responsible exercise of ones rights. But people want fast and easy. Blanket bans and such, emotional reactions etc.
@willfree the idea sounds farfetched on the offset yes but follow me on a little journey.
Firstly lets look at how many homicides are done by gangers. Its about 80% as of CDC statistics. Now if we look at that further its also a lot of repeat offenders sometimes before being caught sometimes after. the bureau of justice says about 77% of released inmates are caught re-offending within 5 years. With just that we are left with only 1600 non-ganger shootings are a year based on the above fbi stats.
before we move on to those lets look at how the gangers get the guns. In a lot of cases they steal them. Its estimated that about 65% of all criminals currently incarcerated (not just the ones committing gun related crimes) stole a gun or bought it on the black market before committing the crime.
A lot also get them from their gang friends after getting out of prison which is also illegal but neither stolen nor bought on the black market.
Now if we look at that 1600 thats left over.
Firstly lets look at the 65% stolen/black market guns even in non-gun crimes. even if we assume that the 1600 nonganger homicide group is only affected by that number up to 50% that brings it down to 800. if do the same thing with the reoffend stat and assume only 50% of this group conforms to the stats that brings us down to 400. Now we should also remember that about 3% of homicides are ruled accidental deaths. applying that to our new top end of 400 we get around 380. If we go back and apply the full stats to the demographic we lower the number down first the 65% taking us down to 720 and then again the 77% down to about 230 giving us a general range of 200-400 legally owned gun related homicides a year before taking into account the people disqualified from owning a firearm getting one from a friend or family member illegally which is far harder to quantify, however if we assume its even 30% (which is a low ball estimate) that lowers our range from 200-400 down to 140-260. Now,
lets look at homicides done by the same person at the same time. in 2019 there were (as of december 1st) about 380 shootings resulting in at least 4 deaths with the actual number ranging anywhere from 4 to 7 to 20 up onward to really high outliers. If we take an extremely low ball estimate of the average and say 6 that puts 2000ish of our 8000 total homicides as multiple deaths in the same shooting. If we take that and apply it to our last number of 140-260 we get about 100-200 shootings a year on an estimate were we low balled most things that lower that number. If we took it a just little higher on those estimates we would have gotten something along the lines of 50-150. All of this being compared to airbag deaths which is about 20 a year. Doesnt seem nearly as far fetched a comparison now eh?
No, I'm not convinced. It looks to me like you're seeing what you want to see. It's 5am here, time to get ready for work, but a quick browse online suggests that rigorous data on the subject is slim, out-of-date, and inherently difficult to quantify (wanna guess how many gun-related crimes are never solved?).
I think you're minimising, and I think you're doing it because you're wanting to make a point, rather than wanting to understand the reality, warts and all.
A lot of the people who say that those who don't know all the minute details about firearms should not be allowed to regulate them are the same people who want to regulate the female reproductive system while knowing very little about how it actually works.
Sometimes yes. However- it would be logically consistent of someone who values informed legislation that they would believe someone who knows about guns should regulate guns, and that someone who knows a woman’s body and experiences (which would be.. the woman who’s body it is...) should regulate their bodies. Not all folks who support guns are “conservatives” or “right wingers.”
As a note though: your statement is confusing. You equate the regulation of guns by knowledgeable persons to the regulation of women’s bodies by knowledgeable persons. Are you saying that guns and bodies should be regulated by knowledgeable people, or that bodies and guns should Both NOT be regulated by people who know about the subjects? Or- are you saying through equivalency that you’d be willing to allow conservatives unlimited control of a woman’s body in exchange for unlimited control over guns? The logic of those two statements when you link them to each other makes it unclear of intent.
It's only an ar-15 if armalite manufactured it.
That's what Wiki says. Isn't AR the abbreviation for Assault Rifle?
But anyway, I'm not here to define words, I am questionning the purpose of said rifles in private homes.
of the 8k firearm homicides in 2014 by FBI data, 200 were with rifles. that's 0.025% of firearm homicides. If we assume all 200 were done by legally acquired rifles (which is hella wrong, the vast majority are black market guns) and compare that to how many americans legally own guns (about 30%) and how many of those gun owning americans legally own rifles (about 62%) and then go back and assume each murder with a rifle was done with a different legally owned rifle thats 0.0000037037% of legal rifle owning people committing murders with said rifles.
Now if we go back and remember that most arent legally owned guns and there are repeat offenders that pushes the number down a few more points of precision even if we assume only that half are with legal guns (which is a LOT more than what is true)
But it's leading away from my point.
I am pretty sure that there is no need for anyone to own guns, looking at the lifes of everybody I know, people survive greatly without them. I am more in doubt about the reasons that gun owners are repetitively putting out there, when questioned why they want a gun. Protection against burglars is highly questionable, because the responsible gun owner will need to open a safe, load the gun, face the burglar and shoot somebody who came to take his TV, all of which has to happen in the middle of the night, most likely. Protection aginst tyranny or "the government" was possibly a good idea, when both citizens and government had the same weapons.
Why can't those people stand to the fact that they want guns, because they think guns are cool? From my point of view, that is the only reason.
Also the logic of "the reasons people need guns are rare so they don't need them" doesn't fly. Air bags tend to break bones and hella fuck people up, sometimes killing them when they would have survived the crash and crashing a car and actually needing the airbag is heavily unlikely but we still have airbags because in the unlikely situation they are needed they save lives and even the risk of having the airbags hurt someone unnecessarily the risk is considered acceptable. About 200 people are killed a decade by airbags, this number is fairly similar to the amount of people killed with legally owned guns yet airbags are required legally because the risk is outweighs by the safety in that rare case you need it.
That doesn't sound right to me.
Firstly lets look at how many homicides are done by gangers. Its about 80% as of CDC statistics. Now if we look at that further its also a lot of repeat offenders sometimes before being caught sometimes after. the bureau of justice says about 77% of released inmates are caught re-offending within 5 years. With just that we are left with only 1600 non-ganger shootings are a year based on the above fbi stats.
before we move on to those lets look at how the gangers get the guns. In a lot of cases they steal them. Its estimated that about 65% of all criminals currently incarcerated (not just the ones committing gun related crimes) stole a gun or bought it on the black market before committing the crime.
A lot also get them from their gang friends after getting out of prison which is also illegal but neither stolen nor bought on the black market.
Now if we look at that 1600 thats left over.
I think you're minimising, and I think you're doing it because you're wanting to make a point, rather than wanting to understand the reality, warts and all.