Does the possibility of needing to fend off some lunatic outweigh all the negatives of loose gun control? Rural residents will still be able to own a gun but maybe they should pass a psych test first and maybe that gun shouldn't be military grade.

The laws banning military grade weapons already exist -- the civilian AR-15 is not an military grade M-16, it is difficult to obtain an automatic weapon, destructive devices are banned-ish.

Fundamentally the problem is that gun ownership is a core American ideal (to enough electorally well placed people), so outright bans are infeasible and other restrictions cause a race by manufacturers to innovate around the restrictions.

The gun you want for reasonable home defense / deterrence in a rural setting is a shotgun, no? Very different to the assault rifle proxies typical used in mass shootings.

Assault rifles are automatic. We haven't been seeing automatic weapons in mass shootings.

You might mean "assault weapon," but that's a poorly-defined political term that can include cosmetic attachments and colors.

And plenty of people get AR-15s for home defense.

You are missing OP's point. A shotgun is a far better home defense weapon than an AR-15. So is a handgun. The AR-15 was very carefully designed for intermediate range combat.

It depends. The best gun is the one you're most familiar with shooting. If the one you'll spend the most time shooting is an AR-15, then it's that one.

It's also irrelevant. Home protection isn't the only reason you'd have a gun in a rural setting. They're also quite excellent for keeping groundhogs and coyotes off of one's property, and for recreational purposes.

This mindset of people who know nothing about guns (e.g. not knowing what an assault rifle is) claiming "You should only be allowed to have what I think you need" is the exact problem at the heart of this discussion.

> It depends. The best gun is the one you're most familiar with shooting. If the one you'll spend the most time shooting is an AR-15, then it's that one.

So what you are saying is that banning the AR-15 shouldn't be problematic for people, because they can simply become familiar with other options like shotguns, making them the best gun for them?

> It's also irrelevant. Home protection isn't the only reason you'd have a gun in a rural setting. They're also quite excellent for keeping groundhogs and coyotes off of one's property, and for recreational purposes.

> This mindset of people who know nothing about guns (e.g. not knowing what an assault rifle is) claiming "You should only be allowed to have what I think you need" is the exact problem at the heart of this discussion.

I think the exact problem is not "you should only be allowed to have what I think you need". Every regulation and law in existence is a variation of "you should only be allowed to do X to the extent I think you need". A speed limit is functionally equivalent to the statement "you should only be allowed to drive as fast as I think you need". They are all attempts at balancing utility (how fast you can drive) and costs for yourself and those around you (getting in a crash).

The actual problem is the mindset of people like yourself claiming the utility of weapons like the AR-15 for tasks like groundhog control and recreation outweighs the costs of AR-15s being used to take human lives.

> So what you are saying is that banning the AR-15 shouldn't be problematic for people, because they can simply become familiar with other options like shotguns, making them the best gun for them?

Why stop there? They can learn Jiu Jitsu and not need the shotgun! All things are possible when we are just speculating about how to take others' rights in theoretical scenarios we won't have to deal with ourselves.

The AR-15 is a fun gun to shoot, which is why it is popular.

> I think the exact problem is not "you should only be allowed to have what I think you need". Every regulation and law in existence is a variation of "you should only be allowed to do X to the extent I think you need". A speed limit is functionally equivalent to the statement "you should only be allowed to drive as fast as I think you need". They are all attempts at balancing utility (how fast you can drive) and costs for yourself and those around you (getting in a crash).

Speed limits are something we all understand culturally, and are not set at the federal level.

If huge swaths of the country had no cars or roads, they might clamor for federally lower speed limits every time there was a bus accident. "The actual problem is the mindset of people like yourself claiming that going 10 MPH faster outweighs the real loss of human lives." And that's basically what happens with guns any time there is a mass shooting.

> The actual problem is the mindset of people like yourself claiming the utility of weapons like the AR-15 for tasks like groundhog control and recreation outweighs the costs of AR-15s being used to take human lives.

The second amendment's purpose is for the gun's use for the purpose of taking lives. Nobody's arguing groundhog control is the only valid use case for having a weapon. Valid use cases include as a check against government tyranny (as protected by the second amendment), home defense, as well as the other reasons I mentioned.

And if you're going to complain about the AR-15, you have to state where you draw the line. Presumably a ban of AR-15s alone wouldn't accomplish your goals. What guns and gun features are you proposing banning?

As you say, the 2nd amendment is about taking lives (or more accurately anout maintaining a well regulated militia), so I could care less if a given gun is “fun” for people living out their tacticool fantasies. The 2nd doesn’t guarantee the right to have fun.

An AR-15 is a good all purpose weapon. Great for intruders but also excellent for shooting racoons or opossums that are killing your chickens. Or coyotes that are chasing your cows. They are also good for use in a well regulated militia, being necessary to maintain a free state and all.

You know what the difference is between an AR15 and your typical .30-06 hunting rifle? Beside the fact that the 30-06 will do more damage, it is usually brown wood instead of black. That is why people are scared of the AR15, it's black. You can throw a big clip on any semi-automatic hunting rifle and it will be just as deadly.

Plenty of semi-automatic hunting rifles have a small magazine with a plate that closes over it and won't accept a larger magazine without modifications.

You're right that "semi-automatic" deserves more focus than "black".

I do wonder how likely it is that the "typical" hunting rifle is actually bolt action though.

Bolt action are usually cheaper, but a semi-auto hunting rifle is exceedingly common as well.

But people don't need AR-15s for home defense. Muskets would be fine for home defense, and coincidentally were what was standard at the time the 2nd amendment was passed. People don't need anything more than a musket/shotgun type weapon for home defense, and we need to have laws that make sure the process to get these prevents them from getting put in the hands of the wrong people.

The second amendment wasn't passed for home defense, nor should our basis of law be "what people unfamiliar with guns think others should use for home defense."

Unlike a shotgun, the AR-15 is usable by frail people. You can be 90 pounds, be on blood thinners, have weak muscles and bones, and still practice with an AR-15. Essentially, a requirement to rely on a shotgun would be discriminatory, particularly toward women and the elderly.

Last April in Oklahoma, a home defense situation with an AR-15 made the news. There were 3 armed intruders that got killed with only 2 rifle shots. That is a great example of just how effective the AR-15 can be in home defense.