• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Military Grade

P

pinqy

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2012
Messages
7,301
Reaction score
3,402
Location
Northern Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
That phrase often shows up in discussions of which firearms should be banned or strictly controlled. The implication being that weapons that fit military specifications are more lethal/deadly/powerful, or otherwise deserving of more or stricter restrictions than other weapons.

Can anyone (who supports this distinction) explain this rationale?
 
pinqy said:
That phrase often shows up in discussions of which firearms should be banned or strictly controlled. The implication being that weapons that fit military specifications are more lethal/deadly/powerful, or otherwise deserving of more or stricter restrictions than other weapons.

Can anyone (who supports this distinction) explain this rationale?
Click to expand...

I don't know exactly, but if something can kill, maim, and injure nearly 600 people in less than an hour, it probably has no role in self defense and is more likely to be a military weapon. Because no one needs all this just for "self defense":

www.nbcnews.com

59 people killed, more than 500 hurt in Las Vegas Strip shooting

At least 59 people were killed when a gunman opened fire during a Jason Aldean performance from the 32nd floor of a Las Vegas hotel, police said.
www.nbcnews.com www.nbcnews.com
1663191152834.png1663191240674.png1663191200204.png
 
pinqy said:
That phrase often shows up in discussions of which firearms should be banned or strictly controlled. The implication being that weapons that fit military specifications are more lethal/deadly/powerful, or otherwise deserving of more or stricter restrictions than other weapons.

Can anyone (who supports this distinction) explain this rationale?
Click to expand...
No, but can we agree that military weapons are designed to kill humans?
 
pinqy said:
Sure. Can we agree that so are many non-military weapons?
and that weapons designed to kill things bigger and tougher than humans are actually better at killing humans?
Click to expand...
Those bigger weapons are less efficient than the smaller ones.
 
It's basic engineering. Performance Requirements drives technical specifications. The requirement may be to mow down the 5 enemy troops at 150 yards within 10 seconds so you end up with a technical specification of a M-16.
 
ataraxia said:
I don't know exactly, but if something can kill, maim, and injure nearly 600 people in less than an hour, it probably has no role in self defense
Click to expand...
Why not? I’ll agree that a weapon that can kill 600, or even 60, or even 6 at once, is a danger and should be regulated, because it is too difficult to ensure only hostile are killed. But that a weapon CAN be used to quickly kill many individuals over time does not mean that it cannot be used for self defense responsibly.
ataraxia said:
and is more likely to be a military weapon.
Click to expand...
Nope. You linked to the Vegas shooter…bump stocks are definitely not military.
And you’re asking the question backwards…the question should be “Is a military weapon more likely to kill 600 people (one at a time) in an hour than a non military weapon. The answer is no.
ataraxia said:
Because no one needs all this just for "self defense":
Click to expand...
Why does that matter? Is it your belief that someone who owns a weapon more than adequate for self defense is more likely to use it in an offensive manner?
 
mrjurrs said:
No, but can we agree that military weapons are designed to kill humans?
Click to expand...
Weapons used by the military are intended to kill humans. This includes weapons designed for civilian use and adopted by the military for military purposes like the Remington 700.
 
mrjurrs said:
Those bigger weapons are less efficient than the smaller ones.
Click to expand...
True. Handguns are used to kill over ten thousand victims every year, and knives are used to murder about four times as many people each year as "the bigger weapons". Which is interesting in that the handgun is the primary self defense weapon in use in the US and still leads for number of homicide victims. It's like that last part has no Constitutional impact on the first part.
 
ataraxia said:
I don't know exactly, but if something can kill, maim, and injure nearly 600 people in less than an hour, it probably has no role in self defense and is more likely to be a military weapon. Because no one needs all this just for "self defense":
Click to expand...
True, no one will every likely need to shoot 600 people in self defense, but that doesn't mean that the weapons aren't useful for self defense.

www.nbcnews.com

Oklahoma man killed three teen home intruders using AR-15 rifle

A 23-year-old Oklahoma man used a semiautomatic AR-15 rifle to shoot and kill three intruders who broke into his home Monday afternoon in a suburb of Tulsa.
www.nbcnews.com www.nbcnews.com

That shooter could have killed more people with bolt action rifles or one of the two aircraft he owned.
 
dmpi said:
It's basic engineering. Performance Requirements drives technical specifications. The requirement may be to mow down the 5 enemy troops at 150 yards within 10 seconds so you end up with a technical specification of a M-16.
Click to expand...
That definitely wasn't a specification of the M16 or any other service rifle.
 
pinqy said:
How do you figure?
Click to expand...
I would think that weapons designed to kill bigger animals have bigger projectiles that are not designed to be fired rapidly.
 
pinqy said:
Why does that matter? Is it your belief that someone who owns a weapon more than adequate for self defense is more likely to use it in an offensive manner?
Click to expand...

Well then obviously your objection is not to the AR15 being labeled a military grade weapon; it is wondering why even military grade weapons have to be regulated for the public. It’s a very different question.

I guess one way you might see the other point of view is to consider that all potentially hazardous equipment, from cars and trucks to chemicals and bulldozers, are regulated based on a consideration of utility versus public safety. You could put industrial grade cleaners and bleach and other powerful chemicals on sale to the public. You could get rid of a lot of regulations on what kind of cars are considered street legal and who can drive them as well. But you would see a lot more injuries resulting from that. So with all these potentially hazardous tools we compromise to balance the utility considerations versus public safety considerations.

I am not sure why this particular class of potentially hazardous equipment we call firearms should be any different. At some point public safety considerations outweigh their utility.
 
ataraxia said:
Well then obviously your objection is not to the AR15 being labeled a military grade weapon; it is wondering why even military grade weapons have to be regulated for the public. It’s a very different question.

I guess one way you might see the other point of view is to consider that all potentially hazardous equipment, from cars and trucks to chemicals and bulldozers, are regulated based on a consideration of utility versus public safety. You could put industrial grade cleaners and bleach and other powerful chemicals on sale to the public. You could get rid of a lot of regulations on what kind of cars are considered street legal and who can drive them as well. But you would see a lot more injuries resulting from that. So with all these potentially hazardous toolstli we compromise to balance the utility considerations versus public safety considerations.

I am not sure why this particular class of potentially hazardous equipment we call firearms should be any different. At some point public safety considerations outweigh their utility.
Click to expand...
"Utility" is not a Constitutional concept.

How would you measure utility vs public safety?
 
Military grade always just meant "extra tough" to me. Maybe just me.

This motherboard was advertised as "military grade."


Tuf_Trooper_B85-board.jpg


And this laptop:
1663201250378.jpeg


And this flashlight:
1663201428681.png
 
ataraxia said:
Well then obviously your objection is not to the AR15 being labeled a military grade weapon; it is wondering why even military grade weapons have to be regulated for the public. It’s a very different question.

I guess one way you might see the other point of view is to consider that all potentially hazardous equipment, from cars and trucks to chemicals and bulldozers, are regulated based on a consideration of utility versus public safety. You could put industrial grade cleaners and bleach and other powerful chemicals on sale to the public. You could get rid of a lot of regulations on what kind of cars are considered street legal and who can drive them as well. But you would see a lot more injuries resulting from that. So with all these potentially hazardous tools we compromise to balance the utility considerations versus public safety considerations.

I am not sure why this particular class of potentially hazardous equipment we call firearms should be any different. At some point public safety considerations outweigh their utility.
Click to expand...

Firearms are regulated.

Can you explain the calculation of utility vs public safety reference the regulations on possessing a bulldozer?

How about reference the regulations on possessing a motorcycle?
 
ataraxia said:
I don't know exactly, but if something can kill, maim, and injure nearly 600 people in less than an hour, it probably has no role in self defense and is more likely to be a military weapon. Because no one needs all this just for "self defense":

www.nbcnews.com

59 people killed, more than 500 hurt in Las Vegas Strip shooting

At least 59 people were killed when a gunman opened fire during a Jason Aldean performance from the 32nd floor of a Las Vegas hotel, police said.
www.nbcnews.com www.nbcnews.com
View attachment 67412759View attachment 67412761View attachment 67412760
Click to expand...

Does that mean medium size cargo trucks are "military weapons?"
1663205079241.png
1663205135713.png
 
RF667799 said:
Firearms are regulated.
Click to expand...

You say that like it's a good thing and not unconstitutional. Can you please explain how we do it to poster #18 now? He can't imagine how we do it without being unconstitutional.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom