Ars Technica founder on the AR-15
I understand that many politicians are woefully illiterate about what they think are &quot;assault weapons&quot;, and I sympathize greatly with how annoying it must be to constantly be accused of being &quot;sexually inadequate&quot; and other ridiculous insults that distract from the real issues. The main problem with this author&#x27;s argument, as I see it, is that while the AR-15 is very <i>convenient</i>, making it easily accessible for any adults who wants one is not worth the price for society as a whole. That is - would it really be an infringement on the author&#x27;s rights, if as the author points out, he would need to have 3 separate guns for sporting, hunting, and use of force?<p>When discussing gun control, I often personally consider my own opinions on the proposed banning&#x2F;legal control over encryption in public debate. Specifically, I wonder whether it is hypocritical to want to limit the sale and use semi-automatic weapons, while simultaneously arguing that encryption must be fully legal and &quot;everyone shouldn&#x27;t be punished for a few bad apples&quot;. My conclusion is usually that banning&#x2F;compromising encryption would fundamentally destroy the security and privacy of critical software for everyone on a massive scale. However, I don&#x27;t think the impact would be nearly as severe for gun owners that might need to pass a few ID checks and own several weapons if needed for different uses.<p>So my question is, to gun owners that support existing laws regarding semi-automatic weapons like the AR-15- would limiting its sale really be really as devastatingly harmful to society at large (as to warrant those existing laws)?