The Great ILX Gun Control Debate

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (3246 of them)

we were just having a discussion of how if guy had been armed with a rifle instead of a handgun it'd be more likely to have a kill count approaching 50 instead of 33 and a lot fewer in the hospital

― TOMBOT, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 19:50 (nineteen years ago)

Not sure that's entirely true - there are a lot of variables (ie how were they killed, distance and so on) - and it would have been much more difficult for him to get across campus carrying a rifle without anyone noticing.

― milo z, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 19:53 (nineteen years ago)

the getting across campus thing is the key here. i'd rather not really get into the rest.

― river wolf, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 19:53 (nineteen years ago)

There are many legitimate uses for explosives, but we regulate them heavily. I'm sure this makes things difficult for many people, businesses and enthusiasts alike. Certainly, I am not at liberty to create or use explosives in any but the most exceptional circumstances and under close scrutiny by the state.

If there is sufficient reason (and I am not necessarily saying that there is), public safety would outweigh the individual liberties of potential gun owners/users.

I'm not for eliminating guns, but just because people have legitimate uses for guns does not necessarily mean that the argument is closed.

― Fluffy Bear Hearts Rainbows, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 19:56 (nineteen years ago)

I'm just referring to people's perceptions of sport/hunting rifles here, not anything approaching assault rifles or whatever. Maybe I'm just gun-ignorant on this issue (happy to be wrong), but it seems like the types of rifles no one has any issues with are hard to conceal, bulky to hold, take slightly more situating yourself before firing, etc. -- i.e., rifles developed for longer-range situations where you have time to prepare a single, precise shot (e.g., hunting)? Whereas handguns can be deadly very quickly at close range? Anyway, point being it seems like people without lots of gun experience (right or wrong) are comfortable thinking of gun use in that first mode, and get uncomfortable with the second (even if handgun users are every bit as careful and deliberate as a sharpshooter -- just talking about impressions of the weaponry here).

― nabisco, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 19:58 (nineteen years ago)

the guys at work had to keep v v close tabs on their shots, as well as igniters, or else the ATF (i think?) would come a-knocking

― river wolf, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 19:59 (nineteen years ago)

This is sort of a moot point though, isn't it? I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but sport rifles are designed for sport shooting, not for killing people. Right?

So comparing a handgun and a sport rifle is sort of specious if we're going down this object-use-design route. I'm more afraid of handguns than I am of rifles not because of the size or how long it takes to load or aim or anything, but because people don't buy handguns to compete in the Olympics. They buy handguns to kill people.

― max, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 20:03 (nineteen years ago)

Part of the competition I was talking about was a round where you fired 10 shots in 60 seconds into a target from 200 yards away with the highest level of accuracy/point-scoring occuring in a 3 inch center circle. This was also with iron sights (no scope or magnification) and I did it with a bolt-action rifle (to clarify, this means that between each shot, you had to actuate the reloading mechanism by hand).

So, no, "deadliness" outside of concealment should not be used as a discerning factor here.

xpost max, did you even read what I wrote a few posts ago about competetive handgun shooters?

― John Justen, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 20:04 (nineteen years ago)

Oops--sorry, I didn't.

― max, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 20:05 (nineteen years ago)

Charles Whitman used a rifle and until recently, held the record for school shootings.

― sexyDancer, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 20:05 (nineteen years ago)

They buy handguns to kill people.

If you're concerned about defending your home or your family, you buy a shotgun to kill people. Your grandfather's old duck shotgun is rather more effective than any handgun in existence when it comes to killing.

― milo z, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 20:06 (nineteen years ago)

As a separate issue, what do people think about conceal and carry?

― Fluffy Bear Hearts Rainbows, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 20:07 (nineteen years ago)

well, my dad's got one, as do a handful of buddies from high school

― river wolf, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 20:08 (nineteen years ago)

but i'm not that into it

― river wolf, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 20:08 (nineteen years ago)

My parents both have licenses, neither carries. I don't have any particular desire to even get the license.

― milo z, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 20:09 (nineteen years ago)

What is the purpose of being able to carry a loaded handgun around town?

― Fluffy Bear Hearts Rainbows, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 20:09 (nineteen years ago)

Defending yourself against ~~black people~~robbers.

― milo z, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 20:10 (nineteen years ago)

John, since you seem to know something about it--are the handguns used in competitive handgun shooting different from regular market handguns? My understanding is that sport rifles are different from other kids of rifles, does the same hold true of handguns? I'm trying to come to grips with why I'm so nonchalant about rifle shooting and so freaked out by handguns.

― max, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 20:11 (nineteen years ago)

Yes, they are max

― river wolf, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 20:11 (nineteen years ago)

elaborate grips, smaller bore (generally), better sites, etc.

― river wolf, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 20:11 (nineteen years ago)

Does carrying a handgun ultimately increase or decrease the safety of a) the licensee and b) the general public?

― Fluffy Bear Hearts Rainbows, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 20:12 (nineteen years ago)

(said mockingly, obviously)

My mother has a bad habit of shopping at Wal Mart after midnight (dark parking lot, lots of places to hide) and has been harassed for money at various car washes and stuff before. I would be totally on board with her carrying a gun if she were willing to practice more often. As it is, I think she's more likely to endanger herself or someone else if she ever had to actually shoot.

― milo z, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 20:13 (nineteen years ago)

<i>Does carrying a handgun ultimately increase or decrease the safety of a) the licensee and b) the general public?</i>

In the US, it depends what study you look at, what your definition of safety is, etc. Backyard pools to thread, pls.

― Dandy Don Weiner, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 20:16 (nineteen years ago)

Ugh I can't figure it out. There's something so casual-seeming about handguns, I guess--like you can just raise up your arm and blow someone's head off. Not that that's not true with rifles as well; it all just seems so easier with a handgun. But I don't really know dick about guns, so I'll acquiesce.

― max, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 20:16 (nineteen years ago)

John, since you seem to know something about it--are the handguns used in competitive handgun shooting different from regular market handguns?

Depends on the competition.

'Bullseye' is a marksmanship game often played with .22 pistols that have scopes on them. Stand on the line, shoot at a target 25-50 yards away for accuracy.

'Practical Shooting' (google IDPA or IPSC) is half marksmanship/half movement - moving from station to station shooting cardboard or steel targets for time and accuracy. These games use normal 'defensive' calibers, and can either be highly modified race guns (unlike anything you'll ever see used in defense or offense) or they can be shot with the pistol you just bought, depending on the class.

There's also '3-Gun' competition, where you pretend you're Jack Bauer and shoot at a course of fire with a pistol, a shotgun and a rifle (usually an AR-15).

There are also rifle competitions that use .22s and competitions that use sniper rifles and competitions that use AKs.

and other types of pistol/revolver competitions

― milo z, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 20:17 (nineteen years ago)

Does anyone think that a loaded gun (in the presence of human beings with appendages, who are not in comas; etc) is not inherently dangerous?

I mean, that's the point of conceal and carry, right? To be dangerous? (to bad guys and hopefully not accidentally or in a fit of passion to good guys).

― Fluffy Bear Hearts Rainbows, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 20:19 (nineteen years ago)

no handguns = no industrial revolution

this is close, but if James Burke had it right, it was musket rifles was did it.

But it's a minor point so let's carry on

― kingfish, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 20:21 (nineteen years ago)

the point of conceal and carry in most states is for people to be able to move a gun from one place to another, loaded or not, without being arrested. that's basically the truth. we're talking about the simple act of buying an antique rifle at a gun show in some cases.

― TOMBOT, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 20:22 (nineteen years ago)

'Practical Shooting' (google IDPA or IPSC) is half marksmanship/half movement - moving from station to station shooting cardboard or steel targets for time and accuracy. These games use normal 'defensive' calibers, and can either be highly modified race guns (unlike anything you'll ever see used in defense or offense) or they can be shot with the pistol you just bought, depending on the class.

There's also '3-Gun' competition, where you pretend you're Jack Bauer and shoot at a course of fire with a pistol, a shotgun and a rifle (usually an AR-15).

See, this shit doesn't make me feel like the competitions have been "abstracted" away from killing.

― max, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 20:22 (nineteen years ago)

depends on how abstracted from normal life you consider Chuck Norris movies.

― milo z, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 20:24 (nineteen years ago)

Well yeah, not to be an ass but the presence of lots of things is inherently dangerous.

― call all destroyer, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 20:29 (nineteen years ago)

kingfish i said handguns because samuel colt's insistence on interchangable parts was for his pistol designs.

― moonship journey to baja, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 20:30 (nineteen years ago)

Whew, I'm glad Max is here to kinda share my perceptions on these types of weapons. And guys, I want to be really clear that these are just "perceptions" we're talking about, and I know they're based on not being super-familiar with the varieties of rifles that can be super-deadly, etc. I mostly just wanted to explain why there are people in the world who hear "I just want a gun for hunting / targets" and imagine a rifle with a wood stock and think "sure, no problem," but then balk when it comes to handguns.

BTW, John, your speed and accuracy with a bolt-action rifle are actually reassuring to someone with those perceptions, because your potential deadliness would be based on skill, experience, training, and practice! Whereas -- again, correct me if I'm wrong -- with lots of handguns there's a much lower bar, where a person without skill or training could probably do a lot more damage.

I dunno, though, I'll admit my lack of knowledge and ask you guys honestly: setting aside all major exceptions, isn't the average rifle a lot more of an "intentional" / "skilled" / "purposeful" tool than the average handgun? Those terms are all vague, but hopefully you know what I'm getting at -- something about having to take a second and think about what you're doing.

― nabisco, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 20:33 (nineteen years ago)

not really, nabisco! as i've said before: handguns are very hard to shoot accurately. however, that might actually make them more dangerous, since strays become a very real concern

― river wolf, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 20:35 (nineteen years ago)

Handguns are much more difficult to shoot accurately than rifles. That's why we equip soldiers with M-16s.

― milo z, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 20:35 (nineteen years ago)

cf most (i'd wager) innocent deaths in urban shootings

― river wolf, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 20:35 (nineteen years ago)

Nabisco, the AK-47 I fired was semiautomatic, with a 30-round clip and the kickback of a friendly punch on the shoulder. It seemed WAY easier to handle than a glock or revolver in terms of aiming/hitting a target at any sort of distance. My guess is that the size, weight, and stability of the shoulder stock stabilize the gun quite a bit when you aim and fire. I would like to hear from the more experienced shooters on this point, though.

― call all destroyer, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 20:38 (nineteen years ago)

That's pretty much it exactly.

― milo z, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 20:39 (nineteen years ago)

automatic weapons, particularly AKs, are the great levelers (...so to speak): pretty inaccurate, high rate of fire, indiscriminate

― river wolf, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 20:39 (nineteen years ago)

Well, I'm a very accurate shot with a rifle, and I'm terrible at handgun shooting (like, totally inept, can't hit the broad side of a barn terrible) so I'd say that it is almost essentially based on training, not built-in lethality.

The gun I used in competition was a completely unmodified bolt action rifle built in 1913, and in fact high level shooters tend to eschew semi-automatic firearms for longer range shooting because they are less accurate due to the physics of siphoning off some of the explosive pressure to actuate the reloading mechanism.

xpost i'm kind of skimming the entervening responses before this so I don't get the dreaded endless xpost thing going on, so let me know if I missed something.

― John Justen, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 20:40 (nineteen years ago)

high level shooters tend to eschew semi-automatic firearms for longer range shooting because they are less accurate due to the physics of siphoning off some of the explosive pressure to actuate the reloading mechanism.

rangefinders v. SLRs, go

― river wolf, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 20:41 (nineteen years ago)

i don't know why that came to mind.

― river wolf, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 20:42 (nineteen years ago)

he point of conceal and carry in most states is for people to be able to move a gun from one place to another, loaded or not, without being arrested. that's basically the truth. we're talking about the simple act of buying an antique rifle at a gun show in some cases.

OK, that makes a lot of sense.

Am I wrong in understanding that there are different types of laws, some of which are a little more liberal, that include keeping a loaded gun in a holster, and others that are more specifically designed to account for transport from one location to another?

― Fluffy Bear Hearts Rainbows, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 20:44 (nineteen years ago)

There are many legitimate uses for explosives, but we regulate them heavily. I'm sure this makes things difficult for many people, businesses and enthusiasts alike.

LOL, explosive enthusiasts!

― HI DERE, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 20:45 (nineteen years ago)

Well yeah, River, I'm counting precision in the "intentional/considered/purposeful" category for rifles! I guess that might kinda be cheating. I'm just thinking I'd rather be in a room where a fight broke out and there was a rifle on the wall than a handgun on the table. But hahaha maybe I'm ill-informed, and will have to totally rearrange my social life!

Anyway I won't argue with you guys, since you know this stuff way better than me, but I do suspect that accuracy might sometimes be a red herring -- or at least people fear handgun violence happening to them at such a close range that accuracy's not a major issue. (A range that might be too close for a long rifle!) I'm surprised by the talk of M-16s and AK-47s, too -- I was asking about the average privately owned rifle in the US! I mean, is the average privately owned rifle really anything like those weapons? I'd have assumed the bulk of them out there are deer-hunter type things!

― nabisco, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 20:45 (nineteen years ago)

In Texas you have to have a permit to carry a handgun concealed. You can't carry a handgun in the open walking around. You can carry a loaded handgun in your car if you are 'travelling.' You can also carry a loaded shotgun or rifle in open sight in your car. You can carry any of the above unloaded in your car.

Gun laws be somewhat complicated.

― milo z, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 20:46 (nineteen years ago)

Oh they are, nabisco! Though, a quick search online will turn up loads of places where AKs and AR-15s (the civilian, semi-automatic m16) are readily available.

plus, at least with an ar-15, it's not terribly difficult to convert it to an (illegal) automatic.

― river wolf, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 20:47 (nineteen years ago)

or so i've heard

― river wolf, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 20:47 (nineteen years ago)

I now remember my rather conservative dad wanting a CCW permit a few years back, sometime after Michigan began allowing him. And he was a teacher at an inner city school in Flint. I have no idea if his Rush- & Fox News-fed brain begin rev'd up into a total state of fear or what, or if he actually went thru with getting the license or not.

― kingfish, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 20:48 (nineteen years ago)

this is a race gun, BTW - http://www.stiguns.com/guns/GrandMaster/images/GrandMasterRedMain06_800w.jpg

I mean, is the average privately owned rifle really anything like those weapons?

The fastest-selling type of rifle in the US is the AR-15 - basically a semi-automatic version of the M-16 or M-4 used by the military and police. I'm sure that added up, other rifles eclipse it, and the most common in existence are bolt-action rifles, but semi-auto 'scary' rifles are not at all uncommon.

plus, at least with an ar-15, it's not terribly difficult to convert it to an (illegal) automatic.

It's very, very difficult. In one part because of the current design of most AR-15s (if it feasible, makers would go to jail for aiding and abetting and so on). Also because the parts to convert an older AR-15 (when it was possible) to auto cost about $5-10k (and presumably more on the black market).

― milo z, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 20:50 (nineteen years ago)

Skipping 3146 messages at this point... Click here if you want to load them all.

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.