The Great ILX Gun Control Debate

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

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

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)

no kidding! i thought it was a simple, filing job. nevermind.

― river wolf, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 20:52 (nineteen years ago)

LOL, explosive enthusiasts!

I'm glad somebody noticed that. I would totally love to blow shit up as a hobby. How awesome would that be. "I'm gonna go out to the demolition range and try and blow a VW bus into the target area." Dudes, like Bocce ball.

Also, I keep bugging John to go with me to the firing range. When is that gonna happen, dude?

― Fluffy Bear Hearts Rainbows, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 20:53 (nineteen years ago)

http://www.subguns.com/classifieds/index.cgi?db=nfafirearms&website=&language=&session_key=&search_and_display_db_button=on&results_format=long&db_id=9937&query=retrieval

― milo z, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 20:54 (nineteen years ago)

that was the one thing i really wanted to be allowed to do ski patrolling: throw bombs. but i wasn't allowed :(

― river wolf, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 20:55 (nineteen years ago)

I would totally love to blow shit up as a hobby. How awesome would that be. "I'm gonna go out to the demolition range and try and blow a VW bus into the target area."

um, I have totally done stuff rather similar to this. albeit only out in the middle of the desert. and usually involving blowing up large sculptures with the aid of some firearms and propane tanks.

― Shakey Mo Collier, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 20:56 (nineteen years ago)

Burning Man cleanup?

― Fluffy Bear Hearts Rainbows, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 20:58 (nineteen years ago)

that was the one thing i really wanted to be allowed to do ski patrolling: throw bombs.

Avalanche prevention or James Bond style?

― Fluffy Bear Hearts Rainbows, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 21:01 (nineteen years ago)

haha no - but definitely w/Burning Man types.

― Shakey Mo Collier, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 21:02 (nineteen years ago)

Ha, man, we are getting back to that opinion issue: so would it be wrong or judgmental of me to think that anyone who purchases a military-style heavy weapon like that AR-15 is a little too into tearing shit up for my tastes?

― nabisco, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 21:04 (nineteen years ago)

There's a version of the competition JJ engaged in that uses nothing but AR-15s if that makes you feel better.

Thing is, AR-15s just look kind of scary and militant - the round used in an AR-15 is no more dangerous (and somewhat less dangerous in terms of wound capability and distance) than the average bolt-action huntin' rifle.

There's not a great distance between 'deer rifle' and 'sniper rifle.'

― milo z, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 21:08 (nineteen years ago)

Haha it's actually not reassuring at all that people would just want the militant-looking action for its own sake! (Also I dunno why, given some recent high-profile sniper cases, but snipers scare me a lot less.)

― nabisco, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 21:13 (nineteen years ago)

oh avalanche prevention.

― river wolf, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 22:53 (nineteen years ago)

i thought that "explosion enthusiast" applied to every middle class american adolescent boy, usually around the age that "pyromaniac" fits, too.

― kingfish, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 23:00 (nineteen years ago)

There have been a number of times in my life where, if I'd had a concealed handgun, I would've been very tempted to use it, or at least pull it out.

I remember, in high school, seeing a trio of self-styled toughs who went after a friend of mine, making fun of her in the most relentless, cruel, and nasty way. She was a completely harmless girl, never gave anyone a hard time; they were going after her because she was vulnerable, and they got off on making her hurt.

I thought about how nice it would be to pull a gun on those pathetic, piece-of-shit motherfuckers. Make them grovel on the floor, call me "sir", beg for their lives. To turn their arrogance upside-down, to make it so that -- despite the fact that there were three of them, one of me, and any one of them could've beaten the shit out of me -- they were powerless, and I could force them to confront their own folly, to be a hair's breadth away from a death caused solely by their own arrogance and cruelty, and to be spared from it only by an act of mercy that exceeded anything of which they themselves were capable.

It is for this very reason that I'm strongly in favor of gun control.

― lurker #2421, Thursday, 19 April 2007 05:24 (nineteen years ago)

For most of that post, I thought you were arguing against gun control. Weird.

― Lostandfound, Thursday, 19 April 2007 05:33 (nineteen years ago)

I guess I got caught up.

― Lostandfound, Thursday, 19 April 2007 05:34 (nineteen years ago)

Drawing your gun on people for "making fun of" someone is illegal. Why would a law against you acquiring a gun stop you if a law against you threatening people with one wouldn't?

― Kerm, Thursday, 19 April 2007 05:42 (nineteen years ago)

Yeah sometimes I'm jaywalking and then I'm all like "I might as well get involved in mail fraud while I'm at it."

― nabisco, Thursday, 19 April 2007 05:47 (nineteen years ago)

I mean, joking aside, stupid heat-of-passion crimes come from a pretty different place than seeking and acquiring illegal weapons, so the equivalence doesn't really hold.

― nabisco, Thursday, 19 April 2007 05:50 (nineteen years ago)

Oh, if I really wanted to get a gun, given enough time, nothing could stop me -- or anyone else, for that matter. But the more easily I can come by the means to act on such impulses, the more likely I am to actually carry them out. Carrying the flame of righteous indignation for a few hours is easy; for two weeks, not so much. And I don't see that as unusual at all -- in fact, I think it's human nature.

So if nothing else, gun control is an excellent means of maximizing two intervals: the interval between when you want to kill someone, and when you have the means; and the interval between when you begin to act on the impulse to kill someone, and when they're actually dead. With a gun, that interval can be near-instantaneous, but many a murder has been forestalled when, after the first strike with knife or club or hatchet or fist, something has happened to prevent the fatal blow.

(xpost)

― lurker #2421, Thursday, 19 April 2007 05:52 (nineteen years ago)

But how does "Ban guns" follow from "I might be tempted in the heat of the moment"? Tempted to drive aggressively = Ban cars? Tempted to abuse alcohol = prohibition? I can't control myself = lock me up now?

Besides, if you'd draw a gun on someone for making fun of people or being mean in general, then there's something much more wrong with you than the potential for a heat-of-passion crime.

― Kerm, Thursday, 19 April 2007 05:58 (nineteen years ago)

I'll let someone else field the first half of that.

Besides, if you'd draw a gun on someone for making fun of people or being mean in general, then there's something much more wrong with you than the potential for a heat-of-passion crime.

Really? What if I told you that she was [insert race here] and they were yelling racial epithets at her -- would it be OK then? Because it's definitely very important to me, you see, that I be indignant for the right reasons. I'll wait expectantly while you tell me what those are.

― lurker #2421, Thursday, 19 April 2007 06:09 (nineteen years ago)

("I'll let someone else field the first half of that" -- that is, someone who doesn't mind answering the same clichéd argument every time it's trotted out)

― lurker #2421, Thursday, 19 April 2007 06:12 (nineteen years ago)

(Oh, great, I love it when I'm foiled when trying to do special characters properly.)

― lurker #2421, Thursday, 19 April 2007 06:13 (nineteen years ago)

dear lurker #2421 - did you call me out on another thread for identifying with the aggressor?

― moonship journey to baja, Thursday, 19 April 2007 06:31 (nineteen years ago)

Dude, if your portrayal of your psychology in that incident is anything other than a half-assed attempt to invent a controversial "surprising/shocking" way to prove your eventual conclusion, you shouldn't be allowed near blunt instruments, let alone firearms. Seriously.

Also, racial relations don't shore up your point, so stop using them as a cheap argumentative tool.

xpost to lurker.

― John Justen, Thursday, 19 April 2007 06:42 (nineteen years ago)

So basically, if I have the urge to do harm to people who are torturing my friends, I'm fucked up? I think I'm pretty OK with being fucked up in that particular way, thanks.

MJTB, I called you out for (1) behaving with total insensitivity and callousness towards Remy, which you apologized for, and (2) claiming some kind of equivalence between the violence-implied bullying of "scary kids stomping down the hallway" and the snickering of nerds at slow learners. If anything, yes, you seemed like an apologist for physical bullying and the marginalization/mistreatment of social misfits.

― lurker #2421, Thursday, 19 April 2007 06:46 (nineteen years ago)

Frankly, I'm not sure I trust anyone who doesn't have the urge to hurt people who are torturing the vulnerable.

― lurker #2421, Thursday, 19 April 2007 06:47 (nineteen years ago)

("have the urge" = feel the impulse, at the time)

― lurker #2421, Thursday, 19 April 2007 06:47 (nineteen years ago)

"do harm" is a long fucking way from "Make them grovel on the floor, call me "sir", beg for their lives. To turn their arrogance upside-down, to make it so that -- despite the fact that there were three of them, one of me, and any one of them could've beaten the shit out of me -- they were powerless, and I could force them to confront their own folly, to be a hair's breadth away from a death caused solely by their own arrogance and cruelty, and to be spared from it only by an act of mercy that exceeded anything of which they themselves were capable."

So lets not mince words, huh?

― John Justen, Thursday, 19 April 2007 06:51 (nineteen years ago)

Wait wait, I think lurker's point is pretty explicitly that he considers himself a normal person, and since he's experienced situations in which he'd be tempted to do something stupid with a gun, he worries about what other people might do with them, as well. As a personal statement, that's pretty simple and straightforward; you can say that's not a valid reason for legislating gun control, but you don't have to circle around it looking for holes, I don't think. Let's not make lurker out like a freak, either -- I'm sure a lot of normal people have felt that way at some point. Besides, the issue isn't whether people do stupid things with guns or not -- some do, some don't, and we're probably not going to get far arguing the proportions without some magical statistics -- but rather at what point of people doing stupid things we feel like it's reasonable for government to take certain actions. (And that's a role-of-government issue that's only incidentally related to facts about reality.)

P.S.: As a separate issue, what Lurker's laying out about "maximizing two intervals" is obviously one reason for existing waiting-period laws -- trying to prevent people from purchasing guns in the heat of a "shoot XX" impulse. I'm curious what everyone thinks of those? (And I mean apart from arguments over gun-show objections, which'd seem to be as much about logistics and economics as anything else.) But dudes like John Lott tend to think this is the worst thing ever, and will always point to some recent case of a woman being stalked who -- if she'd only been able to get a gun right then -- would have been able to defend herself against murder / rape / harrassment / whatever: a moving and sensible argument, really, but hard to balance the incidence of that situation versus crimes theoretically prevented.

― nabisco, Thursday, 19 April 2007 06:55 (nineteen years ago)

xpost I mean I think Lurker's intense language there is just an attempt to underline the notion of White Hot Rage, not so much to suggest he was really committed to doing that. Either way, there are plenty of people out there with anger issues, and no matter what we think about gun control, I think they and we both can be happy most of them don't have guns on hand when the anger issues flare up!

― nabisco, Thursday, 19 April 2007 06:59 (nineteen years ago)

Yes, I'm sure you've never had that impulse in your entire life. I'm also sure that, if someone tortured or persecuted you or someone you loved, you wouldn't have fantasies of getting elaborate vengeance upon them.

In fact, I'm so sure that, by golly, none of the people I've known who have been raped, robbed, tortured, and beaten -- or who have had such things happen to their loved ones -- they've never admitted to having such fantasies. Nope, never: they primly tuck their hands together, speak of wanting "justice to be done" by the proper authorities, and wash their silverware with iodine.

It's so nice that you're above all that. Well done!

(xpost - thanks Nabisco, you've got it exactly)

― lurker #2421, Thursday, 19 April 2007 07:00 (nineteen years ago)

(Also, keep in mind that I'm describing something I felt when I was a teenager, i.e. when the blood runs hot and the moral questions of the world seem rather simpler, or such was my experience. I'm glad, John Justen, that you saw fit to repay my candor with that seductive combination of smug moralizing and failure-to-read that makes the world a better place every time it happens!)

― lurker #2421, Thursday, 19 April 2007 07:03 (nineteen years ago)

Sorry, I just can't get past the fact that the supposed emotion expressed by lurker #xyz that I quoted above is either:

A) gross, unwarranted, invented emotion used to prove a predetermined point
B) actual feelings that are abhorrent and creepy beyond words

either way, whatever topical discussion it might provoke is valid, but unfortunately sullied by the way it was brought to the table.

xposts you know what? fuck you, dude. This conversation has been for the most part (well, maybe not in the beginning) civil, rational, and relatively moderate and related to the actuality of guns and the problematic nature of dealing with their position in society. I'll note that the scary, violent description you just posted isn't being spewed by your teenage self, but by someone who ought to understand that your use of "loaded language" is embarrassing. If you actually have some multitude of "people I've known who have been raped, robbed, tortured, and beaten -- or who have had such things happen to their loved ones", or even known one person who has had such an experience, well, then I apologize for misinterpreting your statements as gross and offensive hyperbole. Otherwise, quit parroting the right-wing nutjob justification as some sort of "I've felt this, and risen above it all" slipshod logical nonsense.

Also, no matter how genuine your feelings may be, drop the "but..but...what if someone use a racial epithet" nonsense. Either they did, or they didn't. Don't use it as a wall of defense unless it is something that ACTUALLY HAPPENED.

― John Justen, Thursday, 19 April 2007 07:21 (nineteen years ago)

If you actually have some multitude of "people I've known who have been raped, robbed, tortured, and beaten -- or who have had such things happen to their loved ones", or even known one person who has had such an experience, well, then I apologize for misinterpreting your statements as gross and offensive hyperbole.

Apology accepted.

― lurker #2421, Thursday, 19 April 2007 07:25 (nineteen years ago)

(On behalf of the two people I know who have had lit cigarettes put out on their bodies, for starters.)

― lurker #2421, Thursday, 19 April 2007 07:25 (nineteen years ago)

You do realize I'm pro-gun-control, by the way? I ask this because I'm wondering where the "right-wing" reference is coming from, exactly.

― lurker #2421, Thursday, 19 April 2007 07:28 (nineteen years ago)

Oh, I think that your psycho eye-for-a-bullet mentality is plenty right-wing nutjob for all of us.

Also, if you'd bothered to read the thread up until you jumped in without paying attention, you'd probably have figured out that I'm not necessarily for gun control, but jesus christ, I'm willing to change that position if it means that you are generally representative of the populace at large.

― John Justen, Thursday, 19 April 2007 07:41 (nineteen years ago)

By the way, I'll be much more apt to believe your "cigarette burn" stories as soon as you clarify that your use of "racial epithets" was also factual, instead of some trumped-up argument silencing card.

― John Justen, Thursday, 19 April 2007 07:43 (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.