The Great ILX Gun Control Debate

state and local laws are kinda worthless when you can buy guns in a different state/district and bring them in

but Texas is so big

state and local laws are kinda worthless when you can buy guns in a different state/district and bring them in

I had to do a Ctrl-F to check to see if I still agree with what I've said in the past. Yup. I do.

me either

this is as good a time as any for people to read stevens' dissent in heller:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZD.html

so so so so so so so many people, including liberals, just credulously absorb as fact the conventional wisdom that the second amendment gives people the absolute right to privately own guns and that the history of jurisprudence on the issue supports that. it's a much bigger problem than people being mean to 'liberal gun owners' (lol)

I'm not talking about being "mean" to liberal gun owners, I'm talking about basic coalition building

http://s3.amazonaws.com/dk-production/images/12613/large/TMW2012-12-19colorKOS.png?1355584910

more gun shops than grocery stores, McDonald's

http://www.businessinsider.com/more-gun-stores-in-america-than-grocery-stores-2012-12

it's not actually true, only more than supermarkets ie grocery stores w/ 2m+ in sales

assuming the figure includes big box chains that sell guns as well

If a big box sells guns, it is a gun store. (shrugs)

yeah i don't really disagree

bump

you needn't

you shan't

Out of curiosity I looked at the Walmart site. Found this nifty gun:

http://i.walmartimages.com/i/p/00/79/86/81/44/0079868144115_180X180.jpg

Which it outright delineates as" for use in law enforcement, military operations, the sporting field and competitive shooting."

Notice the order there.

should have added "and shoplifters"

New York State Common Retirement Fund reconsidering how much of its http://news.yahoo.com/newtown-backlash-prompts-gun-investment-overhaul-032547862--sector.html50 billion it invests in gun manufacturers, Smith & Wesson stocks drop 10%

I'm not entirely clear as to the causality of those two sentences, but a 10% drop may well explain any new eagerness to find solutions by its spokesmen ie the NRA.

Haha thanks there auto-convert - the figure is $150 billion.

Already interesting feature on "Fresh Air" focusing on the proliferation of assault weapons in American society. I guess guns like the AR-15 were designed c. Vietnam, following studies that revealed most soliders were not using their guns for accuracy but to simply spray bullets randomly in burst all over the place at short to medium range. Now moving on to the flaws of the '94 semi-auto assault weapon ban, and how/why Bushmaster flourished post ban...

Interesting, Hunting has apparently been on the decline, which has emphasized the marketing of so-called "tactical" rifles that mimic military design.

"Tactical" is just a marketing term in macho-world, correct? Otherwise, meaningless.

"tactless" doesn't have the same ring to it

meaningless, for sure. it's mil-speak, so it has that battlefiled aura, but there isn't a firearm in the world that couldn't be called "tactical".

New York State Common Retirement Fund reconsidering how much of its http://news.yahoo.com/newtown-backlash-prompts-gun-investment-overhaul-032547862--sector.html50 billion it invests in gun manufacturers, Smith & Wesson stocks drop 10%
I'm not entirely clear as to the causality of those two sentences, but a 10% drop may well explain any new eagerness to find solutions by its spokesmen ie the NRA.

― Andrew Farrell, Wednesday, December 19, 2012 10:41 PM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Institutional investors probably make up a large percentage of the holders of gun stocks. If they're increasingly going to be considering dumping their holdings, that's going to drive down the stock a lot. Selloffs cause price drops, and, somewhat circularly, rumors of big selloffs cause big selloffs.

Yeah, "tactical" is just a word to sub for "assault."

I'm more bothered by the implications of "tactical" as a marketing term than I am by the specs of the weapons actually.

Tactical marketing.

I mean I'm more bothered that there's an significant-sized demographic who sees "tactical" use as an important feature.

I mean I'm more bothered that there's an significant-sized demographic who sees "tactical" use as an important feature.

― drunk 'n' white's elements of style (Hurting 2), Thursday, December 20, 2012 12:11 PM (5 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

otm

not sure its an important feature to them as much as a cool sounding buzzword, which is equally troubling

I mean it definitely seems to feed some fantasy beyond just protecting your home against rapists or w/e

well i think it feeds the fantasy of home protection, but like home protection done in the most awesome badass way SEAL team 6 way possible. you're not some pussy reaching weakly for a .38 and hoping to fend off an invader, you're an ~operator~ who is neutralizing the threat before it even knows what happened, and then maybe i dunno sneaking up on the invader's buddies waiting in the driveway, might just say fuck it and go take out their leader

so yeah, it is basically fulfilling some desire to be more than a mere "self-defender"---it's giving you license to dream of societal collapse, and empowers you to believe that when the End Comes you'll be among the privileged and powerful

imo

while obv they don't account for much actual gun violence, the post-apocalyptic fantasies of preppers are o_O to the max, esp when tied to their not-so-subtle attempts to immanentize the eschaton

Josh, pretty much everything you wrote is somewhat wrong. Will explain when I'm not on my phone.

Those fantasies are just another form of racism dressed up in paranoid narcissism. It is the ultimate selfishness to think the world is ending in a way and at a time that is all. about. you.

How much extra insurance costs do people have to pay when they own guns? Because that's one area where there could be big/prohibitive charges for owning weaponry of any kind.

bated

xp

Cool, waiting for Milo's correction. Just relaying what I heard on the radio, which I assumed was true/accurate, as I do everything I hear or see or read.

the insurance question is a good one. looking quickly i see some people are urging mandatory gun insurance.

Absolutely. Anything to better regulate the militia, riiiiiight?

Also would create a new (and necessary) market for insurance companies and maybe distract them from trying to fuck up health care.

I don't think you have to be an extreme nut or prepper to have some fantasies or enjoy some macho or military talk around guns.

I guess guns like the AR-15 were designed c. Vietnam, following studies that revealed most soliders were not using their guns for accuracy but to simply spray bullets randomly in burst all over the place at short to medium range.

I thought there were some vietnam-era studies that showed that a lot of soldiers were intentionally missing or just shooting at nothing in particular.

a national form of gun insurance (ie redistributive tax, where milo helps pay for things like newtown) would be a good idea, but if you wanted to create a large private insurance market changes in liability would be more important than just making it mandatory

wacky terbacky

OK, looks like the AR-15 was actually the root inspiration for the likes of the AK-47 and M-16. The Bushmaster adaptation specifically was post 'Nam, and of course only semi-automatic, but did take into account a general disinterest in accuracy, unlike its original '50s design. But Milo knows best!

just a quick factiod: in general semi-automatics are less accurate than bolt action rifles or revolvers because some of the energy used to fire the projectile is used to mechanically reload the next bullet, so the velocity drops. physics!

Uh... even more wrong, Josh.

quick trip through military history (I grew up reading my father's history books, so this is largely separate from my hobby):
during and prior to WWII, the primary infantry weapon was a battle rifle - big, heavy, wooden stock, long barrel, firing a large round. In the US this was the M1903 Springfield (bolt-action) and then the M1 Garand (semi-auto)

near the end of WWII the Germans introduced the first assault rifle - intermediate cartridge, magazine fed, select-fire (capable of semi- or full-auto). This was the Stg44. It was lighter than battle rifles that preceded it, ammunition was lighter, allowing soldiers to carry more, magazine loading is less fussy than the methods used with bolt actions/the Garand/etc.

after the war, the Soviets had captured a shit-ton of Stg44's and decided to introduce their own intermediate cartridge (7.62x39) and similar rifle, which led to the AK-47 in... 1947.

After Korea, NATO member states decided to standardize on ammunition, starting with rifles - the chosen round was 7.62 NATO, which was basically the same as the .30-06 that had been used in American rifles.
The US military adopted the M14 in 1958 after some shady trials - it was a modernized M1 Garand. Big, heavy, wooden-stocked but capable of full auto fire and magazine-fed. Problem was, it was somewhat uncontrollable in full auto mode, heavy and expensive.

By the mid-60s, the US military had decided to modernize further and turned to the AR-15 design, turning it into the US's first assault rifle, the M-16. It fired an even smaller round than than the intermediate assault rifles (5.56x45) or battle rifles, making it more controllable. It was also lighter, allowed soldiers to carry even more ammunition, and there's less upkeep on the exterior of the rifle than one made with wood. It was problematic in Vietnam and the design was widely panned for a very long time.
Military doctrine has always been to discourage fully automatic fire from most infantry and eventually M-16s were converted to no longer had the capability, with 3-round bursts.

Which is to say that:
the AK-47 has nothing to do with the design of the AR-15 or M-16
the idea that it was designed to encourage a disinterest in accuracy is absurd - an M16/M4/AR-15 is less accurate than your average bolt-action rifle or some specific semi-autos, but it is not inaccurate
the military seeks, at every opportunity, to discourage infantry from spraying lead. It's ineffective, wastes ammo and leads to civilian casualties and friendly fire. The option still exists on most M4 carbines (separate from M16s but sharing the same basic design) but is discouraged.

Likewise, fully-automatic fire is ineffective for criminals/mass murderers/etc. because it's hard to control even in something like a M-16. Your muzzle rises further the longer you hold the trigger.

Now, on to the civilian side:
'Bushmaster' is not an adaptation or special design. They're a company that produces AR-15s, a basic design that's in the public domain. There are literally hundreds and perhaps thousands of producers of the AR-15 today.

Bushmaster is also not a dominant market force - they were one of the first companies to widely produce AR-15s for civilians aside from Colt, and they did so cheaper. So during the first assault weapons ban, Bushmaster had a huge share of the market. By the end of the ban, all the other companies had sprung up and Bushmaster was relegated to selling cheaper, mass-market AR-15s that are less reliable and less well-made. Their market share is much smaller than in the past, the end of the AWB was probably the worst thing that could have happened to them.

sorry if even more wrong sounded hostile. It's annoying when outlets like Fresh Air get basic details very wrong.