The Great ILX Gun Control Debate

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.

re: tactical language, I think that's largely a product of 10 years of warfare and the emphasis on special forces/operations in those wars (in media coverage, movies, etc.)
They're presented as super badasses, borderline mystical warrior-gods and so they become easy objects of fantasy

i thought ak47s were the "spray and pray" guns?

Eh, in the words of someone firing one of these things, close enough.

which gun goes "blakka blakka blakka blakka" and which gun goes "BUCK BUCK BUCK BUCK"? i only know guns from rap music

We're subject to the whims of the AK-47 per cent right now, and it sucks.

freddie foxx switched from tech 9s to walther PPKs, tech 9s were prone to jamming

what gun shd i buy for christmas

http://www.racketboy.com/retro/lightgun1.jpg

Ak-47s can be, but that's largely down to training/doctrine. AKs have that reputation from their use by untrained guerrillas/etc. and from some differences in Soviet doctrine vs. NATO/US.

A modern AK (they're not really AK-47s anymore, the Russians even use a small cartridge similar to what we use) is less accurate than your average AR-15/M4/etc., but it's not wildly inaccurate.

i think spray and pray is usually more linked to automatic handguns like uzis tbh

milo, I enjoy your historical knowledge of guns. I hope that you are curator at the world's foremost gun museum after The Great Confiscation of 2013

It'd be awesome if there were gun bars like there are cigar bars. Like, the only place you can carry and use and measure muzzles is in select back rooms.

"Measuring muzzles" *euphemism face*

otm there should be a gun/cigarette room in each city and all guns and smoking is confined to that one room

Also it is a very small room.

Airport lounge, too.

No ventilation, doors lock from outside.

also it is pitch black and there are snakes and scorpions on the floor

And you should have to feed a meter, like peepshows and public toilets in France.

you know what's more dangerous than guns? ping pong

Texas Rep Kyle Kacal: "I've heard of people being killed playing ping-pong -- ping-pongs are more dangerous than guns," he said. "Flat-screen TVs are injuring more kids today than anything."

It'd be awesome if there were gun bars like there are cigar bars.

There already is one: http://machinegunsvegas.com

Coming soon to a Facebook news feed near you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=64G5FfG2Xpg

What do you mean, coming soon? #sotwohoursago

the part of the NRA statement where he called for a database to "track" the mentally ill was fucking chilling.

Hey, some of our FB news feeds are more sluggish than others. Half of mine is still making Mayan jokes.

the part of the NRA statement where he called for a database to "track" the mentally ill was fucking chilling.

http://www.hungry-for-hunting.com/image-files/hunter-tracking-deer-in-snow-resized.jpg

Guy sounded most like a complete nutjob in need of meds (like 99th percentile of crazy) when making that suggestion.

Um, guys, there were lots of people - even ILXors - talking about mental health exams for potential gun buyers.
Government "database of the mentally ill" is pretty much exactly what that amounts to.

Obviously a terrible idea in all contexts.

A gun buyer is a specific subset of the mentally ill

Are the mentally ill (meaning, those who've had inpatient mental health care, either forced or voluntary) banned/exempt from jury duty, as in the UK?

I think that's up to voir dire.

A gun buyer is a specific subset of the mentally ill

― toy_sleigher (Sufjan Grafton), Friday, December 21, 2012 1:49 PM (10 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

this came out as a sloppy zing by accident. My intended meaning is that subjecting a gun buyer to a mental examination is not the same as keeping a database of all those deemed "mentally ill" since not all of the people deemed "mentally ill" will try to buy a gun.

prefer the zing tbh

the zing certainly lacked the "stating what everyone can easily see for themselves" quality of my intended meaning. yet, I don't actually think that every gun purchaser is mentally ill.

http://i489.photobucket.com/albums/rr251/mookieproof/huff_zps84245799.gif

Um, guys, there were lots of people - even ILXors - talking about mental health exams for potential gun buyers.
Government "database of the mentally ill" is pretty much exactly what that amounts to.

Obviously a terrible idea in all contexts.

I know, what a terrible idea to prevent the mentally ill from owning guns. It would be like denying a driver's license to the visually impaired. Or it would be following in the footsteps of fascist states like Japan or the U.S. who have laws to prevent the mentally ill from owning firearms. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-horwitz/auroras-hard-truth-mental_b_1727695.html

the relevant portion since I'm sure milo won't actually read that...

Under federal law, an individual is prohibited from buying or possessing firearms if they have been "adjudicated as a mental defective" or "committed to a mental institution." A person is "adjudicated as a mental defective" if a court -- or other entity having legal authority to make adjudications -- has made a determination that an individual, as a result of mental illness: 1) Is a danger to himself or to others; 2) Lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs; 3) Is found insane by a court in a criminal case, or incompetent to stand trial, or not guilty by reason of lack of mental responsibility pursuant to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. A person is "committed to a mental institution" if that person has been involuntarily committed to a mental institution by a court or other lawful authority. This expressly excludes voluntary commitment. If a person falls under one of these two categories, they are prohibited from purchasing and possessing firearms for life -- although federal law now allows states to establish procedures for such individuals to restore their right to purchase or possess firearms. Many states have done so at the behest of the National Rifle Association, with questionable results.

but I understand that it would be a terrible injustice to infringe on the 2nd amendment rights of someone who isn't actually "adjudicated as a mental defective" but merely wants to shoot up a bunch of children.

there are some legitimate 4th amendment concerns arising from some of the proposals by pro-gun control ppl imo

i'd rather be judged by nuts than carried by dicks

I know, what a terrible idea to prevent the mentally ill from owning guns.

You realize that's not even vaguely what I said, right?

From Tony Horwitz via Ta-Nehisi Coates, I think this comparison of 19th century slaveholders and 20th/21st century pro-gun people is, uh, dead on.

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/12/the-nra-and-the-positive-good-of-maximum-guns/266571/

I don't even get the NRA's position at this point. I mean, I am in No way surprised that they don't support a gun ban, but to respond by suggesting the solution to the overarching problem is introducing more guns, you're basically saying "We need to wait until the gunman is on the doorstep, and then deal with him", you know, never mind the fact that by the time any armed officer intervenes, several people may have already been mowed down, and that you are inviting a gunfight to happen on a school campus, one which may strike down bystanders.