I'm gonna c&p from the "spree shooting" thread cuz these posts should be here
So long as any legalese makes it difficult for anyone, no matter how rich or motivated, to purchase a weapon capable of killing dozens before law enforcement can intervene, or weapons modifications that accomplish the same, I'd be content. I agree with the gun experts that the old assault weapons ban focused on cosmetic aspects, and just caused the manufacturers to cosmetically modify their designs. Focus on measurable quantities like "muzzle energy x rounds per minute when fired by a competent firer". Fix the threshold value so that typical hunting weapons like 1+4 round shotguns or bolt action rifles, or smaller ammunition capacity self-defense handguns, are permitted, but semi auto rifles or submachine guns with higher ammunition capacity, can't. The legislation is a soluable problem.
Would that still permit most gun homicides and suicides? Yes, and that's tragic. But it would prevent murder sprees on the scale of Sandy Hook or Mandalay Bay.
― prelude to abjection (Sanpaku), Tuesday, October 3, 2017 8:09 PM (two days ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
^ should read: "semi-auto versions of military assault rifles and submachine guns with..."
― prelude to abjection (Sanpaku), Tuesday, October 3, 2017 8:11 PM (two days ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
ay be worth starting a “Las Vegas shooting and it’s aftermath” thread as things get bonkers. Not prone to conspiracies, but ready to believe that...well, let’s see...
― Eazy, Tuesday, October 3, 2017 11:01 PM (nine minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
What does that mean?
― a serious and fascinating fartist (Simon H.)
i don't know, but you know they'll be cranking out conspiracies for this one. someone upthread mentioned the absolute horror of sandy hook and how it might have prompted more conspiracies than normal. on one hand you have the people making shit up to try to counter what they believe will be an event that could turn people against their precious 2nd amendment, and on the other you have people subconsciously searching for any sort of explanation other than the real one, that their fellow co-humans are capable of unleashing madness and mayhem on children while everyone around them does literally nothing in response. the same applies to las vegas. the bogeymen of "islamic terrorism" or mythic evil immigrant violence is absent and you have people like jimmy kimmel tearfully addressing the situation and speaking out about it honestly, so those who stand for the 2nd amendment will find another story to tell themselves and they'll find an eager audience that wants to hear any other story other than the one that actually happened.
― you = too slow (Karl Malone), Tuesday, October 3, 2017 8:21 PM (two days ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
when i catch a glimpse of alex jones i begin to morph into a guy with bandaged knuckles who says "...i got mad and punched a wall", so i can't bear to check, but i'm assuming today he talked about everything in las vegas except for what actually happened
― you = too slow (Karl Malone), Tuesday, October 3, 2017 8:23 PM (two days ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
Whats transpired btw with ISIS trying to claim this one? I mean people claim all sorts of rubbish but is it confirmed theirs was rubbish?
― Stoop Crone (Trayce), Tuesday, October 3, 2017 8:31 PM (two days ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
Alfred very OTM here. Gun advocates take full advantage of the lack of information of (many) on the other side to simply paint them as ignorant and alarmist. As a dude who grew up with guns and was a high level competitive shooter as a teen that now has not a single firearm in the home and only technically owns them because of a collection of antique handguns that is stored in a locked location at my mothers house with no available ammunition, I'm happy to clarify things for anybody that wants information. AMA I guess?
― jjjusten, Tuesday, October 3, 2017 8:48 PM (two days ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
Some starter hints - learn the distinction between automatic and semi-automatic weapons, and be careful about using the terms. I've seen hundreds of posts/tweets about how automatic weapons should be illegal, followed by immediate "they are u dumb lib" shutdowns. We can't open the conversation that way anymore.
(Oh and to flappy bird, magazines=clips. It's the removable/replaceable piece of a semi-automatic (or automatic) that allows for how many rounds can be fired before you need to reload the gun. Higher capacity=more shots that can be fired before replacing the magazine. Pedantically yes, bolt action rifles can also use magazines. Revolvers (which is your usual old school film noir/"six-shooter"/cowboy handgun, still heavily used today) can't. "Tactical" shotguns can, pump-action or double barrel/single shot shotguns can't. Yes, there are semi-automatic shotguns, because hey, what a wonderful world we live in. No automatic ones though.)
― jjjusten, Tuesday, October 3, 2017 8:59 PM (two days ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
Yeah, there's a lot of technical information a person can learn about firearms, including not just highly specific details regarding every part of the weapons and their ammunition, but also the forces generated by firing and how or if they can be damped, how to sight in a scope, gun cleaning and maintenance, plus all the accessories - holsters, gun safes, trigger locks. It is a whole world of details heaped upon details and hobbyists and enthusiasts eat that stuff up and never tire of it.
But very little of that massive heap of facts has any real bearing on whether one can understand the basic issues addressed by proposed gun control laws.
― A is for (Aimless), Tuesday, October 3, 2017 9:05 PM (two days ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
while i get how being gun-conversant can be helpful for establishing credibility with the pro-gun advocates, i do think that sane gun policy really shouldn't require knowing the difference between a revolver and a semi-automatic, or, like, a .338 Lapua or .308 winchester. this i think serves the interests of the gun lobby by making gun safety about the lethal capabilities of guns in the hands of a "trained" shooter and not, say, an angry domestic abuser or suicidal person. in those situations, the rounds per minute or stopping power or w/e are largely irrelevant. gun violence in the US is largely banal, and gun legislation should reflect that.
xp
― gbx, Tuesday, October 3, 2017 9:09 PM (two days ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
whoa people still use revolvers? cool
― flappy bird, Tuesday, October 3, 2017 9:09 PM (two days ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
if the focus is on how to limit the lethality of johnny trenchcoat by making large volume magazines and suppressors illegal (both of which: make them illegal!) and not on making garden variety handguns difficult to obtain (they're not!), we're missing the trick imo
― gbx, Tuesday, October 3, 2017 9:12 PM (two days ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
i'm all for the demystification of guns as 'violent objects' if it serves an end result that is: fewer guns, fewer people enamored with them. i worry, a little bit, that an emphasis on the correct understanding of the mechanical details subserves the idea that "guns don't kill people, people do". i realize that i didn't always post that way on here, times change, do not @ me
― gbx, Tuesday, October 3, 2017 9:23 PM (two days ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
i'm just astonished at people who think silencers make gunshots completely silent
― Erotic Wolf (crüt), Tuesday, October 3, 2017 9:31 PM (two days ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
goldeneye has a lot to answer for
― gbx, Tuesday, October 3, 2017 9:35 PM (two days ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
I'm right there with you in general gbx (esp in the way that I've been an endless broken record about the mistaken idea that lethality is linked to gun type on here before) but but if we want to reach rational gun owners, the ones that are largely in favor of workable restrictions and can be turned against the NRA we need to look reasonably educated and informed about the issue. Also we need to avoid the terrible pitfalls of cosmetic assault rifle legislation which I am now convinced set us more steps back than forward and I'm still pissed at weak willed NRA petrified dems for selling that half-measure bullshit instead of actual functional things that might have not only stood up to scrutiny but actually, you know, worked. That political capital could have been spent on closing the goddamn gun show loophole, but yet here we are.
― jjjusten, Tuesday, October 3, 2017 9:51 PM (two days ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
I am curious how many people (not going to speak for gbx but I count myself in this number) have crossed that line of growing up with guns, not being afraid of guns as object or w/e, but ending up mortified and terrified by the way guns function culturally in the modern day. Also, it's terrifying how many of the new culturally identifying pro-gun people are wildly ignorant about the realities of guns - AR15 worship is fucking stupid on a purely logical level. AR15 mod worship is ten times as stupid, and the dudes that fetishize flash suppressors and folding stocks ought to be looked at by hunters the same way car nerds look at those rolling coal assholes. No one with a basic understanding of how this shit works should or does believe in the good guy with a gun myth. I'd like to think there's a whole quiet chunk of people with my background that are ready to get flipped, but maybe that's optimistic/delusional.
― jjjusten, Tuesday, October 3, 2017 10:12 PM (two days ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
OT and XP jjustin: Some gun nuts will be pedantic about magazines ≠ clips. The magazine is the box from which rounds are fed, and most magazines on modern firearms are detachable. However, in some older rifles (Russian Mosin–Nagant, British Lee–Enfield, German Mauser K98k, US Springfield M1903, Soviet SKS) the magazine is fixed, and rounds are fed into it on a clip.
― prelude to abjection (Sanpaku), Tuesday, October 3, 2017 11:28 PM (two days ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
That's true.
― jjjusten, Wednesday, October 4, 2017 12:22 AM (yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
I'm not mortified or terrified by guns but the gun culture itself has gone 0-60 nutso since ~2010-11 (there was always a present right-wing element, definitely post-2008 but it kicked into overdrive with the tea party/mainstreaming of survivalist culture) where I have basically no interest in being around other shooters at gun ranges or competitions and have sold all but the last couple of guns (which I'm just too lazy to drive to Cabela's to sell).
― louise ck (milo z), Wednesday, October 4, 2017 12:55 AM (yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
Also since a black guy was let run some things
― passé aggresif (darraghmac), Wednesday, October 4, 2017 1:19 AM (yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
Yeah, there's a lot of technical information a person can learn about firearms, including not just highly specific details regarding every part of the weapons and their ammunition, but also the forces generated by firing and how or if they can be damped, how to sight in a scope, gun cleaning and maintenance, plus all the accessories - holsters, gun safes, trigger locks. It is a whole world of details heaped upon details and hobbyists and enthusiasts eat that stuff up and never tire of it.
But very little of that massive heap of facts has any real bearing on whether one can understand the basic issues addressed by proposed gun control laws.
― A is for (Aimless), Wednesday, October 4, 2017
If a person doesn't know what the hell he wants banned or regulated, then he's not understanding "the basic issues addressed by proposed gun control laws."
― the Rain Man of nationalism. (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, October 4, 2017 3:52 AM (yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
Do potatoes make guns totally silent???
I grew up around a lot of guns, mostly for hunting, but also large "collections" of various firearms that seemed to serve no purpose other than being decorations in our trailer gun cabinets. Now pretty much mortified. Ban them and go into people's houses and take them away. I don't care how unfeasible that is.
― Jeff, Wednesday, October 4, 2017 4:00 AM (yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
Or just get Luke Cage to go in and bend all the barrels.
― Jeff, Wednesday, October 4, 2017 4:03 AM (yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
Less 'unfeasible' and more 'high body count'.
― Andrew Farrell, Wednesday, October 4, 2017 4:03 AM (yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
But the right ppl, perhaps
― passé aggresif (darraghmac), Wednesday, October 4, 2017 4:05 AM (yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
This guy had a whopping 47 guns ("to protect himself from the gummint" obv), right? Is there even a max limit on how much you're allowed to own?
Heard a replay of this on the radio this morning. From April this year:
(CNSNews.com) – President Donald Trump pledged to never infringe on the 2nd Amendment during a speech at the National Rifle Association’s meeting in Atlanta, Ga., on Friday.
“We all took an oath to preserve and protect the Constitution of the United States, and that means defending the 2nd Amendment. So let me make a simple to every one of the freedom-loving Americans in the audience today: as your president, I will never, ever infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms – never, ever,” Trump said. "Freedom is not a gift from government. Freedom is a gift from God,” he added.
― Le Bateau Ivre, Wednesday, October 4, 2017 5:37 AM (yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
cos God wants you to have guns
― Well bissogled trotters (Michael B), Wednesday, October 4, 2017 6:04 AM (yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
[....]
He might have set aside some for killing a lot of people, hard to know.
― Andrew Farrell, Wednesday, October 4, 2017 6:09 AM (yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
if god didn't want us to have guns then why did he give us trigger fingers, think about that
― this is ridcolus (Old Lunch), Wednesday, October 4, 2017 6:11 AM (yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
Come on, God has always wanted you to kill people, He loves dead people, the more the merrier.
― Tom's Tits Experiment (Tom D.), Wednesday, October 4, 2017 6:19 AM (yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
the defeatism and apathy in this thread and on the left in general on this issue depresses me
― k3vin k., Wednesday, October 4, 2017 6:29 AM (yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
A lot of defeatism perhaps but apathy no
― Well bissogled trotters (Michael B), Wednesday, October 4, 2017 6:34 AM (yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
It's depressing, I agree. When the massacre of young children isn't enough to effect a change, I honestly don't know what it would take. We'll probably have to wait until the majority of Americans have been personally affected by something like this, because mass shootings are still a thing that only happens to Other People.
― this is ridcolus (Old Lunch), Wednesday, October 4, 2017 6:36 AM (yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
I am curious how many people (not going to speak for gbx but I count myself in this number) have crossed that line of growing up with guns, not being afraid of guns as object or w/e, but ending up mortified and terrified by the way guns function culturally in the modern day.
This is pretty much me - my grandfather was a crazy paranoid gun nut who always, ALWAYS, had a loaded gun nearby. When he lived with us for a while he kept a Mossberg police shotgun (shortest legal barrel, highest capacity) in the closet, kept an unlicensed handgun in his desk at work, and probably always had a loaded pistol under his car seat. He went to gun shows, never hunted, hated the IRS, and I'm sort of glad he never lived til the Fox News era because it would have really soured my memories of him.
That shit was super fun when I was 13 (and, admittedly, probably still would be) - shooting targets and beer cans and clay pigeons with pistols and semi-autos with large magazines and shotguns can be viscerally thrilling, and I see why people get way into it. But being able to enjoy that activity vs. repeated mass murder of innocents isn't even a fucking contest - I'm happy to deprive everyone of their ability to do this forever because it's a dumb, pointless hobby and you can find something better to do with your time.
I think it's true that there is an opportunity to separate the gun nuts from sane, reasonable hunters - people who see guns as toys or some sort of "fuck you you can't tell me what to do" political/paranoid expression vs. people who use guns as a means to an end. I know my inlaws are horrified by gun violence and asshole gun fetishists and the NRA but they love to walk in the woods and hunt birds and deer and eat what they shoot, store their guns unloaded and locked up, and they would have no problem paying insurance to own a gun or to have limited capacity firearms. You don't need a 30 round magazine to shoot a deer.
― joygoat, Wednesday, October 4, 2017 6:58 AM (yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
yeah and it's depressing that this point seems to be such a nonstarter. I posted a tirade about this on FB and the response I kept getting was "guns can't kill if people don't pull the trigger, the problem is not guns". to which it's like...well you ain't necessarily wrong there but personally I prefer MY murderous lunatics to be wielding a knife or a six-shooter instead of something which can fire a hundred bullets in under a minute.
― frogbs, Wednesday, October 4, 2017 7:22 AM (yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
especially since this is the same crowd who loves the idea of the border wall. you point out "what's this gonna reduce illegal immigration by, 5%?" and their response is, "that's good enough for me. it's something". hmmm. ya don't say.
― frogbs, Wednesday, October 4, 2017 7:24 AM (yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
I think it’s past time to stop calling gun collecting a hobby. Table top games and woodworking and reading and playing instruments = hobbies.
If I bought cadavers and butchered them in my garage I doubt my neighbors would think of that as a hobby. And it would still be a universe removed, in terms of harmfulness to life, from gun collecting.
― El Tomboto, Wednesday, October 4, 2017 7:59 AM (yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
but is owning Clue or Monopoly a right recgonized by the Supreme Court?
― the Rain Man of nationalism. (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, October 4, 2017 8:00 AM (yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
Fuck the Supreme Court.
― El Tomboto, Wednesday, October 4, 2017 8:03 AM (yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
Anyone who thinks guns are not the problem should be shot with one.
― El Tomboto, Wednesday, October 4, 2017 8:04 AM (yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
Just in the hand, though.
― El Tomboto, Wednesday, October 4, 2017 8:05 AM (yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
Brand the NRA as a terrorist org, imo. An intermediate step but an important one.
― this is ridcolus (Old Lunch), Wednesday, October 4, 2017 8:06 AM (yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
lotta good posts here today that I kinda wish were on the gun control thread, thanks y'all
― sleeve, Wednesday, October 4, 2017 8:08 AM (yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
― sleeve, Thursday, 5 October 2017 20:36 (six years ago) link
fuck it, this too:
was curious whether my above suggestion of some sort of more objective measure (sustained aimed fire total muzzle energy) would distinguish hunting and self-defense firearms from assault weapons. As opposed to earlier assault weapons bans based on cosmetic features. After searching around for sustained/effective ROF, I think it would:
semi-auto 9mm/.45 pistol: 40 rds/min x 400 ft-lbs = 16000 ft-lbs/min
.357 Magnum revolver: 30 rds/min x 600 ft-lbs = 18000 ft-lbs/min
bolt-action .308 hunting rifle: 15 rds/min x 2800 ft-lbs = 42000 ft-lbs/min
12 ga 5 rd pump shotgun: 15 rds/min x 3000 ft-lbs = 45000 ft-lbs/min
semi-auto magazine-fed 5.56 rifle: 90 rds/min x 1300 ft-lbs = 117000 ft-lbs/min
automatic 7.62 rifle: 120 rds/min x 1500 ft-lbs = 180000 ft-lbs/min
There's a threshold issue with SMGs (automatic weapons firing pistol rounds), eg an Uzi would come in at 120x383 = 46000 ft-lbs/min, but strengthening current restrictions on automatic weapons would resolve this. How would one obtain sustained aimed rates of fire? Why not have a contest among ATF agents with the candidate weapon, with the winner or top 3 setting the value. Does a weapons modification (larger magazine, bump stock, crank) push values higher? Put it to the test.
― prelude to abjection (Sanpaku), Wednesday, October 4, 2017 12:55 PM (yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
“I don’t think we ought to punish 80, 90 million gun owners who have a right to own a weapon under the Constitution because of the act of one idiot,” said Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.). “Just like I don’t think we ought to condemn all Muslims because of the act of one jihadist.”
why just condemn when you can ban them from the country outright
― frogbs, Wednesday, October 4, 2017 12:57 PM (yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
punish 80, 90 million gun owners
totally psyched to help these fine americans out w/ increased risk of meaningless death, glad i could contribute to the american idea somehow
― j., Wednesday, October 4, 2017 2:06 PM (yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
http://highline.huffingtonpost.com/articles/en/gun-violence
― Chocolate-covered gummy bears? Not ruling those lil' guys out. (ulysses), Wednesday, October 4, 2017 2:26 PM (yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
xxp -
The number of people on Earth who can reload and fire a .357 five times in one minute is probably in the dozens. Even with Moon Clips/reloaders and practice, that's an incredibly high threshold.
Three magazine changes for a 9mm semi-auto is pretty much anyone who spends a full day practicing.
What any 'objective measure' along the lines of what you're trying to do is going to end up with centerfire semi-autos being the weapons that need to be banned. Just start from that point and skip the million things that could be nitpicked (different ammo and barrel lengths drastically alter force, etc.).
I'd also say that what you're looking is a question relevant to spree shootings and ignores the way guns are used every single day in American violence. A low-powered .22lr or slow revolver is every bit as useful to/dangerous in the hands of gangs or a domestic abuser.
― louise ck (milo z), Wednesday, October 4, 2017 2:42 PM (yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
Which is to say that trying to make objective measurements that determine the potential lawfulness of a gun would be wasted energy, IMO. Making violence more abstract isn't convincing a soul.
― louise ck (milo z), Wednesday, October 4, 2017 2:45 PM (yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
The pretense that any gun is designed for anything besides killing other humans is a fucking joke anyway. Usefulness for hunting game remains a side benefit of the basic design
― El Tomboto, Wednesday, October 4, 2017 3:33 PM (yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
Force gun owners to trade their boomsticks in for bows and spears, imo. And then they have to teach themselves flint flaking if they actually want an edged weapon. Let's just return to the Paleolithic and see if we can get it right with a do-over, is what I'm saying here.
― this is ridcolus (Old Lunch), Wednesday, October 4, 2017 3:44 PM (yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
narrator: they didn't.
― nomar, Wednesday, October 4, 2017 3:46 PM (yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
So my congressman Carlos Curbelo is writing a bill to ban bump stock.
― the Rain Man of nationalism. (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, October 4, 2017 3:48 PM (yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
milo z: That's the point. I took the most extreme rates possible rates of fire for typical hunting and self-defense weapons, and the total kinetic energy involved is still less than half of what can be achieved with assault rifles, whether semi-auto or fully auto.
What I'm looking for is a way to ban AK and M4/16 type weapons, that isn't mainly cosmetic (and hence comical/circumventable), that could could create fissures amongst gun owning voters. Personally, I'd like to see a day when only (some) law enforcement, and biologists/geologists in the wilderness, carry, but that would require a marked cultural shift, and every journey starts with a step.
― prelude to abjection (Sanpaku), Wednesday, October 4, 2017 3:55 PM (yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
tombot otm
― k3vin k., Wednesday, October 4, 2017 4:01 PM (yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
The problem with that is that there are dozens of rifles just as 'capable' as the AK/AR platforms. The Ruger Mini-14 would just make a comeback - it was a favorite of the survivalist types back in the day because it had all the capabilities of an AR without the stigma (or legal restrictions). There is nothing special about AKs/ARs aside from current ubiquity - any magazine-fed centerfire semi-automatic is as capable or more capable. Differentiating beyond that is pointless.
Naming certain types of rifle is a fool's errand - anyone you can convince to get down with a 'ban' on ARs would be fine with banning semi-auto centerfires in general.
― louise ck (milo z), Wednesday, October 4, 2017 4:05 PM (yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
I'm not sure you're reading Sanpaku's post, there.
― Andrew Farrell, Wednesday, October 4, 2017 4:17 PM (yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
Heaven forfend such an abomination should come to pass.
― bumbling my way toward the light or wahtever (hardcore dilettante), Wednesday, October 4, 2017 4:18 PM (yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
xp yeah, Sanpaku only named certain rifles as examples while suggesting a metric that should ban a more general set.
― you are juror number 144 and we will excuse you (Sufjan Grafton), Wednesday, October 4, 2017 4:21 PM (yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
And I'm giving the general set and it doesn't require speed-shooting competitions or assumptive math about joules of energy delivered (which is also a terrible measure - we adopted a 5.56 round despite generating less power because it tumbles when it hits flesh and causes more damage) : centerfire externally magazine-fed semi-automatic weapons. That's the entirety of the meaningful differentiation and what that math will lead to.
― louise ck (milo z), Wednesday, October 4, 2017 4:32 PM (yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
ah, I see. Thanks for clarifying.
― you are juror number 144 and we will excuse you (Sufjan Grafton), Wednesday, October 4, 2017 4:47 PM (yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
If our political goal is to (if possible) find fissures among gun owners between those who have hunting rifles/shotguns and self-defense handguns, and the much smaller number who are hoarding military guns for a revolution, then I'm not sure "external magazine + centerfire + semiauto" would work, as it would include too many handguns. There are centerfire pistol cartridges, some used in external magazine handguns. Politically, we're not going to find final solutions tomorrow, but we can chip away at the margins.
Why are assault style weapons favored by some spree killers? Magazine fed semi-auto volume of fire + rifle cartridge kinetic energy. These aren't cosmetic distinctions. A Mini-14 is little different from the AR-15s found at Mandalay Bay, here (and yes, there are bump stocks for Mini-14s).
― prelude to abjection (Sanpaku), Wednesday, October 4, 2017 4:59 PM (yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
Why are assault style weapons favored by some spree killers?
This is pretty simple: because AR-15s and AK-47s are the most ubiquitous semi-automatic rifles in the world. Not only are variations available at every gun dealer in the country, they've been front and center in movies, video games and television for 50 years (and the standard weapon for our military and the militaries we've fought). .223 and 5.56 are as common as dirt because they're our primary military caliber. It's not more complicated than that. It's not because of any special capability (beyond semi-automatic/magazine-fed).
Almost* every semi-auto centerfire rifle (chambered for a rifle round) made could been used to commit the Las Vegas shooting - a pistol-caliber rifle probably could not in the same way, but it could have in Sandy Hook or Pulse.
(exceptions being things like very large caliber sniper rifles or weapons made so poorly they wouldn't shoot)
fissures among gun owners between those who have hunting rifles/shotguns and self-defense handguns, and the much smaller number who are hoarding military guns for a revolution
This is a pretty useless distinction today - beyond being a single circle in many respects, if you assume that ARs and AKs belong only to a lunatic fringe of the far right you're simply wrong. You're not going to exploit any fissures by lumping in the guy who bought a Colt because he saw an AR on Call of Duty with anti-government extremists or spree killers - you're just going to make him defensive. Whether or not you believe bans/etc. are the morally right thing to do, thinking that's going to create consensus is incredibly dubious.
The place to exploit fissures would be with the gunshow loophole. It wouldn't do much, if anything, in the short term as far as spree shootings or day to day violence (but no less than an 'assault weapons ban') and could easily be ignored but legally requiring that sales take place at a dealer who can perform the paperwork and background check (and benefits because he gets to charge $30 for the process) normalizes further gun control. That's been the most successful process - background checks at all were anathema thirty years ago but no one bats an eye now, until 1968 we didn't have even the licensed dealer/paperwork setup we have now but no one in the country could imagine returning to completely unfettered new gun sales.
― louise ck (milo z), Wednesday, October 4, 2017 5:24 PM (yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
This guy bought six of his weapons at a Cabela's, and his (12, according to some reports) bump fire stocks online, it seems. He had enough firepower in that hotel room for not just an infantry squad, but a full section (the ol' half-platoon). Closing gun show loopholes would have had no effect on *this* spree shooting.
Personally, I have to take (too abbreviated) driver's licence testing every decade, have brake tags checked every 2 years, and carry insurance in case my driving harms others or their property. The idea that anyone can obtain more lethal mechanical devices, with no training, no licencing, and no insurance, should appall us.
This actually suggests another, "market friendly", approach. Mandate that home insurance cover medical/civil lawsuit costs of guns in the home. If the insurance lobby can save us from drunk drivers, not wearing seatbelts, and building in flood plains, perhaps they could save us from the American gun pandemic. This hasn't stopped drunk driving, vehicular mortality, or hurricanes, but it has incentivised better behavior.
― prelude to abjection (Sanpaku), Wednesday, October 4, 2017 6:06 PM (yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
Would I be out of line in suggesting this conversation move to a gun control thread or Repeal the Second Amendment? Y'all are having a good discussion based in real knowledge, but there are times of day one doesn't want to mentally reenact a recent tragedy running hypotheticals of what would have been possible with this or that weapon. It's all 100 percent relevant but idk I feel like this thread despite its horrible title is more an emotional support/processing space (on top of news clearinghouse) and looking-through-the-eyes-of-the-killer type mental exercises are anxiety-inducing in a similar way as watching video of these events and mentally inserting oneself in the crowd. But if it's just me I'll shut up.
― Doctor Casino, Wednesday, October 4, 2017 7:08 PM (yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
― sleeve, Thursday, 5 October 2017 20:40 (six years ago) link
one month passes...
three months pass...