The Great ILX Gun Control Debate

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

uhhh Bret Stephens otm?

My congressman Carlos Curbelo on Chuck Todd's show now discussing his bump stock legislation.

I was disturbed by how much I agreed with Bret Stephens on this.

He was shockingly cogent and convincing, and I've already been coming around to that position. It was really refreshing to hear someone just say "Wait, why do we have this at all? It's stupid."

Stephens on MSNBC now

I'm all for it

I kept second-guessing it, like "wait, is there some hidden angle here? Is he just trying to convince us not to enact more practical reforms?" But then it occurred to me the kind of wrath he is bringing down on himself for writing that column, and I doubt he's not sincere.

agreed, I had a similar reaction. it ended up being very plainly stated.

I thought he was attempting his own "A Modest Proposal" at first.

Chuck Todd intervewed him too through Skype. I don't know. He was at once clear and muddy. In the column, he urges us not to look at Australia as an example yet now he says this country "with a conservative government" hasn't suffered from having guns confiscated. He says repeal the Second Amendment but Heller was correctly decided. I think he meant to say that Heller was correct if you look at the amendment's original intent, which is why we need to repeal the amendment, but this wasn't clear.

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2016/06/the-argument-gun-rights-supporters-cant-respond-to

this is good

It doesn't seem so great to me. the 'death app' idea is similar enough to guns that people will become more comfortable with it as they substitute it into more and more of the usual arguments, e.g. I do want a 'death app' if the government and criminals have a death app. I suppose it's a good exercise for separating the consumerist/hobbyist joys of the object, which don't exist for a death app as described in the article, from the horrible environment created by its existence.

it's an extremely good exercise because gun culture is 100% about fetishization and imagery and the physical act of gunplay as depicted in movies, tv, video games, youtube vids, war footage, and to some even footage of mass shootings.

yeah, so I agree with that. but I am annoyed by the title.

so if it's about fetishization then what?

then they masturbate with their guns

gun culture is 100% about fetishization and imagery and the physical act of gunplay as depicted in movies, tv, video games, youtube vids, war footage, and to some even footage of mass shootings.

some gun owners are military vets who have been in firefights in war zones. it's a rather large subgroup, because the US government gives so many hundreds of thousands of young men the opportunity to join it. I doubt their attitude toward guns can be accurately described as fetishization based on movies and tv. all gun owners are not a monolith of identical attitudes and experience.

David Frum Is Making Sense

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/10/the-real-common-sense-tactics-the-debate-is-missing/542229/

should I even click

it's really very good. It summarizes some of the most maddening aspects of the typical contours of the gun control 'debate'. The core of the article is this:

Rule 1. The measures to be debated must bear some relationship to the massacre that triggered the debate. If the killer acquired his weapons illegally, it’s out of bounds to point out how lethally easy it is to buy weapons legally. If the killer lacked a criminal record, it’s out of bounds to talk about the inadequacy of federal background checks. The topic for debate is not, “Why do so many Americans die from gunfire?” but “What one legal change would have prevented this most recent atrocity?”

Rule 2. The debate must focus on unusual weapons and accessories: bump stocks, for example, the villain of the moment. Even the NRA has proclaimed itself open to some regulation of these devices. After the 2012 mass shooting in an Aurora, Colorado, movie theater, attention turned to large capacity magazines. What is out of bounds is discussion of weapons as in themselves a danger to human life and public safety.

Rule 3. The debate must always honor the “responsible gun owners” who buy weapons for reasonable self-defense. Under Rule 1, these responsible persons are presumed to constitute the great majority of gun owners. It’s out of bounds to ask for some proof of this claimed responsibility, some form of training for example. It’s far out of bounds to propose measures that might impinge on owners: the alcohol or drug tests for example that are so often recommended for food stamp recipients or teen drivers.

Rule 4. Gun ownership is always to be discussed as a rational choice motivated by reasonable concerns for personal safety. No matter how blatantly gun advocates appeal to fears and fantasies—Sean Hannity musing aloud on national TV about how he with a gun in his hands could have saved the day in Las Vegas if only he had been there—nobody other than a lefty blogger may notice that this debate is about race and sex, not personal security. It’s out of bounds to observe that “Chicago” is shorthand for “we only have gun crime because of black people” or how often “I want to protect my family” is code for “I need to prove to my girlfriend who’s really boss.”

Gun freaks claim they're armed against tyranny, but most fetishize the military & cops. They'll never rise up against the US police state.

— Dennis Perrin (@DennisThePerrin) November 6, 2017

end the private sale loophole institute UNIVERSAL background checks it's amazing that in 2017 this is somehow a controversial idea

but that wouldn't stop 100% of gun deaths so yeah let's not bother

I'm coming around to the idea of legalizing duels. Letting the aggrieved micropenised d-bags take each other out one/two at a time will be a slow process, granted, but also an effective one.

It wouldn’t take that long, half the country’s guns belong to 3% of the population.

Less than a quarter of Americans even own a gun at all

background checks that depend on the Air Force uploading dishonorable discharges ain't working, tho

Writing a bill w/ @MartinHeinrich to prevent anyone convicted of domestic violence – be it in criminal or military court – from buying a gun

— Jeff Flake (@JeffFlake) November 7, 2017

one of my college friends cowrote a similar bill in the WA state house of representatives:

https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=1501&Year=2017

The gunman who killed 26 people in a rural Texas church on Sunday escaped from a psychiatric hospital while he was in the Air Force, after making death threats against his superiors and trying to smuggle weapons onto the base where he was stationed, a 2012 police report shows.

Police took the man, Devin P. Kelley, into custody at a bus station in downtown El Paso, where he apparently planned to flee on a bus after escaping from Peak Behavioral Health Services, a hospital a few miles away in Santa Teresa, N.M. He was sent there after being charged in a military court with assaulting his wife and baby stepson, charges he later pleaded guilty to.

The report filed by the El Paso officers says that the person who reported Mr. Kelley missing from the hospital advised them that he “suffered from mental disorders,” and that he “was attempting to carry out death threats” against “his military chain of command.” The man “was a danger to himself and others as he had already been caught sneaking firearms onto Holloman Air Force Base,” it added. The police report was published on Tuesday by KPRC, a Houston television station.

Later that year, Mr. Kelley pleaded guilty in a military court to repeated assaults on his wife and her son, a toddler, including one that left the boy with a fractured skull. He was sentenced to a year in a Navy prison.

welp thank god for the travel ban #maga

"Peak Behavioral Health Services" is not a name that meshes well with my ability to take things seriously on the internet

i like the juxtaposition i'm seeing of people saying "yeah not surprised he'd do something like this" next to "but we never heard anything unusual beyond the late night gunfire."

well yeah he murdered 26 people and broke a toddler's skull but he's not a "rabid animal" like that NYC terrorist was

aren't ppl convicted of domestic violence already not allowed to buy guns?

In cases involving an application of the Gun Control Act of 1968, the U.S. Supreme Court has rather broadly interpreted the term “domestic violence.” In a 2009 case, the Supreme Court ruled that the Gun Control Act applies to anyone convicted of any crime involving “physical force or the threatened use of a deadly weapon” against any person with whom the accused had a domestic relation, even if the crime would be prosecuted as simple “assault and battery” in the absence of a deadly weapon.

what we need to do is close the private sale loophole

something like this only happens because someone has LOTS of guns. they know they are never going to have any use for them except to blow shit up in their back yard. they want to be as destructive as the people on the walking dead or their fave video game and they are angry and want to die and why not see how many people they can kill before they die? it's like a competition now between suicidal idiots. it isn't going to end anytime soon.

And as long as gun toters remain in denial and think of it as a "people problem" and not a "people with guns problem," let alone believe it's just a matter of prayer and putting faith in the inherent goodness of men, it will never stop. In a WaPo piece on that Texan town, someone sad something like "so many people have guns, if guns were the problem this would be happening all the time." Well, how often does it have to happen, dummy?

Wisconsin Republicans and Gov. Scott Walker pass law to allow even toddlers to hunt with guns if they're accompanied by an adult; used to have to be 10 years old: https://t.co/hqbpvOC5Yk

— Daniel Dale (@ddale8) November 14, 2017

Makes sense to me.

Small children would have a hard time lifting a rifle and keeping it steady enough to aim it at anything smaller than a barn door. Not to mention the recoil knocking them on their asses.

bear with me on this: let's say in a magical shake up of reality, tomorrow morning president trump comes out on tv locking arms with every member of congress and says "everyone, we are heartbroken, we are emotionally drained just like all of you after all of these tragedies for so many years and affecting so many lives, we all have kids and grandkids and can't bear for them to grow up in a world like this, and we have heard you loud and clear and we all agree it is time to take finally action, enough is enough. private gun ownership is now illegal in the us."

what happens after that?

let's find out?

we'll finally know that we're living in a computer simulation

bear with me on this: let's say in a magical shake up of reality, tomorrow morning president trump comes out on tv locking arms with every member of congress and says "everyone, we are heartbroken, we are emotionally drained just like all of you after all of these tragedies for so many years and affecting so many lives, we all have kids and grandkids and can't bear for them to grow up in a world like this, and we have heard you loud and clear and we all agree it is time to take finally action, enough is enough. private gun ownership is now illegal in the us."

what happens after that?

― sleepingbag, Thursday, February 15, 201

who the fuck are you

what happens after that?

The same magical force that moved Trump and the Congress to unanimity on this issue magically makes all private guns disappear, fixes climate change, gives everyone perfect teeth, and brings back Jesus.

yeah but does Jesus come back like he was at 33 and healthy or is it like Monkey’s Paw fucked up corpse Jesus

xp Alfred ??? been on this board ten + years we've interacted several times ???

or is it more like 'how dare you'?

the reason i ask is bc i was thinking about this all day. nevermind i guess.

is it more like 'how dare you'?

um, no. just that the question is so far from reality that it is a total waste of time to respond to it

like I keep reading ppl from other countries saying 'well after we had our one shooting 18 years ago we just banned guns and now it doesn't happen'

and i keep wondering how that would work here and why it would or wouldn't. i think the 2nd amendment is a catch 22

No wait it’s a golem Jesus made from all the guns

We're well past the point of no return re: gun ownership. Someone needs to invent a technology which remotely prevents guns from firing. Maybe we could make some headway. Until then, those of us who haven't yet been directly affected by gun violence just get to sit back and wait our turn.