The Great ILX Gun Control Debate

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

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

also don't forget no handguns = no industrial revolution

― moonship journey to baja, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 19:21 (seventeen years ago) link

guys, archery

― river wolf, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 19:22 (seventeen years ago) link

To me and almost everyone else I knew who was a serious competitor, it had nothing to do with firepower or violence or anything of the sort. It was like an incredibly intricate and physically demanding game of pool.

Obviously, you know that I don't think anything to the contrary. I just feel that a gun is an incredibly dangerous weapon that can also be used in non-violent sport.

Let's be clear, I like firing guns. What's more, I enjoy playing paint ball and laser tag, which, psychologically speaking, is more fucked up because I am actually shooting projectiles at live people, emulating the act of killing them , whereas, in competitive shooting, the activity is almost completely removed from any sense of violence.

That said, I would be a lot more at ease around someone handling a paint-ball gun than someone handling an actual fire-arm.

As an aside, I wouldn't try to whisk eggs with a paint-ball gun either.

― Fluffy Bear Hearts Rainbows, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 19:23 (seventeen years ago) link

killing animals was originally done with hands and teeth

― TOMBOT, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 19:24 (seventeen years ago) link

Yeah, sorry Fluffy, the xpost pileup made me misread you back there. Also John, I think what with the Olympic imprimatur and all hardly anyone is at all uncomfortable with your kind of shooting -- some people might say "gun owners" too generally when they're thinking of specifics like handguns and semi-automatics, but if you clarify sport and hunting rifles I think even most gun-averse people have no problem.

I was thinking about archery back there: there's one that history has abstracted successfully. Or anyway bowhunting is very "I'm hunting (somewhat) traditionally," and one-on-one people-killing wasn't ever a focus (or anyway not so much as you and bunch of others firing volleys into a crowd). People collect some wicked modern crossbows, I guess, and I've seen a few news stories where some crazy goes after someone with a bow, but something about it seems fairly whacked-out and non-intuitive. Maybe that's to the archer's benefit -- I'd be more scared of someone coming at me with a bow than a gun, if only cause I wouldn't imagine the gun guy making jerky out of me.

― nabisco, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 19:24 (seventeen years ago) link

G Davis might be my favorite Amazon.

― Laurel, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 19:25 (seventeen years ago) link

xpost yes obviously, tom - but which came first - tool to kill animals or tool to scrape meat? i know it is under debate, i think the last thing i read said animal-killng came before meat-scraping but i'm not an anthropologist.

hey what do you all think of regulating 1st person shooter video games as tightly as p0rnography??

― moonship journey to baja, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 19:26 (seventeen years ago) link

Archery looks like fun, but it's even more difficult to find a place to practice that than shooting for some reason.

― milo z, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 19:27 (seventeen years ago) link

also i thought the new thinking was that neanderthals and cro-mags and early men spent much more time foraging than hunting, so maybe acorn-smasher was an even earlier tool than monkey-smasher

― moonship journey to baja, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 19:28 (seventeen years ago) link

http://www.selfdefensesupply.com/catalog/images/acu482pc.jpg

blowgun resurgence starts now

― milo z, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 19:29 (seventeen years ago) link

w/r/t abstraction: archery's been successful simply because it's inefficient, now, for mass killing. when we invent laser guns or whatever people will think of sport shooting the same way they think of kyudo

― river wolf, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 19:30 (seventeen years ago) link

It seems that it would make sense to mention the fact that there are people with the same feelings/attitudes as me involved in competitive handgun shooting, so trying to separate long-guns from handguns along those grounds isn't going to work either.

― John Justen, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 19:34 (seventeen years ago) link

John, I'm not saying this is necessarily a legitimate distinction (or advocating it), but of course the reason people are more comfortable with rifles is that their design and purpose is less suited to sudden aggressive violence: the style of use trends slightly more toward careful, deliberate concentration. (That's less an argument from me and just saying it makes sense as people's perception -- I imagine they'd tell you people can get their shooting kicks with rifles, so they wouldn't be THAT much deprived by not doing it with handguns.)

― nabisco, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 19:43 (seventeen years ago) link

that's weak nabisco.

― Dandy Don Weiner, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 19:46 (seventeen years ago) link

the reason people are more comfortable with rifles is that they are harder to conceal.

― Dandy Don Weiner, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 19:47 (seventeen years ago) link

yeah, sorta weak sauce there: i mean, get one ar-15

― river wolf, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 19:48 (seventeen years ago) link

too late!

― milo z, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 19:49 (seventeen years ago) link

we were just having a discussion of how if guy had been armed with a rifle instead of a handgun it'd be more likely to have a kill count approaching 50 instead of 33 and a lot fewer in the hospital

― TOMBOT, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 19:50 (seventeen years ago) link

Not sure that's entirely true - there are a lot of variables (ie how were they killed, distance and so on) - and it would have been much more difficult for him to get across campus carrying a rifle without anyone noticing.

― milo z, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 19:53 (seventeen years ago) link

the getting across campus thing is the key here. i'd rather not really get into the rest.

― river wolf, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 19:53 (seventeen years ago) link

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. Certainly, I am not at liberty to create or use explosives in any but the most exceptional circumstances and under close scrutiny by the state.

If there is sufficient reason (and I am not necessarily saying that there is), public safety would outweigh the individual liberties of potential gun owners/users.

I'm not for eliminating guns, but just because people have legitimate uses for guns does not necessarily mean that the argument is closed.

― Fluffy Bear Hearts Rainbows, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 19:56 (seventeen years ago) link

I'm just referring to people's perceptions of sport/hunting rifles here, not anything approaching assault rifles or whatever. Maybe I'm just gun-ignorant on this issue (happy to be wrong), but it seems like the types of rifles no one has any issues with are hard to conceal, bulky to hold, take slightly more situating yourself before firing, etc. -- i.e., rifles developed for longer-range situations where you have time to prepare a single, precise shot (e.g., hunting)? Whereas handguns can be deadly very quickly at close range? Anyway, point being it seems like people without lots of gun experience (right or wrong) are comfortable thinking of gun use in that first mode, and get uncomfortable with the second (even if handgun users are every bit as careful and deliberate as a sharpshooter -- just talking about impressions of the weaponry here).

― nabisco, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 19:58 (seventeen years ago) link

the guys at work had to keep v v close tabs on their shots, as well as igniters, or else the ATF (i think?) would come a-knocking

― river wolf, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 19:59 (seventeen years ago) link

This is sort of a moot point though, isn't it? I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but sport rifles are designed for sport shooting, not for killing people. Right?

So comparing a handgun and a sport rifle is sort of specious if we're going down this object-use-design route. I'm more afraid of handguns than I am of rifles not because of the size or how long it takes to load or aim or anything, but because people don't buy handguns to compete in the Olympics. They buy handguns to kill people.

― max, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 20:03 (seventeen years ago) link

Part of the competition I was talking about was a round where you fired 10 shots in 60 seconds into a target from 200 yards away with the highest level of accuracy/point-scoring occuring in a 3 inch center circle. This was also with iron sights (no scope or magnification) and I did it with a bolt-action rifle (to clarify, this means that between each shot, you had to actuate the reloading mechanism by hand).

So, no, "deadliness" outside of concealment should not be used as a discerning factor here.

xpost max, did you even read what I wrote a few posts ago about competetive handgun shooters?

― John Justen, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 20:04 (seventeen years ago) link

Oops--sorry, I didn't.

― max, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 20:05 (seventeen years ago) link

Charles Whitman used a rifle and until recently, held the record for school shootings.

― sexyDancer, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 20:05 (seventeen years ago) link

They buy handguns to kill people.

If you're concerned about defending your home or your family, you buy a shotgun to kill people. Your grandfather's old duck shotgun is rather more effective than any handgun in existence when it comes to killing.

― milo z, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 20:06 (seventeen years ago) link

As a separate issue, what do people think about conceal and carry?

― Fluffy Bear Hearts Rainbows, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 20:07 (seventeen years ago) link

well, my dad's got one, as do a handful of buddies from high school

― river wolf, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 20:08 (seventeen years ago) link

but i'm not that into it

― river wolf, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 20:08 (seventeen years ago) link

My parents both have licenses, neither carries. I don't have any particular desire to even get the license.

― milo z, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 20:09 (seventeen years ago) link

What is the purpose of being able to carry a loaded handgun around town?

― Fluffy Bear Hearts Rainbows, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 20:09 (seventeen years ago) link

Defending yourself against ~~black people~~robbers.

― milo z, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 20:10 (seventeen years ago) link

John, since you seem to know something about it--are the handguns used in competitive handgun shooting different from regular market handguns? My understanding is that sport rifles are different from other kids of rifles, does the same hold true of handguns? I'm trying to come to grips with why I'm so nonchalant about rifle shooting and so freaked out by handguns.

― max, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 20:11 (seventeen years ago) link

Yes, they are max

― river wolf, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 20:11 (seventeen years ago) link

elaborate grips, smaller bore (generally), better sites, etc.

― river wolf, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 20:11 (seventeen years ago) link

Does carrying a handgun ultimately increase or decrease the safety of a) the licensee and b) the general public?

― Fluffy Bear Hearts Rainbows, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 20:12 (seventeen years ago) link

(said mockingly, obviously)

My mother has a bad habit of shopping at Wal Mart after midnight (dark parking lot, lots of places to hide) and has been harassed for money at various car washes and stuff before. I would be totally on board with her carrying a gun if she were willing to practice more often. As it is, I think she's more likely to endanger herself or someone else if she ever had to actually shoot.

― milo z, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 20:13 (seventeen years ago) link

<i>Does carrying a handgun ultimately increase or decrease the safety of a) the licensee and b) the general public?</i>

In the US, it depends what study you look at, what your definition of safety is, etc. Backyard pools to thread, pls.

― Dandy Don Weiner, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 20:16 (seventeen years ago) link

Ugh I can't figure it out. There's something so casual-seeming about handguns, I guess--like you can just raise up your arm and blow someone's head off. Not that that's not true with rifles as well; it all just seems so easier with a handgun. But I don't really know dick about guns, so I'll acquiesce.

― max, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 20:16 (seventeen years ago) link

John, since you seem to know something about it--are the handguns used in competitive handgun shooting different from regular market handguns?

Depends on the competition.

'Bullseye' is a marksmanship game often played with .22 pistols that have scopes on them. Stand on the line, shoot at a target 25-50 yards away for accuracy.

'Practical Shooting' (google IDPA or IPSC) is half marksmanship/half movement - moving from station to station shooting cardboard or steel targets for time and accuracy. These games use normal 'defensive' calibers, and can either be highly modified race guns (unlike anything you'll ever see used in defense or offense) or they can be shot with the pistol you just bought, depending on the class.

There's also '3-Gun' competition, where you pretend you're Jack Bauer and shoot at a course of fire with a pistol, a shotgun and a rifle (usually an AR-15).

There are also rifle competitions that use .22s and competitions that use sniper rifles and competitions that use AKs.

and other types of pistol/revolver competitions

― milo z, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 20:17 (seventeen years ago) link

Does anyone think that a loaded gun (in the presence of human beings with appendages, who are not in comas; etc) is not inherently dangerous?

I mean, that's the point of conceal and carry, right? To be dangerous? (to bad guys and hopefully not accidentally or in a fit of passion to good guys).

― Fluffy Bear Hearts Rainbows, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 20:19 (seventeen years ago) link

no handguns = no industrial revolution

this is close, but if James Burke had it right, it was musket rifles was did it.

But it's a minor point so let's carry on

― kingfish, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 20:21 (seventeen years ago) link

the 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.

― TOMBOT, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 20:22 (seventeen years ago) link

'Practical Shooting' (google IDPA or IPSC) is half marksmanship/half movement - moving from station to station shooting cardboard or steel targets for time and accuracy. These games use normal 'defensive' calibers, and can either be highly modified race guns (unlike anything you'll ever see used in defense or offense) or they can be shot with the pistol you just bought, depending on the class.

There's also '3-Gun' competition, where you pretend you're Jack Bauer and shoot at a course of fire with a pistol, a shotgun and a rifle (usually an AR-15).

See, this shit doesn't make me feel like the competitions have been "abstracted" away from killing.

― max, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 20:22 (seventeen years ago) link

depends on how abstracted from normal life you consider Chuck Norris movies.

― milo z, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 20:24 (seventeen years ago) link

Well yeah, not to be an ass but the presence of lots of things is inherently dangerous.

― call all destroyer, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 20:29 (seventeen years ago) link

kingfish i said handguns because samuel colt's insistence on interchangable parts was for his pistol designs.

― moonship journey to baja, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 20:30 (seventeen years ago) link

Whew, I'm glad Max is here to kinda share my perceptions on these types of weapons. And guys, I want to be really clear that these are just "perceptions" we're talking about, and I know they're based on not being super-familiar with the varieties of rifles that can be super-deadly, etc. I mostly just wanted to explain why there are people in the world who hear "I just want a gun for hunting / targets" and imagine a rifle with a wood stock and think "sure, no problem," but then balk when it comes to handguns.

BTW, John, your speed and accuracy with a bolt-action rifle are actually reassuring to someone with those perceptions, because your potential deadliness would be based on skill, experience, training, and practice! Whereas -- again, correct me if I'm wrong -- with lots of handguns there's a much lower bar, where a person without skill or training could probably do a lot more damage.

I dunno, though, I'll admit my lack of knowledge and ask you guys honestly: setting aside all major exceptions, isn't the average rifle a lot more of an "intentional" / "skilled" / "purposeful" tool than the average handgun? Those terms are all vague, but hopefully you know what I'm getting at -- something about having to take a second and think about what you're doing.

― nabisco, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 20:33 (seventeen years ago) link

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.