The Great ILX Gun Control Debate

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

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

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

not really, nabisco! as i've said before: handguns are very hard to shoot accurately. however, that might actually make them more dangerous, since strays become a very real concern

― river wolf, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 20:35 (seventeen years ago) link

Handguns are much more difficult to shoot accurately than rifles. That's why we equip soldiers with M-16s.

― milo z, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 20:35 (seventeen years ago) link

cf most (i'd wager) innocent deaths in urban shootings

― river wolf, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 20:35 (seventeen years ago) link

Nabisco, the AK-47 I fired was semiautomatic, with a 30-round clip and the kickback of a friendly punch on the shoulder. It seemed WAY easier to handle than a glock or revolver in terms of aiming/hitting a target at any sort of distance. My guess is that the size, weight, and stability of the shoulder stock stabilize the gun quite a bit when you aim and fire. I would like to hear from the more experienced shooters on this point, though.

― call all destroyer, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 20:38 (seventeen years ago) link

That's pretty much it exactly.

― milo z, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 20:39 (seventeen years ago) link

automatic weapons, particularly AKs, are the great levelers (...so to speak): pretty inaccurate, high rate of fire, indiscriminate

― river wolf, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 20:39 (seventeen years ago) link

Well, I'm a very accurate shot with a rifle, and I'm terrible at handgun shooting (like, totally inept, can't hit the broad side of a barn terrible) so I'd say that it is almost essentially based on training, not built-in lethality.

The gun I used in competition was a completely unmodified bolt action rifle built in 1913, and in fact high level shooters tend to eschew semi-automatic firearms for longer range shooting because they are less accurate due to the physics of siphoning off some of the explosive pressure to actuate the reloading mechanism.

xpost i'm kind of skimming the entervening responses before this so I don't get the dreaded endless xpost thing going on, so let me know if I missed something.

― John Justen, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 20:40 (seventeen years ago) link

high level shooters tend to eschew semi-automatic firearms for longer range shooting because they are less accurate due to the physics of siphoning off some of the explosive pressure to actuate the reloading mechanism.

rangefinders v. SLRs, go

― river wolf, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 20:41 (seventeen years ago) link

i don't know why that came to mind.

― river wolf, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 20:42 (seventeen years ago) link

he 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.

OK, that makes a lot of sense.

Am I wrong in understanding that there are different types of laws, some of which are a little more liberal, that include keeping a loaded gun in a holster, and others that are more specifically designed to account for transport from one location to another?

― Fluffy Bear Hearts Rainbows, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 20:44 (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.

LOL, explosive enthusiasts!

― HI DERE, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 20:45 (seventeen years ago) link

Well yeah, River, I'm counting precision in the "intentional/considered/purposeful" category for rifles! I guess that might kinda be cheating. I'm just thinking I'd rather be in a room where a fight broke out and there was a rifle on the wall than a handgun on the table. But hahaha maybe I'm ill-informed, and will have to totally rearrange my social life!

Anyway I won't argue with you guys, since you know this stuff way better than me, but I do suspect that accuracy might sometimes be a red herring -- or at least people fear handgun violence happening to them at such a close range that accuracy's not a major issue. (A range that might be too close for a long rifle!) I'm surprised by the talk of M-16s and AK-47s, too -- I was asking about the average privately owned rifle in the US! I mean, is the average privately owned rifle really anything like those weapons? I'd have assumed the bulk of them out there are deer-hunter type things!

― nabisco, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 20:45 (seventeen years ago) link

In Texas you have to have a permit to carry a handgun concealed. You can't carry a handgun in the open walking around. You can carry a loaded handgun in your car if you are 'travelling.' You can also carry a loaded shotgun or rifle in open sight in your car. You can carry any of the above unloaded in your car.

Gun laws be somewhat complicated.

― milo z, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 20:46 (seventeen years ago) link

Oh they are, nabisco! Though, a quick search online will turn up loads of places where AKs and AR-15s (the civilian, semi-automatic m16) are readily available.

plus, at least with an ar-15, it's not terribly difficult to convert it to an (illegal) automatic.

― river wolf, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 20:47 (seventeen years ago) link

or so i've heard

― river wolf, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 20:47 (seventeen years ago) link

I now remember my rather conservative dad wanting a CCW permit a few years back, sometime after Michigan began allowing him. And he was a teacher at an inner city school in Flint. I have no idea if his Rush- & Fox News-fed brain begin rev'd up into a total state of fear or what, or if he actually went thru with getting the license or not.

― kingfish, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 20:48 (seventeen years ago) link

this is a race gun, BTW - http://www.stiguns.com/guns/GrandMaster/images/GrandMasterRedMain06_800w.jpg

I mean, is the average privately owned rifle really anything like those weapons?

The fastest-selling type of rifle in the US is the AR-15 - basically a semi-automatic version of the M-16 or M-4 used by the military and police. I'm sure that added up, other rifles eclipse it, and the most common in existence are bolt-action rifles, but semi-auto 'scary' rifles are not at all uncommon.

plus, at least with an ar-15, it's not terribly difficult to convert it to an (illegal) automatic.

It's very, very difficult. In one part because of the current design of most AR-15s (if it feasible, makers would go to jail for aiding and abetting and so on). Also because the parts to convert an older AR-15 (when it was possible) to auto cost about $5-10k (and presumably more on the black market).

― milo z, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 20:50 (seventeen years ago) link

no kidding! i thought it was a simple, filing job. nevermind.

― river wolf, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 20:52 (seventeen years ago) link

LOL, explosive enthusiasts!

I'm glad somebody noticed that. I would totally love to blow shit up as a hobby. How awesome would that be. "I'm gonna go out to the demolition range and try and blow a VW bus into the target area." Dudes, like Bocce ball.

Also, I keep bugging John to go with me to the firing range. When is that gonna happen, dude?

― Fluffy Bear Hearts Rainbows, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 20:53 (seventeen years ago) link

http://www.subguns.com/classifieds/index.cgi?db=nfafirearms&website=&language=&session_key=&search_and_display_db_button=on&results_format=long&db_id=9937&query=retrieval

― milo z, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 20:54 (seventeen years ago) link

that was the one thing i really wanted to be allowed to do ski patrolling: throw bombs. but i wasn't allowed :(

― river wolf, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 20:55 (seventeen years ago) link

I would totally love to blow shit up as a hobby. How awesome would that be. "I'm gonna go out to the demolition range and try and blow a VW bus into the target area."

um, I have totally done stuff rather similar to this. albeit only out in the middle of the desert. and usually involving blowing up large sculptures with the aid of some firearms and propane tanks.

― Shakey Mo Collier, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 20:56 (seventeen years ago) link

Burning Man cleanup?

― Fluffy Bear Hearts Rainbows, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 20:58 (seventeen years ago) link

that was the one thing i really wanted to be allowed to do ski patrolling: throw bombs.

Avalanche prevention or James Bond style?

― Fluffy Bear Hearts Rainbows, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 21:01 (seventeen years ago) link

haha no - but definitely w/Burning Man types.

― Shakey Mo Collier, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 21:02 (seventeen years ago) link

Ha, man, we are getting back to that opinion issue: so would it be wrong or judgmental of me to think that anyone who purchases a military-style heavy weapon like that AR-15 is a little too into tearing shit up for my tastes?

― nabisco, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 21:04 (seventeen years ago) link

There's a version of the competition JJ engaged in that uses nothing but AR-15s if that makes you feel better.

Thing is, AR-15s just look kind of scary and militant - the round used in an AR-15 is no more dangerous (and somewhat less dangerous in terms of wound capability and distance) than the average bolt-action huntin' rifle.

There's not a great distance between 'deer rifle' and 'sniper rifle.'

― milo z, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 21:08 (seventeen years ago) link

Haha it's actually not reassuring at all that people would just want the militant-looking action for its own sake! (Also I dunno why, given some recent high-profile sniper cases, but snipers scare me a lot less.)

― nabisco, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 21:13 (seventeen years ago) link

oh avalanche prevention.

― river wolf, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 22:53 (seventeen years ago) link

i thought that "explosion enthusiast" applied to every middle class american adolescent boy, usually around the age that "pyromaniac" fits, too.

― kingfish, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 23:00 (seventeen years ago) link

There have been a number of times in my life where, if I'd had a concealed handgun, I would've been very tempted to use it, or at least pull it out.

I remember, in high school, seeing a trio of self-styled toughs who went after a friend of mine, making fun of her in the most relentless, cruel, and nasty way. She was a completely harmless girl, never gave anyone a hard time; they were going after her because she was vulnerable, and they got off on making her hurt.

I thought about how nice it would be to pull a gun on those pathetic, piece-of-shit motherfuckers. Make them grovel on the floor, call me "sir", beg for their lives. To turn their arrogance upside-down, to make it so that -- despite the fact that there were three of them, one of me, and any one of them could've beaten the shit out of me -- they were powerless, and I could force them to confront their own folly, to be a hair's breadth away from a death caused solely by their own arrogance and cruelty, and to be spared from it only by an act of mercy that exceeded anything of which they themselves were capable.

It is for this very reason that I'm strongly in favor of gun control.

― lurker #2421, Thursday, 19 April 2007 05:24 (seventeen years ago) link

For most of that post, I thought you were arguing against gun control. Weird.

― Lostandfound, Thursday, 19 April 2007 05:33 (seventeen years ago) link

I guess I got caught up.

― Lostandfound, Thursday, 19 April 2007 05:34 (seventeen years ago) link

Drawing your gun on people for "making fun of" someone is illegal. Why would a law against you acquiring a gun stop you if a law against you threatening people with one wouldn't?

― Kerm, Thursday, 19 April 2007 05:42 (seventeen years ago) link

Yeah sometimes I'm jaywalking and then I'm all like "I might as well get involved in mail fraud while I'm at it."

― nabisco, Thursday, 19 April 2007 05:47 (seventeen years ago) link

I mean, joking aside, stupid heat-of-passion crimes come from a pretty different place than seeking and acquiring illegal weapons, so the equivalence doesn't really hold.

― nabisco, Thursday, 19 April 2007 05:50 (seventeen years ago) link

Oh, if I really wanted to get a gun, given enough time, nothing could stop me -- or anyone else, for that matter. But the more easily I can come by the means to act on such impulses, the more likely I am to actually carry them out. Carrying the flame of righteous indignation for a few hours is easy; for two weeks, not so much. And I don't see that as unusual at all -- in fact, I think it's human nature.

So if nothing else, gun control is an excellent means of maximizing two intervals: the interval between when you want to kill someone, and when you have the means; and the interval between when you begin to act on the impulse to kill someone, and when they're actually dead. With a gun, that interval can be near-instantaneous, but many a murder has been forestalled when, after the first strike with knife or club or hatchet or fist, something has happened to prevent the fatal blow.

(xpost)

― lurker #2421, Thursday, 19 April 2007 05:52 (seventeen years ago) link

But how does "Ban guns" follow from "I might be tempted in the heat of the moment"? Tempted to drive aggressively = Ban cars? Tempted to abuse alcohol = prohibition? I can't control myself = lock me up now?

Besides, if you'd draw a gun on someone for making fun of people or being mean in general, then there's something much more wrong with you than the potential for a heat-of-passion crime.

― Kerm, Thursday, 19 April 2007 05:58 (seventeen years ago) link

I'll let someone else field the first half of that.

Besides, if you'd draw a gun on someone for making fun of people or being mean in general, then there's something much more wrong with you than the potential for a heat-of-passion crime.

Really? What if I told you that she was [insert race here] and they were yelling racial epithets at her -- would it be OK then? Because it's definitely very important to me, you see, that I be indignant for the right reasons. I'll wait expectantly while you tell me what those are.

― lurker #2421, Thursday, 19 April 2007 06:09 (seventeen years ago) link

("I'll let someone else field the first half of that" -- that is, someone who doesn't mind answering the same clichéd argument every time it's trotted out)

― lurker #2421, Thursday, 19 April 2007 06:12 (seventeen years ago) link

(Oh, great, I love it when I'm foiled when trying to do special characters properly.)

― lurker #2421, Thursday, 19 April 2007 06:13 (seventeen years ago) link

dear lurker #2421 - did you call me out on another thread for identifying with the aggressor?

― moonship journey to baja, Thursday, 19 April 2007 06:31 (seventeen years ago) link

Dude, if your portrayal of your psychology in that incident is anything other than a half-assed attempt to invent a controversial "surprising/shocking" way to prove your eventual conclusion, you shouldn't be allowed near blunt instruments, let alone firearms. Seriously.

Also, racial relations don't shore up your point, so stop using them as a cheap argumentative tool.

xpost to lurker.

― John Justen, Thursday, 19 April 2007 06:42 (seventeen years ago) link

So basically, if I have the urge to do harm to people who are torturing my friends, I'm fucked up? I think I'm pretty OK with being fucked up in that particular way, thanks.

MJTB, I called you out for (1) behaving with total insensitivity and callousness towards Remy, which you apologized for, and (2) claiming some kind of equivalence between the violence-implied bullying of "scary kids stomping down the hallway" and the snickering of nerds at slow learners. If anything, yes, you seemed like an apologist for physical bullying and the marginalization/mistreatment of social misfits.

― lurker #2421, Thursday, 19 April 2007 06:46 (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.